The basic problem is that an ipo/ico etc shows the coin needs marketing to get off the ground, and worse, it usually does indicate a coin that will not last. Most ipo/ico coins are pumped up and then collapse.
As for "it costs a lot of money...", if a person really has a good idea it doesn't cost a lot of money to start. A bad idea is expensive to promote, a good idea usually is not. We can argue any point but that is a pretty basic fact. If this is just a random clone of coin, it costs absolutely nothing. But if you develop from scratch, it gets more complicated. Applebyte ABY seems to have a massive premine but it has a sort of original idea in a way. Market cap $62,000.
Shadowcash $600,000 and moderated thread.
Blackcoin $1,000,000 and moderated thread.
Whitecoin $100,000 and moderated thread.
Syscoin is overtraded as is mentioned by the poster, also moderated and premined. $147,000.
Blackcoin has an unmoderated thread too, but lately they created a moderated thread because of the trolls. Anyway, you are free to create an unmoderated thread about any of these coins.
True, any person can create an unmoderated thread for any coin. Any person can run for president too or apply for a job as an astronaut. In practical terms if a dev chooses to use a moderated thread then that is pretty much the thread for the coin. And generally, in my opinion, a competent dev does not make that choice. There is always a justification people can find for bad choices like limiting comments. "We need to keep out the trolls" or whatever. The first step in limiting any kind of free speech is the step to avoid. The problem is because the trolls turn impossible to have a normal discussion, you loose a lot of useful content in the middle of the trolling posts. Also, the message is clear: This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic. And more, trolls are a serious problem against free speech. They talk in a more louder way than the rest of people in order to prevent you to talk, so, they are attacking your free speech rights when the do this. PayCon has unique POS only mining, in PayCon every Block is worth 30 CON each which creates a type of byzantine mining. Higher security against double spends than POW coins for a couple dollars in electricity a month plus you gain over and above the money supply inflation. Since all POS rewards are the same, you gain the Coins that other people are not Staking so instead of your Coins losing value over time, you actually gain value over time, plus there is the added bonus that Stakers don't need to sell Coins to pay for mining costs so you have far less sell pressure and all sell pressure comes only from investors. If you sell Coins (or don't Stake), other people gain more. Sorry, although I think proof-of-stake is an interesting innovation, because it helps in the question of full nodes and sustainability of the minting process, I don't think it's the right solution. This doesn't necessarily creates a more secure solution than POW, and strongly discourages spending. I think the solutions which BURST and NODE bring are much better than proof-of-stake.
I'm not against IPOs/ICOs at all. The process of development of a coin costs a lot of money. Programmers, computers, testnet network, time...
I think the most important thing is doing this process in a fair way.
Development and marketing does not cost a lot of money, this is the great fallacy of the Crypto world. If you have moderate coding skills and a good idea along with commitment you can do the entire Coin with under $1000 spent on development. PayCon is a testament to that fact as it had no ICO/IPO and so far we've added a huge host of features and Blockchain improvements, social media, video production, forums, games with a total of $500 spent! And how much time you spent on it? |
|
|
|
|
One thing is a 51% hashpower attack. Another thing is a (hard)fork. You don't need to control 51% or more of the network to do a hardfork of a coin. You can do it yourself, but it's up to the other people to accept these changes. Part of people can accept and other can't accept, and in this way you would have 2 versions of the coin running independently (and also incompatible). They could just stay at the original version or tried another scheme more compatible with the rythm of the first hours.
Of course, they did it wrong, and this is why I dislike Dash, but creating another topic about this, claimiing the police should be called and other things like this doesn't help in any way. Even worse, a state intervention in this could create a very very bad precedent for other cryptocurrencies (including the legit ones).
Edit: just removing the quotes. They are unnecessary.
|
|
|
|
Hey, I'm a cryptocurrency "investor" if you call it that. I was looking for coins to buy in. I already chose Monero and Bitcoindark, then I came across DASH and thought why not. Then I searched more and found out DASH HAD A INSTAMINE??? WTF! Does anyone have more info? I came across 6 threads talking about the instamine, how bad was it? I dont want biased replies from DASH bagholders either.
Is it true? Was 2million fucking DASH coins, 50% of the damn supply mined in the first 48 hours??!! I want fucking answers, finding this out was like getting punched in the gut. If this coin got instamined at its release, fuck this shit!
