Still waiting for Tok, Aliex, Evan, or any of the dash community to refute the evidence that X11 and instantx are terrible crypto (even by dash's low standards), but I'm guessing they're theoretically-challenged and need to see the coin break before they realize there's a problem--until then they will try to distract with calls of butthurt jealousy and FUD. There will come a day when the theoretical problems outlined will become real to this cult of instaminers, and on that day, their ANN will ring triumphantly with posts of "I told you so, dumbass." Until then, they can bathe in the glory of their combined ignorance. My guess is there's a lot of pee in the water.

Evan is a US/Arizona citizen, and if he is implicated in a state, fincen or SEC investigation, the price will likely suffer, so yes, what was done in the past can effect those investing today. Also, keep in mind the voting mechanism is being advertised as fair, which means because of the unfair distribution from the launch, that this statement probably is as much BS as the "fairly and transparently launched" statement from the dash ANN.

This all but ignores the insecurity of X11 and the less than optimal privacy of darksend, which from a tech perspective, seem  the greater tragedies of false advertising since they are undisputed by most experts, but not grasped by the layman who is more likely to chalk it up to FUD or technical debate than real threats to the coin's survival--but those fallacies will work themselves out eventually whether there's a securities investigation or not. You've been warned, take it for what's it worth--the onus is squarely on you and the research materials are mostly in this thread (though you may have to dig for the technical stuff to get a better grasp on the problems outlined).

So when you say, "I don't think there is any ongoing victimization. Initially with the lies and bs, yes, but anyone buying now I'd say has had fair warning" you believe that going onto the dash ANN and reading, "fairly and transparently launched" that that person has been fairly warned and is just a victim of their own greed or stupidity?

My point is that it takes time here and other places to learn the truth about dash (if at all, some seem to rationalize it away when finding out), and that blaming the victim for their ignorance is pretty absurd when the lie is being actively perpetrated by the developers and their community (though some in the community are just continuing the lie unwittingly).

Now if apply "Shitcoin buyers are victims of their own stupidity and greed" to "I don't think Dash is a bad coin by any means" it seems a fair assessment if someone has done the necessary due diligence in learning a bit about cryptosystems and concluded that they are all about equal and dash is as technically sound as another--though I would think ignorance (willful or not) would be the culprit of misdiagnosis in this case as much as stupidity or greed.

But smooth, "We're adults therefore any lies that we accept as true (even if advertised) are the fault of our not researching enough (even if developers are actively telling us otherwise), thus scams are impossible"--said the man before being convicted of securities fraud.

1. I didn't ask about bitcoin or the 98% of alts that you claim equals none of them--I asked was dash's launch "fair," which is how it is advertised. A scam is advertising a known lie--most everyone else advertising a lie doesn't disqualify it as a scam.

2. No, that's incorrect. All coins have differing distributions. And based on the amount of coins concentrated in the top holder's hands and the rest of holder's hands, that coin can be qualified as having good or bad distribution, or at the very least better than other coins.

3. Running 11 chains together makes it 11 times as vulnerable as a single chain (a weakness in one is a weakess to them all), so when compared with a single algo that has been tested, you can say the single algorithm is more secure than running multiple hashes together because there is a bigger attack surface for an attacker. Broken isn't the point, the point is whether it is secure (when compared to available cryptosystems) or insecure.

4. Even Evan, the creator and lead developer of dash, has said that what you want in privacy is protocol-level anonymity. Who are you to disagree? I find this change in his stance laughable, because many in the cryptoworld have been saying it since he came out with the second rate privacy method that is darksend. Because he repeated the lie so long, many in the dash community are still defending what he has admitted unwanted and those defenders are using the same faulty arguments that he once endorsed--shadowcash enablers were tauting the same logic, "show me it's broken or STFU!" unitl someone broke it and shut them up. Theoretically it has been shown to be a suboptimal method for privacy--if you want to use it in the meantime, that's your prerogative, but don't expect any sympathy for using a system that even the developer of that system has acknowledged as second rate.

And yes, when I found out Bitcoin wasn't very casklike, I invested in coins claiming to be private and lost money on those coins when I sold them after researching enough to know the claims were bogus--dash (then darkcoin) was one of those coins.

Or better yet, show why this is preferable to centralized control via mining farms in China. 

Or even better than that, show how the Devs could stop botnets from being used without the coin losing its ASIC resistance.

Blaming the Monero devs for one of the results of choosing a better decentralization method (ASIC resistance) is the equivalent of blaming BitTorrent for the proliferation of porn--it's a moral/political argument that ignores what the technology solves.

Four questions for you, all technically based:

Was dash's launch fair?

Does dash have a good distribution?

Is X11 secure?

Does darksend keep you private?

