Apparently not, because if it was settled with finality, the Dash community would still not be attempting to cover it up by editing the OP and putting out new Official Statements, both done much less than 2 years ago. These are actions of the Dash community, not my actions. I'm just reporting them. If dash doesn't have relative info in their pages => OH NO IT'S A SCAM If dash has relative info in their pages => OHHHH NOOO IT'S A SCAM You can't win, ever. In another thread some of you were complaining about lack of transparency, now when some info is updated => "ohhhh noooo". Ffs, grow up. You can't keep your story straight. First you say it was a "problematic launch" (your words). Now you claim that statements being made about a "fair and transparent" launch are helpful disclosure. /facepalm. |
|
|
|
If you're lost on a fork, you can add these checkpoints to your config.ini file in your witness_node_data directory and resync:
checkpoint = [488069, "0007728505ded84f6eb06f67208ea5221b0a4a63"]
checkpoint = [488100, "000772a47e6d7a87be5c344b8330fde1ce16015f"]
checkpoint = [488150, "000772d6f636d3c3de23d8e86846d8177da24c73"]
checkpoint = [488200, "000773081eba1db265f9b63c0c010a1ff937766d"]
checkpoint = [488250, "0007733a2e40a3c566d8b24b2089cb9c3f9856a5"]
checkpoint = [488300, "0007736c68331e05a67261eba31fc8f68edfbbc1"]
checkpoint = [488350, "0007739e63f85deeade33229aa81bc5a3516a64c"]
checkpoint = [488400, "000773d081a7f864babcdedfa1c6ff20e8535d19"]
checkpoint = [488450, "00077402057707c637074b360c2a5d8944737bf1"]
checkpoint = [488500, "00077434e851a8174beea1b8c867e5262f0fb5c5"]
checkpoint = [488550, "000774661c96c75b1dc738fe998ba8d94d3bfca6"]
Is there an easy way to tell if you are on a fork? |
|
|
|
Anyone could have mined Dash from Day 1.
As long as they didn't believe Evan's misleading statement about the launch time and went to sleep. You could still mine the first day of course, but missing just the first several hours already meant missing most of the instamine coins. Yeah. So? Who gives a shit besides you and your sockpuppets? I can launch a coin today and not tell you about it. What you gonna do? Bitch and moan about it for the next 2 years as well? No. Why not? Because it will be a worthless shitcoin. Because I'm not going to work my fucking ass off every day to make it a success like Evan did. You reek of jealousy and that makes you pathetic. The destiny of Monero is reflected by your collective behaviour and your glorified one trick pony is going to lose. Hard. I got a new slogan for you: Monero - Too little, too late.LOL. Please try to stay on topic. The thread is about the darkcoin/dash instamine. |
|
|
|
Anyone could have mined Dash from Day 1.
As long as they didn't believe Evan's misleading statement about the launch time and went to sleep. You could still mine the first day of course, but missing just the first several hours already meant missing most of the instamine coins. |
|
|
|
A scam requires VICTIMS. In fact it doesn't, only a successful one does. This is getting hilarious. Hope you guys are getting well paid for your time. So a scam with no victims is now an unsuccessful scam. I'll need to work that one out - kind of reminds me of doing imaginary numbers in math  I know it is tough, but here's a example to simplify it for you. I create a company that promises trips to mars, but we have no ships, no plans, no way to get anyone there, but we create ads that make that promise--though all are internal data shows we can't and won't pursue that end. TV companies preview the ads and report us to the FBI, they investigate and put us in jail for running a scam. By your logic, I could just plead not guilty by way of no victims. Thankfully the courts, the investigators, and most everyone else doesn't use shitcoin logic. Wrong. No crime has been committed. Don't quit your day job. |
|
|
|
Apparently not, because if it was settled with finality, the Dash community would still not be attempting to cover it up by editing the OP and putting out new Official Statements, both done much less than 2 years ago. These are actions of the Dash community, not my actions. I'm just reporting them. |
|
|
|
A scam requires VICTIMS. In fact it doesn't, only a successful one does. This is getting hilarious. Hope you guys are getting well paid for your time. So a scam with no victims is now an unsuccessful scam. A fraudulent scheme performed by a dishonest individual, group, or company in an attempt obtain money or something else of value.
I'm not even stating whether Dash is a successful or unsuccessful scam, only pointing out that a "scam" does not require victims, it is based on the actions of those involved. |
|
|
|
Smooth, what you are saying is not a "scam", it's a problematic launch. Does it describe a "fair and transparent" launch to you? Was bitcoin "Fair and transparent"? I never heard about it. Was it "fair" that Satoshi was solomining for a year? Debatable, but what is not debatable is that the Bitcoin developers are not making promotional statements about the fairness of the launch. Ah well, who cares by now. Apparently Evan, since he edited the ANN OP recently from "NO PREMINE" in the topic to "no premine and was fairly and transparently launched". The "Official Statement" full of incorrect, incomplete, and misleading statements is also relatively new. The Dash insiders are well aware that investors still care about the instamine otherwise there would be no reason to still be actively working to mislead investors about it. |
|
|
|
Does the Official Statement about the Instamine claim that Litecoin's difficulty adjustment is responsible for the extra coins, when in fact that is not the case for most of the extra coins?
