XMR vs DRK

[Joshuar]

He said that volume of the cryptocurrency had nothing to do with liquidity

I said trade volume. Not "volume of a cryptocurrency".

That's what's implied. Volume(trade, what else could it be?) for that particular segment in time(1 day, 1 week etc), of which you said had nothing to do with liquidity, and is entirely wrong.

[1714504979]

1714504979

[1714504979]

1714504979

[1714504979]

1714504979

[1714504979]

1714504979

[1714504979]

1714504979

[David Latapie]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

Another concept I had the fortune of learning from Moneroans is Cunningham's Law

Also consider the Bullshit assymetry principle

The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.

Granted, not knowing how much energy Evan and co needed to create DRK, I cannot tell if refuting it takes 10 time more energy.

[BlockaFett]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

Another concept I had the fortune of learning from Moneroans is Cunningham's Law

Also consider the Bullshit assymetry principle

The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.

Granted, not knowing how much energy Evan and co needed to create DRK, I cannot tell if refuting it takes 10 time more energy.

Is that Fluffy handling the induction at the Monero Troll Training Center?

[BlockaFett]

love how XMR can troll all day here, Tok makes one mistake and 20 people gang up and froth at him.  Lovely community you got guys and nice XMR troll thread

[toknormal]

That's what's implied

No. It isn't what's implied.

I've given you both a numerical example and a theoretical one as to why coin supply has nothing to do with monetary liquidity. Bitcion has a total supply of 14 Million coins, yet is far more liquid an asset than Zeitcoin which has 31 billion.

It's true that masternodes give people more of a reason not to sell their holdings because they can effectively earn interest on them, but if that increases the value of the asset then it also increases it's liquidity which by one definition is a measure of how easily the asset can be converted to cash.

Another definition is how little a given trade moves the price (see example I gave you earlier).

[Joshuar]

That's what's implied

No. It isn't what's implied.

I've given you both a numerical example and a theoretical one as to why coin supply has nothing to do with monetary liquidity. Bitcion has a total supply of 14 Million coins, yet is far more liquid an asset than Zeitcoin which has 31 billion.

It's true that masternodes give people more of a reason not to sell their holdings because they can effectively earn interest on them, but if that increases the value of the asset then it also increases it's liquidity which by one definition is a measure of how easily the asset can be converted to cash.

Another definition is how little a given trade moves the price (see example I gave you earlier).

You've just proved yourself wrong right there. If what you're saying is true, then Bitcoin could have a total supply of 1 coin, yet still be "far more liquid an asset than Zeitcoin which has 31billion"

Nope.

Another example is: Coin A has a supply of 1million coins valued at $1 per coin(Marketcap of $1million). Coin B has a supply of 1millon coins valued at $1 per coin(Marketcap of $1million). However, Coin B always has 50% of it's coins off the markets at any given period of time, while Coin A doesn't. Which one is more liquid? Coin A is.

I've given you the definition of liquidity about 4 times now: The degree to which an asset or security can be bought or sold in the market without affecting the asset's price; the availability of liquid assets to a market or company, liquid assets; cash, a high volume of activity in a market.

You're also making the assumption that masternodes increase the value of an asset, they may help in doing so, but are not the primary reason for the price increase. Demand is. Take out the demand and all that's left is a lack of liquidity, hell, even with the demand there's going to be a lack of liquidity.

[toknormal]

If what you're saying is true, then Bitcoin could have a total supply of 1 coin, yet still be "far more liquid an asset than Zeitcoin which has 31billion"

Thats correct. As long as it was tradeable in fractions (which it is).

[Joshuar]

If what you're saying is true, then Bitcoin could have a total supply of 1 coin, yet still be "far more liquid an asset than Zeitcoin which has 31billion"

Thats correct. As long as it was tradeable in fractions (which it is).

Lol, you don't just admit you're wrong, when you know you clearly are, do you. Zeitcoin has a marketcap of 120k for all 31billion(Actually less, but lets round up), plus it has denominations just like Bitcoin. 1 Bitcoin is worth 241 USD right now. (Also if this is where you're going, I'm not factoring in USD>BTC and vice versa platforms here, just regular crypto-only exchanges)

So, you're still saying that 1 single Bitcoin is more liquid than the 31billion Zeitcoins?

[nsimmons]

we covered this already too didn't we?  

even if you gained control of 51% of masternodes, you would have:

1) 0.000000000000000000000403286875% probability of deanonymizing a transaction

2) 0.0% of making any money

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1001642.msg10900308#msg10900308

so 'hosting it on a centralized server is much more "dangerous" than for a regular node' is just a crock and you know it because we already talked about it right?