Here's the long account: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=999886.0Here's the short: Dev starts before he said he would, mines 500K first hour (1.5 mill in first 8 hours), and then tells everyone it was a bug, but never relaunches the coin, but does rename it twice (x, dark, dash). OK I GOT IT FULLY NOW. like a idiot i bought INTO THIS PIECE OF SCAM DOODOO SHIT at .024 btc. why the hell is this scam even allowed? WTF, there should be a fucking warning message before exchanges allow you to buy this doodoo scam coin. this is freaking insane, where the hell is the police for this shit, it cant be legal. I'd put a red flag into someone creating an account on BitcoinTalk just to ask this. Anyway, instamines or unfair practices in cryptocurrencies per si are not illegal. And you call the police from what country? What they should do? Shutdown the network? Of course, they are questionable, specially on cases when you decide lately to change the mining reward schemes. The code is open and anyone can modify it, including the mining reward. These changes requires consensus to work. So, even this being a scam, it's not just the lead developer who is scamming. It's a scam built by consensus. |
|
|
|
I think Craptsy Cryptsy is useful for what we want. Considering Paycoin is a scam, Crypsy is the perfect place to dump it. Really. It's much better to have these coins negotiated at Cryptsy rather than a GAW owned exchange. Also, the Cryptsy's slogan sounds perfect for this case. "Got crypto? Cryptsy" suggests if you had the bad luck of getting a cryptocurrency (specially if this is a bad cryptocurrency) you can just dump it on Crypsty, leading the price of the coin to go down.  |
|
|
|
I suggest that you use the most recent version of Electrum (2.x).... That would give you about 2 billion change addresses. Hopefully that would be sufficient  I'm using the 2.0 version, but only 3 change addresses appears on the list (the same beavior as of 1.9). It generates a new one every time one is used. You have infinite change addresses. If you want to see more in the list there is a console command to change but then if you recover from seed you must know what you changed it to or it might find all your bitcoin during a recovery. Better to keep the default settings. If you click the arrow next to "used" under "change" you will see any that were used and no longer have a balance. Sorry for my initial flippant response. jackbox is correct (except that there are "only" 2 billion change addresses). After a change address receives its first transaction, a new change address is created, and the original change address is not used again. There's currently little reason to increase this gap limit from its default of 3, it won't effect the way Electrum works with change addresses. (Old change addresses are moved to the Used section once they no longer have a balance.) Note that Electrum will occasionally reuse change addresses. A change address is only considered "used" once it has at least one transaction with two confirmations. If you create two transactions without waiting for two confirmations in between, and if both transactions need to use a change address, then the same change address will be used for both. There's no simple way (without mucking with the console for every transaction) to avoid this in Electrum aside from waiting for two confirmations in between transactions. Thanks. But a question still remains unclear: are these new change addresses (beyond the first three) covered by the original seed? Or in this case I'll need to do a new backup? |
|
|
|
Cryptonite, for the creation of the mini-blockchain scheme. http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/cryptonitecryptonite.info Other candidates: BURST, for being the first proof-of-capacity (HDD mining). Also it already has smart contracts. Myriad, for Multi-POW: http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/myriadcoin/NODE, for proof-of-activity. But they launched with an IPO, I don't know in what terms.
No ico/premine/investor coins.
I'm not against IPOs/ICOs at all. The process of development of a coin costs a lot of money. Programmers, computers, testnet network, time... I think the most important thing is doing this process in a fair way. Applebyte ABY seems to have a massive premine but it has a sort of original idea in a way. Market cap $62,000.
Shadowcash $600,000 and moderated thread.
Blackcoin $1,000,000 and moderated thread.
Whitecoin $100,000 and moderated thread.
Syscoin is overtraded as is mentioned by the poster, also moderated and premined. $147,000.
Blackcoin has an unmoderated thread too, but lately they created a moderated thread because of the trolls. Anyway, you are free to create an unmoderated thread about any of these coins. |
|
|
|
By default, Electrum generates only 3 change addresses. Is there a way to configure it to have more change addresses? 3 is very little...
