1. There was no hype with DRK. The promotional plan was to deliver and the market will discover it. The market discovered it in an earlier phase (late beta / RCs) than what was desired, putting unnecessary pressure in development.

2. No coin currently delivers anonymity, in the sense of NSA-proof anonymity. Privacy / moderate anonymity, yes.

3. The scaling issue of CNs is a valid concern, so instead of deflecting this to DRK, maybe you should ask CN-coin devs to do something about it. It will not hurt your investment to do so. I've personally asked for a scaling test with hundreds/thousands of transactions to assess what the various CN coins do when stressed / loaded. My request has gone to deaf ears, leaving wide open the future FUD vector of someone doing it independently and declaring them as DoA coins for mass use / proof of concept only.

The official pool had moved to a different server & domain at some point. I think it's the main reason why old balances don't show.

Billions of USD in transactions are conducted every day in such a non-traceable manner: Cash.

Thought she had 2 nodes?

Me thinks, the only thing they can really work on together, is some kind of unified I2P network that is REALLY GOOD.

"FPGAs ready at the very launch"?

"More than obvious"?

And then ... "DRK=scam"?

If I asked you the network hashrate for the first two weeks you wouldn't know it.

Let me tell you: It was topping around 100-150MHs with cpu mining instances giving ~600kh each and good OC'ed desktops giving ~400-500kh. I was using my desktop celeron cpu and I had like 1/1000th of the network hashrate! Given the amount of rented instances and free azures mining, a hundred megahashes were peanuts. If there were FPGAs the hashrate would be enormous.

Nope.

Only thing missing from this rationale: Miners can use their mined DRKs for buying masternodes / masternode slices and increase their DRKs.

It's not a zero sum game if you invest your mined DRKs in masternodes.

They only need 51% of the coins staking, which is usually much lower than the 51%.

I have a few crypts, waiting to see what Mindfox will come up with...

Contemplate this:

Miner mines 100 DRK
Miner buys 10% of a node
Miner then gets new DRKs through proof-of-service

Yeah, he's very "scammed" that his mined DRKs can now give him continuous revenue.

It's not such a serious issue really to cause ...doom & gloom. When a system is based on a semi-voluntarily basis it is assured that some will comply and some won't. It's expected 100% - there is no uncertainty that this will happen.

Still, it beats not paying at all & not getting any debug info from main-net.

That's why there is a genuine need for asshole-proof solutions, at the protocol level. You can't rely on others playing nice. Some will, some won't, and that's the way it goes.

Seriously? If I were a multi-millionaire BTC investor I'd hire a programmer to make the gui myself. This is a non issue. Front-ending is the easy part. The back-end is the hard part. As for BBR I doubt it's the "instamine" as it wasn't been pumped prior to the revelation of the GPU miner either. So, again the question remains.

1. Are you using the latest amd / nvidia miners? They have better hashrates.

2. If hashpower is significantly reduced, block reward goes up to compensate miners. Instead of 5 DRK per block it could go to 6-7-8-9 etc.

3. You must also calculate the compound effect of mined DRKs that can be used for masternode mining, something that alters the profitability calculation compared to other coins. If one makes 100 DRKs per month and he can use them to buy a 100 DRK slice of a masternode, then these too generate profit in subsequent revenue streams. Hence the miner's reward is not mutually exclusive to the masternode owner reward, rather they are complimentary - supposing that the miner holds and uses them for MNs. After you factor that in, a different picture emerges.

It's a fair approach however one part of my mind doesn't like the underlying assumption that buyers are somehow guaranteed to buy the extra coin supply at something like current prices. There are too many PoW altcoins acting as a living example that marketcap is steady or declining as new pow coins are issued. Of course coin prospects are intertwined with buying interest, so a crap coin will naturally face a much larger problem finding buyers for the long-term sustainment of its inflation. Inflation is generally a huge issue with altcoins.



DRK has someone that that I call the "primary buyer". I estimate it's someone with vast BTC resources - probably 100k-500k BTCs or so. I don't know if these BTCs are legit or hacked, but he can spend them like no tomorrow. This guy has bought millions in DRKs. This same buyer (as I can see from his buying patterns) has also gone to diversify himself in XC, Vericoin and other "pumps & dumps"... however the money he used for Moneros is tiny compared to all other coins. I believe he was more actively engaged in the first run up to 0.007-8.

