Still leaves you with two problems: PR and centralization.

The PR problem is simple. Many will not touch an investment that they think had shady beginnings or continues to have someone associated with those shady beginnings at the helm. Dash will always have the same sort of stigma attached to it as baseball players from the Black Sox or home run hitters who needed to juice to pump their numbers (Sosa, McGwire, ect.). The media will have a field day with this issue if Dash ever saw a tenth of Bitcoin's marketcap as will supporters of other coins as long as the coin exist.

The centralization problem centers on the fact that over 35% of the current emission was mined in the first two days. Many will claim that it was cheap and therefore redistributed, but anyone could also claim that these were instaminers moving funds in an attempt to sell the idea of a fair redistribution later--no one in fact can claim either is true, so it's a gut call--but what really hinders dash here is that many investors are not going to buy the story that the coin mistakenly mined 35% of the current value, didn't relaunch fairly when it seemed in their best interest to do so if they wanted to maintain a clean record, but later sold their coins on the cheap as so the coin could be fairly distributed. That's very far fetched when they could have had a provable fair launch and gotten rid of the instamine label in one shot--either Evan is stupid or he thinks there are enough stupid people out there to accept this story. My guess is that Evan isn't stupid.

The instamine is proven. It's the scam part that's opinion/conjecture and part of what the poll asks.

And if you think whether a coin is a scam or not is stupid, then you aren't seeing it from the viewpoint of a potential investor.

I'm guessing that you are talking about if governments defined cryptocurrencies as printing money that they could declare them illegal?
Which AFAIK has already been determined not to be the case in the US as was discussed much in the early goings of Bitcoin legislation, nor would this exclude Bitcoin if the regulators decided to view the existing laws differently.

Now as the specific statement that i think you are making about a coin being anonymous and therefore used for suspicious activities and that having some impact on there legality or regulation, again I'm guessing at your meaning. I would say that it also falls on Bitcoin if you believe it can be made anonymous enough. Now, if you are saying Bitcoin isn't that anonymous, and more anonymous coins can be singled out for regulation or legality, I'd content that as long as they give you the ability to show authorities your transaction history for legal or tax purposes, then you would be keeping with the law and no distinction could be made between a coin with a transparent ledger than one with a opaque ledger. Monero does this with a viewkey as I'm sure any of the cryptonight coins could also.

Did i interpret your meaning clearly?

But some of those ways are much, much better than other ways and that is the point.  

I love people who say look at the scoreboard 2 minutes into the game.   

If it were launch difficulties, I would agree. But mining 575,000 coins in an hour, over 1,500,000 in less 8 hours, isn't difficulties; it's an instamine. Which brings two problems PR and centralization.

The PR problem is simple. Many will not touch an investment that they think had shady beginnings or continues to have someone associated with those shady beginnings at the helm. Dash will always have the same sort of stigma attached to it as baseball players from the Black Sox or home run hitters who needed to juice to pump their numbers (Sosa, McGwire, ect.). The media will have a field day with this issue if Dash ever saw a tenth of Bitcoin's marketcap as will supporters of other coins as long as the coin exist.

The centralization problem centers on the fact that over 35% of the current emission was mined in the first two days. Many will claim that it was cheap and therefore redistributed, but anyone could also claim that these were instaminers moving funds in an attempt to sell the idea of a fair redistribution later--no one in fact can claim either is true, so it's a gut call--but what really hinders dash here is that many investors are not going to buy the story that the coin mistakenly mined 35% of the current value, didn't relaunch fairly when it seemed in their best interest to do so if they wanted to maintain a clean record, but later sold their coins on the cheap as so the coin could be fairly distributed. That's very far fetched when they could have had a provable fair launch and gotten rid of the instamine label in one shot--either Evan is stupid or he thinks there are enough stupid people out there to accept this story. My guess is that Evan isn't stupid.

Ask Sosa and McGwire.

I'm just surprised he didn't accuse you of being Smooth. The exchange of 757 coins as proof that the coin was fairly redistributed is a nice touch. He had to have pulled at least 9-Gs with that spin. Maybe he can get a job as a Fast and Furious stuntman after dash implodes. 

I hope Fluffy gets to answer lots and lots of these concerns on his European Tour. I think once savvy investors get grounded in facts and future concerns about privacy and security, we'll see a spike in interest. With the amount of time and commitment the Devs (and this community) has spent on getting the details right, it would be nice for the larger community to see that the concerns and solutions are validated.

Is that what I said? Or you do you miss nuance?

You're going to hear scam, because 90% of everything is crap. 90% of every alt is not necessarily a scam, but  for your purposes, what difference does it make whether the coin is a scam or a lost cause; you'll get the same result.

