 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
Instamine goes for all coins, it's relative. The people who mined bitmonero the first 24 hours probably got also 100's of thousands monero.
LOL no. Relative yes. Comparable to any meaningful extent, no. Total mined in the first 24 hours of Bitmonero 27,300.456199349552 Total mined in the second 24 hours of Bitmonero 27,206.695525935472 Total mined now per 24 hours (approx): 11,854.01642329008 Total mined in first 24 hours of Dash (approx): 1,500,000 Total mined in second 24 hours of Dash (approx): 500,000 Total mined now per 24 hours (approx): 1,440 The Dash instamine stands alone among coins of any note today. Only the worst of instamined scam shitcoins is even a close. Not a "relative" comparison to be proud of by any means. Ok my mistake. But my main point remains, which is that Dash has the most interesting, nondeterministic distribution model. Who got the millions of Dash at the early stages? No one knows. And these people could not have foreseen that Xcoin(which Dash was built upon) was going to get any value at all. In fact, only very naive people would assume that a bugged coin like that would even make it to an exchange. We also have to remember that this was launched early 2014, right after the November 2013 mega spike in Bitcoin. During this time coins were launched to left and right, Dash was literally buried by a ton of "well orchestrated" coins. It was considered a piece of garbage for the first 3 months. Even if it would have had a "proper" distribution model, millions of coins would already have been mined and hoarded by the ferocious whales which dominates this market. That's my final assessment. |
|
|
|
Do you believe that dash was fairly launched? If so, I would say that is a faulty claim.
There you go again with your fair launch delusions when 99.9999% of the population isn't even aware coins are being launched every day. It's not the dev's fault some people want to pay something for the coins thus giving them value. You don't have to buy or mine coins, no one is forcing you, it is not necessary for you to do so. If someone else does though, it's not unfair to you the slightest. If I create a program that generates a million tokens out of thin air and I keep them all to myself, and you for some reason want to buy one of them for $1, all of a sudden I hold $1MM worth of computer data. Was this unfair to someone? Who was scammed? When Gates and Allen founded Microsoft and got most of the shares, was that a fair launch? I think it's interesting though that even small time miners managed to hit some blocks and buy some coins cheap by being lucky of being there early instead of all the coins going to the same mining farms and whales. The launch was different than Monero's, it's a good thing there is plenty of choice available for everyone to choose what they like. My point was that if you claimed that dash was launched fairly and the privacy is good, then comparing it to Monero, BBR, the real Dash, and AEON is fair--but if you don't, then your claim that Monero and Dash are competing projects and that it is the source of the criticisms is faulty. My assertion is that it is the false comparison built on Evan's claims that has led to much of the animosity, and if dash was honest with what it is (another shit coin with a terrible launch with faux technological advantages), then no one would bother to criticize it for making faulty claims. To put it more simply, you would need a fair launch and equal privacy to be in competition with Monero. I don't see it, but you are more than encouraged to make that claim so i or someone else can refute it. Look, I know you can keep going 24/7 and take turns but I'll just have to stop at some point so I'll just leave these here: - It's easy to be all good and friendly with "competition" 1% of your size
- If DASH was 1% of your size you wouldn't give a shit
- There is no fair launch, life is not fair
- It's a free world, you're not forced or required to have the same percentage of an asset as everyone else. You can go create your own digital token and assign 99% of it to yourself to balance the irritation all this unfairness has caused you.
True. Distribution is a huge problem, depending on how you look at it things will appear unfair. My point is that what people mined called Xcoin IS not what we call Dash today. People will continue to argue about this, calling it scam etc, but they cannot provide any good distribution model themselves. Instamine goes for all coins, it's relative. The people who mined bitmonero the first 24 hours probably got also 100's of thousands monero. A fair distribution model would adapt to the amount of miners. But who the fuck wants a fair distribution? It takes away all the fun. This is a gold rush, it's not meant to be fair, suckaz. Thats why we complain on all the coins we missed out on  |
|
|
|
People complains about Dash, formerly Darkcoin, formerly Xcoin, being instamined and not rightfully propagated.
Well, I think there are some things that we need to reconsider before we actually come to this conclusion.
A) The history.
When Xcoin was launched, it had no other features that any other coin didn't have. It was a restart and a copy with no unique features. It was worthless, and it got distributed through an "instantaneous mining"(2.5m coins out of current 5.0m supply within 8 hours).
small correction : it was actually 1.99m not 2.5m --> https://dashdot.io/alpha/?page_id=118 Corrected. |
|
|
|
|
People complains about Dash, formerly Darkcoin, formerly Xcoin, being instamined and not rightfully propagated.
Well, I think there are some things that we need to reconsider before we actually come to this conclusion.
A) The history.
When Xcoin was launched, it had no other features that any other coin didn't have. It was a restart and a copy with no unique features. It was worthless, and it got distributed through an "instantaneous mining"(1.9m coins out of current 4.9m supply within 8 hours).
What these miners got is a humongous amount of Xcoin, which in itself was nothing but a copied coin. Lucky few, they probably had 100's of thousands of Xcoins, worth about 0.1btc/100,000 or something at that time.
One month later, actual progress had been made, and the coin attained a small value, the community voted to change the name to 'Darkcoin', because anonymity was the goal, and even though it wasn't fully implemented yet, people had started to believe in the development.
So now the coin was called Darkcoin. Progress was being made and 3 months later it was no longer the Xcoin that was once launched. Just as like a skyscraper that had started taking form, from just being an architecture with a lot of guesswork, now something actual had been created, and it was called Darkcoin. Still not fully anonymous, and lots of bugs left to be solved, but yet interesting enough to have caught a lot of attention.
Continued development brought stability to the coin, and it finally got to the point where the original goal of anonymity had been reached. But new opportunities had opened up, the masternode network turned out to bring a whole new platform to the market, so it was a given to continue expanding on it.
Yet again a community vote was made for changing the name from the somewhat obscure 'Darkcoin', to 'Dash'. Why was this appropriate? Because the development had reached far beyond Darkcoin, Darkcoin was the nymph that hatched into something much bigger and the incentives had changed.
The distribution is history, it's an integrated part of the project, and it laid the foundation for what we have now.
B) Relaunch is not an option.
Because if this were to be relaunched, it wouldn't be fair anyhow. The people with the biggest rigs and mining-farms would quickly consume the network, and the distribution would favor the few wealthy mega-miners. Most people don't even know how setup mining. People would also hoard their coins, making it impossible for others to get a piece of the cake.
It would simply and clearly be a waste of time and energy to do this, and for what purpose? We would have the same situation with the exception of that we could point to the mining history and say that it had a "fair launch"(only meaning that it was stable and predictable).
|
|
|
|
|
