why should it be there? I was talking about new coins getting listed. |
|
|
|
I noticed that Dash is getting #rekt. For completeness, I have copied it here  Ok, thx.  One example again, where money talks and nothing else, pure and simple. |
|
|
|
I'm not focused on end users (ie consumers, ie lusers). Last I checked, Windows isn't part of OpenStack.  Sorry to break it to you, but openstack is barely a well tested hypervizor for any business, you would have to go with vsphere or hyper-v, hmm Windows=hyper-v, which is gaining market share in alarming rate for vmware, why because it's good and secure. AFAIK, Fintech's core infrastructure runs on *nix (Debian, Red Hat, BSD, and Solaris variants, with Java.Scala overlays thrown about randomly).
Almost all of these nowadays run on top of... wait for it hypervizors. But never mind all that. The point is Dash is a scam, and Monero is the only real alternative for security and privacy-centric applications.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Like PC is better then MAC or Android is better then IOS There are always opinions, there's nothing without them... |
|
|
|
You bolded statement doesn't apply when there is potential manipulation due to a highly concentrated supply, only when that market value is the result of a credible market process. Which is exactly why serious investors who need to cover their ass* are going to stay the hell away from anything with such enormous red flags: because the market prices can't be trusted.
No doubt a few speculators will buy it, especially in a rising market, and there might be a bit of money to be made, but the big money won't go anywhere near it. The smell of fraud is Kryptonite to institutional investors, just as generalizethis astutely explained to you. Ignore at your peril.
If there were no other alternatives, then maybe, just maybe, the big money would hold their nose and go in. But that's nowhere near the reality. There are many alternatives. Dash won't make it past the first screen.
* "No one ever got fired for buying IBM." i.e. If as an asset manager, you buy something without enormous red flags and it goes down, you too an intelligent risk and it didn't pay off. If you ignore the enormous red flags and, you are an idiot and you get fired or sued.
And this goes for any coin, I don't even know if bitcoin is an exception in this, this is how the virtual currencies are. If you think Bitcoin is bad then Dash is 100x worse. I shouldn't even need to explain why, but if I do just take a look at this thread. That's really the point. When someone is surveying the market and looking for reasonable investments, they can find ones with far, far less in the way of red flags than Dash. If anything gets rejected on the basis of reputation and fraud risk, and many will, that will certainly include Dash. The Dash leadership pretty much knows this which is why they keep changing names. It makes sense to at least try to get away from the past that way, but it won't work. Markets do choose the coins, they choose the coins where there are the highest market caps and value for trading and margins And why? again money talks. Basically virtual currency market cap = trust of coinYes please buy smoothcoin! It has a premined supply of one billion coins and I just sold one the other day for $1 = market cap $1 billion, right? People would buy/sell the coin, if it had been proven in crypto-exchanges to be a valid coin and traded for years, so it really would have some "stable" value, which in turn comes into coins market cap. The value is extremely stable. I sold another coin for $1 a few weeks ago, and a few weeks before that I sold one for 50c, so there is a nice rate of return going. I suggest you get in right away. And whom are you calling a fraud? According to you it is all good as long as it makes the money. People would buy/sell the coin, if it had been proven in crypto-exchanges to be a valid coin and traded for years, so it really would have some "stable" value, which in turn comes into coins market cap.
So basically what you are saying is that market cap is what counts but only if it meets the standards you have set for credibility and integrity. What I'm telling you (and generalizethis is telling you, and anyone else who knows how these things work would tell you) is that Dash will likewise not meet the standards set by institutional investors. Just too many red flags in a competitive market where other coins don't have the same baggage. When you have market cap and it's been traded and listed years, it meets the standards you have set for credibility and integrity, people trade the coin so they trust it. Bigger the trust bigger the market cap. Sorry to sound like a broken clock, but again money talks in this business. That's why some new coins get listed on exchanges that previously were bitcoin and litecoin only. |
|
|
|
You bolded statement doesn't apply when there is potential manipulation due to a highly concentrated supply, only when that market value is the result of a credible market process. Which is exactly why serious investors who need to cover their ass* are going to stay the hell away from anything with such enormous red flags: because the market prices can't be trusted.