Here's just a suggestion. Imagine where you want to be. Set a goal. Write yourself a check for certain dollar amount you have in mind, imagine your dream house, your dream way of life, whatever--it just has to be firm in your mind and imaginable and what you believe you really want. Once you've done that and feel confident in where you want to be heading, you should be open for the changes you need to make to get there-- and if it's investing in an alt, cool. If it's not, go with it. It should be easy (not hand-out easy, but not fighting up-stream difficult), enjoyable, and be consistent with you are. As Joseph Campbell was fond of saying, "Follow your Bliss...."

I'll buy you a keg. Here's Atrides post yesterday from GLIP freebazaar group:


"Atrides FreeBazaar (dwarfpool)
I have merged OpenBazaar Beta4 and fixed conflicts"

Not sure on the entire status, but you see submissions from hours to a few days to a few weeks ago--maybe not a good idea to look at the first number you see and claim it's the last submission....  

https://github.com/freebazaar/FreeBazaar

I didn't even say I was one of these people, but I do know they exist, there's a lot of them, and if you want to Bitcoin levels you better launch your coin right--you misread, I'm not saying this is my personal view, I'm saying any good strategist would have taken this into account and my criticism is of the strategy to ignore them. And good job insulting them and calling them myopic--I'll save this and keep it like the Cryptography isn't a big part of cryptocurrency post. Thanks. 

If you believe that, then it would be pointless--did you bother reading the rest? ^

Thanks for using a strawman to disprove my strawmen.  


Let's keep this simple:

--I just mentioned that my memory is of you getting rekt by many people over that comment and didn't relent from your wrongheaded notion until Gmax set you straight. Nice that you've corrected yourself, but I didn't have a strawman engaged in that exchange, didn't bother to get into the debate outside of asking for an explanation AFAIK, and certainly don't think you showed anyone up but yourself in that exchange. I think you mis-remember.

(So that's one strawman gone)

--This thread, right here, the one we are posting on and you're accusing me of using strawmen on to detract Dash isn't a poll on does the instamine matter; it's a poll on https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1034864.540 So do you think Evan did it on purpose and how do you think he feels about it now?

(So now you know who's detracting the thread)

--The whole argument that the instamine label sticking will destroy Dash is not a strawman invented by me, you just stuck it there and used it to dismiss arguments i wasn't even making in the post you were replying to:


^(No strawman)

--The instamine is a fact. Now it becomes a question on how you interpret it. I interpret it as a tactic for an initial gain that failed to take into account a longer strategy of sustained growth, and since that failure, we've had more tactics thrown at the problem (buzz word features, name changes, incentive apparatus), but none of this has warranted forgetting that there are staunchly ethical, moral, and principled individuals who will never invest in something that has a shady past or leadership. This is not a strawman, this is my opinion. You don't have to like it or agree with it, but it just doesn't go away because you mutter Monero or strawman or whatever tactic seems easiest today. I'm starting to see that Evan attracts people like himself--good luck with that.

That's dumb--if it's pointless, why would you even need a supposed anonymity feature for dash then? It also doesn't take into account people who use Linux OS, no drm, use non-us based hd's, ect. You should go to the Monero threads and learn how to keep your privacy. But it does make sense now why you don't mind using masternodes.

At best, you're proving that fair distribution is neither provable or not provable with current facts--which leads one (at least if they're thinking) to wonder if they should trust the dev who says he accidentally mined over 35% of the current distribution in a couple days or the guy trying to fit together the most likely scenario based on what little facts are available. And if you don't trust either, you'll sit on the sidelines until more facts can be gathered (again, if you're thinking).

Also, do you have to follow KYC rules if your a masternode operator--no one from Dash will comment on that for me. Seems kind of pertinent with what's going on with Ripple and all. Off topic, I know, but seems like that door was opened the first time someone yelled Monero.

A few posts later.... How do you define a few? The few I read are still as convoluted as when I first read them. As I remember it, it wasn't until Gmaxwell (and Toshi too?) decimated your understanding on cryptocurrencies that you backtracked into awkward rephrasings  of common words used throughout the cryptocurrency space in a vain (both meanings) attempt to save face.

If you are funneling darksend transactions through masternodes in exchange for assets, are you culpable for not following KYC rules the same way a money transmitter or an exchange is?

You're so vain you probably think this thread is about you.... I was making a commentary on all (your faulty argument was just the starting point) the faulty arguments dash users use to try gloss over or distract people from the instamine. And no, you buying cheap coins is still not a valid proof that the coin is now fairly distributed. And no, we don't have to respect each other--I will never respect anyone who knowingly or foolishly invests in a coin with a strategically flawed launch that Evan tries to fix with name changes and buzz words or with Amway nodes that are a hindrance to privacy and security--all the while claiming he had a fair launch and his coin is good for privacy--I don't think anyone should respect that or invest in it or trust their privacy with it.

Please don't invest in Monero; you either don't get cryptosystems or don't care if you are supporting faulty systems. And this post was about you.