Retroactive logic. How were they to know that BTC was to go 1000 a coin? With the data at their disposal, they were trading digits that were worth nothing with tangible stuff.

The first dump was related to rumors etc
Second wave (now) was due to fork issues that reappeared

Exciting day for trading and arbitrage... high volatility, huge spreads

Read here the first posts to get an idea: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1v7ayg/revolution_in_bitcoin_privacy_stealth_addresses/

Note though that this is NOT implemented on Bitcoin yet.

Darksend obfuscates money flows by redirecting them through nodes in its network.

Perhaps it can add stealth addresses to, for a more automated process of generating unique addresses for every transaction.

Added 2 Q&A for today

http://wiki.darkcoin.eu/wiki/FAQ#I_read_somone_who_wrote_that_there_is_a_hidden_premine_in_block_4137._Is_that_true.3F

http://wiki.darkcoin.eu/wiki/FAQ#Why_is_Darkcoin_hated_so_much.3F_Why_so_much_FUD.3F_Why_all_this_disinfo_campaign.3F

Private/Privacycoin are good but I haven't checked if others have launched. XLB (Libertycoin) has a tremendous marketing edge with that name (and logo - I think IconicExpert made it and it's very nice) and I'd propose something synthetic which captures the values of liberty + privacy + security.

Since I like numismatics, if there ever was a physical coin created for collectors and stuff, perhaps it has these themes illustrated also on it.

Could?

Can't people read the block explorer and see 500 coins generated (normal - just like prior and next blocks) and not 186k (which is a TRANSACTION)?

I think he is referring to the fact that other "countrycoins" emulated the model but devs dumped the premine on exchanges and took the money for themselves (=scammers).

DarkSend wasn't even implemented back then. It's a normal transaction not using DarkSend.

I'm just saying that if he destroys an equal proportion it's an epic win in terms of "fairness perception". No claim can come, ever, from stuff like "ohhh you little greedy dev, wanted more coins, etc". I've seen fud vectors with DRK so he could leverage that knowledge to his advantage and avoid anything that can be used against him.

Besides, the dev of coins which are evolving always has an unfair advantage over everyone else.

The second most prized quality in finance is knowing the future. The first is CONTROLLING the future.

A dev controls a coins future regarding its development and as such can make money out of it. He knows when he will make an announcement that will make the price spike so he can buy before and sell after the announcement, making gains. He doesn't even need 0.00001% premine. Anyone thinking like that apparently doesn't have a clue. Shitcoins need premine more than developing coins.

If the dev thinks of it, he can then destroy the premine to equal proportion and avoid criticism. Although now that I've wrote about how devs have an unfair advantage anyway, less will appreciate the move. Seems ironic, doesn't it?

It's only natural that others will try to hack / ddos / sabotage the system because they want it to fail. This is to be expected. They are paying shills and trolls, lol.

This is good actually. It's free security hardening because the code then evolves to deal with the attack vectors. Bring'em on.

+1

If the premine is destroyed to equal proportion to the coin reduction, criticism regarding "unfair dev" will be crushed. Unless of course part of the premine is already sold.


Well in DRK some say the nodes are being bought by the NSA, so, in that sense it's "the only crypto the government wants to buy from you"

If they see a legitimate threat they may want to move ahead of the game. Personally I believe they own secretely purchased ASICs that do ensure 51% POW supremacy in all crypto's right now including SHA256, Scrypt and X11.

There has never been so much hashrate in X11, ever. You couldn't have known / predicted that spike.

You do understand that having hundreds of gigahash take half the money distribution would kill a PoS coin and render it DOA, don't you?


The hashrate is there, no matter the origin, so from that perspective there is proof. It could be NSA trying to control the coin using the POS vector. Who knows?

It's not that fast (~a couple of years) and the problem is that when the price has elevated before the initial distribution, it is impossible to find the BTCs necessary to preserve the price. Then the bitching begins about the price being stagnant and then the coin is declared dead in favor of someone other which spikes.

If, say, you add another 2mn coins in a year (compared to 1mn right now), you'll need 2 times your current marketcap to absorb your monetary supply. Buyers of MRO have their supply debased like 10 times in a couple of years and they can only hope to *at least* have 10x buying interest just to preserve price. In order to see 10x gains, they'll need to find buyers who will be at 100x - and throw this type of money in a very fast rate.

DRK was distributing coins left and right at 0.02$ because the instaminers did not really value them and hence the quick distribution was not problematic in terms of BTC-required-per-day-to-buy-daily-production. You could buy like 100.000 drk for 2.5 btc. When distribution slowed down significantly with the escalating hashrate (moore's law formula where hashing reduces rewards) debasement rate was reduced. Calculate the number of MROs per day vs DRKs per day (2880 coins per day) and how many BTCs each require to (at least) preserve coin price at the same level. You'd think that DRK would be problematic due to its spike (BTC and LTC are problematic in this regard when they spike) but it isn't.

