That would be fine, but it contradicts what you said. There is minimal investment to operate a masternode ($5/month; possibly less). Massive amounts of coins are just being paid to people who had enough early coins for masternodes, without regard to any real investment in development or hardware.

This has nothing to do with mining, nor security. If you run a masternode, you are supposed to be providing a service, but as you explained for at least the first year of masternodes and continuing for an indefinite period going forward, the cost to provide the service has been negligible, reducing it to a redistribution scheme funneling coins to people with masternodes (and some have hundreds of nodes -- not surprising since as you say the cost to operate them is so low).

To avoid being a redistribution scheme, a masternode system would have the node earnings (at least most of the earnings; a small subsidy might be justified) coming from fees paid by people who actually use the service.

Thank you for mining.


Are you ready for AEON?

Great! Thank you for mining.

So what you are saying is that the masternodes are (and more importantly have been for the last year or more) a redistribution scheme that further concentrates coins with instaminers and early adopters, since their costs have been negligible. Later, possibly, costs will be higher and no one else will ever have the same opportunity.

Thank you for confirming that.

There wouldn't be any reason for anyone legitimate in the cryptocurrency space to be unhappy about criticism of the Dash scam and its advertising spam threads trying to rope in new investors to scam.

That said, we are all individual volunteers who do what we want. For example, I personally would not have posed for that picture, because I'd recognize it could be abused as a sort of endorsement of Evan, which I doubt was intended. I'm speak only for myself (unless, on rare occasion, stated otherwise, but that hasn't happened here).

Random fact:

Optimizing is not the same thing as exploiting an apparently-deliberately crippled miner. When dga started working on it, only the first of NoodleDoodle's fixes were done (though even that reduced any advantage significantly), which meant his early work on improving it did involve getting an advantage from that the remaining apparent crippling. What he did later with highly optimizing it, creating a GPU miner, etc. had nothing to do with any crippling.

45% plus another 10% going to wherever Evan and the other instaminers vote to send it.

Cats have 9 lives = 9 bounces?

Nice try but:

1. No one is attacking. I criticize the instamine because it was a dishonest scam, and I criticize Dash because it continues to scam investors by lying about the instamine, and its technology is described by recognized exports as very good either. But hey, you seem like a decent guy for the most part. Misguided with your spam threads, and obviously misled about Dash, but decent anyway.

2. The criticism of Dash is not baseless. Some of the basis is quoted below, but there is plenty more


Sorry, but as inconvenient as it might be for you or the ongoing Dash scam, all of my comments below are obviously factual, and fully backed up by sources, not half-truth, and not spin.

It is well known what happened.

1. Bytecoin was coin with promising new technology that was announced with 80%+ of the coins already mined.

2. Aside from the fact that it was 80%+ mined, none of the other aspects of the Bytecoin scam were known at the time.

3. Some community members discussed, originally on the Bytecoin thread, and then later on its own thread, the idea of relaunching Bytecoin with some minor tweaks (mostly slowing down the emission curve and adding a tail emission)

4. Some anonymous guy went and relaunched it

5. The anonymous guy wanted to introduce merged mining with Bytecoin which the rest of the community didn't want. There was a vote, and despite obvious sock puppetry (especially in hindsight) in favor of the merged mining, by some miracle the vote was rejected.

6. The anonymous guy started adding merged mining code anyway, at one point breaking the coin in the process (mining got completely stuck on the whole network).

7. The community met up on IRC and via PMs and decided to fork the repo to a community-controlled repo to prevent this from happening again.

8. At no time during this process was the issue of undertaking an independent effort to independently review and develop Bytecoin's code on the table. None of us had the time for it, nor did we set out to develop a new coin. It was all done strictly to remove the ninjamine/premine, slow down the emissions, and have community control over the repo to prevent any further rogue changes. The expectation was that any further changes would just be merged from Bytecoin, the way many coins merge changes from Bitcoin. Everyone involved including the people mining it, and later buying it, knew that it was (at that time) a minor fork of Bytecoin, and anything good or bad about Bytecoin would be inherited.

8. Later, this new coin started to became popular, and a formal effort was organized to develop and improve the code, led by the Monero core team. This included, among its first steps, discovering and removing the apparently-deliberately crippled mining-code stating 19 days after the original launch or 12 days after the repo fork and concluding either 10 or 14 days following that, depending on which commit you believe removed the last of any apparently-deliberate crippling.