On  the dash ann and website they have advertised themselves as all of the above, yet the facts make some of these statements laughable and others down right lies. Representing yourself as something you are not is a scam (you don't need the victims to realize it before it becomes a scam--the Madoff fund was a scam long before anyone realized it). I'm sure it bugs you that you can't see it and you must think it's all politics, but I suggest you research it before your ship gets any further up river--a little research never hurt any investment, unless you are investing in denial.

 

Does Tesla have a space yacht division?

Wrong movie.   

I think he misread POS as Proof Of Shill. 

But AP, why would anyone want to put their profits into a digital currency that acts as cash? Don't you want that on a public blockchain, so the world can see how much sweet action you've taken part in? It's like the guy who only works on his novel/screenplay/to-do-list at the coffee shop--it didn't happen if no one is watching.... 

Many alts are more efficient at doing what they do than BTC would be at integrating them or adding them as a service layer. The whole Bitcoin is king argument hinges on bitcoin's market being so big that no one would miss the efficiency (or novelty, such novelty) garnered by using alternatives, but Bitcoin's market is neither big enough to warrant this "king once and for all time" label (see Bitcoin's marketcap versus gold and fiat), nor is the efficiency we are talking about slight enough for it to not matter (see hoops you have to jump through to anomize BTC through a mixer or a privacy coin).

Bitcoin has yet to rise out of the speculation stage, and until it does, all bets on "one coin to rule them all" are off. Not that mass adoption alone has secured any technology enough to where it is safe from cheaper more efficient methods. Instead of writing about a prisoner dilemma that doesn't really exist (why should cryptocurrency fail if Bitcoin fails or isn't top dog?) the Bitcoin maximalists (supremacists) should find those coins that do things more efficiently (cheaper) and diversify--they'll have hedged themselves and avoided faulty logic that wastes everyone's time (you first need to determine that altcoins can't survive without Bitcoin to make the prisoner's dilemma--you can't assume it into being). And every day an unproven Altcoin sits near a billion dollar marketcap, the less and less plausible this argument becomes.

Enough fiat to Altcoin exchanges (maybe even one) and the tether that holds Bitcoin atop the cryptocurrency food chain is gone. How likely is this to happen, about as likely as someone staying anonymous to omnipresent secret-hording intelligence.

From dash ANN:

"- Dash is a Next Generation cryptographic currency
- Dash supports instant transactions and privacy using decentralized technology
- Dash has no premine and was fairly and transparently launched
- Total coins will most likely be near 18.9 million (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RpLd87PTs65sz8USrrXwGRoVGVbzaC-nunErEtGSJoE/edit#gid=0)
- Coins will cease to be generated near the year 2300
- Dash uses the X11 algorithm for mining"

Anonymous technology is debatable, but whatever, don't know a single person who is serious about privacy who would recommend or use dash.

Dude, I wonder what you would think of SEC guidelines if this is your idea of not easy--

"[–]fluffyponyzaXMR Core Team 11 points 1 day ago


None of the above.

We contacted them, they told us what we needed to do. It basically consisted of signing a Contributor License Agreement, submitting a PR to the Azure templates Github repo, and sending them a write-up. Took us like 3 or 4 hours:)

All the altcoins saying that Microsoft is "partnering" with them are being disingenuous - you are a partner inasmuch as you have a BizSpark account and signed a CLA.

The upshot of this, however, is that developers that are already using Azure can build applications on top of the Monero blockchain, and are able to spin nodes up quickly and easily."

It means nothing other than the coin's developers filled out the necessary paperwork and submitted a PR on GitHub. Any coin can be added to Azure and Azure will add any coin. It can be useful for developers who use Azure, but isn't anything like partnering with Microsoft as some coins have disingenuously claimed:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1412830.0

If you ask, you'll get an awful smelling bowl of reductionism . "Mmmmm, stupidity!"

So your MO is jumping to wrong conclusions based on little to no information--makes perfect sense now.

Dude's a loon. He's arguing since basically everything could become permissioned in his imagination (you parents decided to keep you therefore your living is permissioned--at least this seems where his reductionism will get him), therefore a system that is a one-step permissioned system is as good a system as any other.

I imagine this is how he would defend a murder client. "You could die if a plane hits you, an ebola virus gets hold of you, a giraffe could stomp you to death, basically something will kill you, so what difference is that from what my client did? It was going to happen sooner or later anyway."  

Or how about I divert the electricity from my toaster to my computer to run on the same isp that I download porn with? My point was that no one monitors the first two and the third is barely monitored and I can move to a different service whenever I feel like it. But maybe with IOT I'll need to get permission from my toaster to use its electricity, but we're on good speaking terms, so it's probably cool.

So the world has to conspire to take away electricity  (that can be used for anything), hardware (that can be used for anything) and ISP (which can be used for anything) in order for POW to be equally permission-based as a POS coin? WTF, dude.