I know many people say that not having compiled Windows wallets is unfair. This is not something we just made up for the purpose of this thread.

I can tell you Monero's launch was delayed by about 12 hours (I think) specifically in order to have compiled Windows wallets ready. Most other coins that are attempting to have good launches do this too, afaik. Some people mentioned it on the Dash thread at the time, too, so this isn't an issue that didn't exist at the time.

If that were the only problem with Dash's launch, I'd say it probably wasn't that big a deal (my opinion), but when you combine it with everything else, its one more factor to consider.

And as far as I can tell no one is attempting to peddle anything on this thread other than the laughable notion of Dash as the Future Internet of Money. Even the OP at some level knows that claim to be absurd and false, or he wouldn't have tripped over Betteridge's Law in composing the topic.

Let's just let the facts speak for themselves, and leave out opinion, including yours as what you think about Evan's bad intent.

We can add:

7. "Official Communication" from Dash blaming the instamine on inherited Litecoin code (which is factually false).

8. Dash ANN OP claiming the coin was "fairly and transparently launched".

Facts:

1. Evan had at least two years of experience with crypto before launching Dash. There was no "lack of experience" as you claim. (Your statement about what "caused mistakes to be made" was opinion, by the way. I'm glad we have agreed to exclude opinion from this thread.)

2. Evan stated months ahead of the launch that he was working on a "for-profit" coin launch.

3. Evan deliberately withheld the development and feature plans until after the end of the instqamine.

4. Evan misled people about the launch schedule, launching much earlier than promised. During the first hour, over 500000 coins were mined, and in 8 hours, over a million coins.

5. Evan later cut the mining rewards and coin supply, increasing the effective size of the instamine by a factor of four or more.

6. In total, the instamine of 2 million coins represents over 30% of the current supply of Dash.

These are all objective, documented facts. No opinion. People can draw their own conclusions as to whether this was an elaborate fraud or a legitimate coin project.

There is no evidence either way, so let's not speculate. Clearly when people talk about Windows builds being available for launch they are talking about compiled, since most Windows users, unlike Linux users, don't have compilers or know how to use them.

The only one I recall who explicitly reported compiling it said that it didn't work, prompting Evan to make an emergency update (I'm not referring to the guy with the compile error due to his own mistake; the other one). This too was after the launch.

Someone youthfully exuberant would not have been able to hold back on telling the world about the development and feature plans he was so excited about and instead wait until after the instamine was entirely completed. In fact he did exactly that which shows it was likely purposeful and calculated, not accidents and mistakes.

Evan had been around crypto for at least two years or so before launching XCoin/Darkcoin/Dash. He'd see it all, including premines, hidden premines, instamines, etc. He was no beginner and he knew exactly how to play the game.

I agree it started as one...

Wrong. Here is Evan asking someone to upload a Windows build 1 hour and 57 minutes hours after launch (followed by the launch announcement, for time reference). By that time approximately 640K coins had already been mined. Clearly the Windows build was not made available until some time even later than that, though I don't know when exactly.



EDIT: Here's the first Windows upload, almost 3 hours later (that's well over a million coins mined already):

@AlexGR I'm still puzzled at what the hell you are going off about. It seems almost entirely strawman to me.

Very few new applications are being written in C afaik (and I do have somewhat of an idea). It is only being done by a few fetishists such as jl777.

Most development now is being done in higher level languages which are exactly what you just proposed: a small (maybe) speed concession for greater expressiveness and friendliness (though that word is quite vague) and in some sense (though not in others) simpler than C.  The odd exception here is C++. Not surprisingly C++ is very much on the way out.

The language that is eating (almost) everything is JavaScript, so if you want to comment on the current state of languages I would start there, not with something that is relegated to being largely a legacy tool (other than low level). Of course other languages are being used too, so they're also worthy of comment, but ignoring JavaScript and fixating on C is insane.

You can do this for Monero only in an experimental mode.

I'm using 15. There's probably an exact optimum number and that probably isn't it, but it is close enough. The main thing is to avoid very large outputs.

N is what size you want (yes, a number)

Add splitsize=N to your clam.conf file. Any larger outputs you have now will be autosplit when they stake.

The Wright story originally claimed his satoshi BTC were locked in some sort of trust and couldn't be dumped. That was supposedly going to be good for the price, which may have been part of the reason for leaking the story in the first place (manipulation higher). Who knows.

It is not several more. The other coin also has several GUi wallets. If you mean the original/official GUI wallet, Dash got that with no development (along with 99% of its implementation) by being a Bitcoin fork. Brilliant.

Have you seen the corruption recently? I think the wallet saving was changed to not overwrite in place within the past several months, which should eliminate most off the corruption. In time it will be replaced with a database.

Compilers (including C) do autovectorize and use SSE, etc. instructions. It's not always at the same level you could get by doing it explicitly but it does happen.

As far as the rest, programming languages are a nasty thicket. Every decision seems like some sort of tradeoff with few pure wins. Make it better in some way and it gets worse in others.

Yes most OS apps on Linux are C but that is largely legacy. They were written 20 years ago, and rewriting doesn't have major advantages (if any).

I guess that's another place C gets its current high level of popularity and that is maintenance of legacy applications. There are a lot of them.

If you look around at software that is being developed today by Google, Amazon, etc., very little of it is written in C (other than maybe low level hardware stuff as I mentioned earlier)

Started during the BTC up move in October and has been more or less that way ever since, with a slight divergence during the period of maximum velocity for ETH (ETH was sucking in capital from other alts regardless of what BTC did). It seems incorrect in this environment to try to analyze the movements of any particular alt without understand the backdrop of the overall BTC/alt trend.

Are you a programmer AlexGR? I understood from the other thread discussion we had that you mostly aren't, but not sure.

You will find that if you look at applications written in C they are built up using layers of libraries. By the time you get to what might be called the business logic (although a "business" might not necessarily be involved -- this is a term of art) you are barely using C any more, just a bunch of library calls where almost every language ends up being almost identical.

I'm not a fan C for larger team projects because the process of building up your own libraries on top of libraries is difficult to express in a constant and reliable way. Not impossible, but difficult. It tends to work better for a project written and maintained by one person or perhaps a very small group

I think, though I'm not sure, that most C coding these days (which still seems to be quite popular) is indeed system programming, firmware for devices, performance-critical callouts from other languages (Python for example), etc. But I have few if any sources for that, and it may be completely wrong.

It doesn't, but anyway, investors who rely on false, misleading, incomplete information (including recently-produced edits to official information and official statements) and then lose money are victims. So there are indeed many victims, and there will continue to be victims until the ongoing scamming stops.

Example: Statements about a "fair and transparent launch" (with no mention whatsoever of problems) when you, AlexGR, agree it was a "problematic launch" are clearly misleading.