All that license talk is interesting and I've learned a lot! So basically, once it's sent into the wild, there's no turning back eh?


But that would be too easy, not entertaining, and not filled with conspiracy theories.

I, for one, would like to hear more about this communist secret genius program.

Woooow..... This is hilarious... I love how you judge everyone because they tried to give you proper criticism. It's sad that we live in a day and age when people complain about not having help when really there were at least 3 reply's trying to help you. You are one of the most idiotic coin devs. I have ever seen. And this coming from the guy who messed up the addnodes on his own coin. But wait... you can't even be called a dev because you are way too incompetent to understand how to make a copy/paste coin. You have some delirious visions that make you seem schizophrenic. You make contradictory statements and they go on calling people idiots and liars when they point it out. Tbh you're an idiotic jerk who is wasting so much money on a shitcoin that has no future. You shouldn't even be allowed to handle money if this is what you consider a "good, long term investment."  

Has anyone found any lucky blocks yet?

Is the percent chance of finding one actually correctly calibrated to result in one every two hours on the average?

As far as I can tell all the nodes have been running the corrected code that includes the pre-mine and the correct logic for having the lucky blocks happen starting after block 250, but I do not know whether they have actually been happening, if not maybe most of that hashing power is not afterall using the corrected code.

Oh and Vlad, git is all about cloning and forking. Everyone has full access to the entire repo, they just cannot change someone else's copy of it, because the way to do changes is to make a clone or fok and do the changes on your own clone or fork. The blackmailer has the clone or fork that you had posted in the original post, all you need do is put the URL of some other clone or fork into the original post instead so people will use the one your post is pointing to not the one the blackmailer controls.

Who cares what changes the blackmailer puts into the copy they control? Each miner gets to put whatever changes they choose into their own copy.

-MarkM-

I don't know how to do that.  And I shouldn't have to if he didn't lock me out of my repo file.  Nobody should have to jump through hoops cause of a pump end dump crook.  Why aren't you guys upset st this.

Word gets out and there's gonna be 20 more next week and you guys are next.  Wake up stand up and complain to the mods - these are real crimes being committed.

If you don't know how to do that then having control of the repo would do you no good anyway since you don't know how to use it.

You would have to hire someone to use it on your behalf, and that someone doesn't need control of the current repo, they would control their own aka your own copy (clone or fork) of it on your behalf. The current one is thus entirely un-needed and in fact maybe, if it is still listed in the original post, it might even be misleading people because people reading the original post will presumably tend to think you want them to use the one you list in your original post.

meanwhile the calculated network hash-per-second has changed a lot:


Anyone found any lucky blocks yet?

Oh and Vlad, if github is not your preferred method of maintaining a version archive of your code, which version archive system do you prefer to work with?

-MarkM-

Simple version yes. Even if Satoshi can back he would have no direct "control" or legal ownership of the project.  Now being the founder and given the recognition people have of his accomplishments he would have a lot of influence but he would still need to convince users of any changes.  If Satoshi wanted to change the protcol to give him a 1% perpetual "king's tax" on all transactions I think most people would tell him to go frak himself and not accept those changes.  Case in point look at Linus in the Linux project, he doesn't rule with an iron fist (and actually has very little direct power under the law of any country) however many people respect his opinion.  However with an open source project once it has been released it is out there and you give up a lot of control.

Is the github account Vlad's, or just something his programmer(s) put up? Does he even have any standing toward ownership of that account? This all seems like a complete non-issue. He's linking the first post of this thread to someone else's github account. He just needs to make his own github account and link to it instead. All this talk of legal action is baseless.

I would question that if the repo were part of someone's own github account, such as if I had done the work and done it by creating a repo in my own github account; but  a whole new github account seemingly having been created as part of, and presumably for, the paid work project seems to lend credence to your hypothesis (of it possibly being actionable). Of course I am not licensed to practice law on this planet so what do I know.

-MarkM-