Those are some very good points stan.distortion, and I'm indeed interested to see how things go with these budget/governance systems (not only Dash but also some of the other coins that have similar approaches).

Thank you for the respectful and informative exchange. I have mentioned before that I own some DASH (which is still the case), and there are things I like about it, despite being critical of others.

Thank you ceti. I will soon be updating the collection of references in the OP which will include some links to dashtalk.org. Stay tuned.

Eventually, perhaps, if they look long enough. But there is clear evidence this does not always occur, at least not right away. For example, Tone Vays statement that he believed the instamine was an accident (and indeed promoted Dash on his podcast based on that conclusion) until he read additional information. Whether or not the instamine was in fact an accident is not the point here, the point is that it is easy for people such as Tone, who are very savvy and well-informed, to not see all the relevant information, given how it is being presented, and then later, by happenstance, reach different conclusions only if and when they (eventually) learn more.


I'm pretty sure I have already described the problems with incomplete, misleading, and selective disclosure and they aren't so easy to solve. No one can prevent toknormal from using minimizing and dismissive phrases such as 'launch issues'. Adding a link to some inconspicuous corner of the web site is not going to fix it. Perhaps some long and serious introspection on the matter and a decision to proceed with far more candor by various Dash stakeholders could improve the situation, but let's face it, Evan and maybe a few others run the show, and they've made clear how they want to portray the instamine by now.

FWIW, I have a hard time believing that you really care about coding of a competing coin, so let's just cut out the obvious bullshit please.

The question certainly makes sense. I'll be happy to clarify it for him should he request that I do so. Until then I will await his answers and ignore third party speculation as to his answers.

@kushti Did you ever have any formal or informal agreement to serve as an advisor or in any other role on the Waves team, either individually, as a Nxt developer, or as an employee of IOHK? (The latter seems clear from previous posts but best to clarify.)

If not, did you engage in any communications with the Waves team or founders which could reasonably have led them to believe you would serve in such a role?

That web site is a domain squatter.


Monero is not an entity so your sentence is misconstructed, but in any case regardless of what wallet you use, no one else is responsible for your use of open source software provided at no charge with no warranty. Use at your own risk.

Yup, that's why both GUI wallets and pool code were developed using bounties. Both efforts successfully concluded in mid 2014

Incorrect.


Quaint to see the [MRO] symbol from back then.

It was there from the original post before any edits (perhaps forum admin could verify) but that is the first capture in archive.org, May 20, 2014.

Whatever your criticisms of Monero, please do not make things up.

I'm just curious what part of my post was 'misinforming'.

Yes and you can verify it was always there in archive.org. Off topic here, please continue on a Monero thread if you have other questions.

Same answer though. I don't even really know what that is, beyond some vague thing about social media. No idea how it was launched, what it does, etc. Never looked at it.

No matter. Monero still near all time high market cap. Good news for a 2 year old coin.

Yes I agree. Here are facts.

Yes but not for years before there are any (significant number of) users. Hundreds or maybe 1000 should be enough for testing and build out.

It costs $5/month to run a node supposedly (number from this thread).  $10/month would probably be enough incentive for people to bring up a very large number of nodes, especially since people can own many nodes, which reduces the costs associated with running them.  I mean look at a coin like Monero (not shilling here, and I doubt there are any potential customers here anyway, just happens to be one I know). It has 100-300 nodes with no incentive at all. How many nodes would you get with $10/month incentive?

What is priced into the market is the combination of all the information out there, from a variety of sources, some correct, some incorrect, etc. New investors do not know where to find all the information nor do they know who to believe necessarily. So when Dash supporters and official statements from Dash present inaccurate, misleading, or selective information, it contributes to scamming new investors.

Make the disclosures full and accurate, and there is no issue. The market can sort it out.

I don't even know what that is, and I've never posted about it (and only rarely about ETH).

But let's try to stay on topic on this thread and discuss Monero. This is not a thread about 'negativity' and whether you think crypto should be full of smiles and flowers and campfire songs.

The market does not accept or reject as "legitimate". The market just does what it does, which is trade tokens. Plenty of obvious scams (even worse than Dash) have had high values in the market for a time. People will buy any junk as long as they think they can sell it for a higher price.


I can't speak for others but it has nothing to do with "injustice" or "legitimacy" in my view, and I mostly don't care what someone calls "legitimate". It has to do with whether investors are being scammed, and in the case of Dash, they are, by the ongoing false, deceptive, misleading, and selective statements being made both the official Dash organization (e.g. the ANN OP and the "Official Statement", "The History of Dash"), and by community members.

Such as you, for example, right here characterizing early launch, massive instamine, withholding of information, deceptive and misleading statements, cuts to emissions and supply, etc. with a nice little euphemism:


If you and the rest of the Dash community would be up front, making full, complete, and accurate disclosure of the history as I have done in my comments here and on my Dash instamine thread, you would not hear from me again on the issue. I'm not holding my breath however.

On this I agree, but the rewards are grossly excessive for the services provided.

Even with zero fee you could still scale the masternode rewards according to usage, or at least wait until such a system is actually deployed before paying people to allegedly provide a service that doesn't exist. Or possibly ramp up masternode rewards slowly along with usage (years). They were ramped but only over a few months.

It is hard to see how the past year or more and the next year or more of masternode rewards is anything but redistribution.

He may have worked on one in 2014, but he clearly stopped working on it. Being volunteers, people work according to their available time and interests.

There was a bounty funded by a number of us in 2014 which successfully produced four GUIs in early-mid 2014 which were available and for a time listed on the web site "choose-a-wallet" page. Those weren't maintained so most were eventually removed from the page, but the lightWallet GUI wallet (still maintained, now on version 2) is still there.

That is how decentralized open source projects work. If you want to contribute and have relevant skills, you are welcome too.

Reference: https://getmonero.org/getting-started/choose

In addition to the correction of the supply number, I must also correct another error. The statement about a "for-profit" coin launch was made not months before launch but about three weeks before launch.

My apologies for the error