I am sorry but while I support IOCoin and feel there are advantages to not having anon in terms of merchant adoption the argument that the current financial institutions' anti money laundering controls actually work and we need some form of them in crypto is laughable. Looking into the news over the past couple of years there are reports of the biggest banks in the world engaging in money laundering with terrorists, criminals despite so called controls that are put it place (HSBC, JP Morgan, etc). I noticed Erik Barnett of the US Department of Homeland Security failed to mention that a lot of rich people's 'offshore' tax haven money ends up back in U.S. banks for investments. The dirty little secret in the U.S. is the laws have been written to make the U.S. a tax haven for foreign capital. Yet this foreign capital isn't included in any classification of money laundering as it would hurt the bottom line of U.S. banks. So the definition of 'criminal' seems to shift away from white collar crime to just blue collar crime and terrorist activity. And when some financial institution is caught a paltry fine is paid as restitution. Compare this flaccid response from law enforcement to the enforcement against Silk Road and you see where the priorities of both national governments and  law enforcement lay.

Another joke is the idea of financial 'self policing'. This policy led directly to the 2008 financial crisis and the bad behavior on wall st that continues still today. Also mentioning that there is public trust in current financial institutions is a joke as demonstrated by the recent bail in to save the Cypress banking system, a policy that sets a dangerous precedent for future financial crises.

And finally the point that anti money laundering controls are not burdensome can't be proven without vast injection of capital into the cryptocurrency market. Saying most bitcoin transactions are less than 1BTC is ridiculous since bitcoin is still not used as widely as fiat money. As more money pours into bitcoin and more assets are available for sale in bitcoin this will change.

While the IOteam wants anon to be purged from cryptocurrencies in general to do so would require a law enforcement apparatus that is global ins scope resulting in little more than a police state that stretches around the world and into everyone's homes and personal lives. I find the likelihood of that occurring without severe retribution/revolution very small.

From your ANN I assumed the syncing was needed to make sure the clusters all have the same blockchain data:

"each cluster will process transactions independently and then periodically synchronize transactions between geographic clusters."

That sounds like each cluster will do transactions in their specific geo-location and then sync that data with other clusters to make sure all data is available and correct at all clusters.

However now you seem to be saying that each geographical location will have its own blockchain and  sync blocks are only needed if one person travels from one geographical location to another, sort of how cell phone signal gets passed from base station to base station if you have a cell phone call while in a moving car. I am not seeing where the decrease in block confirmation time will occur then. If I introduce a different altcoin into each geo-location, they will have separate block chains and their confirmation times will be small only because I have limited who can be on that blockchain by geography. If I want the transaction data from another geo-location I would then have to search numerous blockchains, not just one. Also if one cluster is taken down for some reason the transaction data stored in that cluster will be lost. In fact you have similar points of failure and loss of data all over your network of blockchains.


I happened to note you compared your coin to the modern banking system, one of the most centralized institutions we have. My ccomparison to wireless carriers is apt because somewhere in your coin's code you will need to have a list of clusters mapped to their associated geographical locations in order to be able to sync someone's transaction correctly to the correct cluster as they move from one geo-location to another. This is currently how cell phone towers work. That mapping is the holy grail for every surveillance agency out in the world today. With it they can track the geographical location where a certain transaction took place. You may argue that each cluster covers a large geographical area. This may be true at first but the more clusters that are set up, the less people will be covered by each individual cluster making it easy for data mining algorithms to find what they need.

What are you talking about? The battery usage was measured at 5%, not a heavy battery drain. As for the rest of your statements do you have actual proof or are you still upset about librexcoin having the first mobile staking wallet and not being mentioned in jdebunt's article?

I am trying to understand the innovation this coin brings but having some trouble. You are essentially creating centralized points (clusters) from which to source the blockchain according to geographic location in order to speed up block confirmation times. The question then becomes how often do these clusters sync with each other. At one end of the spectrum if your clusters sync at the same rate as bitcoin there will be no appreciable difference in confirmation times except you will have potential centralized points of failure. Syncing less often will decrease block confirmation times but pushes the problem of forking on the blockchain from a single transaction level to a higher level where an entire cluster full of hundreds of thousands of transactions could be on the fork. Then when one cluster doesn't match all the other clusters during a sync those hundreds of thousands of transactions on the fork cluster will be invalidated. Also your statement from the ANN about sync blocks

"Synchronization blocks will be generated by pools located all over the world. In order to maintain high speed of block generation, those polls will maintain a direct connection to each other and coordinate each synchronization block generation. There will be no reward for this kind of blocks."