No doubt a few speculators will buy it, especially in a rising market, and there might be a bit of money to be made, but the big money won't go anywhere near it. The smell of fraud is Kryptonite to institutional investors, just as generalizethis astutely explained to you. Ignore at your peril.
If there were no other alternatives, then maybe, just maybe, the big money would hold their nose and go in. But that's nowhere near the reality. There are many alternatives. Dash won't make it past the first screen.
* "No one ever got fired for buying IBM." i.e. If as an asset manager, you buy something without enormous red flags and it goes down, you too an intelligent risk and it didn't pay off. If you ignore the enormous red flags and, you are an idiot and you get fired or sued.
And this goes for any coin, I don't even know if bitcoin is an exception in this, this is how the virtual currencies are. If you think Bitcoin is bad then Dash is 100x worse. I shouldn't even need to explain why, but if I do just take a look at this thread. That's really the point. When someone is surveying the market and looking for reasonable investments, they can find ones with far, far less in the way of red flags than Dash. If anything gets rejected on the basis of reputation and fraud risk, and many will, that will certainly include Dash. The Dash leadership pretty much knows this which is why they keep changing names. It makes sense to at least try to get away from the past that way, but it won't work. Markets do choose the coins, they choose the coins where there are the highest market caps and value for trading and margins And why? again money talks. Basically virtual currency market cap = trust of coinYes please buy smoothcoin! It has a premined supply of one billion coins and I just sold one the other day for $1 = market cap $1 billion, right? People would buy/sell the coin, if it had been proven in crypto-exchanges to be a valid coin and traded for years, so it really would have some "stable" value, which in turn comes into coins market cap. The value is extremely stable. I sold another coin for $1 a few weeks ago, and a few weeks before that I sold one for 50c, so there is a nice rate of return going. I suggest you get in right away. And whom are you calling a fraud? According to you it is all good as long as it makes the money. People would buy/sell the coin, if it had been proven in crypto-exchanges to be a valid coin and traded for years, so it really would have some "stable" value, which in turn comes into coins market cap.
|
|
|
|
You bolded statement doesn't apply when there is potential manipulation due to a highly concentrated supply, only when that market value is the result of a credible market process. Which is exactly why serious investors who need to cover their ass* are going to stay the hell away from anything with such enormous red flags: because the market prices can't be trusted.
No doubt a few speculators will buy it, especially in a rising market, and there might be a bit of money to be made, but the big money won't go anywhere near it. The smell of fraud is Kryptonite to institutional investors, just as generalizethis astutely explained to you. Ignore at your peril.
If there were no other alternatives, then maybe, just maybe, the big money would hold their nose and go in. But that's nowhere near the reality. There are many alternatives. Dash won't make it past the first screen.
* "No one ever got fired for buying IBM." i.e. If as an asset manager, you buy something without enormous red flags and it goes down, you too an intelligent risk and it didn't pay off. If you ignore the enormous red flags and, you are an idiot and you get fired or sued.
And this goes for any coin, I don't even know if bitcoin is an exception in this, this is how the virtual currencies are. If you think Bitcoin is bad then Dash is 100x worse. I shouldn't even need to explain why, but if I do just take a look at this thread. That's really the point. When someone is surveying the market and looking for reasonable investments, they can find ones with far, far less in the way of red flags than Dash. If anything gets rejected on the basis of reputation and fraud risk, and many will, that will certainly include Dash. The Dash leadership pretty much knows this which is why they keep changing names. It makes sense to at least try to get away from the past that way, but it won't work. Markets do choose the coins, they choose the coins where there are the highest market caps and value for trading and margins And why? again money talks. Basically virtual currency market cap = trust of coinYes please buy smoothcoin! It has a premined supply of one billion coins and I just sold one the other day for $1 = market cap $1 billion, right? People would buy/sell the coin, if it had been proven in crypto-exchanges to be a valid coin and traded for years, so it really would have some "stable" value, which in turn comes into coins market cap. The value is extremely stable. I sold another coin for $1 a few weeks ago, and a few weeks before that I sold one for 50c, so there is a nice rate of return going. I suggest you get in right away. And whom are you calling a fraud? |
|
|
|
You bolded statement doesn't apply when there is potential manipulation due to a highly concentrated supply, only when that market value is the result of a credible market process. Which is exactly why serious investors who need to cover their ass* are going to stay the hell away from anything with such enormous red flags: because the market prices can't be trusted.
