That's the beauty of this Smooth and iCEBREAKER, you are doing everything for me! I went away for two hours and that was the best you could muster? I don't have to argue my case, with every post you guys make here you're proving it for me. Anyone with more than a high school education can see that.
You and your cronies have nothing but spin, innuendo and persistance.
Dash Nation has the truth, optimism, progress and decentralized technology.
Evan Duffield is a gentleman and a scholar, a visionary who makes mistakes like anyone else, but who is on another level when it comes to developing. His two year track record in Dash tells you that. He has fixed every one of Bitcoin's problems, and poises Dash well through its decentralized team, tech, governance and funding to be the digital cash that Satoshi envisioned, the Internet Of Money.
Keep posting. You betray your investment with every post. Every one knows where you're coming from, you're representing them through your demeanor everywhere you post.
I've been nothing but a gentleman to you guys as I'm representing Dash Nation.
As I see it, you have two choices:
1. Stay here, continue to act like schoolchildren. Let me deal with you accordingly, and watch the price of your investment plummet.
2. Leave, and allow Dash to continue defining ourselves, as you have had the pleasure of doing for two years.
Either way, you will not control the narrative about Dash.
I have you in checkmate, but you can't even see it! I can't wait to see where this goes...
Problem is that dash isn't decentralized and is poorly built, so your narrative is flawed from the start. You lost on the first move thanks to the instamine, choosing X11 as security, and not using end-to-end privacy to ensure privacy and fungibility. Dash has more in common with ripple than it does cash, so every time you make that claim, the facts lead you further and further into an indefensible position--hence why you can only shrill, "that's just like your opinion, man" or "If you can break it, break it!" when the facts are pointed out for everyone to see. I wrote the guide to shitcoiner's logic, so I know when it's being used.  |
|
|
|
Project Space Yacht  Monohull, catamaran, or trimaran? Yamato--refurbished in pimp my ride style (though I may keep a few guns for shooting space dragons and such)  |
|
|
|
I don't know why anyone gets bent out of shape over botnets--I hope someone builds a stuxnet-monero bot that infects every government computer in the world and donates the proceeds to anonymous and WikiLeaks and my personal project, PSY.
Would you tell us more about this PSY? Project Space Yacht |
|
|
|
|
I don't know why anyone gets bent out of shape over botnets--I hope someone builds a stuxnet-monero bot that infects every government computer in the world and donates the proceeds to anonymous and WikiLeaks and my personal project, PSY.
|
|
|
|
The constant false narrative by the people who present half facts half spin is a big reason Dash has been held back for the last 2 years It's actually very simple. There is a philosophy in crypto that alludes to the existence of an innate legitimising authority. Kind of like "these are the rules, if you follow them, you are legit and if you don't you're not and neither's your marketcap". It's bogus of course - for 2 reasons in particular: [1] - crypto is decentralised, there is no 'legitimising authority' neither explicit or implied other than the market [2] - crypto is unbacked money What the latter point means is that the tokens are worth exactly zip when they are created. Nor are they regulated, nor is there any “ethical dimension” to their creation (Unless people want to read their own ethical dimensions into it in which there'll be as many 'ethical dimensions' as observers). They are simply tokens that only have any value if the market says they have. The emission rate, who got how much, whether the dev changed the properties after launch doesn't matter SQUAT other than they are just another bunch of things to be priced in amongst everything else. Just as we’ve seen in this thread, they matter to more to some buyers and less to others (and for some still, they are an out and out religion). I didn't buy Dash because of a "fair launch". I couldn't care less about whether a coin had a fair launch or not unless I think it's going to affect its future value. For two years the same few conflicted trolls on bitcointalk have been attempting to convince me otherwise and for 2 years they've been proved wrong so I'm not exactly losing sleep over it. Markets always sort these things out because, unlike conflicted bitcointalk pseudo-religious crypto nutcase zealots, they take everything into account and price everything in. There is no black and white. No "legit" or "not legit". It is what it is and gets priced appropriately. Epic post, I'm in total accordance with this post Tok. TrolerrosSome guys try to explain that there are rules, or "good practice" and "bad practice", but there is NO regulation, who make the rules? -The market. (and for the moment Dash is #5 in marketcap.) That's one the most ignorant things I've ever read. The rules (if that's what you want to call them) are just standards to ensure that the cryptocurrency is antifragile enough to disrupt fiat and legacy banking. Dash fails at being decentralized, fails at privacy and fails at being fungible because the idiots who built it didn't and don't understand these standards and that they aren't required out of some petty authoritarian concept, but the only way a cryptosystem is strong enough to work for the people and not the government--some day you'll wake up and realize that you slowly built ripple 2.0, and I'll be there to tell you, "I told you so, dumbass." |
|
|
|
Same old iCEBREAKER trying to "control" the narrative about Dash through spin, innuendo and ad hominem attacks.
