To what extent is their NAV calculation change skewing the data?  It seems the timing matches up with the 7k buy, making me think it's probably not accurate.

Source: https://twitter.com/BitcoinTrust/status/529390214897102848

<@CHAOSiTEC> so, today we gained alot of wisdom, and we are working on a new way to implement masternode payments, that will work... (my idea) :-p
and a bit later...
<@CHAOSiTEC> ive come up with a new solution for masternodes payment, we are working on that now

New dev on the job helping Evan, no ETA was given.

It was 143 BTC; the guy is lost.

FUD and trolls will clear as confidence grows and the product becomes more stable.  I agree with this sentiment, just ride it out.

Do you mind laying out the steps?

Personally, I think they are preparing for the possibility that DRK triples from here and becomes a serious alternative to LTC.  I doubt they will begin trading the coin until they are confident the network is stable and operational as advertised, meaning July'ish if things go according to plan.  I don't think BFX come in early to lead us up, but if we get just a bit further they might take us over the top to blow past LTC.

It would probably be a very irresponsible business decision to support a coin that hasn't proved itself as a stable third place.  We're getting there but I mean just look at the chart for the last week, we're not there yet.

Official response from Bitfinex here, at the end:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/26uhkp/warning_bitfinex_is_bugged/chusmc1

I will add 200 XC to this bounty.

Another risk of masternodes is pooled masternode owners creating network issues with denial of service attacks.  In the words of gnos1s, Zerocoin developer (AnonCoin) speaking on Masternodes "When the number of participants is low, the anonymity is low or nonexistant since each user’s money is not being mixed with many other users’ money. When the number of participants is high, a malicious participant can execute a denial of service attack by refusing to sign the transaction."

This may or may not be a serious flaw in the masternode approach, I'll be very curious to see what dark devs can or can't do about it.  I can easily imagine a whale controlling masternodes creating short-term panic for cheap trade entries, or perhaps shorting crypto currency pairs on exchanges that support it.  Also, just generally speaking, ddos attacks are so cheap these days kids can do it with mommy's credit card if they want, so that's another noise in the background of all this.

Anyway, back on topic, let's see some more peer review!

+1

I understand the concern with copying of code, but creating a successful coin is as much about marketing/network effect and credibility as it is technology.  My advice to the dev, reveal a nice amount today, do what you need to do to establish credibility and keep an audience, and then after today stay ahead of the copy cats with a combination of hard work and your great vision.  No need to browse the threads every day responding to everyone; don't feed the trolls and if a concern grows large enough I'm sure your community manager will bring it to your attention.

On a side note, getting other developers like battbot interested in your work is the first step to growing the team or at least jointly improving certain things.  Open sourcing is also an opportunity to gain help and improvement - not having to do everything alone can be really awesome.

I made an account just to say this one thing:

Please don't rename to Xecutive Coin, it sounds cheesy and also hurts whatever existing brand you have.  New website is awesome, new name for the coin is not.  Already I see people making fun of the name / decision, please consider this request seriously.  X11-Coin or even X-Coin would be much better imo, frankly I don't see the need for any change and added confusion.