You may not like how I presented it as a bit of a puzzle, but it isn't an extraordinary claim. What does Dash have that would support a higher price/cap:

1. Does it have more development as evidenced by github metrics (commits, etc.)?
2. Does it have more more discussion on neutral forums such as reddit/twitter/etc.
3. Does it have evidence of more transaction usage outside of investors?
4. Does it have more trading volume?
5. Does it have more available liquidity on order books?
6. Is it primarily traded on a different/better exchange making it accessible to more/different investors?
7. Does it have better search rankings (have to be a bit careful here to not find detergent ads, etc.)
8. Does it have more coverage by journalists, including bloggers, podcasts, etc.? (Especially unpaid coverage.)
9. Does have more/better recognition for soundness by influential technical experts?
10. Is there evidence of new users joining the community at a higher rate?

The answer to all of these is no. The two are either comparable or Monero is stronger.

Now if you ask why the price/cap is what it is, the obvious answer has to do with supply dynamics.

Let's not forget that until recently Bytecoin was also ranked higher than Monero for a year or more, at times quite a bit higher, while at the same time failing on most or all of the above metrics along with others. Those of us looking at the fundamentals said the very same thing -- that it was where it was because of supply dynamics, not fundamentals. Sure enough Bytecoin is now at about 1/2 of Monero's market cap, and was recently much lower than that.

Obsession with market cap (and cap ranking, price) as a particularly meaningful indicator of anything is a blind spot of many crypto investors. Don't be blind.

Cryptonight does not use carryless multiplication. Another hash algorithm could use it but that is not relevant to XMR at this time (maybe propose on the technical improvements thead?). Some ARM chips support it too at very low cost.

The detection issue is my preferred theory, but based on no evidence. If a bot node has a value, the increased attrition rate is a clear cost to mining.

This is also somewhat factored into my estimate of 1+ million nodes. Using high performance desktops only about 60K would be needed, but I assume that all botnet nodes are degraded in efficiency from this near-ideal by some combination of:

1. Not being powered up all the time
2. Limiting mining rate to reduce detection
3. Being older/slower CPUs, running in 32 bit mode, etc.
4. Being laptops.

@TPTB_need_war The AMD cpus are generally much more cost efficient than Intel across the board for XMR mining (and some people have noticed this). The APU models can mine on both the CPU and GPU.

That assumes you are buying equipment specifically to mine. If you're not, then similar power consumption means overall efficiency is similar. Also I don't think th power consumption is similar, if looking at the most efficient CPUs (either server models or low power embedded models)

Also, none of this would really matter to botnets would it?

If I recall the pool list on the OP was supposed to be a list of some recommended pools for new users to get started, not a comprehensive guide. Recommended pools meaning those that don't have a high share of the network, have a good reputation, reasonable fees, donate to support the project, etc.

Having a complete list doesn't really help the project or the coin. New users just need a way to get on one reasonable pool if they want to pool mine. Of course if someone wants to maintain a comprehensive pool list that is perfectly okay too, but it isn't necessary.

So, I wouldn't consider a pool not being in the OP as "missing".

True in XPM (in my understanding which is limited). Not true in XMR, GPU and CPU are comparable efficiency.

I definitely think that is relevant. The problem is that the exchange seems to have veered off into personalities and angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin topics such as the definition of the term 'free market'. People can discuss what they want (some people love to argue over the definitions of words), but that stuff is just clutter here.

On the topic of botnets, this philosophical exchange ignores that fact that no one has contested my claim that the 1+ million or so bot nodes that would needed to soak up the Monero hash rate don't exist, nor are botnets driving the difficulty to a level where non-botnets can't mine profitably. Therefore something is discouraging botnets from mining Monero. The relevance to speculation might be asking what that is causing that and whether it will change in the future.

Unless we can answer that question the topic of botnets may not be all that relevant to Monero after all.

For example.

Hypothesis: Most or all of the botnets in the world are controlled by the same entity or group. They are indeed mining Monero but limiting their hash rate (not competing with each other) to maintain profitability even at the cost of lower coin output.

In terms of price, once one unwinds the price and supply effects of the masternode interest scheme (possibly combined with the effects of concentrated illiquid holdings), the two are very close to parity. In terms of equivalently-adjusted market cap, XMR's is roughly 1.5 times higher. That is consistent with the comparison you get if you use other objective coin evaluation metrics independent of market cap.

I'll leave how I derived these numbers as an exercise to the reader for now with the hint that it is almost entirely objective.

Does this have anything to do with Dash?

Oh BTW, who is "Johnarcher512", Newbie, with 4 posts ever, all four of which are attacks on Monero, and the first of which was a response to a comment about DRK? Is that you Days?

Days, please clear something up for me please, so I can figure out whether you are a Dash scammer and pumper or not? Do you think Dash is the Future Internet of Money?