This is not a good argument.

If you gain 51% of the Monero nodes you would have 0% of both. With Bitcoin maybe you could argue that being able to link a node to a transaction will let you follow the blockchain trail and figure out stuff that node has been involved in, but I also guess that it's a harder link to prove.

So therefore 51% attack for deanonimization is pointless for BOTH Dash and Monero.  

The problem with Monero for me, is that during DASH anonimization, the info isn't recoverable.  In Monero it is, with a viewkey, or if someone found a backdoor......so you have to ask, how anonymous do you want?

(are you really not from XMR? )

Again not true, just hours after Dash was open sourced, an amateur coder found an exploit in darksend. Ring Signatures has been around for over a decade.

....a good example of how Dash devs are open to finding and fixing problems quickly.  When I raised concerns about origins of CryptoNote with links to NSA and Cicada in Bytecoin, the response was 'that was ages ago, anything would have been found by now' whilst the devs are trolling on forums all day....which one would you trust your $ with?

Quite the opposite. Dash/DRK had it's code reviewed when it was closed source, yet a amateur coder was able to find a flaw in Darksends coding that allowed for deanonymization, just hours after it was open sourced.

Saying that cryptonote is somehow connected to the NSA is the same as saying Bitcoin is somehow connected to the NSA and that Satoshi Nakamoto was a government entity. Those are conspiracy theories that anyone can come up with, and has no bearings in fact. Using them makes you look like a troll. The same and more could be said for Dash, as someone(a newbie account) came and said that Dash was compromised by the government back in 2014.

This is a lie. The bug allowed the exploiter to collect a disproportionate amount of the block reward. Anonymity was not broken, never has been.

STOP LYING!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg9121458#msg9121458

Excuse me? Here's the article: https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/darkcoin-finds-fixes-darksend-privacy-bug/
https://dashtalk.org/threads/darksend-security-bulletin.2963/

Here's what Dash's developer said: We ask that everyone stop using Darksend for the time being until we’re able to push out a fix to an issue Aswan found. This issue comes from the way fees are paid in Darksend with the combination of the way the client tries to denominate the same amount each round. The result is the possibility to trace a transaction through Darksend. To fix this issue, we will add a mixing stage to Darksend that only mixes fee’s and we’ll have the client mix random amounts each session. -Eddufield/Dash's Developer


If you're going to troll, please don't make up lies. This is the 2nd time you've attempted to lie on me as well.

You claimed it was de-anonymized. Show me where. You've shown me a quote saying it may have been possible, in October.

Show me where anonymity was broken, as you claimed.

[toknormal]

So, you're still saying that 1 single Bitcoin is more liquid than the 31billion Zeitcoins?

If I've got 1 gold bar and you've got 10,000 rotting fish, my 1 gold bar will be more liquid in the USD market (or any market) than your 10,000 rotting fish even though you've got the higher "coin supply".

[Joshuar]

we covered this already too didn't we?  

even if you gained control of 51% of masternodes, you would have:

1) 0.000000000000000000000403286875% probability of deanonymizing a transaction

2) 0.0% of making any money

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1001642.msg10900308#msg10900308

so 'hosting it on a centralized server is much more "dangerous" than for a regular node' is just a crock and you know it because we already talked about it right?

This is not a good argument.

If you gain 51% of the Monero nodes you would have 0% of both. With Bitcoin maybe you could argue that being able to link a node to a transaction will let you follow the blockchain trail and figure out stuff that node has been involved in, but I also guess that it's a harder link to prove.

So therefore 51% attack for deanonimization is pointless for BOTH Dash and Monero.  

The problem with Monero for me, is that during DASH anonimization, the info isn't recoverable.  In Monero it is, with a viewkey, or if someone found a backdoor......so you have to ask, how anonymous do you want?

(are you really not from XMR? )

Again not true, just hours after Dash was open sourced, an amateur coder found an exploit in darksend. Ring Signatures has been around for over a decade.

....a good example of how Dash devs are open to finding and fixing problems quickly.  When I raised concerns about origins of CryptoNote with links to NSA and Cicada in Bytecoin, the response was 'that was ages ago, anything would have been found by now' whilst the devs are trolling on forums all day....which one would you trust your $ with?

Quite the opposite. Dash/DRK had it's code reviewed when it was closed source, yet a amateur coder was able to find a flaw in Darksends coding that allowed for deanonymization, just hours after it was open sourced.

