Masternodes are owned by people, which means the distribution of power, fees, or whatever else you morons layer on them can't be distributed in a trustlessly decentralized way, but nice attempt to muddy the waters using the same semantics that separate a premine from an instamine. So you are now admitting that ownership isn't decentralized, but you can technically claim that the masternodes are? Or am I misreading your shillspeak? I don't have trouble reading Sylvia Plath or Nietzsche, but half-truths dressed up as technical jargon are a little under my pay-grade, so maybe you could just say it like a normal person and not one trying to hide something.

And I won't lose any sleep knowing that building a cryptosystem using the trust model is just layering (unnecessarily so) the same BS that inspired people like Satoshi to invent Bitcoin--unless you're saying you can't trust Bitcoin's coinbase either, are you?

I'm trying to figure out why anyone would trust you and Evan's defenders not to have instamined 30%, kept it, and used the rewards to buy more masternodes--but what really confuses me is why the people who would be dumb enough to trust a bunch of cryptoanarchist's posers wouldn't just use one of the many trust systems that banks and software companies will be advertising with established brands and decades, if not centuries, of experience--my guess is that your plan is to attempt to be just cryptoanarchist enough to fool early adopters who will be reading posts like this and say the exact thing I'm saying, "This is about the biggest pile of BS in the cryptosphere. How does anyone fall for this shit?"

But keep on throwing decentralized and Satoshi's dream out there--though I'm fairly certain that you are only netting near sighted speculators with that bait, and anyone who manages to do the least bit of due diligence is swimming for better waters. BTW, does Amanda realize her reputation is being used as bait? Maybe you should warn her Tok or do really believe your slight-of-hand buzzworded info-graphics meant to wow the dull witted, the research handicapped, or theoretically challenged? I mean, "If it's in an info-graph, it must be true? Right?"

Also, did you just give up on trying to prove that there isn't a trustless way to verify dash's masternode distribution? Let me guess, you're gonna try to say that a way that can be easily gamed by market manipulation proves that the nodes are being sold, the same false flag logic that you used to say the instamine was redistributed? Isn't that how it works? "See this graph of coins being sold and masternodes disappearing, which proves that there's redistribution!" Sure it does, if we assume the instaminers are honest, that no one ever manipulates markets, that masternodes fees can't be leveraged for more masternodes while selling a percentage for profit--sure, if all those things work exactly the way you explain to noobs, then you can call dash decentralized--I'll be waiting for your usual misdirection and scatterbrained explanations.

Or maybe you can just ignore the neon elephant in the room waving sparklers and singing, "God save the King, Evan reign supreme, take my next of kin and what's left of my Liberty!"

I like how he (conveniently) leaves out trustless and decentralized, which you need unless you're trying to create the exact same system cryptosystem were built to disrupt, not that there's anything wrong with that, just seems kind of pointless.

Also, Toky, if you  knew better, you'd realize that public blockchain can be replaced with coinbase and still hold true, unless you think math is voodoo or witchcraft.

I like how your examples are a coin that can't deliver on its promises and a coin that has yet to show it can deliver on its promises. My guess is your "research" is promises + marketcap = good coin.

How do you trustlessly verify masternode operators aren't using the fees they collect (or market manipulation) to increase the number of masternodes they hold? Again, in a trustless manner that doesn't depend on humans acting in good faith, best intentions, or the presumption that these motives can be trusted, as the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and the presumption of good intentions is just a road sign along the way.

Keep it simple, if you can? I don't feel like wading through more faulty argumentation.

Using a trust argument, "If you trust these graphs show that the nodes aren't being bought by those who seek to manipulate the market and buy more nodes and at a cheaper price (while making a side profit from selling), then dash isn't oligarchy."

This is a huge logic fail, and illustrates how far those in the dash hierarchy are out of step with the purpose of cryptosystems. Any cryptosystem that fails to verify its purpose in an objective and trustless way fails to offer anything more than the old world ideas that  new world (information age) systems were designed to replace. This fact is why dash can do no more than advertise itself as "new money," Satoshi's dream," "IOM", ect. ect., this is the poser at work trying to fool the uninitiated with surface instead of substance, intimations instead of white papers, promises of moon beams instead of the seeds of revolution.