You are still doing us a service by bumping this pro-Dash thread front and centre in the Altcoin discussion board.
All great things started small. You have to start somewhere as an organization. The exciting thing about Dash is that the technology exists to bring a true decentralized digital money to the public, outside of government control.
This is what Satoshi envisioned when he created Bitcoin. Unfortunately, it's fallen victim to centralization of funding sources and influence. The tug-of-war over development is just starting for it. The ability to make key decisions that improve the coin is key, and Dash has it with the DGBB (Decentralized Governance by Blockchain), with unbiased funding sources.
We are a young small coin with great technology that's been misunderstood because of lies and deception. We are growing though, and more people see the Dash difference each day. I have many positive conversations on Twitter, and I slowly see the perception changing.
Join Dash Nation and help us create the Internet of Money! Join a culture of positivity amid all of this negativity that consumes this space.
Dash Lead Developer Evan Duffield Discusses Evolution With The Daily Decrypt:
There you go invoking Satoshi again. Satoshi envisioned a decentralized currency built on solid cryptography--dash is neither of these things. It's an instamined fraud built on the fault line that is X11 and the second rate anonymity method darksend. It created centralization through an instamine and exasperated it by creating pay-nodes that centralize power further. It's poor design, built on the back of a poor launch. It is? And to what do we owe that pearl of wisdom? You're better than this, bring facts to the conversation, I am. X11 is insecure because if one of the chains is exploited then the whole thing is garbage as the attack can go on so long that you simply can't remove the broken chain and roll back to a pre-broken state. Darksend is second rate because it doesn't use the end-to-end principle to achieve anonymity. Pay-nodes further centralization when a premine or instamine has occurred and there is no way to verify redistribution of the already centralized distribution--this applies to dash because of the instamine that constitutes 30% of current emissions mined in the first two days of launch. Need me to explain any more facts? Has x-11 been broken? Break it, and then we'll talk. Can you track an 8 round Darksend transaction? Track it, and then we'll talk. Can you prove that masternodes (which are incentivized full nodes that anyone can run) are centralized? Prove it, and then we'll talk. You do know that once it happens and one can prove it, that that's that--the end. Some of us research the tech before we mistakenly plop down our hard earned money on badly built systems. Though I'm guessing that most of the dashers don't have the theoretical capabilities to realize the boat with the hole in it, is going to sink. The onus is on the cryptosystem builder to show that his or her system is built on solid mathematical and cryptographic principles. There's a reason that the best minds in the room make fun of dash and it isn't because they're jealous or feel threatened--as much as dashtards would like to make that narrative the staple diet they feed to greater fools. |
|
|
|
Same old iCEBREAKER trying to "control" the narrative about Dash through spin, innuendo and ad hominem attacks.
You are still doing us a service by bumping this pro-Dash thread front and centre in the Altcoin discussion board.
All great things started small. You have to start somewhere as an organization. The exciting thing about Dash is that the technology exists to bring a true decentralized digital money to the public, outside of government control.
This is what Satoshi envisioned when he created Bitcoin. Unfortunately, it's fallen victim to centralization of funding sources and influence. The tug-of-war over development is just starting for it. The ability to make key decisions that improve the coin is key, and Dash has it with the DGBB (Decentralized Governance by Blockchain), with unbiased funding sources.
