So monero had a optimized miner out while roughly 5% of the supply was mined. Who really knows for sure how much monero was mined with these miners and if any of it is still held. You believe the words of a scammer and a crook? Did they end up with more than 2%? They had, at most, slightly over 50% of the hash rate for various periods (not the entire time). I can tell you that I mined without the optimized miner and had a good fraction of the hash rate for a while, as did a number of others, so it is clear their share of the 5% was certainly well under 5%, perhaps at most 2.5%, which comes to around 450 000 coins. They spent hundreds of thousands of dollars doing this, over a period of months, which even if you don't believe they sold (in large part to pay for the mining) which certainly I do believe, amounts to a major investment, quite possibly higher than the price of the coin even today. They did not mine millions of coins over a couple of days for very little cost. You're also confusing two totally different issues entirely. No one claims that mining is totally "fair" at all times for everyone. People have ASICs with different efficiencies, different electricity costs, and all manner of optimized GPU miners. That's totally separate issue from the rate of coin distribution and whether or not millions of coins were distributed to a few people in a couple of days. |
|
|
|
Sure there might be other problems, but not that one.
What is the concrete problem DRK is having (in addition to constant trolling) now or in the future that is a direct result of the unfortunate launch? Perpetual criticism that it is the fruit of a poison tree. Meaning either incompetence or fraud, and both are indeed poison to outsiders who dislike both and are structurally unable to distinguish them. That does not mean zero success, but it will be an unnecessary burden to bear, and that's a tough obstacle in a brutally competitive market. So the concrete and actual problem is FUD. Agreed pretty much. FUD is a problem yes, but in this case it is the symptom and not the cause. The cause can only be addressed by moving to a different coin that wasn't instamined. It will forever be the case that people researching dark will hit google and find this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=560138.0or this: http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=a_massive_investigation_of_instamines_and_fastmines_for_the_top_alt_coins#darkcoinYou can't put humpty dumpty back together, sorry. |
|
|
|
I submit that the developement team of a coin is quite an important factor to consider when deciding whether to make an investment.  Interestingly, our development team includes seven core team members and several other developers and important contributors. There have been many individuals that have contributed to Monero code; a complete list of which can be found on our Github Contributors page.
Some that have made outstanding contributions include: Thomas Winget, mikezackles, oranjuice, warptangent, rfree, moneromooo, jakoblind, and tomerkon. So you probably shouldn't judge a team or the work on the basis of your opinion of some of our posts. In fact if you are basing your opinion of the team on the relative few of us who do post on bitcointalk at all you are probably getting a very misleading perception (for better or worse) since most do not. But as I said you should make up your own mind about which coin(s) to support if any. I can't say that your own criteria are incorrect. Shouldn't you turds be building a release that doesn't brick my laptop every time i try to open it? You spend a lot of time bitching and not working. Please post a link where you have reported this "bricking" issue because I'm not familiar with it. |
|
|
|
Monero has at least five GUI wallets. If you want one, you have no excuse for waiting. Very few people use Bitcoin Core as their GUI wallet any more; the real action in user-friendly wallets is competition and third party developers. That applies to Monero and Bitcoin alike. As with Bitcoin, the core team is focusing on the core technology first and foremost. I'm glad we have done that rather than be distracted by pretty wallets.
The five GUI wallets r "unofficial" iirc i.e. not released by Core Devs As are Electrum, Multibit, Trezor, blockchain.info, coinbase, and almost every other Bitcoin wallet people actually use today. Do you disagree? You did say that SDC was like XMR (NIZKPs, ring sigs etc)
and the fact remains it is a BTC fork and much readier for B2b than XMR as of today.
Do u disagree?