Saying that cryptonote is somehow connected to the NSA is the same as saying Bitcoin is somehow connected to the NSA and that Satoshi Nakamoto was a government entity. Those are conspiracy theories that anyone can come up with, and has no bearings in fact. Using them makes you look like a troll. The same and more could be said for Dash, as someone(a newbie account) came and said that Dash was compromised by the government back in 2014.

This is a lie. The bug allowed the exploiter to collect a disproportionate amount of the block reward. Anonymity was not broken, never has been.

STOP LYING!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg9121458#msg9121458

Excuse me? Here's the article: https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/darkcoin-finds-fixes-darksend-privacy-bug/
https://dashtalk.org/threads/darksend-security-bulletin.2963/

Here's what Dash's developer said: We ask that everyone stop using Darksend for the time being until we’re able to push out a fix to an issue Aswan found. This issue comes from the way fees are paid in Darksend with the combination of the way the client tries to denominate the same amount each round. The result is the possibility to trace a transaction through Darksend. To fix this issue, we will add a mixing stage to Darksend that only mixes fee’s and we’ll have the client mix random amounts each session. -Eddufield/Dash's Developer


If you're going to troll, please don't make up lies. This is the 2nd time you've attempted to lie on me as well.

You claimed it was de-anonymized. Show me where. You've shown me a quote saying it may have been possible, in October.

Show me where anonymity was broken, as you claimed.

We ask that everyone stop using Darksend for the time being, until we’re able to push out a fix to an issue Aswan found. This issue comes from the way fees are paid in Darksend with the combination of the way the client tries to denominate the same amount each round. The result is the possibility to trace a transaction through Darksend.

To fix this issue, we will add a mixing stage to Darksend that only mixes fee’s and we’ll have the client mix random amounts each session.

Regards,

The Darkcoin Team

Possibility is alluding to the fact of de-anonymization. The anonymity was obviously broken if there was the "possibility of tracing a transaction through Darksend".

[andytoshi]

Can you (or Tok) point to a part of a cryptocurrency which isn't cryptography?

the dev team, the website, any part of the wallet not doing a cryptographic function, the buyers, the masternode operators, the network transport, whatever isn't going into a cryptographic function.

This thread is moving pretty quickly (ten pages of mudslinging in half as many hours!) so I'm not sure you'll see this, but there's an important misunderstanding here. You're right that the human beings aren't cryptographic (e.g. the development team, market participants, etc) --- though it's important to observe that this makes them very unsuited to cryptographic functionality. gmaxwell had an elegant description of cryptography as "technology by which we hope to confine and constrain the nature of information" despite information respecting no ownership, borders or morality. He described this as "inherently subtle and fragile", which it is, but this indifference to political and social pressure also make it efficient (human trust is expensive to build and maintain!) and robust against a lot of political and social pressures that human systems are not. This robustness is the cypherpunk motivation for bringing cryptography into everyday life: anything we have the technology to do cryptographically rather than socially ought to be, since social systems can change quickly and unjustly. Nowhere is this more true than finance, so cryptocurrency is a perfect environment for this kind of thing. So cryptocurrencies try to eliminate human decision points wherever possible, and where not they try to set things up so others can't override each others' decisions (hence the value implied by buzzwords like "decentralization" and "censorship resistance" and "public verifiability").

I'm not entirely clear on what masternodes do these days, but I infer that their actions affect users' privacy, i.e. they are "confining and constraining" information. This is a cryptographic function too. Human decisions may factor into their behaviour, but they are still performing a cryptographic function; human involvement does not change this, only changes the failure modes.

All this to say that basically the entirety of cryptocurrency really is cryptography. Even many of the human parts. The network transport is part of the cryptosystem: it needs to be designed to prevent modification of data in transport, authentication of data even when endpoints are anonymous and spoofable, etc. A wallet is part of the cryptosystem: it's responsible for creating verification keys ("scriptPubKeys" in Bitcoin, which are usually abbreviated to addresses) whose corresponding private keys are controlled by the correct parties to the correct extent, and for correctly and securely storing these keys. Wallets are decoupled from the main cryptocurrency cryptosystem, and in particular are not part of the hard part --- consensus code --- but they are certainly cryptographic and are subject to the same sort of subtle missteps as other cryptosystems. (For example, the oft-cited BIP32 "bug" where a party in possession of a public key and chaincode can derive the secret key from a non-hardened child secret key; it would not be hard to come up with a plausible-sounding system which "unintentionally" exposed secret data through this mechanism.)