I suggest that you use the most recent version of Electrum (2.x).... That would give you about 2 billion change addresses. Hopefully that would be sufficient I'm using the 2.0 version, but only 3 change addresses appears on the list (the same beavior as of 1.9). |
|
|
|
|
By default, Electrum generates only 3 change addresses. Is there a way to configure it to have more change addresses? 3 is very little...
|
|
|
|
Of course every single coin here favours more early miners/adopters than the laters. But there is an important difference here: Bitcoin didn't change the rules ex-post to favours (even more) them. Darkcoin changed. And also, to have a deflationary coin, or a coin where at a point doesn't generate new coins, you'll need at some point to cut the rewards until they stop to generate new coins.
So what? It is a decentralized consensus after all, people accepted the new code by downloading and running the new wallet and mining using the new code. Anyone can make any modification to the code and release it. It depends on all the people running the network whether they like it or not. I can call this a 51% attack. |
|
|
|
A new comment on GAW from badbitcoin: http://www.badbitcoin.org/gaw.htmOur position regarding GAW and Paycoin. These unsupported "indisputable facts" versus the reality.
There has been a very vocal campaign against the previously highly regarded supplier, GAW Miners, and going even further targeting their CEO Josh Garza, and has also questioned our position on these matters. In response to this, I am issuing the following unambiguous statement.
We do not share the opinion that this operation,or Mr Garza are intending to defraud, or have defrauded any investor in Hashlets, Hashstakers, Paycoin XPY, or any other product or service supplied by GAW or it's companies. We are not associated with these companies beyond personal & private holdings of Hashstakers, Zen Hashlets and XPY Paycoin, and are not paid by these companies.
They are accused of reneging on contracts, there is no evidence of this. Reneging on promises. There were never price promises, beyond individual expectation of market value, and the anticipated $20 floor, a concept since reformed into the honours program, which whilst indefinitely delayed, pending the resolving of legal issues, is still very much active. Some proposed features have been shelved, delayed, or abandoned due to direct effects of the current hate campaign, and other features have since been proposed, some are better.
Leaked emails, widely circulated, have been obtained illegally and are legally confidential. They must be disregarded due to their origin being from a hacked external, and uncredited anonymous source. The hacking of privileged company resources also indicates that the hacker may easily have fabricated these emails using hijacked services, or had physical access to those resources.
Neither GAW, Zencloud or any other GAW operation, has at this time, directly or indirectly defrauded anybody regarding the conversion to hashstakers and XPY. This was always a choice, freely chosen by the individual.
The campaign against GAW is a phenomenon that is unprecedented, and has become almost a cult. The vehemence of these detractors - the majority of whom are non investors - has had a visible effect on trust and wider adoption of this XPY. This campaign was fuelled by a core few individuals, would be members of a kind of informal 'old guard' of Crypto. It is an indefensible action.
We cannot accept any of these third party, sometimes absurd allegations as hard evidence, neither can anybody else who does not have unrestricted access to confidential original company accounts, minutes of meetings and internal and external correspondence. Therefore, were we to conclude that there was a scam going on, it would be pure conjecture, and that is morally and professionally irresponsible, and would leave us fairly justly liable, to prosecution for libellous actions. The majority of the supposed evidence so far, has no covenance and in some cases is even unknown of by the correspondents. Being unverifiable non original data, it is simply not worthy of consideration for any practical purpose.
GAW are also a registered company, with a strong track record. We have no desire to participate in any clearly orchestrated campaign against a hard working company.
Where we list other registered companies, it is always after confirming beyond doubt, that the company is using faked covenance, or is non-existent. We aren't here to investigate legal entities, already subject to outside audit.
I will finish by saying that personally, I am pretty adept at spotting a fraud. I do not believe that any deliberate attempt is being made to defraud anybody by Josh Garza. I do believe that the real damage being done to investors is due to this core group of 'haters' who resent this innovation and this rightly perceived threat to their own interests, and as such are prepared to originate and fuel this disinformation, not excluding illegally obtaining discreditable and confidential correspondence.
This is not intended as investment advice.
Ultimately, there will be a definitive outcome to this ongoing debacle. We'd like to come out of it with our integrity intact as well.