Not only is this extremely centralized but with no reward no one is going to mine sync blocks which are the most important block in your system.

EDIT: Also wanted to add the almost cavalier nature in which you treat the geolocation data that will be collected from all clustercoin users is troubling. In fact there will be very little difference between wireless carriers that use GPS to send your cell phone signal to the nearest base station and Clustercoin's geo-clusters. So the same tools of surveillance will be built within this coin from its inception and surveillance agencies can make easy use of it.

I agree to implement poker you would need some sort of anon encrypted send/receive function to protect player's identities. This could be incorporated into the poker feature and therefore would not be considered a separate anon feature that would turn off merchant to the coin.

I have to say I am impressed that the Apex team has stayed the course despite the stagnant price. Looking forward to great things.

Well I missed the dev's post about the 'hostile takeover'. Unfortunately I have to agree with Stratobitz that we haven't actually seen any actual features the Apexcoin team have been touting. All I have seen was an intense marketing campaign on twitter from what I understand had now come back to bite the Apex devs since the same twitter channels seem to have been used to band together investors who lost big on APEX.

Personally I would still like to see what the original dev created for APEX to see if they have just been scamming or actually have a finished product.

This whole situation is kind of ironic since the original promise for this coin was for the Apex devs to poll the community on features for the coin and to keep up to date with other coins. Well the Apex devs seem to have succeeded since the Tor launch failing has brought together a community of people who believe in this promise but feel the original Apex Team is the obstacle standing in the way. Time will tell if they are right.

I own some Apex and so wanted to comment on the current discussion.

First you can't blame someone from scooping up 51% of Apex at these low prices. There was no organized FUD campaign to get cheap coins, just an unreleased TOR. If a stock declined and one investor bought 51% no one would later complain. Through incompetence the devs have only themselves to blame for the price decline, no one else. If I had the btc I would have bought up this coin because of the flawless early development of this coin from POW to POS.

That said, before TOR release the devs seemed to have better communication and a plan. I for one want to see what exactly they are working on this week to make up for the TOR disaster. Therefore I suggest the dev release this week as planned. There is a suspicion that the dev has been scamming and there had been no development at all and the release will clear away this allegation. The Apex team billed themselves as adaptable to any environment hence the name 'APEX'. Well the changing market price of this coin should be something the dev team should be able to adapt to, including someone owning 51% of the coins. What I am asking is for the devs to actually deliver with actions on the words they have been delivering over the last few weeks.

I am posting again since the dev deleted my last post. I am asking for more information about this 1 PRO = 2500 sat btc guarantee as it sounds too good to be true, hence like a scam. Dev please provide additional details.

EDIT: Also Could you please answer why you would not just buy coins directly from the exchange instead of guaranteeing a price?

Can the dev give a proper explanation for why he is resigning. I saw some tweets with PMs in unintelligible English but I think MsCollec should at least give a proper explanation before resigning.

I see the screenshot but is there an ETA on actual completion of voot exchange?

Am I correct in understanding coding up the exchange is done? So delay should be one or two days not weeks? Can someone confirm this?

All you need to understand his post is basic school algebra, not that difficult. I would also like to know the mechanics of KEY's anon. Remember this coin was advertised as having working anon which reflects the recent rise in its price. Also the centralization issue is also problematic and I am wondering how the devs plan to address this point in the future.

Looks like its going down again. I assume since MsCollec is waiting for an update that the exchange hasn't been completed yet?

I really was trying to find an entry point. Congrats on doubling your coins. My question is how do you know it won't go lower?

Just curious, where were your buy orders set?

Everyone says weak hands until there's a dump of several tens of btc like back when KEY was at 30k....

EDIT: And it just happened again, buy support disappeared and there's dumping into remaining buy wall.

Well looks like the dump I feared occurred. And was there a website update?

Well I see the buy support around 80k, probably placed by a whale without which the price would decrease just like with all other altcoins which pump > 100% in a day. Do you see something else?

Looks like KEY's pump is over. Too bad, I was looking for an entry point for the pump to 200k.

I am a little confused here. I know there was a problem with everyone not updating their wallet to the latest update but is there also a separate problem with POS? Why are we going back to POW if all that is needed is a wallet update?