I'll repeat my above statement: basically the entirety of cryptocurrency really is cryptography. This is important. It's why things are so subtle, why complexity is dangerous, and why changing even trivial-seeming things can have drastic and hard-to-analyze consequences. This is where "a lot of harmful garbage and dysfunctional software" comes from. It's the default for poorly-thought-out systems. And in cryptography, "poorly thought out" means anything less than expert cryptographers spending large amounts of time and effort designing things to be both correct and clearly correct. (Given how few experts there are in the cryptocurrency space, I could tell you that almost all of it is shit just by the pigeonhole principle .)

This is not a cheap standard to hold a system to even if its designers want to; and falsely claiming that something is not cryptographic is an easy way to excuse not wanting to. But such claims do not change reality.

The encryption of data through cryptography is the foundation of cryptocurrencies.

This is simply false.

[Joshuar]

So, you're still saying that 1 single Bitcoin is more liquid than the 31billion Zeitcoins?

If I've got 1 gold bar and you've got 10,000 rotting fish, my 1 gold bar will be more liquid in the USD market (or any market) than your 10,000 rotting fish even though you've got the higher "coin supply".

Liquidity definition: The degree to which an asset or security can be bought or sold in the market without affecting the asset's price; the availability of liquid assets to a market or company, liquid assets; cash, a high volume of activity in a market.

Please thoroughly read that definition, it's tiresome typing the same things to you. That 1 bitcoin(being so rare or around 100million satoshi's) would experience far more fluctuations in price than the 31billion Zeitcoins(Counting in the denominations, so multiply that 31bilion by 100million).

[Joshuar]

Can you (or Tok) point to a part of a cryptocurrency which isn't cryptography?

the dev team, the website, any part of the wallet not doing a cryptographic function, the buyers, the masternode operators, the network transport, whatever isn't going into a cryptographic function.

This thread is moving pretty quickly (ten pages of mudslinging in half as many hours!) so I'm not sure you'll see this, but there's an important misunderstanding here. You're right that the human beings aren't cryptographic (e.g. the development team, market participants, etc) --- though it's important to observe that this makes them very unsuited to cryptographic functionality. gmaxwell had an elegant description of cryptography as "technology by which we hope to confine and constrain the nature of information" despite information respecting no ownership, borders or morality. He described this as "inherently subtle and fragile", which it is, but this indifference to political and social pressure also make it efficient (human trust is expensive to build and maintain!) and robust against a lot of political and social pressures that human systems are not. This robustness is the cypherpunk motivation for bringing cryptography into everyday life: anything we have the technology to do cryptographically rather than socially ought to be, since social systems can change quickly and unjustly. Nowhere is this more true than finance, so cryptocurrency is a perfect environment for this kind of thing. So cryptocurrencies try to eliminate human decision points wherever possible, and where not they try to set things up so others can't override each others' decisions (hence the value implied by buzzwords like "decentralization" and "censorship resistance" and "public verifiability").

I'm not entirely clear on what masternodes do these days, but I infer that their actions affect users' privacy, i.e. they are "confining and constraining" information. This is a cryptographic function too. Human decisions may factor into their behaviour, but they are still performing a cryptographic function; human involvement does not change this, only changes the failure modes.

All this to say that basically the entirety of cryptocurrency really is cryptography. Even many of the human parts. The network transport is part of the cryptosystem: it needs to be designed to prevent modification of data in transport, authentication of data even when endpoints are anonymous and spoofable, etc. A wallet is part of the cryptosystem: it's responsible for creating verification keys ("scriptPubKeys" in Bitcoin, which are usually abbreviated to addresses) whose corresponding private keys are controlled by the correct parties to the correct extent, and for correctly and securely storing these keys. Wallets are decoupled from the main cryptocurrency cryptosystem, and in particular are not part of the hard part --- consensus code --- but they are certainly cryptographic and are subject to the same sort of subtle missteps as other cryptosystems. (For example, the oft-cited BIP32 "bug" where a party in possession of a public key and chaincode can derive the secret key from a non-hardened child secret key; it would not be hard to come up with a plausible-sounding system which "unintentionally" exposed secret data through this mechanism.)

I'll repeat my above statement: basically the entirety of cryptocurrency really is cryptography. This is important. It's why things are so subtle, why complexity is dangerous, and why changing even trivial-seeming things can have drastic and hard-to-analyze consequences. This is where "a lot of harmful garbage and dysfunctional software" comes from. It's the default for poorly-thought-out systems. And in cryptography, "poorly thought out" means anything less than expert cryptographers spending large amounts of time and effort designing things to be both correct and clearly correct. (Given how few experts there are in the cryptocurrency space, I could tell you that almost all of it is shit just by the pigeonhole principle .)

