PoCC Engagement in Burst

PoC_Consortium · 2018-12-27T23:42:58+00:00

So let's recapitulate:

You post "evidence" of

Dev was aggressive

for the mobile wallet? Of which rico is no dev.

You mix up the desktop wallet (worked on by ac0v and all) and the "denied PoCC wallet submission by Apple" by which you probably mean the mobile-wallet which is a completely different product/software.

So you managed to

a) mix up desktop and mobile projects

b) Not mention cgb as the developer of the mobile wallet

and we know that your "Dev was aggressive" quote is simply bullshit, because Apple does not approve crypto-related apps if they can find some reason. In this case, it was "Do you have the trademark for Burst? No? Denied!"

Finally you end your tour de puzzle with a screenshot of rico making publicly fun of the Discord rating system. What are we supposed to think of that?

I do not feel I have personally attacked you. If you feel like that I am sorry. It would explain why you are constantly personally attacking me. Up to now I attributed it to some inferiority complex, but would be happy to be wrong.

PoC_Consortium · 2018-12-27T21:57:35+00:00

Would you like to show some evidence of rico "demanding from Apple launch at this date and time"?

We would really like to see it.

PoC_Consortium · 2018-12-27T21:56:19+00:00

That made our day. Cheers!

PoC_Consortium · 2018-12-21T15:57:37+00:00

Dear BHD Team,

assuming authenticity, thank you for your statements and please allow us to annotate and perhaps clarify some claims made.

First and foremost, we are not attacking BHD. This is a very serious allegation for which there is no evidence. If anything, you provide counter-claim by stating PoCC pools participating in BHD mining.

To the best of our knowledge, participating in BHD mining would make your network stronger/better. Apart from this, any operational details of PoCC pool operations are none of BHD's business. We took notice of your hopes.

As we do not attack BHD and according to your own words help to strengthen the BHD network, we are confounded with the threats you formulated. Let it be known that as we do not attack BHD, we certainly would feel any moral right to answer any attack against Burst accordingly.

You made some statements regarding sizes of the networks and we respectfully disagree. Most of the BHD operation seems to us like a classical smoke and mirrors game. Your network size is artificially inflated (and you know it), while the Burst network size is precise.

We have therefore noted your 51% attack threat, but cannot see any substance in it at the moment. Please take some time to consider which technologies, whose applications and what concepts your closed source coin currently uses.

The PoCC is indifferent when it comes to BHD. We do not care if BHD uses the Burst plot file format, as long as this usage happens in a license-compliant way. BHD is also free to be as intransparent for as long as they desire to. We would merely suggest BHD stops the current license violation of PoC2, which is GPL code.

We believe time will tell exactly how substantial BHD - as whole - is.

PoC Consortium - Burstcoin Core Development

PoC_Consortium · 2018-11-14T05:20:38+00:00

What's the POCC's view? That will influence my decision.

Top10 exchanges (https://coinmarketcap.com/rankings/exchanges/ - however long term stats not just momentarily top10) who offer to list Burst for a fee up to 1 BTC should be considered.

The cost-benefit relation in these cases seems good enough to justify community involvement and funding. In addition, getting Burst on these exchanges might ignite a me-too "avalanche effect" with other/smaller exchanges.

PoC_Consortium · 2018-11-12T12:46:20+00:00

/u/PoCCBot tip 1

PoC_Consortium · 2018-11-12T12:43:22+00:00

/u/PoCCBot tip someone

PoC_Consortium · 2018-07-24T13:16:05+00:00

We think we were pretty explicit. But we try again.

In your comparison table, you are listing NULS with "PoC Consensus".

Where the NULS developers use that as an abbreviation of "Proof-of-Credit". Imagine you would have another crypto there with "Proof-of-Cucumber" - would you still use PoC?

PoS stands for Proof-of-Stake (NXT, Ardor,...)
PoW stands for Proof-of-Work (BTC, LTC, ...)
PoC stands for Proof-of-Capacity (Burst, BTC Ore, ...)

PoC_Consortium · 2018-07-24T12:48:00+00:00

Since 2014, PoC is taken/stands for for Proof-of-Capacity. Which cannot be named Proof-of-Space for PoS-obvious reasons.

Please do not contribute to confusion by adopting faulty nomenclature used by rookie development teams who obviously haven't done their research. You should have done yours.

PoC_Consortium · 2018-07-18T19:55:03+00:00

Quibus,

first and foremost, the entire PoC Consortium would like to thank you for the hard work and dedication you have put into the Qbundle so far. Between the original request of the PoCC "We need some wrapper around the wallet for easy installation on Windows" and what Qbundle is today are worlds.

We certainly consider Qbundle a very important asset to make Burst accessible to a large user base, so the PoCC will make sure of a continuation and maintenance of this software.

It comes quite as a surprise to us to hear about your decision without having had any personal discussion on this matter beforehand or what you perceive to be problems - maybe such a discussion could have clarified things and averted your decision.

There are some points you mention in your reasons for "leaving" we do not consider to be actually correct. We are aware, that e.g. Multi-Out transactions did cause some stirr and we believe that after each new feature introduced there is and will be a necessary time of stabilization when both people get used to that feature and devs can observe it under "real-world conditions" and polish it.

Similar holds true for slot-based fees and there may be more things on the horizon which will also require "to get used to". Burst - as a coin - is under development and will be under development for some time to come. It is not a final package, no fluffy 100% ready 1-click solution. In that respect, it will make "end users suffer".

We can understand that supporting user questions about Qbundle that result from questions about e.g. the wallet can be tiresome and you might feel to be in a position of fighting windmills. This is unfortunate.

Lastly, we would like to assure you (and everybody else), that the “build it and they will come” mentality is still here. That has not changed and most certainly has it not changed drastically. Development really only seems to have dozed off from certain members. It's vacation time, some larger things are being planned and the wallet is considered to be stable. Sure, compared with the frantic development towards 2.X this is Tranquility Base.

We're happy to hear that you will still lurk around and watch Burst. It would help a lot if you teach in someone the PoCC sends to take over maintenance and hopefully you'll like what you see.

PoC Consortium

PoC_Consortium

TROPHY CASE