No doubt a few speculators will buy it, especially in a rising market, and there might be a bit of money to be made, but the big money won't go anywhere near it. The smell of fraud is Kryptonite to institutional investors, just as generalizethis astutely explained to you. Ignore at your peril.
If there were no other alternatives, then maybe, just maybe, the big money would hold their nose and go in. But that's nowhere near the reality. There are many alternatives. Dash won't make it past the first screen.
* "No one ever got fired for buying IBM." i.e. If as an asset manager, you buy something without enormous red flags and it goes down, you too an intelligent risk and it didn't pay off. If you ignore the enormous red flags and, you are an idiot and you get fired or sued.
And this goes for any coin, I don't even know if bitcoin is an exception in this, this is how the virtual currencies are. If you think Bitcoin is bad then Dash is 100x worse. I shouldn't even need to explain why, but if I do just take a look at this thread. That's really the point. When someone is surveying the market and looking for reasonable investments, they can find ones with far, far less in the way of red flags than Dash. If anything gets rejected on the basis of reputation and fraud risk, and many will, that will certainly include Dash. The Dash leadership pretty much knows this which is why they keep changing names. It makes sense to at least try to get away from the past that way, but it won't work. Markets do choose the coins, they choose the coins where there are the highest market caps and value for trading and margins And why? again money talks. Basically virtual currency market cap = trust of coinYes please buy smoothcoin! It has a premined supply of one billion coins and I just sold one the other day for $1 = market cap $1 billion, right? People would buy/sell the coin, if it had been proven in crypto-exchanges to be a valid coin and traded for years, so it really would have some "stable" value, which in turn comes into coins market cap. |
|
|
|
You bolded statement doesn't apply when there is potential manipulation due to a highly concentrated supply, only when that market value is the result of a credible market process. Which is exactly why serious investors who need to cover their ass* are going to stay the hell away from anything with such enormous red flags: because the market prices can't be trusted.
No doubt a few speculators will buy it, especially in a rising market, and there might be a bit of money to be made, but the big money won't go anywhere near it. The smell of fraud is Kryptonite to institutional investors, just as generalizethis astutely explained to you. Ignore at your peril.
If there were no other alternatives, then maybe, just maybe, the big money would hold their nose and go in. But that's nowhere near the reality. There are many alternatives. Dash won't make it past the first screen.
* "No one ever got fired for buying IBM." i.e. If as an asset manager, you buy something without enormous red flags and it goes down, you too an intelligent risk and it didn't pay off. If you ignore the enormous red flags and, you are an idiot and you get fired or sued.
And this goes for any coin, I don't even know if bitcoin is an exception in this, this is how the virtual currencies are. If you think Bitcoin is bad then Dash is 100x worse. I shouldn't even need to explain why, but if I do just take a look at this thread. That's really the point. When someone is surveying the market and looking for reasonable investments, they can find ones with far, far less in the way of red flags than Dash. If anything gets rejected on the basis of reputation and fraud risk, and many will, that will certainly include Dash. The Dash leadership pretty much knows this which is why they keep changing names. It makes sense to at least try to get away from the past that way, but it won't work. Markets do choose the coins, they choose the coins where there are the highest market caps and value for trading and margins And why? again money talks. Basically virtual currency market cap = trust of coin |
|
|
|
You bolded statement doesn't apply when there is potential manipulation due to a highly concentrated supply, only when that market value is the result of a credible market process. Which is exactly why serious investors who need to cover their ass* are going to stay the hell away from anything with such enormous red flags: because the market prices can't be trusted.
No doubt a few speculators will buy it, especially in a rising market, and there might be a bit of money to be made, but the big money won't go anywhere near it. The smell of fraud is Kryptonite to institutional investors, just as generalizethis astutely explained to you. Ignore at your peril.