This is not a cheap standard to hold a system to even if its designers want to; and falsely claiming that something is not cryptographic is an easy way to excuse not wanting to. But such claims do not change reality.

The encryption of data through cryptography is the foundation of cryptocurrencies.

This is simply false.

Thank you for the explanation!

[smooth]

So yes there is ideology behind this coin : privacy, liberty, freedom, try to make the world less directed by "power" and more with the heart...

I hope that changing the name will not make the ideology behind it change too, otherwhise it will failed.

There's no ideology in something that nobody uses. The ideology's in the design, not the name. Vertoe is justified in leaving over not being consulted but less so over 'ideology'.

It's not a rock song that's being built here it's electronic money.

The name can easily be compromised without any loss of principle but the functionality can't. So Evan has got his priorities right in that regard.

no.

i left because i disagree darkcoin or however it will be called next year is not a decentralized entity. it never was but i ignored it as long as darkcoin was following the same path i was following. the path to total financial privacy. and thats why i am so upset about how this currency is lead by a single person. darkcoin is like an old conservative company with strong hierarchical comamnd structures and a single person on the top of the pyramid. evan duffield. the rebranding using a detergent name was just a step forward in creating something like apple or paypal. fuck this i tell you. what we need is a trustless, decentralized and anonymous currency. darkcoin is not decentralized as it still relies on a single person. and this reaches deep into the code base.

the core devs were just a bunch of volunteers exploited for the big thing. the extended darkcoin team was the same with even a lower place to sit on that pyramid. and what was the darkcoin foundation again? right, something to reserve some rights on some names and collect money. who nominated and voted for the foundation board? who does even know who are these guys? how did we learn about the foundation? from local news papers! the team listings kept counting names of people nobody ever noticed before. and they never committed anything visible to the community or the repository. and i was spending 25 hours a day monitory everything that happened in the darkcoin community for more than a year. the things going on here are fishy, intransparent and rely on a single entity.

i will get out and and will contribute to something decentralized and anonymous. i always hoped darkcoin could fill that void. i cant blame anyone to stay with this project. you are probably investors trying to win a gold donkey. or you are simply trying to exploit every possible vector of profit in the coins space. whatever. you are not here because darkcoin is something it claims to be.

if you disagree with my statement above, i dont care, but answer that simple question: what if evan duffield suddenly announces he quits the project tomorrow morning?

good luck

Interesting post.

[Joshuar]

So yes there is ideology behind this coin : privacy, liberty, freedom, try to make the world less directed by "power" and more with the heart...

I hope that changing the name will not make the ideology behind it change too, otherwhise it will failed.

There's no ideology in something that nobody uses. The ideology's in the design, not the name. Vertoe is justified in leaving over not being consulted but less so over 'ideology'.

It's not a rock song that's being built here it's electronic money.

The name can easily be compromised without any loss of principle but the functionality can't. So Evan has got his priorities right in that regard.

no.

i left because i disagree darkcoin or however it will be called next year is not a decentralized entity. it never was but i ignored it as long as darkcoin was following the same path i was following. the path to total financial privacy. and thats why i am so upset about how this currency is lead by a single person. darkcoin is like an old conservative company with strong hierarchical comamnd structures and a single person on the top of the pyramid. evan duffield. the rebranding using a detergent name was just a step forward in creating something like apple or paypal. fuck this i tell you. what we need is a trustless, decentralized and anonymous currency. darkcoin is not decentralized as it still relies on a single person. and this reaches deep into the code base.

the core devs were just a bunch of volunteers exploited for the big thing. the extended darkcoin team was the same with even a lower place to sit on that pyramid. and what was the darkcoin foundation again? right, something to reserve some rights on some names and collect money. who nominated and voted for the foundation board? who does even know who are these guys? how did we learn about the foundation? from local news papers! the team listings kept counting names of people nobody ever noticed before. and they never committed anything visible to the community or the repository. and i was spending 25 hours a day monitory everything that happened in the darkcoin community for more than a year. the things going on here are fishy, intransparent and rely on a single entity.

i will get out and and will contribute to something decentralized and anonymous. i always hoped darkcoin could fill that void. i cant blame anyone to stay with this project. you are probably investors trying to win a gold donkey. or you are simply trying to exploit every possible vector of profit in the coins space. whatever. you are not here because darkcoin is something it claims to be.

if you disagree with my statement above, i dont care, but answer that simple question: what if evan duffield suddenly announces he quits the project tomorrow morning?

good luck

Interesting post.