Can you explain why Litecoin instamined half a million coins? Because the the slow Litecoin difficulty adjustment causes a small instamine. Only if the hashrate is large  And remember xco's hashrate was large, but also on a new and different algorithm. The rate of difficulty increase is exponential so the actual hash rate doesn't matter much (assuming high, as you say). Increasing hash rate by 4x only adds one additional cycle before the Litecoin difficulty adjustment would catches up. XCoin's cycles were ~500 blocks compared to 2016 blocks for Litecoin so it should have caught much more quickly than Litecoin. In fact most of the instamine came from the block rewards being too high (500 coins, on most blocks, though the production was erratic and strange) and possibly other issues, rather than the Litecoin difficulty adjustment. Also of course the later cuts to emissions/supply, which increased the effective size of the instamine by 4x or more. |
|
|
|
open invite to @all on steem.slack.com .. good place to collaborate .. we are currently discussing getting back on track
Please gateway it to freenode like some other coins do. |
|
|
|
sorry Lucas_Jackson, i'm not sure he saw it / them
Anyways, the future is looking bright for Dash .. so many things set in motion, next few months will get interesting.
Bigger isn't always better--for her, yes. For instamined coins trying to claim decentralization, not so much.  Is that the soda machine girl? |
|
|
|
Hi. Anyone interested in doing a sizable OTC sale of Aeon? I have 178+ in trust on here and can pay in BTC. Thanks!
I would escrow if anyone is interested. Work out the details between you. |
|
|
|
Does the Official Statement about the Instamine claim that Litecoin's difficulty adjustment is responsible for the extra coins, when in fact that is not the case for most of the extra coins?
Can you explain why Litecoin instamined half a million coins? Because the the slow Litecoin difficulty adjustment causes a small instamine. When launched, XCoin had a modified Litecoin difficulty algorithm that adjusted 4x faster, so absent other issues, it would have a much smaller instamine. Most of the Dash instamine did not come from the Litecoin difficulty adjustment algorithm. |
|
|
|
Smooth, what you are saying is not a "scam", it's a problematic launch. Does it describe a "fair and transparent" launch to you? A scam requires VICTIMS. In fact it doesn't, only a successful one does. But as I pointed out to you, every investor who makes an investment decision, in whole or part, on the basis of false or misleading statements and loses money is a victim. It is an extraordinary claim that there are no victims. I might even be a victim for that matter. |
|
|
|
a) Your "facts" are conjecture and presented as evidence.
No, my facts are what was stated by whom and when, along with things like what block rewards were generated when. Specific sources are given, and it is all (or nearly all) fully verifiable and objective. It's bullshit, that's what it is. Let me give you an analogy of what you are doing: Why analogize when the facts are all there. Did Evan say that he was definitely not going to launch within hours and then launch within hours? Did he say that he was not going to disclose his existing development plans until after the conclusion of the instamine? Did he say that he was working on a for-profit coin startup, then later claim it was all a hobby? Does the Official Statement about the Instamine claim that Litecoin's difficulty adjustment is responsible for the extra coins, when in fact that is not the case for most of the extra coins? Does the Dash ANN OP now state that is was "fairly and transparently" launched? These are all factual, supported by specific citations, and verifiable. |
|
|
|
a) Your "facts" are conjecture and presented as evidence.
No, my facts are what was stated by whom and when, along with things like what block rewards were generated when. Specific sources are given, and it is all (or nearly all) fully verifiable and objective. b) The actual facts of the other side are downgraded as fiction and the bar of proof is set to an unreachable level (with requirements like "if you can't tell me where every single coin went, and who owns what, then you haven't proven anything) I haven't seen any such facts. All I have seen is conjecture as to motives, unobservable and/or unverifiable actions, etc. c) Actual evidence (witnesses, testimonials, trading on third platforms, blockchain) is untouched because it serves (a). I've seen no such evidence that is verifiable proof of anything useful. |
|
|
|
Over the past couple of weeks, I've seen at least two instances where its become apparent the auditability of Monero transactions is inadequate
It isn't entirely clear to me whether it is or not. Is auditability of cash or gold inadequate? The auditability comes from surrounding processes and not from the asset itself. Maybe it is a mistake to try to push audibility too far into the system itself. The current receive view keys might be a reasonable middle ground, because with one it can be proved that you received some funds. It is then up to you to show what you did with them, and if you can't you can be held responsible (for embezzlement, etc.) |
|
|
|
Yes, you wrote entire chapters but you were too busy speculating about imaginary non-distribution than actually sending a couple of emails to ccex, poloniex etc to learn about the actual facts. And then you come here playing detective... lol.
If you have evidence, show your sources (as I did in the OP, and continue to add when I get around to editing). |
|
|
|
are you a big P&D whale here?
Are you? |
|
|
|
Please label that chart to show ownership of addresses. In addition to normal address churn, change addresses, purposeful obfuscating (including but not limited to use of Darksend), etc, the masternode system in particular causes massive movement of coins because it requires that each mansternode have its own address even with the same owner. Diagrams showing movement of coins between addresses, richlists, etc. are not evidence of distribution and in falsely claiming they are, you are continuing to mislead and defraud investors. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
