Truly unfair distribution model... the team is keeping 40% of the supply. Calculated as 8% of initial 20%. Because of random distribution of the airdrop of the remaining 80% the expected value of dilution is 0%. Very very unreasonable IMO.

There was no bug in the nano code. The bug was due to the bomber misleading everyone that he was running a legit working exchange. You got taken by an exchange, and it isn't the first time exchanges try to pass their corruption/incompetence off as fault of the coin. Remember when mtgox tried to pin their crash on "malleability". Everyone now knows that was a huge lie, but suckers who leave coins on an exchange buy these lies because they can't handle the truth that they shouldn't have put their money in the hands of exchange operators.

Next time don't be lazy and set up your own wallet. There were and are plenty of options.

this coin doing random stuff like this all the time

Technically not an altcoin but I'm going to go ahead and nominate CRYPTOKITTIES to the poll.

1. First blockchain game on Ethereum
2. First ever DAPP that, while pushing ethereum's transaction scaling issues, is a great example of why ethereum is a real working platform for smart contracts and dapps
3. Appealing to a massive demographic that allow's newcomers get familiarized with crypto in a fun and friendly way

Ok, no problem, that's your choice.

For other readers who may be interested in ELI5 explanation of the problem:

*) Network hashrate is the overall power of the network - in bitcoin, this is the computing power needed to generate a block.
*) Bitcoin employs a mining reward which creates a competition between miners to produce a block and claim their reward for doing so. Slower miners lose out to faster miners, but they still participate in the competition to produce a block because they stand a chance of winning occasionally.
*) This mining subsidy provides a positive incentive to miners to play by the rules, and encourages them not try to double spending, because they might as well claim the mining reward instead of trying to double spend which is often much more difficult than producing a single block.
*) The mining subsidy also encourages all miners to participate in the mining process, which gives an overall metric for total network hashing power, which you can then use to give an estimate of when it is safe to accept a transaction of a given size, as confirmed, because (on average), the block reward is equal to the electricity cost of mining that block. That means that when your transaction has been buried under enough blocks that the mining subsidy equals the transactions size, it is more or less safe to accept that transaction as confirmed.

Now, imagine the situation with no mining reward.

*) Instead of participating in a competition to win the block reward, miners have no positive incentive to participate anymore. They now are left with the negative incentive to try and double spend.
*) Since these miners are not contributing their hashing power to the network anymore, the overall hashrate of the network in unmeasurable, since these miners are quite likely to leave their ASICs in sleep mode until they want to double spend
*) With the network hash rate unmeasurable, there is no way to put an estimate on when it is safe to accept a transaction as confirmed.

When there is no way to estimate when it is safe to accept a transaction as confirmed, that currency is now useless because any transaction can potentially be reversed.

This is why both byteball and iota use trusted third parties to secure the network, but at that point, you might as well be using VISA.


edit: ELI4 - You work at a bank dealing with money every day. You get paid for your job. Do you steal the money you work with? Now imagine if you didn't get paid. Are you more tempted to steal money? Now imagine if you could never get caught and everything was anonymous.

Cheers, Paul.