Project SAFE Predictions!

Marketing
61

I think you are confusing a change in terminology with a change in the quantity and diligence of testing.

Given your technical ability this seems deliberately disingenuous, and damaging to confidence in the team.

If that’s what you think, please explain your position and reasoning so it can be responded to.

3 Likes
62

Just couple days ago I said there will be 2 testnets, then I was corrected that there won’t be no testnets, now I’m asked why I am saying there won’t be no testnets.

I have no new opinion on testnet (or whatever it’s called according to new terminology). I always considered there should be at least two (one with fake coins and fake data, another with fake coins and real data).

Perhaps it would be more helpful to:

  • avoid making unnecessary terminology changes that cause confusion, and
  • make necessary terminology changes to terms that cause confusion (e.g. DNS, NFS)
3 Likes
63

Someone’s having a laugh :smile:
Where I come from: “Just couple days ago I said there will be 2 testnets, then I was corrected that there won’t be no testnets, now I’m asked why I am saying there won’t be no testnets.” translates to - Just couple days ago I said there will be 2 testnets, then I was corrected that there will be testnets, now I’m asked why I am saying there will be testnets.

1 Like
64

@janitor,

Means “will be”[quote=“janitor, post:62, topic:3139”]

  • make necessary terminology changes to terms that cause confusion (e.g. DNS, NFS)
    [/quote]

Agree.

65

Of course it is. That’s why I don’t pay much attention to it.

Interesting if it were a betting pool, though. That, plus more people participating might start to get interesting. Even uneducated guesses over a large number of people can have uncanny accuracy.

Here, the wishful thinking factor cripples us. So I stopped trying to augur it.

2 Likes