LOL all you moanero trolls are pathetic and a joke to your coin and your community. You think people of this whole community can't see your FUD tactics? Why don't you go and do something positive for monero rather than poison it.
To all the normal, level headed monero followers/holders I have nothing but love for you guys.
When is an instamine FUD? |
|
|
|
LOL
Pathetics.
This whole butthurt trolling from the Monero cheerleaders is becoming increasingly embarrassing! Couple of weeks ago we had half the XMR dev team spending day after day trolling about the same old nonsense that has been put to rest over a year now....... Yes the coin was instamined yes it was a mistake yes Evan has been open about it from day 1 yes the Blockchain explorer shows the overall coin distribution is way better than BTC , LTC or DOGE Get over it you sad sad fucks ,there is 4000BTC volume on the markets for DASH on a good day because its the class leader. You instamine it, you own it--Bitcoin had a fair launch and it still gets the ponzi label, so what do you think media will do with your shady ass coin?  And he didn't own it--he tried to play the accident card and have all the ill gotten coins without the scam label, no one but him and his apologist are sorry that it didn't work. As long as dash (or whatever name you try to hide behind next) exist people are going to call it for the fraud that it is. If you don't like it, pick a different coin to support or relaunch the coin fairly. |
|
|
|
XMR's real economy is driven mostly by Crypto-Kingdom.
I've had a hunch (purely speculation) that some of the recent upswing was driven by individuals mixing (potentially stolen) BTC from recent scams/hacks through multiple anonymous altcoins. Bytecoin's marketcap went up substantially, then Monero's, then Dash's (not necessarily in that order). Crypto-Kingdom is a significant parameter, but you ought to admit that XMR has a soul of itself. Look at the community, devteam, missives and perspective so far. No other alt-coin has had so much progress in so little time. Sure there's a strong userbase of individuals belonging to the primary BTC adopters but that couldn't say anything really. How many of us possess DOGE or LTC for example? Plus, if I may, I see great similarities with the price fluctuations in the early years of BTC. That means nothing of course, but it could mean a lot when you see it as a primary paradigm. History tends to repeat itself; when you least expect it. We must be ready for such a contingency; also as for the contrary as well. As I frequently wrote around this thread: "Own as much as you don't regret it" (for both possibilities)  That's the best summation I've found. |
|
|
|
Blocka can chose a coin that wasn't instamined if he doesn't like the label. Or he can stop whining about it and spare us the concern for the whole crypto-community, "but think of the children!".  Blocka, from my perspective, dash isn't as anonymous as it claims and suffers from an instamine which is the death knell for mass acceptance. The sooner it falls the better; it's getting in the way of good technology that was fairly launched and can survive media scrutiny. The question isn't why anyone is attacking dash as an instamine, it's why didn't the dev relaunch and avoid the label in the first place? The day dash is removed from coinmarketcaps for being an instamine is the day I stop calling it out. Until then blame your dev for his half of feeding what you claim is unrighteous indignation; if dash wasn't an instamine, there would be no instamine. And 500k in an hour is an instamine. |
|
|
|
Monero idealists are saying it doesn't matter that the hashrate is dominated by botnets.
Monero coins have been and are being minted by criminals using unaware people's computers and electricity without their consent, and the people buying those coins off the criminals are happily receiving stolen property while riding their high horse of crypto morality.
Nonsense - we invented Smart Mining to address both mining centralisation AND the risk of botnets. We're not ignoring the risk, and anyone who says otherwise is delusional. Bitcoin, Dogecoin, and Litecoin have all had major botnet mining problems, I don't think any cryptocurrency can pretend it's not at risk. The difference is that we're actually doing something about it instead of pretending it doesn't exist:) What about it is nonsense? How many percentage of the total hashrate do you estimate can be attributed to Smart Mining feature since it has been released? 1%? 0.1%? Even less? When was the feature released btw? I'm not saying you're ignoring the risk, it's just that there's not much that can be done about it, and it seems the risk has already realized. Using algorithms with fast GPU/ASIC miners that make CPU mining useless makes the botnet risk negligible. The "terminator gene" here could very well be that people are afraid of purchasing Monero coins if they estimate they have x% chance (x = botnet portion of total hashrate) of receiving stolen property. Let's not get off the topic of the Dashmine. Because fear of receiving stolen property is a non-topic for a coin with Monero's fungability, but way to pull on the FUD pump, Illodin. |
|
|
|
Why someone would buy coin if he instamined 2M coins? WTB 20,000 Darkcoin for 1 BTC, PM me!