The later of the two dates of the end of any apparently-deliberate crippling 33 days after launch, meaning approximately 825K coins had been mined, not 1.5 million as is incorrectly and dishonestly claimed by the OP: http://moneroblocks.info/search/50000

There is no evidence that anyone exploited the apparently-deliberately crippled minor prior to the first fix 19 days after launch, although it could have happened (most likely by the original developer who was "fired" by the community) on a relatively small scale. There was some documented exploitation of it (though not by the original developer) during the following 14 days. In any case the number of coins mined in this manner would be much less than even 825K.

The issue of the alleged "fast" mine has already been addressed on this thread here:


and here:


In fact, because of the tail emission (and coupled with the lack of any instamine whatsoever; blocks were precisely on schedule to the minute starting with block #5), Monero has one of the slowest overall emissions schedules of any of the major coins today (possible exception being DOGE, which also has a tail reward). Monero slow emissions will continue to distribute new coins long after Bitcoin, Dash, etc. have seen their emissions dwindle to insignificance (and eventually stop, but that takes much longer). Arguably this has already happened with Dash, since so many coins were created right up front (instamine) and the mining rewards have been cut so drastically thereafter to what is merely a trickle now.

Of course none of this should be surprising since the entire thread is dishonest trolling by a Dash supporter, in retaliation for calling out their instamine scam:


And with that

/thread

There is an online wallet and there have also been multiple GUI wallets since the first weeks and months for those who choose to use those, including the two that were developed for a bounty organized by the core team: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=589561.0

Since that time other GUI wallets have been developed and released, including lightWallet which is now on its second version and is prominently featutred on the project web site, again making it easily available for those who want to use it: http://getmonero.org/getting-started/choose

The focus of resources by the core team on other areas has not meant that GUIs were not available; they have been available almost since the original coin launch.

Of course none of this should be surprising because the entire thread is dishonest trolling by Dash supporters in retaliation for the honest criticism of their instamine scam and ongoing deception of investors about it:

The Dash instamine scam itself is off topic and there are better places to discuss it. However, since this thread was created by Dash supporter in retaliation for legitimate criticism of Dash by Monero supporters among many others, it is important to remind people about the context, lest they not understand that the entire thread is dishonest trolling:

I'm glad we now agree that the instamine was probably not accidental. Good decision! It was probably untenable to trying to scam new investors with the claim it was all a big accident and, "Whoops! I instamined again!".

For anyone following along

Just to correct you on one thing. The official GUI wallet has not been under active development for two years. The project was funded and started at the end of January. You can find more info here: https://forum.getmonero.org/9/work-in-progress/2476/the-official-qt-gui-project


Please tell us about your qualifications (or those of the experts on whom you are relying) to evaluate which commits are useless and which are not. Investors might want to know whether there is some substance to your accusations.

Just to correct you on one thing. The official GUI wallet is not postponed, it is under active development as stated in the project proposal. More here: https://forum.getmonero.org/9/work-in-progress/2476/the-official-qt-gui-project

If you are looking for other GUI wallets you can find them here: https://getmonero.org/getting-started/choose

What is scorex good for and what are you planning on doing with it?

That seems relevant to evaluating whether what Waves claims to plan to do with it is credible or not.

As usual, more made up nonsense from you.

Here is his quoted post, in its entirety:


Please show us where he indicates "intentionally" "unintentionally" or anything of the sort.


No, I did not make any such claim. Please read my posts. I cited his post (among others) as evidence that the term was in common use long before Monero existed.


LOL. There are probably hundreds if not thousands of references to the term that predate Monero, including threads about the Darkcoin [sic] instamine that predate Monero. Hell, many of them predate XCoin/Darkcoin/Dash too.

As usual, every time you write a post, it is complete nonsense. Not at all surprising because:

Apparently it didn't compile any better in this case, so that could just be the quality of the compiler, I'm not sure. I also don't remember if Pascal has ranges for floating point as it does for integers?

The issue with C has to do with the definition of sqrt() setting errno if the argument is negative and also handling NaN (and maybe -0) in very specific ways, that don't quite map exactly to what the hardware instruction does. I don't know how Pascal's SQRT is defined.

I absolutely agree about more structuring bringing advantages and disadvantages. For example, you can easily get better performance on math problems with very clear and obvious source code in Python despite it being a dog-slow interpreted language because it more structured and calling out to highly optimized math libraries, whereas in C the "clear and obvious" source code can trip over precise rules for low-level things things like aliasing, error conditions, overflows, etc. resulting in poor performance. You can also get dog-slow performance in Python too in other cases, of course.