ViK. Editor & Project Lead. March 24th 2015 So bizarre. Fuck, How a anti-scam website turns to be a scam. |
|
|
|
I already considered several times to buy darkcoin, but all the controversy are keeping me away from it... i didnt realise that alrady exist one coin with the name Dashcoin, its not ethical at all, and tell alot about the dev.. all the links you have on your signature are the reason because i am still away from it, even knowing that i could have 20x the value of the investment that i think in made back then i think i will just keep away... i believe that the main reason for the price beeing so high is the greed for masternodes alone, but everything else just dont fit in my personality
I also don't think people understand the attractiveness of having a perpetuity of cash flow from a masternode... you always hear of people wanting a money tree, well, this seems to be the closest thing to it (coupled with the fact that at any time, you can spend those generated coins as well as the original if you no longer want to run a mn). Life is all about taking risks. You get in the car to go to work, there's always a chance you get into an accident and die. Don't be the shortsighted people thinking that arguing over a few dimes in the price per BTC back in 2011-2012 was about getting a better entry point when in the grand scheme of things, it meant you might have missed out on one of the greatest rallies ever. If you're a believer in crypto, then there's a massive amount of upside from here, especially if you start looking at the global economies and abused monetary policies.
I hope that more and more people will see what Darkcoin/Dash is about. Well, from what I know, there are about 2300 masternodes. As each masternode needs 1000 DRK to operate, so there are 2,300,000 DRK "frozen" (these coins can be moved only if you want to shutdown the masternode), or 44% of the currently supply (about 5,200,000). |
|
|
|
So, with this this logic, the guy who bought 2 pizzas with BTC 10000 should be a big retarded.
That's why you can't have both "back then" and retroactively applied reasoning. The same goes when you try to see the price of these instamined coins in BTC. Summer of 2014 in the South hemisphere is between December and March.  Yes, I was talking about North... I don't care. I live in the South hemisphere, but in opposite to Notherns, I don't try to enforce the using about the stations of the year over the internet. It would be great if people from North stop this practice. Future miners mine a more precious coin, so it evens out. So, why offer new coins at mining now? Drop the new coins to zero, put only the transaction fees, and people (including miners) will gain a very very precious coin and speculators will be very happy. Coins which are still offering rewards at every new block are scamming you with inflation. The discussion is not about economic value. It's about unfair practices.
Actual scams tend to have both victims and an economic size. "A scam of X size was perpetrated against Y parties". That's why I insist on these two. If there are no such identifiable variables, it is extremely hard to fit the "scam" profile. There are a lot of coins with no economic value at all which are scams because the way of the mining schemes. The fact of nobody gived a shit to these coins and so the coin didn't gain economic value doesn't stop the fact of being a scam. Bitcoin didn't change the rules of emission, although of its inumerous crashes. This is why it doesn't have any unfair practice. Other coins are instamined too, but they stated this in a clearly way before their launch. Darkcoin didn't this.
Fairness is very, very relative. In this case we take Bitcoin as the standard-bearer and then compare others to it. But Bitcoin itself is not the fairest coin either: It did favor early miners (and I'm not talking about Satoshi, but about the programmed block reward reduction). It was also pre-programmed to evolve that way into the future. But future miners now get far more valuable coins. So, in a sense, they get way more. But they also have to compete much harder and with expensive equipment. Then you have issues of mining (cpu vs asic), you have issues of fairness regarding whether the devs should get something or it should be all about the miners and investors, you have issues regarding democracy and voted by the community reductions that have no impact on other parties, etc etc. It's a huge discussion all around. Of course every single coin here favours more early miners/adopters than the laters. But there is an important difference here: Bitcoin didn't change the rules ex-post to favours (even more) them. Darkcoin changed. And also, to have a deflationary coin, or a coin where at a point doesn't generate new coins, you'll need at some point to cut the rewards until they stop to generate new coins. Don't worry. Unfortunately in this world many people and institutions with questionable practices are the winners. The top 10 coin market cap is a beautiful example of this. Only 3 or maybe 4 of these coins really deserves to stay at that list. The guys behind Darkcoin has the right resources: marketing, PR, contacts on the media and a lot of arguments about how a cryptocurrency should be. I saw some Darkcoiners at the DRK announce thread on this forum making some sactires about Litecoin. It seems they are really looking to surpass Litecoin's market cap. In my opinion it's really hard to have a convicent answer to why Litecoin. It's a legit coin, with fair launch and respectable people behind its development. But unfortunately, they have a very commodist position, as I stated here one month