I haven't studied the Chinese economy so I can't speculate on it that much. However, if there is any danger on capital controls for China, specifically for foreign exchange and definitely not CNY (as China controls its own currency, unlike Greece), maybe it is because people could be turning their bank deposits into USD or something, if they fear that there will be an even bigger devaluation down the road.

CNY => USD would seem to preserve wealth better than keeping it in CNY (if CNY is going to be devalued, say, 10%).

To some extent this could also be done with BTC, although BTC can be kept at your own digital wallet, instead of a USD bank account that is kind of fictitious, in the sense that plenty of governments around the world allow people to have USD accounts but are using them as their own foreign exchange reserve, and, in effect, practicing a fractional scheme with the USD of the depositors - so these USD are like "claims" rather than actual USD holdings. With a new law, all USD accounts could be turned to CNY accounts, or taxed, or, or, or, for "national interest" purposes.

If I was a Chinese worrying about CNY devaluation, I'd probably have options like these:

- turn my CNY into USD (cash, not bank account), swiss francs, euros etc
- turn my CNY into gold/silver
- turn my CNY into hard assets and investments, like real estate or serious stock
- turn my CNY into cryptocurrency

If we are talking about >1 trn economy, a couple hundred million USD that are turned into crypto, can easily fuel a small or larger rally.

It depends on the nature of capital controls. Usually they are implemented to protect a government's supply of foreign exchange. Greece is "unique" in terms of having its own currency as its foreign exchange asset as well (euro), so there was a liquidity problem in the economy as well. When people don't even have cash in local currency, the problem is quite big and definitely you need the local currency to conduct everyday shopping, pay the bills etc.

It can be vastly different if local currency is ok but the only thing affected in the capital control scenario is international trade with hard currency that is prohibited by a government who want to control foreign exchange outflows.

Because we all "know" that ...crypto is done, right? 

I have the tendency to be well diversified in terms of anonymous coins, because I believe in the anonymous market in general, but I cut my position in Monero significantly due to their actions and what they imply in terms of actual potential.

If you are after your "opponents" with every dirty trick in the book, then it only means you do not *really* believe you can excel with your own means / abilities. Otherwise you wouldn't do this kind of stuff. Flyers against dash? Seriously? This lack in self-trust is a bad recipe for going forward. I would extend this rationale further but I still hold some XMR - and not necessarily by choice, but rather due to the price being quite low to dump. If it ever goes back up, I'll dump it for dash. It's nothing major to move the market btw, so I'm not telling it as a threat or something. I'm just too tired of this situation and I'll also save myself some time reading multiple threads. If people want battle lines drawn and all bridges cut between XMR, DASH etc, so be it. It wasn't my choice. IF they want a toxic environment they'll be left alone to suffocate in this toxicity.

Interestingly, there were much easier and technical ways to attack DASH, even much cheaper than paying trolls, but they didn't even have the brain to do this.

FUD attack vectors:

If dev speaks of the plans => he is a pumper
If dev doesn't speak of the plans => he is profiting from inside knowledge when there will be the eventual release, that only he knows about, leaving investors in the dark so he can acquire himself and the whales and then dump on the late-arrivals of investors, etc etc.

Likewise

If dev discloses market moves about his coins => he is a pumper/dumper based on what he discloses
If dev doesn't disclose market moves about his coins => he is a pumper/dumper based on inside knowledge

If coin name = darkcoin => "haha what a ridiculous name, who will adopt a coin like DARKcoin"
If coin name = changed from darkcoin=> "it was rebranded to wash the scam"

If code comes first, papers later => "where is the paper? This can't be serious without a paper"
If paper comes first, code later => "a fuckin paper? this is a pump based on vaporware"

No matter what is done, the trolls will always find something problematic

Some. Most are genuine dust, spam and microgambling txs.

The trolls are here since a long time ago, this is directly related to Cryptsy's issues that spooked whales and this is also evident by the low volume.