How do you know he bought them? If I post I'm going to bed does that mean I went to bed. Couldn't resist-- |
|
|
|
The launch of the coin was public! And was open to everybody that wanted to join.!!!
Nobody cares. You are missing the point that 500K coins mined within an hour and 35% of the current supply (growing very slowly because emissions were cut and redirected) within a day -- all while a plethora of misleading and deceptive statements are made by the developer -- does not pass the smell test. Terminator gene implanted. I'm going to bed, smooth. Good luck baby sitting. |
|
|
|
Now have Evan put in writing that Dash coin was instamined, so I can make it my signature--then I'll be satisfied. Because what you have there is qualifying it without saying it and then claiming that it was redistributed fairly--not the same thing in most anyone's book. And where was that found? Was it on the main page of the Dashcoin page or tucked into the Q and A section where only someone looking for it or who stumbled on it while looking for another answer would see it? Instamine isn't fraud you dolt. That's why Coin Market Cap doesn't list instamines lol. Fraud is when you defraud someone. Monero community is clinging to this word 'instamine' as it's the only criticism of Dash it can find. And it wants to hurt Dash because (aparently) Monero has zero unique features or innovation so it's the only way it can continue. Very sad to witness... This is why I provided the definition of fraud which you obviously didn't read and proved my intuition about you correct. fraud (n.) Look up fraud at Dictionary.com mid-14c., "criminal deception" (mid-13c. in Anglo-Latin); from Old French fraude "deception, fraud" (13c.), from Latin fraudem (nominative fraus) "a cheating, deceit," of persons "a cheater, deceiver." Not in Watkins; perhaps ultimately from PIE *dhreugh- "to deceive" (cognates: Sanskrit dhruti- "deception; error"). Meaning "a fraudulent production, something intended to deceive" is from 1650s. The meaning "impostor, deceiver, pretender; humbug" is attested from 1850. Pious fraud (1560s) is properly "deception practiced for the sake of what is deemed a good purpose;" colloquially used as "person who talks piously but is not pious at heart." Instamining a coin but never admitting it in literature or in media is a deceptive (fraudulent) act and cryptocoinmarketcap should delist dashcoin. Thank you for making my case. |
|
|
|
No one can prove if those coins were sold to new owners or sold to the same owner(s)--and trying to convince anyone outside of the Dash commune to trust Evan's word is an exercise in futility. |
|
|
|
|
Blocka, were 500k coins mined in an hour? Yes.
Did Evan mine some of those coins? Yes
Was Dash instamined? If 500k coins in an hour is an instamine, then yes dash was instamined.
I never claimed Evan mined them all, only that the coin he developed was instamined. So he can admit it and have the coin delisted, or you can defend him and bitch about having to do it.
|
|
|
|
I'll just write something and hope the syllogism disappears.