ago: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=956231.msg10486790#msg10486790So, that being said, unfortunatelly Dakcoin/DASH is really a serious candidate to this (and probably this will happen). There are a lot of coins which really deserves to stay about Litecoin. But Darkcoin, with its cheating, doen't deserve this position. Actually Litcoin also had an instamine, it's just that nobody was trolling them for it... they were even self-marketed as fairer compared to BTC: I'd like to point out that peacefulmind is flatout lying about Litecoin being "the fairest launch in history". Not close. http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=a_massive_investigation_of_instamines_and_fastmines_for_the_top_alt_coins#litecoinLitecoin created ~440,000 coins in about 8 hours from the moment coins were being created, clearly an instamine. however, this was 3 years ago and we are at 29,200,000 LTCs in existence. The effective instamine was 450,000/29,200,000 = 1.5% more or less. Even though this didn't necessarily go to developers, it was a rather "meh" start to pump out that many coins in 1/3 of a day. devtome only looks about the relation between the number of the coins mined in the genesis block or in the first hours and the present number of coins. This is very superficial. In the case of Litecoin, his was caused the blocks were generated at a more fast rate than the 2.5 minutes interval. This is common at the launch, specially if you don't have a difficulty adjustment per block (like BTC, LTC adjusts its difficulty every 2016 blocks). But every single block at Litecoin generated the right number of coins. In Darkcoin, what happened is totally different (credits to fluffyponny for the graph):  This comment is also relevant about this: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2zufu1/a_great_podcast_by_lets_talk_bitcoin_discussing/cpn7fgn |
|
|
|
If you go the Pyramid/Ponzi route, every crypto has the same characteristic, including Bitcoin. Buyers buy and expect to sell higher to someone who will buy at a higher price, later, either due to speculative reasons, or the technology reaching a point of greater maturity and adoption.
In the same wave-length, Satoshi is a pyramid "scammer" for establishing a "pyramid" with deflationary characteristics over the longer run, coupled with scarcity, while he owns 1m coins that have made him a 9 digit net worth....
So, with this this logic, the guy who bought 2 pizzas with BTC 10000 should be a big retarded. You are trying to claim about redistribution in an anonymous coin. But even if this wasn't being an anonnymous, how could you claim about the ownership of the new addresses?
DRK wasn't anonymous to begin with. Serious anonymity started being implemented by summer 2014 and even then, few people started mixing. Coin mixing is optional, not mandatory. So, in a sense, DRK can be used exactly as BTC, or it can also be used with DarkSend. It's not a prerequisite. Summer of 2014 in the South hemisphere is between December and March. Even if we accept the above example, who exactly is cheated? People who have the coins get better value for it. People who don't have it, gain or lose nothing as they are not invested. As *potential buyers*, and if they choose to buy, they will gain more wealth preservation from a lower-inflation model.
The only people who feel "cheated", are in the context of an informal altcoin race, where altcoin holders of other coins perceive the change in inflation of a competitor as something that negatively affects their own coin, as it becomes less preferable to the competitor with less inflation and better price-potential. The economy and the contracts per si are being cheated, and probably miners too (except the early miners). https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=970176.msg10612547#msg10612547The differences in launches and parameters are known. How does that invalidate the economic impact of each "scam"? Why are you saying "nonsense"?
2mn coins x 0.000025 = 50 btc max, with the scenario of Evan solomining and retaining everything (it didn't happen like that, but anyway let's say it did). That's the furthest extent of the proposed "scam" with the economic value back then.
And again, 50 btc was just the first BTC block. The discussion is not about economic value. It's about unfair practices. Nobody would be happy anyway, so it's useless to discuss any of this.
If it wasn't the instamine, it would be "masternodes", it would be the economic incentives, it would be the closed source and the NSA "backdoors" (as it was for quite a while) and other $hit like that. Bitcoin didn't change the rules of emission, although of its inumerous crashes. This is why it doesn't have any unfair practice. Other coins are instamined too, but they stated this in a clearly way before their launch. Darkcoin didn't this. About masternodes: Well, the idea is not bad. The lack of economic incentives to run a node in the classical proof-of-work coins is a serious issue in my opinion. Darkcoin at least seems to more worried about providing a solution abou this, although the way how is this being done is very discutible. Beyond Darkcoin, NODE is another cryptocurrency which has a technology which can solve this issue with the proof-of-activity concept. The reality is that some people are butthurt because they have some other coin that like to do well, but it typically doesn't and thus they are anxiously trying to troll DRK to somehow bring it down in their twisted logic. This isn't working (because the FUD or legitimate criticism they are using is already priced-in) and they get even crazier, and then they troll harder etc etc.