I agree with the first statement. The second statement I can't evaluate because I haven't tried to use it or spoken with people who have. In theory it could be true, in practice it may or may not be true. Much depends on the maturity of the code. I can say that merely being a BTC fork won't give you very good integration at the level of Shadow. B2b integrators who treat it as a Bitcoin clone will be using SDC, with reduced anonymity and less convenince for users who want to stick with the more anonymous cryptonote-like Shadow. Maybe a thread that was about SDC would be a better place to discuss that instead of spamming your coin here on a discussion about DRK and XMR though. |
|
|
|
I submit that the developement team of a coin is quite an important factor to consider when deciding whether to make an investment. Interestingly, our development team includes seven core team members and several other developers and important contributors. There have been many individuals that have contributed to Monero code; a complete list of which can be found on our Github Contributors page.
Some that have made outstanding contributions include: Thomas Winget, mikezackles, oranjuice, warptangent, rfree, moneromooo, jakoblind, and tomerkon. So you probably shouldn't judge a team or the work on the basis of your opinion of some of our posts. In fact if you are basing your opinion of the team on the relative few of us who do post on bitcointalk at all you are probably getting a very misleading perception (for better or worse) since most do not. But as I said you should make up your own mind about which coin(s) to support if any. I can't say that your own criteria are incorrect. |
|
|
|
LOL. People love putting words into Satoshi's mouth. If only he could strike them down with lightning. SMDH.
Quoting his posts is not putting words in his mouth. Crypto may offer a way to do "key blinding". I did some research and it was obscure, but there may be something there. "group signatures" may be related. There's something here in the general area: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hopwood/crypto/rh/What we need is a way to generate additional blinded variations of a public key. The blinded variations would have the same properties as the root public key, such that the private key could generate a signature for any one of them. Others could not tell if a blinded key is related to the root key, or other blinded keys from the same root key. These are the properties of blinding. Blinding, in a nutshell, is x = (x * large_random_int) mod m. When paying to a bitcoin address, you would generate a new blinded key for each use. Then you need to be able to sign a signature such that you can't tell that two signatures came from the same private key. I'm not sure if always signing a different blinded public key would already give you this property. If not, I think that's where group signatures comes in. With group signatures, it is possible for something to be signed but not know who signed it. As an example, say some unpopular military attack has to be ordered, but nobody wants to go down in history as the one who ordered it. If 10 leaders have private keys, one of them could sign the order and you wouldn't know who did it. |
|
|
|
A similar idea was already discussed in Monero. Fortunately it was rejected, but they're still looking for changing this to remain with a 1% annual perpetually. I apply the same rume: introducing a change like this can be harmful for reputation of the coin. This is the type of the thing which should be decided at the coin's launch, instead of changing lately. Changing the rules of the game after it started is not good.
Well, there are two things there. Firstly: several core team members (myself and tacotime specifically) made it clear that we would not be changing the social contract, and if we were vetoed and the emission curve was changed we would be leaving the project. This was not a strong-arm tactic, it was because we couldn't, in good conscience, continue to support a project where the social contract is negotiable. Nevertheless, we have always stated that we would likely add a tail emission to preserve mining incentives (we may not entirely agree with every conclusion Nicolas T. Courtois has made in his Programmed Self-Destruction of Crypto Currencies paper, but we do concur with section 5.3 on the dangers of ever-decreasing mining rewards). Just in case this is ever in doubt, our OP on Bitcointalk in May of 2014 (the earliest scanned by archive.org) already detailed this tail emission under the "Max Supply" note. So our implementing it is not a new idea, and is not in question - we always planned on this probability, and were always public about it. Well said! thats why I like Monero, ethics and sound math, code is being worked on, the only anonymous crypto worth any money/attention. respectfully disagree. SDC has everything anon-wise XMR has, according to ur own dev smooth. That would be true if the implementation were as mature and well-developed, and if you continue to follow our research lead on how various edge conditions in cryptonote need to be addressed. the diffs r that SDC is a BTC fork so is ready for B2B use toady with a gorgeous GUI wallet, something Monero users have long wished for.
I believe the phrase "magic wallet" has been bandied around thr XMR thread. what is the ETA btw?
