I totally agree, in a perfect world, adoption should be based on merit.

In this world, that would be called favoritism and easily lead to bribery and accusations of shadiness anyways.

I can't expect an exchange to become a part of every single coin community (over 600 now) and then figure out the merits for themselves. That's selfish .. especially when they have an exchange to run. In order to keep a relatively impartial stance on favorites, they have given us the chance to prove ourselves. How are they wrong for that?

There's no way an exchange could figure out all the merits of a coin correctly in only a day. That takes time. When you're dealing with over 600 coins, that just too much time. I couldn't ask them to spend weeks in our thread watching our community and merits develop .. they just don't have the resources for that. I wish they did, but voting is what we have .. and I can't say they're wrong for doing it.

It's not a big deal though, soon enough we'll be on Mintpal and I'm excited to trade there again .. been messing around with Poloniex so long that I forgot how much I liked Mintpal

What about pure voting, without bribery?
Plus, one coin over two at mintpal is based on mintpal's choice. They implemented it hours after I mentionned an interesting coin (of which I don't even remember the name now, so it must not have been that interesting). That was back in first part of February when Mintpal was still young and unknown, before even the MINT pump.

It seems to be a vicious circle at the moment, the more of the hashpower they get the lower their orphan rate and the higher it is for the rest of the pools, so its hard to convince miners to move. I've been away for a few days but the more I look at it the more I agree with Surfer43 that the "send queue size is more than.." error in the daemon isnt helping the network propagation. I will go and speak to devs who know more about these things than me before I say that anything is broken though

You need to have some trading volume to vote now so thats a good thing for mintpal. you cant have many votes from double accounts...But i agree. 1 vote per hour is stupid. 1 vote per day is better...

Not sure if this is a duplicate post, but....

"Significant expansion of the scratchpad would require an increase in iterations, which in turn implies an overall time increase. "Heavy" calls in a trustless p2p network may lead to serious vulnerabilities, because nodes are obliged to check every new block's proof-of-work. If a node spends a considerable amount of time on each hash evaluation, it can be easily DDoSed by a flood of fake objects with arbitrary work data (nonce values). "

-https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/CryptoNight

Anybody care to elaborate? Is this a realistic current/future concern? Isn't the most flattering description of CryptoNight.

Pretty sure this refers to just spamming a blockchainnetwork with low difficulty blocks.

As the node does not know immediately if a block is fake/valid or not, it must spend processing time on verifying against the current blockchain.

The idea is that there must be a balance between the rate at which a node can receive new hashes to check being outpaced by its capacity to verify hashes.

If the new hashes sent to the node outpace the capacity to verify it, it will be stuck in a verification loop, and effectively no longer functions as a node through which the network is based on.

The limitation of a 2Mb scratchpad for cryptonight was the maximum size they felt was necessary in order to "outpace" the rate at which blocks come into a node, (while maintaining a memory-hard proof of work function.)

Someone correct me if im wrong?

Nope, but there is this tool:

Before you criticize something, read carefully please.

its opensource and the sourcecode is linked, just download and run it yourself.

I know right? lol 

And there is no guaranty that linked source is the one that is actually executed on the server.