We sure did, what I "admitted" to was no manipulation has ever been done, unlike the Dash scam that is changed on a whim every time its Leader wants to pump up the instaminers' and insiders' holdings some more.

Nor, again unlike Dash, were any extra coins created due to bugs or "bugs" that the instaminers just kept (unlike Bitcoin, where the bug coins were destroyed).

I wonder, though, why Evan's changes always adding to the value of instaminers' holdings and never reducing it? Could it be that he doesn't regret instamining Dash after all, and he's still working to make it an even bigger rip off?

Hey idiot, every time you go back to your drooling and incoherent "Monero Is A Scam" defense of Dash it just makes it that much more clear that you have no defense of Dash. Dash is indefensible.

What he said. You want an official GUI (or anything else) on a different schedule, implement one or pay someone to implement one and then do this: https://help.github.com/articles/using-pull-requests/


That's funny, it sure looks to me like it does exist in the Official Github Repo: https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/tree/master/src/blockchain_db

Have you contributed to helping to test it, or anything else, e-coinomist?

Stop lying and selectively misreporting what I say, please:


Instead, I suggest you come up with some quotes from Evan where he explains why there was not a huge Dash instamine. GLWT.

There was objectively no Monoro instamine, and no one other than the latest iteration of the constant drone of rabid "Monero Is A Scam" nut jobs things it was a scam either.

Dash, on the other hand, had a sham of a launch schedule (proven with quotes from Evan himself, and others), massive 2 million coin instamine (proven with blockchain), a coin supply cut multiplying the original instamine by 4x, and then 45% of subsequent supply redirected back to existing coin holders (e.g. insider whales and instaminers), brining the total blatant manipulation and rip off by Evan to 8.88x. In other words, a huge scam that Evan may or may not regret.

But its elisabethhhh...must be a girl. For reals. Why not help her?

Scamers. smh.

Spare us the concern trolling, puppet.

Your bigger concern should be Evan's instamining, deception, and manipulation. Maybe he gets away with it because people like you are too busy pretending to be concerned about other coins instead of helping you own dev make better decisions.

Despite what the obfuscators and whitewashers (and rabid "Monero Is A Scam" types) want to suggest, this thread has nothing to do with Monero.

Yes I want Monero to succeed, but that has nothing to do with the fact that I despise what Evan has done and continues to do with Dash.

As for whether Dash is going to succeed, we'll have to agree to disagree I suppose (maybe). I think it is virtually certain it will not, and anyone buying into this latest hype about "mainstream" adoption of Dash (it is light years away from getting any) or the idea of people outside of the altcoin ecosystem ever turning a blind eye to the fraudulent and/or near-fraudulent history of an embryonic system, particularly when less-impaired substitutes are available, is being played.  (Mercedes is a huge company with a lot of power and influence, not a tiny little cryptocoin with a nearly unlimited number of competitors.) As generalizethis pointed out quite insightfully, people "out there" already think Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme and Bitcoin is about a million times cleaner than Dash.

I don't begrudge you using it as a vehicle for making money though, I think you know that. I always have respect for a good trade.

I do wonder if Evan regrets instamining it though. Short term, it was a good trade for him, but at the cost of destroying any chance Dash could have had to actually making it big, or to make any real difference outside of altcoin speculation. Maybe he thinks that was worth it, I don't know.

Eventually sure. MyMonero isn't open source yet though, at least not the back end part.

Not only was it possible, it wasn't even that hard, and as I've said a million times it indicates quite strongly that the original developers were not in fact using any optimized miner (or if they were, not much). I wasn't the only one mining say 10% or so either. It was easy if you were a serious miner at all.

If you look at the difficulty on the network at say block 5000 (middle of the first week) it was about 100k.

http://moneroblocks.eu/search/5000


That's a hash rate of 1818.5. A high end desktop hash rate using the crippled miner as we've seen earlier in this thread was about 8, so that was around 200 high end desktops mining at that point. Servers were/are faster.

Nobody was mining (much if at all) with a super-fast optimized miner in the first week. It's just not plausible given these numbers. This suggests that TFT didn't even know about the optimized miner from Bytecoin or didn't have access to it. Or maybe he was just honest (but weird) and didn't use it.

Totally different situation from Dash where Evan and a few others mined a million coins in a few hours.

I've already answered that, but since you're digging through my post history you'll find it there too.

I've been a serious miner of many coins for years (on and off a least).

It certainly wasn't by misleading people about launch times and then instamining, like Evan. Does he regret it?

As for the "shitcoin central" quote where I was replying to tacotime, you have that exactly wrong, as usual. I was the one considering a new fork with a relaunch (for various reasons including the one minute block time), tacotime was against it. I agreed to wait two weeks and see whether another fork still made sense.


Obviously in the end there was no fork by us. There was no need because no major problems arose.