Monero has at least five GUI wallets. If you want one, you have no excuse for waiting. Very few people use Bitcoin Core as their GUI wallet any more; the real action in user-friendly wallets is competition and third party developers. That applies to Monero and Bitcoin alike. As with Bitcoin, the core team is focusing on the core technology first and foremost. I'm glad we have done that rather than be distracted by pretty wallets. |
|
|
|
I noticed that its price was back to its pre-poloniex days recently and was considering buying back in. I stopped by the thread and noticed smooth was handling some FUD that day, was being patient with trolls and basically trying to keep the ship sailing, was pretty impressed at the time and remained open to buying back in, but don't like the emmission curve or liklihood of any significant adoption for years. Fluffypony always comes off bad but tacotime is usually alright and i had a decent impression of smooth.
But, you guys are ridiculous! Totally unprofessional and you wear your jealousy on your face! Get to work on your coin! Why are you still here???
Look, criticism goes both ways and we get more than our fair share of it. When I post on these things I do so as a long-term cryptocurrency enthusiast whose interests go beyond just Monero. Also, we actively discourage the cultish sort of dev worship that drives a lot of other coins. Whether you like or dislike the Monero devs is not why we want you to support the coin. Evaluate the technology, the work being done, the economics, etc. If you dislike the emission curve (at least for now), for example, then you probably shouldn't buy, regardless of how much you might like, say, tacotime or perhaps (sometimes?) me. Let the substance speak for itself and leave personalities out of it. Cryptocurrency is not your favorite sports team or singer. |
|
|
|
Im going to be launching DarkMonero soon, its a clean relaunch of Monero because I feel that Monero's launch wasnt fair and that its inflation is hurting investors, if Monero is going to thrive I feel as though it needs to be relaunched cleanly to ensure investors are not putting their investment at risk.
Sure go ahead, I don't discourage this at all. It was tried with Quazarcoin and that seems to have died, but it may not have been a sincere effort in the first place. In reality I talk to a lot of people who are considering getting involved with Monero and a few who are evaluating both Monero and DRK, and in practice there is a lot more concern about the DRK instamine, etc. then about some miners who got a portion of the first few percent of coins on the cheap. But if you think this is a big deal and hurts the coin today, go for it! |
|
|
|
On the other hand, we know for a fact that monero was launched with a deliberately reduced miner for the general public and an optimized miner for the devs. The original devs cashed out their huge profits and left the community holding bags. Luckily a team stepped up to take it over.
There was no "huge profit" for the original devs even. They might have made a little but if you take the total coins mined, subtract those mined by dga, and subtract those mined by people using the public miner (who still did quite well on it), there isn't a whole lot left. I'm pretty sure the original devs did not expect the community to shove them out and fix the miner within a couple of months the way it played out and were caught unprepared. They likely wanted to use their optimized miner in secret for a long time, or perhaps more likely the whole "bitmonero" project (as with quazarcoin, fantomcoin, etc. etc.) was just a sham to crowd out clones and prop up their real scam, bytecoin (which did have an 82% premine). In fact they intended to merge mine bitmonero with bytecoin. Still off topic though. Nice job obfuscating DRK's problems by rehashing early cryptonote history guys. |
|
|
|
There was no premise at all, and no lying about it. WTF, I have no idea where you got that from?
I thought monero was premined, i get all the shitcoins confused. Seems like i saw it was like 2+% premined. Maybe it was another anon shitcoin but pretty sure it was monero. I'll find it. "Pretty sure" = "dead wrong" in this case. |
|
|
|
Basically some guys got together and decided that bitcoin addresses are way too easy to remember and type, and bitcoin is just way too light on resources like memory, CPU, bandwidth and hard drive. Also it just didn't seem sketchy enough in it's history, and the infrastrucure seemed too developed and easy to use. So they got together and made cryptonote for us. As a fan of cryptographic diversity I must give mad props to Nicolas van Saberhagen. If fiat is the galactic empire and Satoshi is Seldon, cryptonote is second foundation.