We are a young small coin with great technology that's been misunderstood because of lies and deception. We are growing though, and more people see the Dash difference each day. I have many positive conversations on Twitter, and I slowly see the perception changing.
Join Dash Nation and help us create the Internet of Money! Join a culture of positivity amid all of this negativity that consumes this space.
Dash Lead Developer Evan Duffield Discusses Evolution With The Daily Decrypt:
There you go invoking Satoshi again. Satoshi envisioned a decentralized currency built on solid cryptography--dash is neither of these things. It's an instamined fraud built on the fault line that is X11 and the second rate anonymity method darksend. It created centralization through an instamine and exasperated it by creating pay-nodes that centralize power further. It's poor design, built on the back of a poor launch. It is? And to what do we owe that pearl of wisdom? You're better than this, bring facts to the conversation, I am. X11 is insecure because if one of the chains is exploited then the whole thing is garbage as the attack can go on so long that you simply can't remove the broken chain and roll back to a pre-broken state. Darksend is second rate because it doesn't use the end-to-end principle to achieve anonymity. Pay-nodes further centralization when a premine or instamine has occurred and there is no way to verify redistribution of the already centralized distribution--this applies to dash because of the instamine that constitutes 30% of current emissions mined in the first two days of launch. Need me to explain any more facts? |
|
|
|
Same old iCEBREAKER trying to "control" the narrative about Dash through spin, innuendo and ad hominem attacks.
You are still doing us a service by bumping this pro-Dash thread front and centre in the Altcoin discussion board.
All great things started small. You have to start somewhere as an organization. The exciting thing about Dash is that the technology exists to bring a true decentralized digital money to the public, outside of government control.
This is what Satoshi envisioned when he created Bitcoin. Unfortunately, it's fallen victim to centralization of funding sources and influence. The tug-of-war over development is just starting for it. The ability to make key decisions that improve the coin is key, and Dash has it with the DGBB (Decentralized Governance by Blockchain), with unbiased funding sources.
We are a young small coin with great technology that's been misunderstood because of lies and deception. We are growing though, and more people see the Dash difference each day. I have many positive conversations on Twitter, and I slowly see the perception changing.
Join Dash Nation and help us create the Internet of Money! Join a culture of positivity amid all of this negativity that consumes this space.
Dash Lead Developer Evan Duffield Discusses Evolution With The Daily Decrypt:
There you go invoking Satoshi again. Satoshi envisioned a decentralized currency built on solid cryptography--dash is neither of these things. It's an instamined fraud built on the fault line that is X11 and the second rate anonymity method darksend. It created centralization through an instamine and exasperated it by creating pay-nodes that centralize power further. It's poor design, built on the back of a poor launch. |
|
|
|
This is the highest compliment I could receive. I'm glad I stirred your passions. I'm doing the same for Dash Nation, through positivity. Try that some time. Yes, you are an inspiration to all aspiring shitcoiners, if you keep the tone positive and the expectation moon, no one will notice the bad launch and bad tech, you can all hold hands and sing kumbaya as the boat that shit built sinks into the bottom of the shitcoin seas. You are positively a grade-A tool. So get back to your little instamined fabrication and try and herd some more greater fools onto Evan's shitboat--the more the merrier (until the gasps start--"this is what? But I thought it was fairly and transparently launched and innovative! And now I find out it's a shitcoin built on empty promises and misleading information!") |
|
|
|
And you seem to be stuck in a groove with your argument, you're the only one claiming to give a damn about the distributin and can't come up with a single example of fair distribution. Of course you can't, they don't exist and you can't come up with proof anyone has an amount of Dash you deem unfair. You missed the boat, cry somewhere else about it, so did I and it doesn't bother me one bit. All you're looking at is the bottom line, If you had any sense you'd see what's happening with crypto uptake and wouldn't be wasting your time trolling the ancient history of one coin you feel is a competitor to another, blockchain is yesterdays news.
