[POLL] Does EVAN DUFFIELD regret instamining DRK/DASH at 100x emission?

[Prosperityforall]

Below is exactly what happened. Anything other than that is speculation/trolling, which coins101 is doing. Comparing a coin(Monero) that had a "unoptimized miner" to a coin(Dash) that had all it's core features changed to benefit the 2million coin instaminers, is like comparing apples and oranges. Monero never had it's core features changed, the most it's had was a unoptimized miner to which an entire article was written about how the guys who optimized the miner sold all their coins, negating any of the effects of the miner.

Furthmore, none of that has anything to do with the topic of this thread, mods (?). The topic of this thread is whether Evan regets instamining Dash. Something interesting to note also, is that there's currently a Dash address claimed to be owned by Otoh(With no proof at all that it's his so it could all be deception) that has inputs linked to the Dash instamine scam. How do you Dash supporters feel about someone owning 11% of your coin supply wih inputs dating all the way back to the instamine? That confirms that Dash has horrible distribution.
 

So far, coins101 has pointed out that Thankful-for-Today released monero as a fork from Bytecoin, with Bytecoin having the unoptimized miner and that being transferred onto Monero. He also pointed out that the current monero dev team did not launch Monero and was unaware of any unoptimizations. Also that the unoptimized miner may have actually been an accident and almost irrelevant, as there's no evidence at all of the Thankful-for-Today character using it to any advantage via the hashrate performance seen at the time. Then he pointed out that the biggest miners at the time of this short unoptimized miner period, made a article and sold all the coins that they mined, negating the effects of the miner and solidiyfing excellent distribution in Monero. **Not to mention that all cryptocurrencies go through "unoptimized miner" periods, as users with the skill and knowhow will always be able to create optmized versions of public equipment for themselves, as shown in Bitcoin and everything else in life**

While Dash's/Darkcoin's past, current, and future developer had a 2million instamine where only he could mine for a period of time on a restricted linux-only release to likely make sure the amount of coins instamined were as high as possible(Since he also started mining Dash/Darkcoin before it's intended release date), where the block reward and max coin supply was sliced and diced to make the instamined coins worth more. And even then, a year after, there's still a wallet with inputs connected to the instamine, that owns 11% of all Dash/Darkcoins in existence.

Thanks coins101(Added in some of the parts you forgot to mention in all your previous posts).

[scryptasicminer]

So, is it fair to say pretty much all alt coins are fraud?

[BlockaFett]

Below is exactly what happened. Anything other than that is speculation/trolling, which coins101 is doing. Comparing a coin(Monero) that had a "unoptimized miner" to a coin(Dash) that had all it's core features changed to benefit the 2million coin instaminers, is like comparing apples and oranges. Monero never had it's core features changed, the most it's had was a unoptimized miner to which an entire article was written about how the guys who optimized the miner sold all their coins, negating any of the effects of the miner.

Furthmore, none of that has anything to do with the topic of this thread, mods (?). The topic of this thread is whether Evan regets instamining Dash. Something interesting to note also, is that there's currently a Dash address claimed to be owned by Otoh(With no proof at all that it's his so it could all be deception) that has inputs linked to the Dash instamine scam. How do you Dash supporters feel about someone owning 11% of your coin supply wih inputs dating all the way back to the instamine? That confirms that Dash has horrible distribution.
 

So far, coins101 has pointed out that Thankful-for-Today released monero as a fork from Bytecoin, with Bytecoin having the unoptimized miner and that being transferred onto Monero. He also pointed out that the current monero dev team did not launch Monero and was unaware of any unoptimizations. Also that the unoptimized miner may have actually been an accident and almost irrelevant, as there's no evidence at all of the Thankful-for-Today character using it to any advantage via the hashrate performance seen at the time. Then he pointed out that the biggest miners at the time of this short unoptimized miner period, made a article and sold all the coins that they mined, negating the effects of the miner and solidiyfing excellent distribution in Monero. **Not to mention that all cryptocurrencies go through "unoptimized miner" periods, as users with the skill and knowhow will always be able to create optmized versions of public equipment for themselves, as shown in Bitcoin and everything else in life**

While Dash's/Darkcoin's past, current, and future developer had a 2million instamine where only he could mine for a period of time on a restricted linux-only release to likely make sure the amount of coins instamined were as high as possible(Since he also started mining Dash/Darkcoin before it's intended release date), where the block reward and max coin supply was sliced and diced to make the instamined coins worth more. And even then, a year after, there's still a wallet with inputs connected to the instamine, that owns 11% of all Dash/Darkcoins in existence.

Thanks coins101(Added in some of the parts you forgot to mention in all your previous posts).

Just to correct some innacuracies here...

Monero didn't release an unoptimized miner, it was a de-optimized aka crippled-miner, for example:

My strong belief is that the skepticism was warranted: Here's the original slow-hash from bytecoin as it was copied into Bitmonero.  It has some doozies.  For example, on line 100, you might note that for every iteration through an inner loop repeated tens of thousands of times, the AES key is re-imported into the library.  The later loop, starting on line 113, is repeated half a million times, and is so abstracted through lots of memcpys and pointer manipulation it's hard to tell that all it really does is one round of AES encryption, a pointer dereference into a random scratchpad, a 64 bit multiplication, and another pointer dereference.  Phew.  This original code was roughly 50x slower than my final optimized code, and could have easily been used to fake two years of blockchain data on a single computer or a small cluster.  I'm pretty sure that's what happened.

http://da-data.blogspot.com.tr/2014/08/minting-money-with-monero-and-cpu.html

So where is the Monero core team's official explanation of releasing this??