Yes that's exactly what happened. Traceability, linkability, blockchain analysis, mining concentration, a fixed blocksize limit, etc. had nothing whatsoever to do with it. There's a lot to cover isn't there. I'd also like to see discussion of the choice of DSA. Is cryptonote necessarily not limited in blocksize? I thought pooled mining was basically the same? Colored coins aren't going to work are they. 1. DSA is out of my area of expertise so I'll let others such as tacotime address it. 2. There is no fixed limit on blocksize in cryptonote, it is a dynamic equilibrium between transaction demand, mining rewards, and penalities imposed on miners for too-large blocks. There has certainly been some criticism of that, and it may or may not work out well in practice (we'll see I guess assuming any cryptonote coins actually get enough usage). They did at least attempt a solution. 3. Pooled mining is much the same but the PoW is designed to be "egalitarian" and support mining on regular computers, with little gain from specialized hardware. It is so far the most successful attempt at this, by a fairly decent margin, with very limited payoff from GPU mining even. Of course there may eventually be ASICs, etc. but it seems there are credible opinions (for example from dga) that it will be modest and have limited payoff (much less than SHA or scrypt), further delaying its arrival and reducing its effect. 4. Colored coins won't work as-is but could be made to work with the relatively simple modification of adding a color tag (so only coins of the same color could be mixed). This is in effect by design to inhibit blockchain analysis, since that's exactly what colored coins are. |
|
|
|
It is in interesting question because often the argument for why altcoins have no merit and will fail is that bitcoin will incorporate any of their features. In fact that argument was made on this very thread. But in fact as you point out there are serious problems with that line of reasoning. I am not saying altcoins have no merit or that they have merit. One can think of Bitcoin as a low level protocol like TCP. Services can be built on top of it. HTTP isn't a part of TCP/IP but HTTP didn't require a new low level transmission protocol or a new low level addressing protocol. It expanded the capabilities of TCP & IP but it didn't replace TCP/IP. Now everything can't be implemented this way but a lot can. Anonymous transactions are one example. Anonymous transactions can't be implemented very effectively on Bitcoin, there are always major impairments in terms of blockchain analysis (esp. if only a minority of users are using it). The inventor of coinjoin has described cryptonote as being "much better" in terms of anonymity than conjoin. (Maybe someone has the exact quote/source; I don't.) If you go the route of off-chain mixers that can completely break taint then you have couterparty risk. In both cases you have risks associated with surveillance by or of the broker. BTW, ipv4 is being slowly and painfully replaced with ipv6, and some applications work quite poorly on top of TCP (esp those requiring reliability and but not ordering, or value timeliness over reliability) so people do build custom protocols, both on top of IP and even lower stack levels). If Bitcoin is like TCP/IP then it is more vulnerable than often assumed from that analogy. |
|
|
|
snip
The Monero insiders had nothing to do with the crippled miner, it came from bytecoin and it was Monero who fixed it, but more to the point it didn't affect the supply at all. Unless you were around during the first month or two it doesn't affect you in the slightest. Someone was going to mine those coins in a few months (roughly 5% percent of the total supply, just as planned) after all.
snip
OOH so monero had an unfair launch... miners with the optimized miner got a ton more coins than miners with the shitty one? hmmm so someone had an advantage and some one had a disadvantage.... Sounds unfair to me. Oh, were you a miner? If not then you weren't affected. Somewhat surprisingly though, even unoptimized miners still made very good money. Oh, where did all those coins go? They were sold, as stated by dga and others who were involved in it. They were just in it for the money and had no real interest in Monero. dba went on to work on BBR, a competing cryptonote, although he seems to have lost interest in that too. |
|
|
|
Basically some guys got together and decided that bitcoin addresses are way too easy to remember and type, and bitcoin is just way too light on resources like memory, CPU, bandwidth and hard drive. Also it just didn't seem sketchy enough in it's history, and the infrastrucure seemed too developed and easy to use. So they got together and made cryptonote for us. As a fan of cryptographic diversity I must give mad props to Nicolas van Saberhagen. If fiat is the galactic empire and Satoshi is Seldon, cryptonote is second foundation.