If there were no other alternatives, then maybe, just maybe, the big money would hold their nose and go in. But that's nowhere near the reality. There are many alternatives. Dash won't make it past the first screen.
* "No one ever got fired for buying IBM." i.e. If as an asset manager, you buy something without enormous red flags and it goes down, you too an intelligent risk and it didn't pay off. If you ignore the enormous red flags and, you are an idiot and you get fired or sued.
And this goes for any coin, I don't even know if bitcoin is an exception in this, this is how the virtual currencies are. |
|
|
|
You know that investors/corporations only talk money. As long as they make the money they don't care if somebody else has some funds or any other stuff for that matter and that's the cold fact.
There are a thousand coins and no reason to think that Dash is the way to "make the money". If they're going to look beyond Bitcoin at all (a long shot to begin with) they're going to be very, very selective. I don't see Dash with its baggage making the cut. There could be several coins that could be selected because of only their current market cap (money talks), which reflects the trust of any coin.But currently bitcoin has the most trust of course. I hope lot's of coins would be added to example (NYSE) trading posts.. |
|
|
|
An astute investor will never touch Dash. The targeted audience is the simple minded individual buying the all curing snake oil.
You know that investors/corporations only talk money. As long as they make the money they don't care if somebody else has some funds or any other stuff for that matter and that's the cold fact.
It's a cold rationalization. |
|
|
|
Privacy should be inherent at the protocol level, not attempted as an added feature
Why? Because mathematically proven 'good crypto' is preferable to Dash's 'bad crypto.' https://downloads.getmonero.org/whitepaper_review.pdfYou can't simply glue privacy onto a Bitcoin-like transparent protocol/blockchain. A house is only as strong as its foundation. And why would this matter, Windows was built on top of DOS, and still it's the most widest used OS, and that's only one example. Windows is not the most widely used OS for FinTech infrastructure. Are you saying Dash is good enough for consumers, because it is the DOS of crypto? You based this FinTech infrastructure claim on what? (oh yeah, and please take into account that there are hypervizors under there nowadays). And the end users of Fintech they use what OS mostly? I guess it would be Windows. So what's really wrong with it if everybody uses it? |
|
|
|
Privacy should be inherent at the protocol level, not attempted as an added feature
Why? Because mathematically proven 'good crypto' is preferable to Dash's 'bad crypto.' https://downloads.getmonero.org/whitepaper_review.pdfYou can't simply glue privacy onto a Bitcoin-like transparent protocol/blockchain. A house is only as strong as its foundation. And why would this matter, Windows was built on top of DOS, and still it's the most widest used OS, and that's only one example. |
|
|
|
That's exactly the point.
Corporations and presidents have plenty of critics calling them out when what they do is seen as wrong, do they not?
Yes there are, but you know what, you can't satisfy every person out there, there are always critics and different thinkers, that's the way life is... But that's the freedom of speech, which is great! I don't know exactly what Bill Gates told IBM, investors, etc. Let's stick with what we do know -- about Dash -- and that's referenced in the first post here and subsequent discussion.