How many shitcoin logic points are you gonna use? Coin jealousy? Missed the boat? Why not FUD and few others? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1430839.msg14472374#msg14472374Dash's distribution, thanks to masternodes using dash as collateral, make its early emissions a current decentralization topic--you don't like it, pick a coin with a better launch and design. And yes, Monero has a better distribution in both areas. And straight coin distribution, most any POW coin that you can hit with a dart and a blindfold have better distribution. You can claim other coins have crappy distribution all you want, but it will never excuse one of the crappiest distribution fails in cryptocurrency's history, whether it's two years or ten years after the fact, especially when those coins determine who controls the nodes. Let's get away from all this pie-in-the-sky-BS-I-think-we-can-I-think-we-can and talk about a fundamentally bad design. Just call it ripple 2.0 and get the centralization circus underway. Calling this shitcoin decentralized and fairly distributed should be the stuff of laughter, not serious debate. In what world does a guy who launches a coin, after a failed launch, forget to launch again rather than assure he did everything in his power to distribute the coins fairly? Come on! Nobody is this dumb. |
|
|
|
...
Your wrong, the facts indicate that dash is most likely one of the most centralized coins in existence, barring ICOs --just because that can't be made with 100% assurance, hardly makes the fact that it is the most likely outcome opinion. Again, trustless systems should be made as trustless as possible in all regards and not force the user to trust in the honesty of salesmen and developers.
Calling the most likely scenario opinion misses that I'm pointing out the most likely scenario based on the available facts, and mining 30% of the available supply in two days is what leads to this scenario, not any bias on my part. I can just as easily say, prove dash is decentralized and have you unable to prove it one way or the other, but we can certainly come to likely possibility given the facts.
That might as well be comparing apples and oranges, all forms of distribution are crap to some degree and we can't even quantify fairness but pretty much every crypto is in a fairly narrow band of high crappyness. Can Bitcoin turn around tomorrow and say they're going to up the total supply to 21 billion so everyone can start with a fair share? Not fecking likely but if it made obvious sense for Dash to do something like that it could, the governance really does work that well. Pardoning yourself with the "everyone is crappy" card hardly excuses you have one of the worst launches of any POW and expecting people to not criticize it, or even accept it, as par for the course misses that most coins did a better job and have a more trustless model for decentralization--now couple that with the suspicious actions by Evan, you have to be more than a little chimerical to think more than a few people will think the worst possibility is the most likely one--that Evan intentionally instamined 2million coins and still controls most of them, if not more through masternode control. I'm comparing dash's launch to other coins that claim no premine or ICO, and it doesn't compare well--no amount of "no distribution is perfect" talk will make it a valid dismissal unless coins go back in time and have as terrible or worse launches. You don't get to change the standards to fit the circumstances of your investment. And yet again, prove it. Unsubstantiated allegations are easy and they're worth nothing. When you've done that show me a coin you think is fairly distributed, PoW is out from the start and even the most screwed up fiat system if way ahead of any crypto. Prove it isn't in Evan's control. The point is that someone mined 2 million coins in two days and that that 2 million is 30% of the current distribution, asking me to trust the guy that said it was an accident (but didn't relaunch, After he just relaunched) is more trust than I'll grant to a system that is supposed to use common methods to assure trustlessness. Dash's launch failed and continues to fail at offering the best odds of the system being decentralized. It's like you guys don't even understand how cryptosystems are supposed to work: trustless and decentralized<--notice the absence of an or. |
|
|
|
...
Your wrong, the facts indicate that dash is most likely one of the most centralized coins in existence, barring ICOs --just because that can't be made with 100% assurance, hardly makes the fact that it is the most likely outcome opinion. Again, trustless systems should be made as trustless as possible in all regards and not force the user to trust in the honesty of salesmen and developers.
Calling the most likely scenario opinion misses that I'm pointing out the most likely scenario based on the available facts, and mining 30% of the available supply in two days is what leads to this scenario, not any bias on my part. I can just as easily say, prove dash is decentralized and have you unable to prove it one way or the other, but we can certainly come to likely possibility given the facts.
