lol? 

On the same trail of thought, pursuing disagreements in the computations of the network to fork it:

What happens if, say, hardware behaves differently in certain computation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug#Example_symptoms

Would a script like that, which executes a certain division that produces different outcomes in different machines, fork the network? Or are math functions software-emulated for safety and not speed?

Very low. In my estimation Evan should be from around 100k to 400k tops - as he was just one of the two "partners" and Hagan / internetape has already sold much or all of his stash in the lower price ranges.

Evan probably had to face some serious losses as well:

a) the ccex hack (feb '14 - about 300 btc were stolen and moved out of the exchange by taking the darkcoins, moving them to poloniex and dumping them there for btcs)
b) the official pool hack, where he had to pay miners from his money and close the pool - I have no idea about how large a hit he took.
c) mintpal scam (I think Evan held quite a lot of DRKs @mintpal - probably in the five digits)
d) cryptsy "hack" (no idea if he held any serious amount over there after the first three rounds of losses)

Masternode rewards came online much later, when coin supply wasn't at 2mn, but more like 4.5mn+ and that was the low reward-scheme... like 10% or something because it was planned to gradually escalate in terms of pow/pos balance... I think the 50-50 reward was coded to be reached in small increments by q3 or q4 '15... yet by that time coins had reached 6mn. So from the instamine till then, another 4mn coins had been added to the supply, mainly by PoW....

So on one hand you have large scale redistribution of the first 2mn coins (I know of whales that bought large packages like 20-40-100k DRKs for peanuts, back in the 0.00002 - 0.0005 range, and were even buying the ccex hacked DRKs dumps over at poloniex, down at 0.0008 or something). Then price stabilized around 0.0015 and there was like 2-3 months of constant reshuffling because the dumps were definitely much much more than the daily coin production. The thread was like "oh fuck this price suppression, fuck the dumpers" etc etc. Kind of like for two months. So redistribution was ongoing. People though, back in feb-march of '14 thought that if they managed to sell at something like 0.002 they'd be kings... imagine when large whales started acquiring up to 0.025+ - and every single dumper lost their coins - most lost them at the first huge resistance levels which were at 0.003-0.005 where massive dumping occurred, yet the pump sucked everything out of them and continued up to stratospheric heights.

All these things reshuffled the distribution so much that most darkcoiners understood that the instamine is a non-issue. And then we had even further redistribution by the mintpal and cryptsy stored coins which were lost. Between them they must have held like 800k in their wallets, although Mintpal allowed some withdrawals for some time. The Moolah scammer probably dumped hundreds of thousands down to a price 0.0025 or something - the downward spikes from his massive dumps were shocking.

Cryptsy must have used their DRK cold wallet to dump DRKs in order to acquire BTC and LTC to pay for such withdrawals (as they claim their BTC/LTC wallets were hacked - DRK wasn't). And when people understood that it was cryptsy's DRK being sold to suppress the price, and when cryptsy run out of DRKs to dump and had to admit their BTC/LTC "hack", investors where like "ah, so that was why price was down for so long... so who is going to dump now? nobody" => hence the price spiked upwards from 0.005 to 0.017 where we are today.

If someone told me "I had sex with this woman" and he actually meant ....virtual sex, cyber sex, phone sex, I would be like "is this guy for real?"

I would definitely consider this expression way more untruthful (and a far bigger lie) than saying "No I did not have sex with this woman".

As I said, maybe its just me that I'm seeing things this way. But I highly doubt it.

Sexual relations is a more encompassing term and thus denial of sexual relations in a bj situation is a lie.

I only run bitcoin-qt myself.

Phone sex.

(see what I did there?)

See the bright side: If we had bigger blocks, you'd need more time

Well, not even Monica will claim that Bill fucked her, so.

When I hear "these two had sex", or "I had sex with the X person", I understand it to be sex, not a bj.

But that's just me I guess.

How do you figure that I'm not acknowledging it when even Evan himself acknowledged it and proposed to fix the problem with an airdrop? The community* voted it down (I voted it down too) for several reasons, settling the issue once and for all. The rehashing of the same issue is from outsiders that have interests in defaming dark and gaining marketplace at its expense. However the act got old by now and investors saw that those who tried to gain the moral high ground against Evan and Darkcoin, simply ripped them off - and just used Darkcoin's issues to pump their selves up in order to conduct their scams and leave, while Evan is still here coding and improving Darkcoin / now DASH - which is ultimately what gives the coin its value.