We can leave digging into Microsoft to the dozens or hundreds of lawyers, writers and journalists who have investigated it over the decades. Why should Dash get a pass from the same scrutiny
This is exactly my point, we don't know the future of this yet. We certainly know dash's past even though they keep changing the name on us. And if you think institutional investors (whom dash will need to get to their moon objective) are going to look past shadiness, you need to think more clearly on the subject. "You want me to trust your assertion that you accidentally mined 2 million coins and didn't relaunch to validate your claim of a fair launch?" says Institutional Investor. "But it was an accident!" says Evan. "Get out of my office." says Institutional Investor. That's one way of looking at it and there are several others, you certainly are entitled to that. But there are also other ways of looking at it, for one there's the matter of inventors compensation (see law discussions on this). If you claim it's fraud, some other could claim it's inventors compensation and there's nothing wrong with that one. That's the thing that kickstarts projects keeps inventor happy and motivated to develop the product and so on... There are several inventors of software products that are rich as hell. I'm not envy of them, they certainly earned it.... That's a faulty comparison because inventors and corporations don't accidentally give themselves a huge payoff and then claim that it was fairly launched--doing that sort of thing during an IPO would land you in hot water. There seems to be a cognitive dissonance when I say that the problem is that he gave himself a payoff (accidentally) , but also claims it was a fair launch. If Evan had just given himself a payoff, but never claimed that the coin wasn't insta or fast-mined there wouldn't be a problem. At least I wouldn't have a problem with it. But as it stands, it looks like he's bating people into one perception of the coin, and then when investors find out, they either get out or play a (conscious or unconscious) game of greater fool and hope that others on the outside will rationalize it the same way they have to because they are stuck with their own (conscious or unconscious) buyer's remorse. Smooth did a public service with this thread, sorry it ruins the gameplan. You know that investors/corporations only talk money. As long as they make the money they don't care if somebody else has some funds or any other stuff for that matter and that's the cold fact. It's a cold rationalization. Good luck finding greater fools.  I would add, that if you knew or had a hunch that putting 1 dollar into stocks would grow in a few days to 10 dollars, wouldn't you take it? As long as it's legal of course. I know I would and would be tempting to invest more, for example 100 dollars that would be 1000 dollars.. but that's only my opinion, if this makes a person a fool then so be it, but he/she would be a rich fool =) |
|
|
|
That's exactly the point.
Corporations and presidents have plenty of critics calling them out when what they do is seen as wrong, do they not?
Yes there are, but you know what, you can't satisfy every person out there, there are always critics and different thinkers, that's the way life is... But that's the freedom of speech, which is great! I don't know exactly what Bill Gates told IBM, investors, etc. Let's stick with what we do know -- about Dash -- and that's referenced in the first post here and subsequent discussion.
We can leave digging into Microsoft to the dozens or hundreds of lawyers, writers and journalists who have investigated it over the decades. Why should Dash get a pass from the same scrutiny
This is exactly my point, we don't know the future of this yet. We certainly know dash's past even though they keep changing the name on us. And if you think institutional investors (whom dash will need to get to their moon objective) are going to look past shadiness, you need to think more clearly on the subject. "You want me to trust your assertion that you accidentally mined 2 million coins and didn't relaunch to validate your claim of a fair launch?" says Institutional Investor. "But it was an accident!" says Evan. "Get out of my office." says Institutional Investor. That's one way of looking at it and there are several others, you certainly are entitled to that. But there are also other ways of looking at it, for one there's the matter of inventors compensation (see law discussions on this). If you claim it's fraud, some other could claim it's inventors compensation and there's nothing wrong with that one. That's the thing that kickstarts projects keeps inventor happy and motivated to develop the product and so on... There are several inventors of software products that are rich as hell. I'm not envy of them, they certainly earned it.... That's a faulty comparison because inventors and corporations don't accidentally give themselves a huge payoff and then claim that it was fairly launched--doing that sort of thing during an IPO would land you in hot water. There seems to be a cognitive dissonance when I say that the problem is that he gave himself a payoff (accidentally) , but also claims it was a fair launch. If Evan had just given himself a payoff, but never claimed that the coin wasn't insta or fast-mined there wouldn't be a problem. At least I wouldn't have a problem with it. But as it stands, it looks like he's bating people into one perception of the coin, and then when investors find out, they either get out or play a (conscious or unconscious) game of greater fool and hope that others on the outside will rationalize it the same way they have to because they are stuck with their own (conscious or unconscious) buyer's remorse. Smooth did a public service with this thread, sorry it ruins the gameplan. You know that investors/corporations only talk money. As long as they make the money they don't care if somebody else has some funds or any other stuff for that matter and that's the cold fact. |
|
|
|
That's exactly the point.
Corporations and presidents have plenty of critics calling them out when what they do is seen as wrong, do they not?
Yes there are, but you know what, you can't satisfy every person out there, there are always critics and different thinkers, that's the way life is... But that's the freedom of speech, which is great! I don't know exactly what Bill Gates told IBM, investors, etc. Let's stick with what we do know -- about Dash -- and that's referenced in the first post here and subsequent discussion.