Yeah, that's the confusion Re-read until your cognitive dissonance clears up. www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fraud&allowed_in_frame=0If 500k coins in an hour is an instamine and Evan claims in the literature that it wasn't an instamine then Evan is fraudulent if 500k coins were mined in the first hour. Then again Evan may be really stupid and not know what words mean, either way I don't want him running a project I'm involved with or getting others to risk their money without knowing all the details. Where he say that it was not instamined??? Copy of the wiki : "Was Darkcoin Instamined? ~2mn coins were issued in the first 48 hours due to problems with the difficulty readjustment. That represents approximately 10-15% of the total money supply that will ever be issued. The majority of these coins were distributed through the market in the following weeks and months at very low price levels* (0.0000x BTC per DRK to 0.000x BTC per DRK) and a lot of them were also absorbed in the April/May 2014 price increase. - Examples of prices and selling action almost two weeks after launch:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg4861558#msg4861558https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg4889177#msg4889177- Forum member coins101 did a blockchain analysis of Darkcoins distribution as of September 2014:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=778616.0" Now have Evan put in writing that Dash coin was instamined, so I can make it my signature--then I'll be satisfied. Because what you have there is qualifying it without saying it and then claiming that it was redistributed fairly--not the same thing in most anyone's book. And where was that found? Was it on the main page of the Dashcoin page or tucked into the Q and A section where only someone looking for it or who stumbled on it while looking for another answer would see it? Instamine isn't fraud you dolt. That's why Coin Market Cap doesn't list instamines lol. Fraud is when you defraud someone. Monero community is clinging to this word 'instamine' as it's the only criticism of Dash it can find. And it wants to hurt Dash because (aparently) Monero has zero unique features or innovation so it's the only way it can continue. Very sad to witness... This is why I provided the definition of fraud which you obviously didn't read and proved my intuition about you correct. fraud (n.) Look up fraud at Dictionary.com mid-14c., "criminal deception" (mid-13c. in Anglo-Latin); from Old French fraude "deception, fraud" (13c.), from Latin fraudem (nominative fraus) "a cheating, deceit," of persons "a cheater, deceiver." Not in Watkins; perhaps ultimately from PIE *dhreugh- "to deceive" (cognates: Sanskrit dhruti- "deception; error"). Meaning "a fraudulent production, something intended to deceive" is from 1650s. The meaning "impostor, deceiver, pretender; humbug" is attested from 1850. Pious fraud (1560s) is properly "deception practiced for the sake of what is deemed a good purpose;" colloquially used as "person who talks piously but is not pious at heart." Instamining a coin but never admitting it in literature or in media is a deceptive (fraudulent) act and cryptocoinmarketcap should delist dashcoin. Thank you for making my case. |
|
|
|
I'll just write something and hope the syllogism disappears.
Yeah, that's the confusion Re-read until your cognitive dissonance clears up. apparently you are confused on logic as well, because with your definition 'the fraud' is a logical syllergy of course. It's the definition (the axioms in your syllergistic logic) that are confused, because instamine just mean fast emission. Saying that is a fraud is an additional step, you have to know who instamined them.. Which seeing as it was launched on a public forum, you can't. Maybe learn about cognitive dissonance too; presenting a tautology to prove an argument where you have confused the definitions means that your argument demonstrate cognitive dissonance, it doesn't mean that generically someone you disagree with is wrong? If 500k coins in an hour is an instamine and Evan claims in the literature that it wasn't an instamine then Evan is fraudulent if 500k coins were mined in the first hour. I don't need to prove what the word fraudulent means anymore than I need to prove what the word If means. The definition was provided for you as I don't think you know what it means. The syllogism stands because Evan continues to misrepresent the fact that there was an instamine. You can haggle over what constitutes an instamine, but not that Evan was aware of the amount of coins mined or that he has never admitted to it as an instamine. So either reinvent what an instamine is in most people's opinion or STFU and stop wasting my time. I did give him the out of being stupid by the way. Because he may be like you and not think 500k in an hour constitutes an instamine. Wrong on so many levels, don't know where to begin (or be bothered too - sorry  ) Blocka, the only time you shut up is when you're wrong and are too stupid or too cowardly to admit it. So which is it. |
|
|
|
I'll just write something and hope the syllogism disappears.
Yeah, that's the confusion Re-read until your cognitive dissonance clears up. www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fraud&allowed_in_frame=0If 500k coins in an hour is an instamine and Evan claims in the literature that it wasn't an instamine then Evan is fraudulent if 500k coins were mined in the first hour. Then again Evan may be really stupid and not know what words mean, either way I don't want him running a project I'm involved with or getting others to risk their money without knowing all the details. Where he say that it was not instamined??? Copy of the wiki : "Was Darkcoin Instamined? ~2mn coins were issued in the first 48 hours due to problems with the difficulty readjustment. That represents approximately 10-15% of the total money supply that will ever be issued. The majority of these coins were distributed through the market in the following weeks and months at very low price levels* (0.0000x BTC per DRK to 0.000x BTC per DRK) and a lot of them were also absorbed in the April/May 2014 price increase. - Examples of prices and selling action almost two weeks after launch:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg4861558#msg4861558https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg4889177#msg4889177- Forum member coins101 did a blockchain analysis of Darkcoins distribution as of September 2014:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=778616.0" Now have Evan put in writing that Dash coin was instamined, so I can make it my signature--then I'll be satisfied. Because what you have there is qualifying it without saying it and then claiming that it was redistributed fairly--not the same thing in most anyone's book. And where was that found? Was it on the main page of the Dashcoin page or tucked into the Q and A section where only someone looking for it or who stumbled on it while looking for another answer would see it? |
|
|
|
I'll just write something and hope the syllogism disappears.