Yes that's exactly what happened. Traceability, linkability, blockchain analysis, mining concentration, a fixed blocksize limit, etc. had nothing whatsoever to do with it. |
|
|
|
What happened to the original devs? Why did they leave?
The original "bitmonero" dev (almost certainly the same as the byte coin devs, although using a pseudonym to try to appear independent) were given the boot by the community exactly because of stuff like this. |
|
|
|
Correct, I'd recommend moving on to another coin that doesn't have the baggage, and I do recommend that when people ask me.
I'm not a fan of the whole idea of masternodes, nor a fan of PoS coins, so the tech has nothing to interest me, but if I were I would clone DRK and relaunch it clean the way we did with Monero.
I wasn't gonna post in this thread until I saw this, as I like both DRK and XMR. The CPU miner that you all released on launch was de-optimized to 100x less than its optimized speed. Either maliciousness, incompetence, or negligence from being in a hurry to get launched. In any way, XMR was NOT a fair launch by any means. I disagree, and I'll quote the expert on the topic who has nothing whatsoever to do with Monero: This would be a very reasonable thing to assert if I had anything to do with Monero. I don't. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, none of the people who profited from early optimized Monero mining had anything to do with crippling the code in the first place.
Think of it this way: You step in and inherit a legacy codebase for a promising and interesting new cryptocurrency. You're immediately beset with demands -- fix bugs, release binaries, answer help questions, etc. In retrospect, it turns out that the code you took over had been de-optimized by its original creators. Is that your fault? Of course not. What's the standard that we should hold the Monero developers to? To fix any bugs or deliberate weaknesses as fast as they can after they become aware of it. To get up to speed and review and understand the codebase they inherited as quickly as a reasonable developer can do. Pretty clear, and like I said, it still didn't affect the total supply at all, and is off topic. It says a lot that the best response DRK supporters have of their own flaws is to aim criticism at another. It's ineffective and pathetic. |
|
|
|
I would clone DRK and relaunch it clean the way we did with Monero.
The monero launch was anything but clean. False. Where is the info about the crippled monero miner and the secret optimized miner for insiders? The Monero insiders had nothing to do with the crippled miner, it came from bytecoin and it was Monero who fixed it, but more to the point it didn't affect the supply at all. Unless you were around during the first month or two it doesn't affect you in the slightest. Someone was going to mine those coins in a few months (roughly 5% percent of the total supply, just as planned) after all. how much monero was premined? why did they lie about the amount of premined coins? There was no premise at all, and no lying about it. WTF, I have no idea where you got that from? do the cryptonote nsa origins and fake white paper worry you? No, the NSA troll was a joke on a on paid a "news" web site and the fake white paper doesn't worry me at all because we are well aware of the bytecoin/cryptonote scammers. That's why Monero was created in the first place, otherwise we would just be using bytecoin. Still off topic. Not clear at all how any of this is relevant to DRK and its problems. |
|
|
|
Yes with more than 2 Million DRK mined in few days by the dev and maybe some of his friend, he have money and time to continue the scam.
And seems the guys like you enjoy and feed that scam. Then why he should stop the fraud?
If the dev really had millions of coins and was out to fraud people, he would've exited in the Big Pump last year. But strangely he's still around working hard. Nobody knows what the he did or didn't do. For all we know he sold say 1/3 of his coins at a nice profit, but wants more, or was very greedy and held on for higher prices until it was too late to sell, or indeed possibly the only reason there was such a big pump at all was because he didn't sell (much). As outsiders there is just no way to know, and the better choice is to find something cleaner. There is no shortage of choices (though somewhat of a shortage of clean ones unfortunately). |
|
|
|
Sure there might be other problems, but not that one.
What is the concrete problem DRK is having (in addition to constant trolling) now or in the future that is a direct result of the unfortunate launch? Perpetual criticism that it is the fruit of a poison tree. Meaning either incompetence or fraud, and both are indeed poison to outsiders who dislike both and are structurally unable to distinguish them. That does not mean zero success, but it will be an unnecessary burden to bear, and that's a tough obstacle in a brutally competitive market. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