Who cares?

If you "see" Dash as the Internet of Money, the accuracy of your vision is highly doubtful.

Weak rhetorical tactics that can be used to help identify shitcoins and scammers:

1. "Those criticizing are jealous"
2. "Those criticizing are threatened"

Any more Tao?

Compare it with other coins then, even some not-so-healthy ones like Peercoin. PPC has 1/5 the market cap but a very comparable bid side (so 5x ratio). And that's interesting because PPC has PoS rewards so there is an actual incentive to not keep coins on exchanges (though this doesn't really matter to bid side which is funded with BTC, USD, etc.). Still there is far better liquidity than Dash, relatively speaking.

Litecoin is probably comparable to the healthier non-r0ach-motel coins, but I couldn't get numbers because Poloniex (largest LTC/BTC pair) is down.

The r0ach motel effect is present in many coins to a degree, but Dash is much worse. It is on its way to becoming another Nxt, which by the way is another coin with a terrible initial distribution that made a lot of bogus claims about redistribution and was also promoted on the basis of allegedly amazing ongoing development. It didn't matter because for a cryptocurrency to succeed requires a lot of things, including a decent good and consistently transparent distribution process and lack of any significant privileged parties that destroy the adoption incentive.


That is exactly what you expect in a r0ach motel coin. Thank you for helping to make my case. There is no selling because the concentrated holders have nowhere to go. It would be futile to try to get out, since it would just crash the price. Dashholders check in but they never check out.

Also, check the DASH/XMR ratio. Still close to the low end of its trading range. So what you describe isn't really what happened.

Of course not. You evaluate their statement on the merits. Attacking those statements based on an alleged competing interest is a clear scam tactic, which of course is why you see Dash supporters doing it often.

A coin promoted in that manner is not going to be any sort of "internet of money". As if we needed another reason to add to the 37 already obvious ones.

Criticizing coins is not pumping or scamming to suck in investors (nor is it "FUD" or "trolling" as the defenders like to call it, but that's another story). There are hundreds if not thousands of scam coins, so if anything there is too little criticism and self-regulation by the community, not too much.

If you want the name of a pro-Monero pumper, occasionally at least, you can look at americanpegasus.

Days is a bit unclear. He's clearly critical of Monero but I'm not sure whether or not he has pumping anything, promoting any scams, or actively defending a particular scam coin. I just don't know.

I would add the Waves scam, which was caught falsely claiming to have well-known developers "on their team" when they were just using open source from those developers. That's about as legit as me claiming Linus Torvalds is "on my team" when I created a specialized Linux fork for an appliance device, or all the Bitcoin forks claiming Satoshi Nakamoto on their teams. I don't know the names of specific Waves pumpers.

"Presentation" is a nice neutral word.

How much was 'Juan S. Galt' paid to shill on behalf of Dash?




Random fact:

Believe me, I have zero control over that guy, or less than that if such a thing is possible. He's as irritating to me and other Monero supporters at times as he is to you, but that doesn't change the fact that his insights and opinions, especially the technical ones, are usually correct.

He's one good example (of many) why Dash is not going to be the internet of money nor much of anything else. Here's a guy who owns no competing coins at all (other than a bit of Bitcoin) and still recognizes Dash's second rate technology and deceptive and misleading launch, distribution, and promotional tactics.

You're fooling yourself if you think that only people with competing interest will look at Dash and see that nearly every aspect of it is a steaming pile of shit.

Question: Why does Dash have half the bid order book compared to other coins with one quarter of its alleged market cap (i.e. relative difference of 8x)?

Answer: r0ach motel coin effect

Question: Why is Dash doomed to stagnate and fail long before achieving any status as an "Internet of Money"

Answer: adoption incentives destroyed by the instamine

Oh, that's right. There's another guy (r0ach) who doesn't own directly competing coins afaik and criticizes most or all of them. He also recognizes that Dash is a steaming pile of shit.

Thank you kind sir. If your permission were needed, I would appreciate receiving it!

I'm quite, err, 'positive' that the nature of your try-hard spam shilling and pumping topic is transparent to all, but injecting some facts from time to isn't too much trouble for me, so I'm happy to oblige.

For fun, let's roll a D8 and pick an objective well-documnted fact about Dash for this post:

First of all the genesis block in Bitcoin is unspendable so it is really just an anchor for the chain, but second of all the genesis block is always created in advance of launch, and its timestamp is arbitrary. It has to be because it is compiled into the code. That's for every single coin.

BTW I think Bitcoin only ran on Windows at launch. Porting it to Linux came later.


Really? Then why is Dash/Evan continuing to lie to investors and tell them it was "fairly and transparently" launched with recent edits to the ANN thread? I think we both know the answer.

All of my "claims", as you call them, are objective facts backed up by specific sources and citations. But maybe you are referring to someone else "unfounded claims"?