That might as well be comparing apples and oranges, all forms of distribution are crap to some degree and we can't even quantify fairness but pretty much every crypto is in a fairly narrow band of high crappyness. Can Bitcoin turn around tomorrow and say they're going to up the total supply to 21 billion so everyone can start with a fair share? Not fecking likely but if it made obvious sense for Dash to do something like that it could, the governance really does work that well. Pardoning yourself with the "everyone is crappy" card hardly excuses dash; it has one of the worst launches of any POW, and expecting people to not criticize it, or even accept it, as par for the course misses that most coins did a better job and have a more trustless model for decentralization--now couple that with the suspicious actions by Evan, you have to be more than a little chimerical to think more than a few people will think the worst possibility is the most likely one--that Evan intentionally instamined 2million coins and still controls most of them, if not more through masternode control. I'm comparing dash's launch to other coins that claim no premine or ICO, and it doesn't compare well--no amount of "no distribution is perfect" talk will make it a valid dismissal unless coins go back in time and have as terrible or worse launches. You don't get to change the standards to fit the circumstances of your investment. |
|
|
|
The numbers and the design of a cryptosystem aren't my opinion, and dash's faulty design using those standards isn't opinion-- This sounds like your implying either that Dash has a faulty design, or that the instamine was by design. Either way, please enlighten us with some facts. As I've said before, you would be doing Dash a favor. I'm saying that the launch was, by the standards used for cryptosystems to create the most decentralized emissions as possible, (time, rate, ect.), bad in comparison with other coins. There are facts (timing, false promises, absence of windows miner) that lend themselves to this being intentional, but either intentional or not, the result is a coin that is very likely centralized when compared with coins using better methods to assure a wider group of miners over a longer period of time. Again, the user is forced to play the odds with cryptosystems, and coins that have huge emissions over short time-frames offer the worst odds of decentralization. Disagree. Prove to me that, as of the time you write your next post and continue to bump this pro-Dash thread, that Dash is centralized. Don't forget, I told you in the other thread, my grandmother runs a Masternode... If you disagree that a system that uses a shorter time-frame to mine more coins is more likely to be decentralized than a coin that uses a longer time-frame to mine less coins, you are logically challenged. As for proving dash is centralized, you are requiring me to trust that it isn't, and that's the problem. Given the launch, it makes it less likely than most POW coins, but no one can say beyond a shadow of doubt if it is or isn't, but if forced to bet my cash or my life, I'm going with the one that offers the best odds--dash doesn't. You can choose to trust the dash devs and those that claim the coins were redistributed, but don't lie to yourself, or to anyone else, and argue that that is the most probable or likely case. Open source. Period. The code is there for all to see. No trust required. Do you even do crypto? EDIT: Sorry, you're talking about the distribution. Once again, you're entitled to your opinion, but there are no facts that indicate Dash is centralized, as is your contention. Your wrong, the facts indicate that dash is most likely one of the most centralized coins in existence, barring ICOs --just because that can't be made with 100% assurance, hardly makes the fact that it is the most likely outcome opinion. Again, trustless systems should be made as trustless as possible in all regards and not force the user to trust in the honesty of salesmen and developers. Calling the most likely scenario opinion misses that I'm pointing out the most likely scenario based on the available facts, and mining 30% of the available supply in two days is what leads to this scenario, not any bias on my part. I can just as easily say, prove dash is decentralized and have you unable to prove it one way or the other, but we can certainly come to likely possibility given the facts. |
|
|
|