I smell projection.

Actually, and this insight is free of charge, I'm an INTJ and am more motivated by being right than anything else--you can look up the personality type and read for yourself that money isn't much of a motivator for people like myself. I suspect that some people are motivated out of a sense of duty and fair play also--though I'm not discounting that some are motivated by money, though I doubt they could maintain the type of continual back and forth, correcting faulty logic, pointing out holes in designs and argumentation, ect., that goes with a Free Open Source project such as Monero without having a better motive than greed. But you're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to correct it, enjoy correcting it, and point out the flaw of projecting your own motives onto others (if that happens to be the case). It's a big world with many types of personalities, and I know this is tough, some people's motives will be as strange to you as another world if you ever stopped and considered their reasoning without the restrictions of myopia.  

Though, again, is anyone pointing out a flaw in Monero or an intention to scam by analyzing motives without evidence to back up their assertions?

Are you drunk? I make a criticism that dash is fundamentally broken and you assert (I think) that I should clone it? Why would anyone clone a coin that they maintain is broken? Is this a new form of dash logic?

I think you have me confused with cryptohunter, who believes that dash should just be cloned and launched fairly without the taint of an instamine. I'm the one who is asserting that dash is fundamentally flawed because you can't trustlessly verify that it is nothing but an oligarchy. Again, the main problem isn't that dash was instamined (that only exasperates the problem), the main problem is layering functions on nodes and giving them fees, which is a two-fold problem as, through the power of compound interest, current node holders can continually buy more and more nodes, and adding onto the layer of functions that nodes perform creates a power and economic centralization that is essentially (you guessed it) an oligarchy--unless you've figured out a way to verify trustlessly that this can't happen, have you?

So basically you're pointing out that your rambling is off-topic? Because I don't see anything in your post that could be construed as proof of an intentional miner crippling or that that indeed affects the coin, maybe you need a refresher on what you need to do? At this point, I'll probably have to post it every other post as you and your buddies seem easily distracted.

Where is noobtrader to acknowledge that his wrong assertion has been adequately corrected in the last half dozen posts? I'd hate to think he just randomly tosses in a troll grenade, leaves, and then does it all over again a few weeks later.

So you can verify that the 2 million that were mined in 2 days weren't done so purposely? Sure you can.

The only way dash is changing the world is filling up BCT space with spam that ignores dash's scammine, ignores dash design flaws (such as X11, masternodes, darksend, governance model, ect.), and ignores the attempts of the dash hypesters to distract from these flaws with calls for everyone to trust Evan, because at the end of the day you didn't do the one thing you are supposed to do in crypto, which is build a system that works trustlessly.

LOL, just fucking lol! So the Bitcoin block reward debate has taught you that everyone knows what is best for the network and will only vote for what is good for the network? Point being that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

But my larger point is that the system is set-up to continually reward a bunch of fatcats who do nothing but collect tax/fees/freedom-points on the backs of the dash poor who have little to no say in what they pay in fees, which if I have my say, will kill dash and shortly. So not exactly in your best interest to be claiming to be decentralized, when in fact you aren't, but you're still doing it despite the risk, so weird and contrary to your benevolent oligarch argument.

But look around, who do you see, a bunch of greedy snake-oil salesmen hoping (with little regard to reality) that no one notices the flaw of only idiots would pay you extra for centralized services that other coins do better and almost free. Your selling hype, the reality is there is no decentralization without a trustless way to verify that it is trustless, so your left pitching the illusion of decentralization, the illusion that a system that doesn't employ end-to-end privacy is good enough, the illusion that 11 algos are better than one, the illusion of a fair governance, the illusion that Evan is a genius, and the illusion that if you pitch it to the whole world and everyone would just leave you alone that the average joe is going to pass up the same illusions from a trusted bank or credit company with the backing of their local government and jump on board with a coin with a dubious past, a technology they probably don't understand and laundry detergent as a name.

I'll give you props for selling yourself the dream.

Logic fail. You're assuming that the owner has one node to reach your 10 year a new node, when the instaminers combined for 2million dash, so how many nodes does that buy?

