And they're right--they also advise using one of the many GUIs and wallet generators too--doesn't mean that people are likely to follow that advice. I'd advice learning line command, boning up on cryptosystems and how they should be built and becoming an early adopter not a reactive speculator, but do you think people will listen to me?

So this is your narrative: that Monero has eschewed the pressure to build an official GUI over many, many months only to keep out those people who are demanding an official GUI before they can validate Monero as an investment--sorry to say I don't believe this is the case, but if it were, I'd tell those people they are pricing-in their demand. It's kind of like blaming Oculus Rift for their beta kits being cheaper than the for-consumer model--though for all anyone knows Monero won't budge when the official GUI hits and those people can see the consumer model in all its glory for the same price it is today (or even less, who knows?).

Is it? Because last time I checked there was a online wallet and most of the people who aren't comfortable with command line just keep there's on Polo.

The "bullies" are the only thing that keeps this from a circle jerk "Oh, Evan, such genius!" of like minded instminers and coin centralizers that make the Bitcoin Devs puke in their mouths whenever Satoshi's name is invoked as some sort of faux approval worthy Oxaccao's fake PM from Satoshi.

Thanks for #6 TaoOfCentralization https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1430839.msg14472374#msg14472374

Smooth or one of the other Devs can talk about what happened at the launch, but the lack of GUI is one of the least scammy things ever--who builds a scam and makes it only appeal to those who understand opensource or are comfortable with line command? That would immediately put your coin under the scrutiny of those most knowledgeable about coding, as they are the people most comfortable with line command--so not exactly a wise move if you're trying to scam people--kind of like making a wine and only selling it at wine competitions (if it's lousy, it's going to be apparent all the more quickly, and vocally so). The first thing every scam ever does is put out some bitcoin wallet, slap their name on it and say "Look how cool our wallet is? We must be legitimate, right?" The Monero Devs are wise to build the coin, then the wallet, and then market it.

I especially like that he just copy/pasted the title from https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=999886.0

No it's right, you just have to be able to read between the lines.

The odds of any coin reaching "moon" are near 0, but to choose one that has the extra fault lines of a poor implementation is beyond reason. This is why the dashers have to continually revamp their delusions/expectations on the airy promises of hypemasters churning out endless buzzwords in an attempt to throw back the curtain on the ducktaped instamined cardboard cutout of a moon lander that is dash. It's amazing what the imagination can fool itself into believing when the right mix of greed and ignorance isn't tempered by sobering rationality.

Sold.

If you loved ripple, you'll kind of like dash.

Seriously, it makes sense to hodl if you were in early and are holding a lot as you can have masternodes continually collect the fees from greater fools--most people don't fit this scenario, so most likely, no.

Nice try to change the subject after your failed accusation that Monero people invented the instamine phrase to dovetail dash into that inglorious and shabby category of coin's that fail the distribution test, but as anyone who knows even the tiniest bit about the history of encryption will point out, the NSA had their hand in the development of most early encryption, so pointing to their involvement in any modern encryption that has stood the test of time is like pointing to the USA's rocket program after WWII and saying it's part of a NEO-NAZI plot because, "Look at all the Germans!"

Does everyone in the dash community just throw shit against the wall and hope it sticks? Now that your instamine attack failed, you're on to the NSA, and now that that's failed, let me guess Monero Dice? Just an endless parade of BS. Here's a hint. If you can't make an accusation in a thread last past the first five two pages without being debunked, it's probably a waste of everyone's time.

Funny, Evan passing on end-to-end encryption to use the AFAIK equally bloated method of forcing privacy through his pay nodes--that sounds like his normal logic.