The numbers and the design of a cryptosystem aren't my opinion, and dash's faulty design using those standards isn't opinion-- This sounds like your implying either that Dash has a faulty design, or that the instamine was by design. Either way, please enlighten us with some facts. As I've said before, you would be doing Dash a favor. I'm saying that the launch was, by the standards used for cryptosystems to create the most decentralized emissions as possible, (time, rate, ect.), bad in comparison with other coins. There are facts (timing, false promises, absence of windows miner) that lend themselves to this being intentional, but either intentional or not, the result is a coin that is very likely centralized when compared with coins using better methods to assure a wider group of miners over a longer period of time. Again, the user is forced to play the odds with cryptosystems, and coins that have huge emissions over short time-frames offer the worst odds of decentralization. Disagree. Prove to me that, as of the time you write your next post and continue to bump this pro-Dash thread, that Dash is centralized. Don't forget, I told you in the other thread, my grandmother runs a Masternode... If you disagree that a system that uses a shorter time-frame to mine more coins is more likely to be decentralized than a coin that uses a longer time-frame to mine less coins, you are logically challenged. As for proving dash is centralized, you are requiring me to trust that it isn't, and that's the problem. Given the launch, it makes it less likely than most POW coins, but no one can say beyond a shadow of doubt if it is or isn't, but if forced to bet my cash or my life, I'm going with the one that offers the best odds--dash doesn't. You can choose to trust the dash devs and those that claim the coins were redistributed, but don't lie to yourself, or to anyone else, and argue that that is the most probable or likely case. |
|
|
|
The numbers and the design of a cryptosystem aren't my opinion, and dash's faulty design using those standards isn't opinion-- This sounds like your implying either that Dash has a faulty design, or that the instamine was by design. Either way, please enlighten us with some facts. As I've said before, you would be doing Dash a favor. I'm saying that the launch was, by the standards used for cryptosystems to create the most decentralized emissions as possible, (time, rate, ect.), bad in comparison with other coins. There are facts (timing, false promises, absence of windows miner) that lend themselves to this being intentional, but either intentional or not, the result is a coin that is very likely centralized when compared with coins using better methods to assure a wider group of miners over a longer period of time. Again, the user is forced to play the odds with cryptosystems, and coins that have huge emissions over short time-frames offer the worst odds of decentralization. |
|
|
|
...
The main problem is that dash didn't adequately prepare for a decentralized launch. many months to years to slowly allow people to accumulate coins to assure the distribution was as fairly distributed as possible--add to that an emissions cut and dash (intentionally or not) made the worst case for a large distribution pool.
Not to detract from the countless answers you've already received on that point, prove it. C'mon, evidence, not conjecture. Prove to me that any individual has a sizeable percentage of all the Dash in existence and the point is yours, fail to prove it and that point I made on certain acts between yourself and icebreaker are just as accurate as any allegation you can make. Cold, hard fact: No coin has a fair launch. Unless every individual on the planet is given an equal share it'll be unfair. From another direction, practically every coin is worthless at launch so everyone has an equal share, nothing. They gain value for many reasons including one you're intimately familiar with, FUD, but when it comes to another you seem to have a blind spot that causes you a certain amount of butthurt, merit. All cryptosystems force you to bet on which has the best distribution, but the one that employs a slower emissions over the longer period of time has the better odds of being the most decentralized. The problem for dash is that dash has one of the fastest emissions over the shortest period (2 million of 18.9 million in 2 days), so it makes a terrible case for being decentralized. That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. I've considered these facts as well, and I disagree. Thank you though, for not continuing with the instamine angle. It's really getting old. The numbers and the design of a cryptosystem aren't my opinion, and dash's faulty design using those standards isn't opinion--unless all coins used such front-loaded emissions; one could use an anonymous test of cryptosystem design without the coin's names ever being involved, and they would arrive at dash having a terrible model for decentralization. Now if you are comparing it to ripple or an ICO, then yes, dash is more decentralized. |
|
|
|
...
The main problem is that dash didn't adequately prepare for a decentralized launch. many months to years to slowly allow people to accumulate coins to assure the distribution was as fairly distributed as possible--add to that an emissions cut and dash (intentionally or not) made the worst case for a large distribution pool.