If you spook the whales with their buy walls that provide price stability, and they want out of the exchange because their BTCs/DASH etc are unsafe, then others are starting to feel worried about the liquidity of the coin in the exchanges and it goes in a negative cycle until more stability is established in the exchanges. This does present buying opportunities though.

Half a megabyte which is full of dust / spam transactions.

The blockchain is extremely valuable to be used in this way.

It's mostly due to exchange-related anomalies, especially Cryptsy who is giving whales a hard time.

Catchy

A year in a world where cryptocurrency is an unknown concept has much less mining competition than a few hours in a world 5 years later, after the BTC, LTC and DOGE-boom, where everyone was over the ann threads to mine the new exciting shitcoin just around the corner, promising huge returns.

Btw, time is not proof-of-fairness. Bytecoin claims it was being mined since 2012 or something. Let's say that's the truth and not delve deeper into whether this is a scam-argument... what difference would it make, since only a few people knew about it (as their "official" story goes)? Isn't that why Monero was launched as the "fair" alternative?

Thing is, they can only create noise, they can't "destroy" anything.

When DarkSend was closed source, the trolls were like, ok, it will be opensourced when it is, then a "fair darkcoin" clone will emerge, free of the instamine, and Darkcoin will fail and the clone will emerge triumphant. Oooops, nobody cared about ..."clones" , at most they had a day in the sun (a spike in the exchanges) and then disappeared from the scene, most of the time along with their anonymous cloners/"developers" who implemented anonymity features or masternodes.

Icebreaker said "Evan the instamine innovative scammer" or something to that effect, yeah well, if he wasn't innovative, the free market would have taken care of dash by now, since it is open-source...

Monero guys took the bytecoin code, said "this is a fair bytecoin" and then went forward. They didn't go in the bytecoin thread trolling for years and/or asking a "relaunch". They forked it, "relaunched" it, and now, after all the dust has settled, the marketcap of the innovator is much higher, despite their high premine (>80%) and despite the security issue that this presents for mixing.

So if anyone has a problem with DASH and seeking a relaunch, go on, fork the code, make another "fair" darkcoin / dash clone that will vanish in a few weeks due to lack of genuine development, stick with it and let us follow "Evan the innovative instamine scammer" (who, btw, proposed the airdrop fix and we said no to it). Because, in the end of the day, anybody can make a coin, but it will be a worthless coin. The real issue is how to give it value. And value exists as a consequence of development that addresses issues in how cryptocurrency works. Whether it is privacy, scaling, usability etc.

So 3-4 people who mined BTC in 2009, including Satoshi, hold 2.5m coins, and DASH is a scam? Not to mention coins were being sold left and right in january/feb 2014 for xco/drk, while the same wasn't true for btc (no market shuffle to other players).

I'm not attacking bitcoin, I'm just saying do not apply double standards.

The genesis block of BTC was 50 btc. And satoshi probably mined >1mn BTCs.

The entire xcoin instamine was <50 btc, during the instmine and for the next 2-3 weeks and gradually started picking up in value from 0.00002x to 0.00008x to 0.00018 to 0.0005, to 0.002, back down to 0.0008-0.00012 due to ccex hack etc etc.

For you, or anyone other that claims DASH is a scam, please tell us

1) Who got scammed
2) What was the economic value of the scam
3) Who lost money due to the instamine

The answers are

1) nobody, because the instamine coins were worthless at market rates
2) at most 40something btc. But to be a scam someone must have bought the bags and these bags to lose value. The value never dropped below 0.000025 BTC, but multiplied up to 1000x (0.025).
3) nobody, as the marketcap started with a "worthless" valuation and then steadily climbed.

Compare that to actual scams with ICOs/IPOs, devs going MIA, etc etc, where people actually lose their money.

If Satoshi was being attacked by the same people claiming that Evan insta-solo'ed 2 million DRKs, we'd hear the same for Satoshi, don't worry. But for Satoshi "oh, there were others mining", for Evan there weren't. Oh that sneaky bastard Evan, he soloed DRK for days.


You cannot project a percentage over the current supply, when this current supply includes a shuffled around instamine. The 33% is not static. A lot of the instamined coins changed hands. And the "value" of the "scam" had a price tag on it: The price of the coins back then at 0.000020 to 0.000025 btc per coin, some even cheaper for bulk purchases.


