Why does there have to be burning, rather than just a 'virtual fork' airdropping BlackNet to everyone who holds BLK? I want both but you are making me gamble by choosing one side -_-
On tech side, burning is better as we don't need BitcoinVM in the protocol.
And on market side, idea of snapshot caused FUD:
Further, I've spoken to exchanges and they are pissed off that you had done a snapshot without letting them know in advance.
Well, no exchanges need to be informed in advance for a snapshot and wanted to know if there will be a rescheduling for another snapshot as they need to halt wallets for a period as they too need to snapshot. That's standard. You were not communicating with me so we couldn't work together on that. The problem is, people will go to them and ask for their Blacknet coins. They would need to know when exactly the snapshot had been done. They do have a process for that.
Side note, I have been following Blacknet development, I agree with much of rat4's independent research and improvements over the regular Bitcoin-like code. They are a step in the right direction and a great improvement.
With the burning, I think, it was a good compromise the more I had thought about it. It still does serve a generally positive purpose.
I do think that the Jelurida license is maybe a bit controversial however I get why you went into that direction. I don't know if it had caused a positive impact of NXT or not. Only their own project has been a fork of NXT, and no others, I don't think. If someone forks a project, I see it as a compliment? (But I would be pissed as I'd prefer them to help haha!) Personally, I'd prefer an anti-ICO clause, where the work can not be sold for profit in an initial coin offering. If you are interested, I could ask a lawyer friend of mine if they would be up for writing one?
I think that could be the reason nobody ripped off NXT.
Blackcoins POS3 was ripped off with no benefit to blackcoin at all and the clones sucked away the value over time from what could have made blackcoin shine. I think it is a great idea to force an airdrop to the original investors into the work conducted by the developer. I would say it is a vital part of the reason I have invested into blacknet.
There is simply no reason to allow "compliments" that subtract value and dilute adoption to the original project.
Of all the POS3 based projects I see very few even credit blackcoin on their threads (the only thing most investors and enthusiasts look at since I doubt they pull open the code )
Now we know there will be a never ending proliferation of alts it makes no sense to spend months years developing for someone else to press copy and paste.
There is no real way you can change the terms now anyway, that would be a terrible blow for confidence. Changing things after people decide to burn or invest in other ways is not something I would consider a positive. Byteball started doing this and it was pretty catastrophic for their community and caused huge divisions.
The burning is a good plan. I would expect many will buy more black to burn and retain some blackcoins too. Win win.