2000, and in 10 years those nodes could buy 2000 more (barring the instaminers not manipulating the market to buy even more in that time period), but I'm sure you knew that and used math of convenience to validate your investment. Also, I'm sure that the masternode opperators will vote on things that benefit them the most to increase their holdings and the power that those nodes wield (why wouldn't they unless to feign decentralization), but you're on the benevolent dictator program and I'm sure it will all work out fine and dandy and nothing bad will come of this corruptible design, because humans never make things worse than they already are....

I realize you have to validate your investment by any means necessary, but pulling the jealousy card is shitcoin logic and fails the smell test.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1430839.msg14472374#msg14472374

Anything not to help the persistence of topdown systems as we move toward the information age.

Which it can't do given the reasons I've explained over and over again, It seems the dashnation is either oblivious to the facts or is purposely ignoring them.


I'll let you get back to your attempt to get more noobs entangled within the controlled environment of the dash network. Or are those links to actual arguments that don't correspond to dash's script?

Doesn't matter if you call them Freedom Points, they cause the same centralization.

Sigh. I can't make it any more simple--it's like they don't grasps that the nodes are bought with dash and earn the dash that can let the operator buy more nodes thus increasing centralization. Or that this is a problem because it requires trust to believe that this very scenario isn't happening.....you can lead a horse to water, but you can't explain the basics of cryptosystems without someway to expand its neural capabilities. Maybe nanabots or direct neural connections to expand brain capacity would help?

Feature? lol

Lets make this simple, though I wonder how much simpler I can make it?

Dash's nodes collect fees, those fees can be used to buy more nodes, which in turn collect more fees, which in turn can buy more nodes and on and on and on....

That should be the end of the argument for someone who actually gets why these systems are built to rely on mathematics rather than protocol, but Tok has proved over and over and over that he doesn't get this little tidbit. So I'll try to dumb it down even more than I have already--though I suspect Tok might just be playing dumb and wants to muddy the waters while he regroups for another game or graphic versus reality. But whatever.

Why this isn't a problem for Bitcoin and is a problem for dash is that dash's nodes are used for goverance, privacy, and an ever growing laundry list of features (probably to validate why they are collecting fees in the first place), it doesn't take a genius to realize that this fails as a trustless system because I must trust that the node holders aren't using their fees to buy more nodes, or engaging in market manipulation to gain more nodes at a cheaper price and thus increasing profit and power at the same time.

It would be severly naïve to think that this isn't happening, but luckily in the world of cryptosystems, these systems are supposed to work in a trustless manner, so I can safely say that dash fails to deliver decentralization because it cannot verify this claim trustlessly.

And why this is important follows, so keep reading....

Dash is useless because it can't work trustlessly, because credit card companies and banks can do the same thing, only better (looks at ripple). It's only trustlessly decentralized systems that can offer something banks and credit card companies can't--a way for instituions, individuals, and citizens to work in conjunction without the threat of manipulation and coercion. Any system that can't offer a trustless means (or at the very least a statistically acceptable risk of decentralization--though that is a risk that is time madated) is doomed because it fails at being of any more use than what already exist.

Now watch half the dashtards scramble to argue why it is decentralized, while the other half argues it doesn't need to be. Or maybe they can just mumble jealousy under their collective breath--though they may need to vote on that.

The only thing I'd suggest is that cloning a coin to teach scammers a lesson is scamming the investors out of a legitimate technology if that technology is pointless or the technology already exist in a more developed or more technology sound manner.

Just sayin'

Though I think more than a few people would like to teach scammers a lesson and it isn't a bad sales pitch--I'd probably buy a few undash if they were removed of the masterscam nodes.

Wow, just wow! So you don't really understand that A: Bitcoin doesn't aggregate coins through nodes like dash (which is the problem), 2. That where the node is located is of little importance, what's important is who controls/owns the node?

The point, again,


Nodes hold the power in the dash scheme and coins buy that power, which means if coins are aggregated through nodes, that power can continually grow in the hands of a few oligarchs.

But nice, non-applicable graphic to wow noobs and those who realize how absurd the insinuation is that qwizzie and other dash hypsters are trying to make.