Don't worry. Unfortunately in this world many people and institutions with questionable practices are the winners. The top 10 coin market cap is a beautiful example of this. Only 3 or maybe 4 of these coins really deserves to stay at that list. The guys behind Darkcoin has the right resources: marketing, PR, contacts on the media and a lot of arguments about how a cryptocurrency should be. I saw some Darkcoiners at the DRK announce thread on this forum making some sactires about Litecoin. It seems they are really looking to surpass Litecoin's market cap. In my opinion it's really hard to have a convicent answer to why Litecoin. It's a legit coin, with fair launch and respectable people behind its development. But unfortunately, they have a very commodist position, as I stated here one month ago: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=956231.msg10486790#msg10486790So, that being said, unfortunatelly Dakcoin/DASH is really a serious candidate to this (and probably this will happen). There are a lot of coins which really deserves to stay about Litecoin. But Darkcoin, with its cheating, doen't deserve this position.
Joshuar, I agree that premines and instamines are largely the same and I don't consider them fraudulent if everything is clearly disclosed up front and not changed later.
Close topic. |
|
|
|
I think there is a large color spectrum that involves "fraud" and "illegitimacy".
The classic form of scam/fraud is a scheme were people put their money and then lose it.
Does DRK have these characteristics? Are people losing money here? Or have they multiplied their bitcoins 10-100-1000x depending their point of entry?
Year to year performance (and March 23 of 2014 was over two months after the launch of Darkcoin) is something like 12-14x. Month-to-month is also exceptional (1.7x)
Just because it's profitable it doesn't mean necessarialy it's not a scam. For example, Herbalife is a typical case of a Ponzi, but more than 30 years later it's still profitable for a lot of people. I've addressed the distribution part on the reply to Joshuar which I'll repeat here:
---
Some of us who follow DRK closely know who the DRK whales are / were and we know their stories. Personally I've talked with most of them (or if I haven't, I've read their stories). I know how they got their DRKs and this pretty much narrows down what Evan has. It's not two million and it's not one million either. If my assessment is correct it should be closer to 300k coins - some of which he probably bought for 0.25btc/10k DRK. I believe he must have suffered serious losses with the Mintpal "confiscation" and consequent dumping at market prices.
I was also there while wave, after wave, after wave of dumping was happening every day at Cryptsy near the 0.0012-0.0016 range. Every day the same bitching "ohhh the dumping". We're talking quantities that were multiple the daily production. How can the instamine be ...intact if all this dumping had occurred? But now we are >10x that price with 0.017, so, in retrospect, it was very cheap distribution.
Same with thousands of coins during the first exchange days. Quite a big volume in DRKs (not so much in BTCs) at insanely low prices (0.000020-0.000080 then 0.000180, then 0.000500, then it got to 0.002 before the c-cex hack of 330 btc which brought huge reshuffling in the market). Hacker bought DRKs up to 0.008, moved them to the poloniex and was selling/dumping them for 0.0008-0.0012... again, significant re-distribution of coins.
Then you have the May pump... you have coins that you have acquired at 0.000025 up to 0.001x and the price goes 0.028 by the massive whale, which IMO was probably a stolen-BTCs-whale playing with various altcoins and having DRK as his "pet"... so at that point, the market took over the redistribution.
---
You are trying to claim about redistribution in an anonymous coin. But even if this wasn't being an anonnymous, how could you claim about the ownership of the new addresses?
The changes have been made, indeed, but if it is of benefit to existing holders, it is also of benefit to a buyer that decides to buy NOW. If a deflationary change is made that preserves one's wealth better, or an economic incentive is placed that will increase value in the long term, why would a buyer that buys NOW, not get the same benefit that the current holder has? They will gain equally.
Ensuring that the coin does good is also ensuring the interests of the participants. This does not constitute a fraud / scam. You can argue that future buyers will buy at an increased price, but they will still buy because of that specific feature set that will give them even greater price at a later point of time.