X11coin will have a massive advantage over MRO in this regard once the PoW phase is over as it won't require any serious money for daily production. BTCs flowing in will mostly go for price increase. This will in turn create bitching for MRO and "oh why doesn't the price move" etc etc. It's hard finding a balance that is fair, distributes the coins, doesn't debase the coin too much daily and which works towards the success of the coin.

It usually will fail somewhere. DRK has the instamine accussation for the quick first distribution, PoS/PoW hybrids are essentially instamined as they throw most of their monetary base in a short period of time (millions of coins per day) so late miners who want to mine can't mine it -but they do curb inflation once the pow phase is over solving that issue-, steady-curve coins are fairer but they can't go anywhere in terms of price if they have an initial price spike which is un-maintainable (and that's not what most people want to see when they buy coins) as the monetary supply expands etc etc. POW coins with faster curve at the start can be a solution if they are very accelerated and RARE + don't experience a price spike at their infancy which makes the daily production un-buyable (too much BTCs required => fading price). They can still be considered "unfair" towards late miners who mine for less coins (overlooking that early miners mine many coins at lower price vs late miners who mine few coins at high prices).

It's kind of a mess trying to balance these out to find the optimum economic parameters without creating criticism of some kind, either from holders, outsiders, miners, investors etc.

No it's a shitcoin. Move along

http://chainz.cryptoid.info/drk/block.dws?4137.htm

Block generation = 500 DRKs as all other.

+ a transaction of a miner who mined multiple 500 blocks moved them to a single address.

Yes that's very good for inflation - even if by accident. Fast initial distribution + low distribution later on = lower debasement of the existing monetary base than a steady curve. That's also a strong point for pow+pos systems if the staking itself does not multiply the monetary base significantly.

Compare that to LTC for example that will issue like another 10.5mn coins by this time next year and it's a disaster. Who the f*** will buy 10.5mn X 10 USD = 105mn in litecoins? It is not sustainable.

Yep, as it is right now it's quite good and relatively futureproof because you also want the PoW in a pure PoW.


I saw the dev write he is still waiting feedback, so yes, I've missed it.

We'll see how it turns out. It needs better distribution / scarcer supply / low inflation to become top notch in this department.

I also made an error in my last post regarding the 33m cap vs infinity (I've added an EDIT comment in the end) - you are right.

 
The dev seems to know his stuff in the technical department and might even be more qualified for the job (this type of job requires someone with the mindset of Anonymint really - which is highly paranoid on things related to security and holes in the design). If I had to rate them, from what I see, I'd say you are right in the security background etc etc, but keep in mind though that Evan also has a financial background and the economic model of dark is one of the best around. So, a crypto being primarily a currency, is very largely affected by economic decisions and economic design.

Stuff like coin number and inflation are critical. If I know that there will be 10 coins more tomorrow per one coin today, why would I buy big with all this dilution? This stuff needs capping and it needs capping yesterday. Being an "infinite" coin through PoS production is also not good for rarity which makes it less valuable - you become something like a DOGEcoin. Arbitrary block numbers like 333 coins per block, 3.33% inflation, 33.3mn coins heavily remind shitcoins even if the technology of the anonymity proves very good. These are stuff that need better design. They are CRITICAL to success.

If everything is staked (not likely, but just to illustrate) 3,33% inflation* through interest means that by year ten these 33.3mn coins will be 44mn and by year 30 it'll be 86mn coins. The interest in itself inflates the coin so the owner gets nothing in reality because the monetary base has been ...debased.

We need much less coin generation (10m sounds good), much less interest and debasement (for those that could be arguing "oh I bought thinking I'll get 3.33% on my coins, think that if the monetary base expands by a similar amount, you'll only win if someone actually buys the extra coins - which is less likely to happen if they know that the coin will be continuously debasing".

The dev must make a decision soon and fix the economic model, no matter what the haters say.

No matter what's happening right now in terms of technology, MRO people are clueless in terms of inflation and massive reward as the production can't be absorbed (I tried to tell them about the price stagnation and that they need to do something - but didn't really listen) and X11coin is problematic in its design as an economic instrument, which I'm highlighting right now and perhaps it'll be fixed.

* 3.33% = worse than gold's 1.3% (2.500 tons added per year in a 180.000 ton above ground supply). Even if half the quantity is staked then it's again >1.3% which is the absolute benchmark in terms of finance.

Consult someone with financial background, see what other cryptos are doing and fix it fast along with the distribution otherwise it will hamper long-term prospects. Then fix the name / brand. And these, all the while working on the anonymity aspect.

My 0.02 duffs.


EDIT: I made an error above claiming infinity for POS, as the cap is set for 33mn.