I tend to disagree here, as governments sometimes use blackmarkets to fund activities (such as arms deals for the enemy of my enemy, interaction with covert ops and drug money, intelligence and data for hire, ect.), so in a certain respect the government is beholden for the black markets survival to increase their black ops power, so it is really much more mutual in many cases than generally perceived and a delicate balance between the powers that be and the powers that be hidden--you could argue that a large government could crack down, but since these markets are mostly international, their reach and willingness to forgo the benefits would be tested. And yes, this doesn't mean it's free for everyone, but it also means that normal regulatory powers aren't usually the powers at play, but crime syndicates keeping the crooks in line--that's about as free as a market can get.

While I don't necessarily disagree with you, as the Monero Devs have been pretty up front and honest about everything from the GUI to the low probability of any coin (including XMR) being successful enough to overtake BTC let alone gold, fiat, ect.), we should be fair to the Dashers as our estimates of what happened with their instamine are based on a probable case that they probably feel is a worst case--though Evan working and being funded by the NSA would be my worst case for that scenario. So just using numbers and facts, what is the most coins that could been mined with the crippled miners and who could they have belonged to? The worst case being one entity who mined enough to break anonymity using the research from MRL1.

Huh, and here I thought the boys from Evolution and BTCe taught everyone that fungibility taint that easy.

I hate puns, but this was about as low-hanging fruit as calling a coin undeveloped because it doesn't have an official GUI.

And with that Tok has wasted more of my time with an empty reply in avoidance of a topic, but thanks for the wink, it makes the emptiness feel complete. Back to work. Today's round of correct the dastard is complete (you'll also notice that autocorrect knows what dashers are all about too   )

I'm looking at my tablet right now, but I don't see a register or a way to insert money.... Must only be on the new I pads.

I'd like to know how a centralized currency that doesn't employ end-to-end privacy plans on being digital cash? Or is that to straight forward of a question?

My guess is you'll post some pseudo-economic babble about the nature of money that misses the cypherpunk design initiative of being antifragile enough to disrupt the fiat/legacy system--so far every problem dash has is met with more centralization accompanied by decentralized/satoshi's-dream/techno-babble spiel and half-truths. I think the real problem with dash is that no one in dash (from the developers to cheer-leaders to the shills) knows how to build a crypto-system strong enough to even attempt disrupting the current system, so they do the next best thing, which is latch onto the latest buzzword tech and follow the market while pretending (in the smallest rhetorical way possible) to be beholden to the cypherpunk dream of a true disruptive currency built by and for the people--having centralization pushed down your throat while simultaneously raising the banner of "In Satoshi We Trust". In a word: POSERS.

And for the dashtard peanut gallery, I have a job, so I'm hardly stumped by Tok's rambling and empty chit-chat, just busy Tuesdays-Saturdays with things other than correcting your false assertions and shitcoin logic. But I'll do my best to keep up with the endless BS you can churn out with minimal mental effort.

You can respond to the criticisms that prompted your vacuous reply at any time. Or are you going to point to current market conditions to make a long term argument that dash can overcome its second rate privacy and centralization to achieve its promise of a decentralized cash?

My guess is you repost your long winded rant about the properties of money.

I think you confused today for tomorrow, the next day, and the day after that. I guess Evan isn't the only one in dash who doesn't think about  tomorrow.

#SEC #FINCEN #CENTRILIZATION #FUNGIBILITY

But thanks for acknowledging my valid technical points with a flippant contentless comment--though I think you forgot the  that you usually include as a reminder of how airy and pointless you are being.

Dash lacks the fungibility to be considered as cash

                                                    simple as that


(it may take you and the others in the dash community to catch up to the rest of us on that technical fact, but I'm sure as coins move up the marketcap board as dash moves down, you will eventually figure it out. But keep on thinking your slow groove down the ripple 2.0 path will get you some half-evolved version of cash. Some of us already figured out the start was everything, but it should be entertaining to see a bunch of loud purveyors of technobabble talk out both sides of their mouth as everyone else figures out the obvious: dash is centralized and isn't built to survive as cash, but a continuingly centralized processor of whatever current fad and buzz-speak Evan can cram down his cult of merry marketer's throats. )