On the other hand, if, say, you tuned a coin to be more inflationary (with current holders losing), this is also something that will impact current and future buyers 6 months from now. They will be thinking "why buy this over-inflationary coin if it can't preserve my BTCs?".
Hey, Bitcoin dropped very hard on its price, we think the problem is because we are generating more coins than the market can absorve, so, let's change the block reward system now and reduce the amount of coins per block from 25 to 20. Or in other words: "hey, we are not liking the results, we are loosing in this way, so, let's cheat this and change the rules of the game."
Yes, but it only took 1 block to get 50 BTCs and less than a week to get 34.000 BTCs (the entire worth of DRK's instamine right now).
If DRK is a scam, the scam has an economic value. Say you are a reporter and you have to make an article on how big a scam DRK is. You'll either use Jan 2014 valuation of the 2mn DRKs, or current valuation of the 2mn DRKs.
The 2 prices you will come up is 50 BTCs (0.000025 x 2mn coins) or 34.000 BTCs (0.017 x 2mn coins).
And, again, 50 BTC was just the initial block of Bitcoin and 34.000 BTCs are like what? 4 days of solo-mining it?
What a nonsense. Let me explain one thing: I'm not against instamines at all. Serious. For example, Blackcoin was entire mined in less than 2 weeks and after this, they turned at a 100% proof-of-stake coin. But there's an important difference here: they stated this at the announcement when they putted how the reward system would work. OTOH, Darkcoin at the launch never claimed anything about this. Probably Darkcoin at the first hours launch couldn't be considered an instamine case. But what happened? They changed the reward system, so, proportionally, they generated a lot of coins in the first blocks than it should be generated. Did Bitcoin do this? No. And when this happened ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=823.0;all ) they fixed the exploit and the block too. Darkcoin changed the entire rewards system in order to benefit themselves.
Problems at launch happen with a lot of altcoins. IIRC even LTC has an instamine issue due to problems with the difficulty adjustment algorithm (DRK was forked by LTC btw).
One thing is an in issue about block interval caused by an issue in the difficulty adjustement (and BTW, Litecoin uses the same dificulty adjusment scheme of Bitcoin). Another completely different thing is generating more or less coins per block than it should be generated. The problem was publicly admitted and remember that he offered an airdrop solution that was voted down from the community. Evan knew that the instamine issue will be brought up again and again and that's why he wanted it solved. It's not his fault that people voted down the airdrop. At that point Evan's responsibility and blame ends, and it becomes a community responsibility. And the community had its reasons to say no. As for the "fraud", remember what I said earlier. If people are getting massive ROI, they aren't really "scammed". A quote that brings a smile to my face is some forum members who were writing (as they watched their DRK worth multiply) "Evan scam us some more"...  2-3 months after the incident happened he purpose this? Also, how this would be posible at that point? Of course he wasn't being serious about that proposal and a conclusion of this was just did to create a false sensation of legitimacy to the coin wouldn't surprise me. |
|
|
|
It's a shame to see how the top 10 market cap of coins is full of questionable coins which don't deserve this place, or even worse, literally scams coins. Currently the only serious coins in that list are Bitcoin, Litecoin, BitShares and Peercoin. Ripple: their gateway system can be interesting for remittances, but a coin where more than 70% are in the hands of its creators? Darkcoin: the reward per block never matchs the intended formula: https://i.imgur.com/1KyeATF.jpg They also changed the formula various times and the max coin supply later in order to benefit who mined this coin in the first hours. Stellar: it sounds like a random Ripple clone, it never explained what is doing here. Dogecoin: used the stupid innovation from Luckycoin, which is the random rewards. Lately they realized this was a bad idea and fixed it. NXT: they closed the IPO without previous warning: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303898.msg3620732#msg3620732Paycoin: a scam coin from GAW, with 12 million of premined coins, false partnerships to increase its merchant acception and a lot of other lies. |
|
|
|
Mental note: create an account at Monero forum at the next days and unsubscribe from this shitty thread full of off-topic. It's very laughable (to not say fucking ridiculous) claiming about how a supposeddly anonymous/privacy-centric coin is distributed and from who supposeddly the addresses belong. There are a lot of topics on Altcoin discussion about Darkcoin vs Monero. Like this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=962235.0 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