Not to detract from the countless answers you've already received on that point, prove it. C'mon, evidence, not conjecture. Prove to me that any individual has a sizeable percentage of all the Dash in existence and the point is yours, fail to prove it and that point I made on certain acts between yourself and icebreaker are just as accurate as any allegation you can make. Cold, hard fact: No coin has a fair launch. Unless every individual on the planet is given an equal share it'll be unfair. From another direction, practically every coin is worthless at launch so everyone has an equal share, nothing. They gain value for many reasons including one you're intimately familiar with, FUD, but when it comes to another you seem to have a blind spot that causes you a certain amount of butthurt, merit. All cryptosystems force you to bet on which has the best distribution, but the one that employs a slower emissions over the longer period of time has the better odds of being the most decentralized. The problem for dash is that dash has one of the fastest emissions over the shortest period (2 million of 18.9 million in 2 days), so it makes a terrible case for being decentralized. |
|
|
|
...
I know that dismissing a coin's past would eliminate future issues, but it doesn't work like that. The OP made a statement that I'm disagreeing with, and unless you are willing to argue the merits of that specific criticism, you're the one who is distracting from the topic. I maintain that Satoshi's vision was a decentralized coin (it would have to be antifragile enough to disrupt fiat and legacy systems). If you feel my assertion is false, feel free to argue the point.
Though I do feel it's ironic that you are attempting to dismiss my current statements by using my past as a barometer.
Yeah, and anyone that wants to check that can check your post history, plenty of answers to it but you seem to have a blind spot to then. Get on and make your assertion if you want an answer to it, you claim Dash isn't decentralised for some strange reason, the network Satoshi created has about 5000 full nodes at the mo, Dashes masternode network has 3600, your point? I didn't mention node count, but given 2 million coins were mined in the first days of dash's existence, and dash's nodes cost 1000 dash a piece, it is very easy to believe those nodes are controlled by those who were mining in those early times. The main problem is that dash didn't adequately prepare for a decentralized launch--many months, or years, to slowly allow people to accumulate coins to assure the distribution is as fairly distributed as possible. Add to dash's fastmine an emissions cut and dash (intentionally or not) makes the worst case for a large distribution pool. |
|
|
|
...
The problem is that Satoshi envisioned it as decentralized and technically sound--dash is neither.
Didn't take long for you to turn up with your unsubstantiated allegations and general trolling did it? How long do you think you can stay even vaguely on topic this time? Read the title, "Progress", ie. not constant repetitions of history you re-posted several thousand times at this stage. Dash had a rough start, get over it. Its no secret and the only people that seem to give a shit are you and your cronies that insist on disrupting Dash threads, either post something useful or GTFO and go back to siring up trouble over Bitcoins blocksize. Dash Nation... progress... yeah, entities, the kind of thing that enables users to keep anonymous internet scumbags at a distance. Not mentioned in the Evolution whitepaper but it's one of the fancy tricks you can do with them. https://www.dash.org/binaries/evo/DashPaper-v13-v1.pdfI know that dismissing a coin's past would eliminate future issues, but it doesn't work like that. The OP made a statement that I'm disagreeing with, and unless you are willing to argue the merits of that specific criticism, you're the one who is distracting from the topic. I maintain that Satoshi's vision was a decentralized coin ( to be antifragile enough to disrupt fiat and legacy systems, it would have to be). If you feel my assertion is false, feel free to argue the point. Though I do feel it's ironic that you are attempting to dismiss my current statements by using my past as a barometer. |
|
|
|
The problem is that Satoshi envisioned it as decentralized and technically sound--dash is neither. Really? I know it's not going to be easy to steal back the narrative from you guys, as you've had it for two years... This thread is about facts. You and your cronies, at this point, have nothing. If you do however prove a weakness in Dash, we would be grateful, and I would recommend you get a reward. Mining 30% of the current supply in the first 48hours makes it centralized by cryptosystem standards (using all available options to ensure a trustless execution of standards). I have to trust that Evan and a few cronies didn't mine the majority of those coins or redistributed them in the months following--there isn't any credible evidence to suggest otherwise, so trust is the only option available (a non-viable one in cryptosystems). You can choose to trust this is so, but that's hardly reassuring for someone with even moderate standards. Once you address dash's fuliginous beginings, we can move on to why the tech isn't sound, or do you want to skip over dash's centralization issues? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