Which was put there because the coin was supposed to have different economic parameters that would incentivize low hash rates. But that wouldn't be a problem if difficulty re-targeting actually worked because it would be impossible to throw 50/100/500 blocks at that rate.


As I said, different economic parameters.


And then you would still scream "Evan the instamine scammer". Just because.

Yes but the point was about fairness. Both BTC and LTC had start issues, in the sense that BTC was solomined and LTC was instamined. And even when a coin doesn't have these issues, it has cpu-botnets when it comes with new algorithms, it has whale miners dominating the hash rate, etc etc. I have yet to see what a "fair distribution coin" looks like. People don't have the same means to access new coins and this underlying problem creates distribution problems anyway, even if it is announced that a new great coin will be launched in a month from now.

And even when people do have the capacity to acquire significant market portions for peanuts, if they don't they then cry about it. People were buying 10k DRK batches for 0.25 btc / 100k DRK for 2.5btc. This went on for more than two weeks after launch.Some were saying, ok why part my 0.25 btc or 2.5 btc to buy a shitcoin - even when Evan had already published his plans for anonymity and intention to rival the top coins? There was general distrust about all those "clone coins" that were appearing.

The launch was problematic, the coin price at the time reflected this problem. Many coins = cheap coins = people could grab them for nothing off the market or through messages. So the market solved the distribution issue by making the plethora of coins have a very low price. The entire instamine was worth less than 50 BTC.

If one goes the scam route, Darkcoin was a 40something btc scam. That was the total marketcap two to three weeks after launch.

Bitcoin original blocks were 50 btc EACH. And satoshi mined a million BTCs. Was he a billion-USD scammer (late-2013 marketcap), or did he make a coin that exploded in value much later? Were the people who were buying 10.000 BTC pizzas idiots, or simply giving value to something that was -at the time- pretty much worthless?

Hypocrisy, in this case, is when one attacks someone else, based on retroactive reasoning and facts that may now be true but weren't at the time something happened. And it's going circles and circles over here for no reason other than competitive trolling. Let's troll our competitor so we can rise to the top. The community decided on the instamine issue that the coins were sufficiently distributed, rejected the airdrop proposal by Evan who wished to fix the issue, and we moved on. And that was in <0.002 prices, even before the market went to post 0.02+ levels which shuffled the market players multiple times.

So another aspect of the hypocrisy is that it pretends the instamined marketshare is somehow frozen solid in mid-january-2014 status, when the coins have already been shuffled around multiple times. But the truth isn't convenient for trolling.... so trolling is about projecting mid-jan-2014 distribution to the now (which is false), then retroactively applying the new value to what was then worthless (dafaq?), citing intention for a diff-retargeting bug that was already present in the forked LTC-code, claiming scam when Evan proposed to rectify the situation within 2-3 months after the launch, through the airdrop which was voted down / reacted violently against (back when prices were like 0.0012-0.0015) and finding all kind of crap to throw around for a developer that has stuck with his coin longer than Satoshi did for BTC before engaging into more interesting ventures.


The two coins had different economic parameters and thus a different reaction to the LTC-code re-targeting difficulty bug.

In any case, the bug wasn't put there by Evan. It was already there from the LTC code.

Litecoin wasn't that "evenly" distributed, as the first day had its own instamine.

http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=a_massive_investigation_of_instamines_and_fastmines_for_the_top_alt_coins#litecoin

"Despite being Bitcoin's supposed silver to it's gold, Litecoin does not escape from this analysis kindly. In the first 96 hours, we see a well defined curve that demonstrates instamining occurred, showing 450,000 LTC being created in less than 6 hours."

No wonder dash had the same issue at the start, as it was based on LTC code, but with a spin regarding hash type and diff. adjustment.

There was a long term chart, I think charted q3 or q4 2014, that was very successful in long-term price prediction for 2015+. Does anyone have the link?

Icebreaker would change his mind for a masternode though