Wow enlightening, we have similar views.

[Johnny Mnemonic]

So yes there is ideology behind this coin : privacy, liberty, freedom, try to make the world less directed by "power" and more with the heart...

I hope that changing the name will not make the ideology behind it change too, otherwhise it will failed.

There's no ideology in something that nobody uses. The ideology's in the design, not the name. Vertoe is justified in leaving over not being consulted but less so over 'ideology'.

It's not a rock song that's being built here it's electronic money.

The name can easily be compromised without any loss of principle but the functionality can't. So Evan has got his priorities right in that regard.

no.

i left because i disagree darkcoin or however it will be called next year is not a decentralized entity. it never was but i ignored it as long as darkcoin was following the same path i was following. the path to total financial privacy. and thats why i am so upset about how this currency is lead by a single person. darkcoin is like an old conservative company with strong hierarchical comamnd structures and a single person on the top of the pyramid. evan duffield. the rebranding using a detergent name was just a step forward in creating something like apple or paypal. fuck this i tell you. what we need is a trustless, decentralized and anonymous currency. darkcoin is not decentralized as it still relies on a single person. and this reaches deep into the code base.

the core devs were just a bunch of volunteers exploited for the big thing. the extended darkcoin team was the same with even a lower place to sit on that pyramid. and what was the darkcoin foundation again? right, something to reserve some rights on some names and collect money. who nominated and voted for the foundation board? who does even know who are these guys? how did we learn about the foundation? from local news papers! the team listings kept counting names of people nobody ever noticed before. and they never committed anything visible to the community or the repository. and i was spending 25 hours a day monitory everything that happened in the darkcoin community for more than a year. the things going on here are fishy, intransparent and rely on a single entity.

i will get out and and will contribute to something decentralized and anonymous. i always hoped darkcoin could fill that void. i cant blame anyone to stay with this project. you are probably investors trying to win a gold donkey. or you are simply trying to exploit every possible vector of profit in the coins space. whatever. you are not here because darkcoin is something it claims to be.

if you disagree with my statement above, i dont care, but answer that simple question: what if evan duffield suddenly announces he quits the project tomorrow morning?

good luck

Interesting post.

Coming from a dev as well. Can anyone really defend darkcoin after a statement like that?

[Brilliantrocket]

Wonder if Vertoe will contribute to XMR instead? Need some more devs who care more about building the coin than pointing out the flaws in the competition. For the life of me I can't understand it. They say that Dash is fundamentally flawed, yet they continue to spend their time arguing about it. Imagine if scientists spent more time arguing with crazy evolution skeptics than doing actual science? Nothing would ever get done.  You have core devs, whose time is of the utmost value, arguing with internet trolls. It's absurd.

[vokain]

Wonder if Vertoe will contribute to XMR instead? Need some more devs who care more about building the coin than pointing out the flaws in the competition. For the life of me I can't understand it. They say that Dash is fundamentally flawed, yet they continue to spend their time arguing about it. Imagine if scientists spent more time arguing with crazy evolution skeptics than doing actual science? Nothing would ever get done.  You have core devs, whose time is of the utmost value, arguing with internet trolls. It's absurd.

I've learned a lot from David, fluffy, and smooth (+othe, eizh, sorry didn't know you were devs too!) from their time on the forums. I think they form a wonderful bridge from the engine to the community and have mature thoughts to contribute towards steering this ship.

Importantly, they inform so that the community can do so self-sustainably.

[generalizethis]

Wonder if Vertoe will contribute to XMR instead? Need some more devs who care more about building the coin than pointing out the flaws in the competition. For the life of me I can't understand it. They say that Dash is fundamentally flawed, yet they continue to spend their time arguing about it. Imagine if scientists spent more time arguing with crazy evolution skeptics than doing actual science? Nothing would ever get done.  You have core devs, whose time is of the utmost value, arguing with internet trolls. It's absurd.

https://getmonero.org/knowledge-base/people --more devs than you can shake an angry troll stick at, and they're volunteers not paid by an instamine, but go on trying to sell your concern pericope like a two bit trial lawyer. Also, if they believe x-dark-dash is a fraud, they have every right, and I applaud them for it, to call it so. Your concern trolling is very appreciated--you obviously put a lot of time and effort into it.