* If Evan had proceeded unilaterally, we'd hear that Evan screwed everyone over and that he is a scammer for airdropping new coins that diluted coin supply (and by extension fucked investors). Now that he put the issue and final say to the community vote, we hear ..."sockpuppets".

There is nothing that he could do that can please everyone. There are all kind of angles that can be used, maliciously, where one could be termed a scammer for anything he does. That's simply the nature of the beast.

Yes... 133% ever

Stick to bikini girls...

Icebreaker's argument was:


Your attempt to patch it up is pathetic at best.

33% ever of 84mn = 27.7mn
33% ever of 21mn = 6.93mn

Neither of these are even possible 26 months later (because the coin supply is still less than 33% of 21mn - currently at 6.3mn).

And you continue pretending I don't make sense?

Seriously...?

You are not helping the "Icebreaker #REKT" case. The argument is even worse with a larger coin supply. Basic maths man: 33% of 84mn (original spec) means Evan should have at least 27.72 million darkcoins to have instamined 33% ever.

Both #REKT.

Not sure if serious

Out of ~20mn coins, a "33% ever" is around 6.6mn coins. And DASH has only 6.3mn, after 26 months running (and inflating)... yet somehow Evan instamined more than the entire current monetary supply.

Stick to posting "bikini girl incidents" because in terms of facts you aren't very good.

Icebreaker #REKT.

There is something objective, and I can expand on this if you want to learn about it (it extends to re-writing game theory to account for un-factored costs that have gone unnoticed for decades) but it's on a layer that is untouched by 99.9999% of the population. So, for the intended discussion, and since for the public at large ethics are "shoulds", I will just quote your link:

=>

Although the terms “morality” and “ethics” are sometimes used synonymously, it is useful to adopt the following distinction:

Morality is descriptive, it is concerned with social norms and people’s moral intuitions. Ethics on the other hand is normative; it doesn’t describe how people act, but how they should act (this still requires a clarification for the word “should”!).

If I say "I had 100 bitcoins and you stole them from me" then I'm not admitting possession in real time. I *had* them. I don't *currently* have them thus such information would not be incriminating in a future where cryptocurrency becomes illegal. You cannot break the law with retro-active effect in any serious constitutional state. The law must first exist so that you can the break it. So if I say, right now, you stole my BTCs, and a law comes in effect next year saying I'm not allowed to have BTCs, I've not broken any laws.

For someone who has an attorney as a father, these are pretty elemental.


Ok, so you are not OK with proving the scam so you just want to declare people "sleazy scammers".

That's OK, as far as I'm concerned. You can make a list of "Sleazy scammers" and put Evan in there, along with anyone else you like - or more precisely anyone else you *don't* like. After all it'll be your thread, your criteria, etc etc. But you are here arguing to put Evan on a list of people where actual scams have taken place. You can't do that. What you can do, to approximate this and be somewhat legitimate in your claims, is to make a "potential scam" list and add Dash in there, if you so like, and also add Evan as a "potential scammer".

Everyone's innocent until proven guilty, you know... And, if you call people scammers when they haven't actually scammed people, that's a criminal offense in itself. But I don't really care about the various laws like these as we are literally in the cryptojungle where anything flies.... How many coins, claiming anonymity, came post May 2014 and said "ohhh Evan is a scammer, DRK is a scam and we'll do it better and non-scammy"? What happened in virtually every single case? All the investors got scammed and/or lost their money by those who claimed that they weren't scammers like Evan. XCurrency was the first... reached something like 15mn usd if I remember correctly... then came a whole list of "anonymous" coins that all resulted in catastrophic (for the investors) dumps. And all these happened while claiming DRK and Evan are scams. So the people who promoted this narrative about DRK and Evan actually became enablers to the biggest scams in cryptospace.

For a person with such a breadth of understanding regarding global expansion of totalitarianism, why would you insist on others publicly disclosing stuff like their cryptoholdings, when, tomorrow for example, crypto could be illegal and all such posts might be admissions of possession and thus grounds for confiscation?

Do you even have any cryptocurrency?

Ethics are highly subjective. We can debate ethics endlessly.

In most scams you can say

a) What the scam is
b) What is the financial size of the scam
c) Who are the victims of the scam / Who got ripped off
d) How much did the victims lose

Example (Karpeles):

a) "Losing" or stealing the money of investors and pretended to be hacked
b) 700k+ BTC / 700mn USD
c) People who had funds in his exchange
d) 700k+ BTC / 700mn USD collectively / individually 700k+ BTC divided by their respective deposits in cash or BTCs.

You can claim "scam" for any number of reasons but can't tell me (b), (c), (d).