If pumping & dumping was his sole purpose in engaging with all these coins, it only makes sense that he would be better served pumping a coin which he can then "sell" to others based on its superior properties. Otherwise how can he dump without crashing the market and everyone running away from the "crapcoin"? He would need adequate hype that the coin is "solid" rather than crappy. So, Monero, in this regard, given what everyone is saying, should be better pump material. One can buy more and hype it as superior, actually convincing buyers that it's a good coin to have. Once that happens, he can dump in waves - if his intention was to profit from the p&d, instead of HODLing long term.

But this didn't happen. And it has sparked my curiosity as to why. What does the multi-million guy (who buys all anon coins except the bytecoin ones) know? Is it inflation that is the problem? Is it that he has somehow independently assessed the bytecoin coins as severely problematic in other areas beyond anonymity? What is it that makes him avoid them like the plague, creating market paradoxes where Boolberry is surpassed by bitcoin-based clones that only offer a whitepaper for anonymity and not even the features for it?

Explain this to me: Why is it that the market doesn't trust Monero if it has so solid fundamentals? Why is it that 100% instamined PoW/PoS hybrids appear out of nowhere, and just by being based on the Bitcoin codebase are able to out-perform the marketcap of Monero in a few days or weeks? This shouldn't even be possible.

4    Darkcoin   $ 34,537,954   $ 7.78   4,439,477 DRK
11    Bytecoin (BCN)   $ 8,974,931   $ 0.000057   156,920,284,106 BCN      
13    VeriCoin   $ 7,597,613   $ 0.283679   26,782,417 VRC
15    XC   $ 6,451,500   $ 1.17   5,515,507 XC
17    Monero   $ 5,080,622   $ 2.72   1,867,647 XMR

1. Instamine wasn't one person holding 2mn coins

2. Solomine and instamine are different things. Solomining = what Satoshi did at the start. Instamine = fast mining rate for a percentage or the total of the coins. Everyone arriving to mine had the exact same block rewards.



The market disagrees with your assessment. Coins were been sold and bought from the get go. Right now DRK has an accumulated volume of hundreds of millions USD in transactions.

100% instamined coins (PoW/PoS) also have millions of marketcap. PoS coins like NXT weren't even mined but sold to begin with.


Living in denial...

Huge? It's only 10% of the total monetary supply - and it's already distributed through the market at prices of 0.0000x to 0.002 for months. But I don't expect you to know it because you weren't there watching it. I did though and therefore I'm better informed.

Compare that to PoW/PoS which have 100% of their monetary supply instamined in a week or so and no-one bitches about them "scam scam scam" or "problematic distribution". Nobody cares about "fairness" to future miners. If they did, they'd also say Bitcoin is a 1bn USD scam due to Satoshi mining >1mn coins on his own with a few desktops and laptops. And those who scream scam for DRK because it disadvantages future miners, are actively supporting PoW/PoS coins that give 0 chance of mining to future miners.

Besides, most of the accusations use a retroactive logic, in that the miners who mined at the launch somehow knew that the coin would be worth it 15-20$ each a few months later, when in reality miners were selling 100.000 DRK for 2 to 2.5 BTC to buyers. It was considered a very good profit back then. You can make a coin, you can instamine it as much as you like, but it will still be a worthless coin if you do not assign value to it. And DRK gradually added value in terms of features.

PS. The thread you link is not the most objective source of information. Poster there used an out of context quote of Evan when he proposed an airdrop to fix the distribution a few months ago. In the airdrop scenario, Evan would issue 2mn coins and then distribute it. Poster took the quote of "2mn coins that I own" and presented it out of context in big red letters to show that Evan actually has ...2mn coins - when this refers to an event that never took place because the community voted it down (the airdrop).

LTC does not represent store of value. DRK though, does. DRK issues 2880 coins per day instead of 28800 of LTC. With a similar price of 8-9$ per coin, LTC is a nightmare to preserve price as it sucks BTC at a rate that isn't really funny (250k usd per day).

DRK is scarcer + inflates slower.  Plus DRK also pays for itself (20% on masternodes) something that LTC doesn't. You need to buy ASIC miners for LTC while with DRK you can ...mine DRKs by simply running a node. So with a 30-50% ROI due to masternode payments alone for DRK + scarcer coin + much lower inflation, the LTC bag suddenly seems much less attractive.