Now would be a good time to start buying so eth traders take notice... 

Interested in seeing where this coin goes.

Good luck, smooth.

Perhaps Monero was a pump & dump after all. The miners rigged the original vote about reasonable emission curve in their hopes of making money with optimized (non-deoptimized) mining software. It worked. The promise of finally having something fresh in the altcoin scene, with fair launch and compelling new tech was so good.

I think the only people who have understandable grounds in opposing the emission cut are the only ones who benefit from the current situation - the privileged miners, ones who should not even exist, according to my understanding from the others who are deeply involved. If I have been wrong and such people do exist, their short-term interest is to have as high emission as possible (same as in April when they foiled the vote the last time). Long term (a few months probably), the coin is mortally wounded, but to them it does not matter.

A common tactic in high-profile voting is to demonize the ones who lean on the opposite side. But that's what I am going to do anyway 

If you reject the proposal of the emission cut, the hardest part for me is that I am not sure if you even have Monero's good in mind.

Hey, how about we change this discussion to the Monero Forum! It is a better software than this!

Go away, pathetic attentionwhore troll. I'm not wasting a single more word on you.

Busy reading through it - he leads into it with a huge fallacy that is either incredibly naive or very disingenuous of him. When describing CryptoNight he states: "These constraints were supposed to protect hash from GPU and ASIC implementation" [sic]. Literally the first paragraph in the CryptoNote whitepaper that describes the PoW algorithm says: "Our primary goal is to close the gap between CPU (majority) and GPU/FPGA/ASIC (minority) miners. It is appropriate that some users can have a certain advantage over others, but their investments should grow at least linearly with the power. More generally, producing special-purpose devices has to be as less profitable as possible."

Misrepresenting the facts of the matter in a whitepaper, purposely or not, is unconscionable.

...
If you found some errors there, or want to add/correct/remove something - fill free to comment this google document:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pFmEs8pKj1gB1yXlIkrr6Mu1yqrTYQJ63N1e-DJ0RxA/edit

or write me pm.
or just write here if you want dicussion.


Zoidberg

From what I've read, Zerocash will Only allow anonymous transactions, there will be no regular sending.

There is also trust involved in setting up Zerocash, you have to trust that the devs won't keep the key that will allow them to doublespend anytime they want, without anyone knowing.

Those two points make Zerocash a No-No for me. It makes no sense to use a coin that involves trust , that's why Satoshi made Bitcoin in the first place. Bitcoin may have it's 51% mining issue, but there are measures in place to stop such a threat if it happens, but Zerocash's trust issue is far scarier, the devs would be able to doublespend at any time whether they have 50% 1%, or 0% of hash power, and you will Never know that they have done so.

I have a question about Quazarcoin being linked to the original scam artist devs of Bytecoin:

If it's a scam, how is the dev OracionSeis benefiting? If it is was indeed a scam, the dev had an excellent opportunity to "cash out" when QCN hit Poloniex and soared to ~ 0.01 QCN/BTC. Why keep the whole thing going after this? Why post in the thread almost every day? Why is there no obvious bashing of Monero by the dev?

I like the investigative work you did, but you sort of call out QCN in your rage and don't really go into detail about anything else. Nothing I've seen over the past month or so makes any sense in the context of it being a scam. If it is one...it's a pretty damn harmless one.