Yeah, that's the confusion Re-read until your cognitive dissonance clears up. apparently you are confused on logic as well, because with your definition 'the fraud' is a logical syllergy of course. It's the definition (the axioms in your syllergistic logic) that are confused, because instamine just mean fast emission. Saying that is a fraud is an additional step, you have to know who instamined them.. Which seeing as it was launched on a public forum, you can't. Maybe learn about cognitive dissonance too; presenting a tautology to prove an argument where you have confused the definitions means that your argument demonstrate cognitive dissonance, it doesn't mean that generically someone you disagree with is wrong? If 500k coins in an hour is an instamine and Evan claims in the literature that it wasn't an instamine then Evan is fraudulent if 500k coins were mined in the first hour. I don't need to prove what the word fraudulent means anymore than I need to prove what the word If means. The definition was provided for you as I don't think you know what it means. The syllogism stands because Evan continues to misrepresent the fact that there was an instamine. You can haggle over what constitutes an instamine, but not that Evan was aware of the amount of coins mined or that he has never admitted to it as an instamine. So either reinvent what an instamine is in most people's opinion or STFU and stop wasting my time. I did give him the out of being stupid by the way. Because he may be like you and not think 500k in an hour constitutes an instamine. |
|
|
|
I'll just write something and hope the syllogism disappears.
Yeah, that's the confusion Re-read until your cognitive dissonance clears up. www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fraud&allowed_in_frame=0If 500k coins in an hour is an instamine and Evan claims in the literature that it wasn't an instamine then Evan is fraudulent if 500k coins were mined in the first hour. Then again Evan may be really stupid and not know what words mean, either way I don't want him running a project I'm involved with or getting others to risk their money without knowing all the details. |
|
|
|
www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fraud&allowed_in_frame=0If 500k coins in an hour is an instamine and Evan claims in the literature that it wasn't an instamine then Evan is fraudulent if 500k coins were mined in the first hour. Then again Evan may be really stupid and not know what words mean, either way I don't want him running a project I'm involved with or getting others to risk their money without knowing all the details.
|
|
|
|
I just wanted to piss off the regular trolls because I know that's just eating them up inside. I know, that was weak of me.
Bad boy.  The hard truth is that all of these Cryptonote and other "anon-altcoins" are not needed (and will never be needed) for 99% of users in a situation where DASH works as intended. That is why their number one goal - to kill DASH, but do not develop their own coins. While Dash is still alive - all their "cryptographical fairy tales" have no practical meaning. So resultative trolling and lies are the only hope for success for Monero and other "dreamers". Obviously they will unite lots of very "best" people around this difficult and "intelligent" mission. Good luck to their destructive community.  Disruptive technology is about destruction and the new world that rises from its ashes won't be built on the shoulders of a fraud. |
|
|
|
Yea I sometimes like to irritate obnoxious trolls. Does that make me a bad person? wut.. no premine but you have 5k to throw?  The error in block reward calculation caused coins being spewed out faster than I anticipated, and I thought 5k coins was a lot at the time. Until I checked my miner's wallet.  I hope that doesn't irritate you. No, I just don't believe you. Goodnight.  |
|
|
|
I think I just tried to explain it to you. If you don't want to understand it, I can't help you.
Where is your explanation of how throwing Bitcoin under the bus refutes what Fluffy said? Did I miss it? Where is it? I'm looking above but all I see is a question and an implication but not an explanation. Why don't you explain to us why Dash is more or less trustless than Bitcoin or more or less trustless than Monero and in what way? Do I need to fear a double spend or a masternode attacking my masternode? Are those an even-swap of risks. Seems like Dash has too many working parts for it to be an even-swap, so I asked for an explanation. I'm going to bed, but I'm looking forward to this like Christmas, so please don't disappoint. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