So let's see what we have here on this "Scam Launch" food fight:

Monero:

1. Crippled miner, may or may not have ever been know about or taken advantage of (in very limited quantity) by the original dev
2. Proposal to reduce rate of emissions and return early miners' coins, not adopted
3. Small bug with one transaction that may (unclear) have interrupted or slowed down mining for everyone for about a half hour
4. Every proposal to modify the social contract rejected

Dash:

1. Repeated misleading and deceptive statements from Evan on launch time
2. Slow difficulty adjustment that mined a million coins in a few hours and nearly two million in a day
3. A bug that created extra coins (kept by instaminers)
4. Cut to emissions (no return/reduction of early miners' coins)
5. Cut of 75% to the money supply (4x the value for intsaminers coins).
6. 45% of emissions redirected to masternodes (existing coin holders; largely instaminers and insider whales)

One of these coins is a huge instamine scam, with repeated actions taken to perpetuate and even expand the scam, and one had a few minor issues with its launch.

One particular idiot can't tell the difference and thinks that labeling Monero as "Proven Scam Launch" over a few minor glitches somehow makes Dash look like less of a scam despite the slow motion disaster listed as 1-6 above (well, except the instamine part, that was fast). Everyone else can clearly tell the difference and knows exactly how huge of a scam Dash was and is.

I wonder if Evan regrets instamining Dash (items 1-3) and then, on top of it, carrying on with his continued scamming (items 4-6).

Most people using Bitcoin do not use the official GUI. They use Electrum, Multibit, Mycelium, Breadwallet, Blockchain.info, Coinbase, Circle, and I'm probably forgetting some. These are all third party product which demonstrate the strength of the Bitcoin ecosystem.

We have a bit of an ecosystem of our own here. We have MoneroX, LightWallet, MyMonero and a bunch of others.

These (other than MyMonero of course) been somewhat hobbled by version-skew and packaging issues that made them hard to install, but that will be worked out once the next release is tagged, and the situation will be much better. You will be able to download one of these packages and have the node already packaged with it, and have it not require a huge amount of RAM.

You are still missing the point:


In fact the coins were created at the rate specified in the original design but not what some people (myself included) thought was being discussed on the original thread. But in fact the coins did (and do) match the formula:


So we then proceeded to discuss what to do about it. but first let's fix that funny ellipsis you like to use when selectively quoting for misleading purposes:


Ellipsis removed, we can now see that we were proposing to take the original 150k coins that were mined at the original rate, turn them into 75k using a reverse stock split, and then reduce the rate going forward. Later this was changed to a crowdfunding approach where the early miners would have donated half their coins to a bounty fund, but either way, they were not going to get to keep them (unlike Dash).


The whole point of this proposal was to avoid being an instamine by not giving any advantage to the earliest miners (who would have had their faster-mined coin holdings cut in half).  This is exactly what was not done in Dash when the coin supply was cut by 75% but the original miners (including instaminers) got to keep all of their coins, which made the whole thing into a huge rip off (early holdings were arbitrarily multiplied by 4x)

In the end, however, no change was made. The Monero community decided to honor the original social contract and not reduce the emission rate. Exactly the opposite of Dash, which was not only instamined but had its emission rate cut (with no adjustment) and its supply cut after the fact by 75%.


It is quite clear what went on if you actually read the posts and don't quote selectively from them. There was no "scam launch" as you are calling it. Coins were created at a normal smooth rate according to the published formula right from the start (unlike Dash, which matched none of the several published formulas), when there was a proposal to change the curve going forward, an adjustment was going to be included to keep any early miners from having an advantage (again unlike Dash), and the coin supply was never drastically cut (again unlike Dash).

Monero is exactly the opposite of everything that happened in Dash.

Unlike Dash, Monero had:

1. No instamine due to bad difficulty adjustment
2. No instamine due to bugs creating extra coins that shouldn't exist at all (but were allowed to be kept anyway, unlike Bitcoin)
3. No proposal to change parameters without early miners forfeiting any advantage that would give them.
4. No cut to total supply target, multiplying the share of early-mined coins by 4x.
5. No reduction in the rate of emission, creating/increasing a retroactive instamine.

Case closed.

@coins101

I suggest you look at a block explorer, or better yet the blockchain itself. The rate is exactly what was intended and published (unlike the coin that is the topic if this thread).  Tacotime misunderstood, but you are making a fool of yourself.

Yes we had them listed as a third party service on the OP for a while, until the (many) scam reports piled up and made it look questionable at best, outright scam at worst. Stay away.

Also, check trust: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=148419

nikos64, I don't even have Windows and I haven't used it for years. If someone else wants to do Windows builds and upload them to Mega, I would be grateful for that.

Really now. It seems the concept of social contract has been well known in the Monero community for some time


In the end of course we decided to honor the social contract and not slow down emissions, unlike Dash. It was never even under consideration to do a blatant money grab for early adopters by slashing the money supply. That's obscene.

No, unless you mean the bullshit of you taking quotes out of context and interpreting them deceptively (2nd time at least).

I never said Darkcoin was fair, I said that using Bitcoins cryptography was, by itself, an advantage in risk reduction over something new. Of course masternodes are new code too, so there's risk introduced relative to Bitcoin in both coins.

At that point I didn't know anything about how unfair and shady darkcoin was. I wasn't following it at all really, didn't know about the instamine, and never did until Evan took his instamined wealth and used it to piss over the (real) Dashcoin community.

Interesting quote. Let's look at what inconvenient truth is hiding behind that odd looking ellipsis you put there:


Would that user have been able to mine Dash during the instamine?