We can leave digging into Microsoft to the dozens or hundreds of lawyers, writers and journalists who have investigated it over the decades. Why should Dash get a pass from the same scrutiny
This is exactly my point, we don't know the future of this yet. We certainly know dash's past even though they keep changing the name on us. And if you think institutional investors (whom dash will need to get to their moon objective) are going to look past shadiness, you need to think more clearly on the subject. "You want me to trust your assertion that you accidentally mined 2 million coins and didn't relaunch to validate your claim of a fair launch?" says Institutional Investor. "But it was an accident!" says Evan. "Get out of my office." says Institutional Investor. That's one way of looking at it and there are several others, you certainly are entitled to that. But there are also other ways of looking at it, for one there's the matter of inventors compensation (see law discussions on this). If you claim it's fraud, some other could claim it's inventors compensation and there's nothing wrong with that one. That's the thing that kickstarts projects keeps inventor happy and motivated to develop the product and so on... There are several inventors of software products that are rich as hell. I'm not envy of them, they certainly earned it.... |
|
|
|
That's exactly the point.
Corporations and presidents have plenty of critics calling them out when what they do is seen as wrong, do they not?
Yes there are, but you know what, you can't satisfy every person out there, there are always critics and different thinkers, that's the way life is... But that's the freedom of speech, which is great! I don't know exactly what Bill Gates told IBM, investors, etc. Let's stick with what we do know -- about Dash -- and that's referenced in the first post here and subsequent discussion.
We can leave digging into Microsoft to the dozens or hundreds of lawyers, writers and journalists who have investigated it over the decades. Why should Dash get a pass from the same scrutiny
This is exactly my point, we don't know the future of this yet. |
|
|
|
I don't know much, but I would say that the inventor/implementor of a NEW technology is entitled to his/her share of the profits/winnings, wouldn't you agree? Sure, just be honest and transparent about it. [ANN] [DASH] Dash | First anonymous coin | 50% mined first day by insidersAnd don't claim the coins have been "redistributed by the market" when there is no possible way you can prove that, or that it was an "accident" when actions on that day, and contemporaneous statements by those involved such as illodin suggest otherwise. Given clear and honest disclosure, if people want in, they want in. Fair enough. Of course, given that there hasn't been that kind of disclosure for over a year, with many people getting involved based on false, misleading, or hidden information, I'm not sure you can erase the fraud after the fact. What's done is done. Corporates do this behind our backs and so do startups and the US president? =D, I'm not saying it's right, but we do have to live in the real world thou.. If I remember correctly Bill Gates didn't even have the OS ready when he sold it to investors, was this false, misleading or hidden information, or just good business? And so in in time everything comes into the light and there truth has to be told what ever it is... |
|
|
|
Update: The latest cargo cult dogma declares the Dash insta-mine to be OK, because 1) it's all been re-distributed 2) Bytecoin did it too Nevermind that It is impossible to know -- in both cases -- how the coins were or weren't redistributed, especially if we believe the anonymity works, so this is a baseless claim.
As far as rationalization skills go, Tash and illodim get a D minus. Just in case there's someone who doesn't already know - Bytecoin was mined 82% before it was publicly announced. When the insiders hold 82% of the coin there's ever gonna be it's pretty easy to pump it. And about Bytecoin being anonymous: Doesn't count as anonymous because 80%+ of the utxoset is owned by entities who mined them before it became public and global, which means that those entities can deanonymise pretty much all future transactions.
Marketcap is irrelevant as it's easily inflated (doubly so when all you have to do is slightly bump the price due to the massive amount that's already emitted).
Those coins mined early have all been sold and redistributed already (coin is 3 years old and dumped heavy early on) it's the same as the 2 million Dash, no worries at all, clear sailing. I don't know much, but I would say that the inventor/implementor of a NEW technology is entitled to his/her share of the profits/winnings, wouldn't you agree? Isn't that how it works in the real corporate world? You build a new startup in the hopes of a profit and investors investing in your technology and your inventions get out there... But what do I know.. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