...adding useless iterations and useless code to slow it down that are easy to spot.  Result is a clear intention to reduce coins produced by the community and lets the devs collect more.  Very clear intention to scam, totally *implausible* that this was an accident - very different to Dash which was a public launch so there was no advantage to the dev when mining started, and he gave a *plausible* explanation: https://dashtalk.org/threads/the-birth-of-darkcoin.162/

You can keep repeating the same thing saying "it wasn't a scam anything else is false" but this ^ is a fact.  So brushing it under the carpet just makes Monero look more dubious with the 1000s of posts attacking the Dash launch which has been dealt with 1000 times and priced-into the market after 14 months already.

If you want credibility before attacking the Dash dev, give your own full account of the above and explain to your community why this was released to the public - where is that explanation?

Here is what Monero core team said about their launch recently:

There was nothing wrong with the history of Monero. It's one of if not the cleanest coins and launches in history.

Doesn't fill you with a lot of confidence when they accuse rival Devs who work hard of being scammers, 100 times a day now, does it?

[o0‡0o]

So, is it fair to say pretty much all alt coins are fraud?

Seems fair over 5000 times read
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=47418.0

[Prosperityforall]

Below is exactly what happened. Anything other than that is speculation/trolling, which coins101 is doing. Comparing a coin(Monero) that had a "unoptimized miner" to a coin(Dash) that had all it's core features changed to benefit the 2million coin instaminers, is like comparing apples and oranges. Monero never had it's core features changed, the most it's had was a unoptimized miner to which an entire article was written about how the guys who optimized the miner sold all their coins, negating any of the effects of the miner.

Furthmore, none of that has anything to do with the topic of this thread, mods (?). The topic of this thread is whether Evan regets instamining Dash. Something interesting to note also, is that there's currently a Dash address claimed to be owned by Otoh(With no proof at all that it's his so it could all be deception) that has inputs linked to the Dash instamine scam. How do you Dash supporters feel about someone owning 11% of your coin supply wih inputs dating all the way back to the instamine? That confirms that Dash has horrible distribution.
 

So far, coins101 has pointed out that Thankful-for-Today released monero as a fork from Bytecoin, with Bytecoin having the unoptimized miner and that being transferred onto Monero. He also pointed out that the current monero dev team did not launch Monero and was unaware of any unoptimizations. Also that the unoptimized miner may have actually been an accident and almost irrelevant, as there's no evidence at all of the Thankful-for-Today character using it to any advantage via the hashrate performance seen at the time. Then he pointed out that the biggest miners at the time of this short unoptimized miner period, made a article and sold all the coins that they mined, negating the effects of the miner and solidiyfing excellent distribution in Monero. **Not to mention that all cryptocurrencies go through "unoptimized miner" periods, as users with the skill and knowhow will always be able to create optmized versions of public equipment for themselves, as shown in Bitcoin and everything else in life**

While Dash's/Darkcoin's past, current, and future developer had a 2million instamine where only he could mine for a period of time on a restricted linux-only release to likely make sure the amount of coins instamined were as high as possible(Since he also started mining Dash/Darkcoin before it's intended release date), where the block reward and max coin supply was sliced and diced to make the instamined coins worth more. And even then, a year after, there's still a wallet with inputs connected to the instamine, that owns 11% of all Dash/Darkcoins in existence.

Thanks coins101(Added in some of the parts you forgot to mention in all your previous posts).

I'm a troll

Your blatant lying and trolling is getting irratating. In this case you cannot say it was deoptimized as Monero was a fork of Bytecoin, therefore the miner was transferred over. Thankful-for-Today did not deoptimize it, there is no proof of that. Everything you've said against Monero is pure speculative, none of it has any ground in fact. Everything said against Dash is shown the in blockchain, and is all Objective. Dash having a likely intended instamine/premine launch is Objective/Fact.

Evan Duffield explanation of what happened goes against what actually happened. His cutting of the max coin supply is obvious proof that his testimony of the events on those 2 days are not the truth.

Kind of sad that Dash supporters result to false information.

[BlockaFett]

So, is it fair to say pretty much all alt coins are fraud?

Seems fair over 5000 times read
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=47418.0

I don't think all Alts are scams.  Generally easy way to tell fraud coins:  check the devs out and how much effort they are actually putting into development and if their goals have real world applications to improve on Bitcoin's performance as such.  If they are working hard for a long time and consistently doing this, and acting professionally and ethically, it means they value their own coin as a technology not just a P&D vehicle to get righ quick on (Just IMO)

[BlockaFett]

Below is exactly what happened. Anything other than that is speculation/trolling, which coins101 is doing. Comparing a coin(Monero) that had a "unoptimized miner" to a coin(Dash) that had all it's core features changed to benefit the 2million coin instaminers, is like comparing apples and oranges. Monero never had it's core features changed, the most it's had was a unoptimized miner to which an entire article was written about how the guys who optimized the miner sold all their coins, negating any of the effects of the miner.

Furthmore, none of that has anything to do with the topic of this thread, mods (?). The topic of this thread is whether Evan regets instamining Dash. Something interesting to note also, is that there's currently a Dash address claimed to be owned by Otoh(With no proof at all that it's his so it could all be deception) that has inputs linked to the Dash instamine scam. How do you Dash supporters feel about someone owning 11% of your coin supply wih inputs dating all the way back to the instamine? That confirms that Dash has horrible distribution.
 

So far, coins101 has pointed out that Thankful-for-Today released monero as a fork from Bytecoin, with Bytecoin having the unoptimized miner and that being transferred onto Monero. He also pointed out that the current monero dev team did not launch Monero and was unaware of any unoptimizations. Also that the unoptimized miner may have actually been an accident and almost irrelevant, as there's no evidence at all of the Thankful-for-Today character using it to any advantage via the hashrate performance seen at the time. Then he pointed out that the biggest miners at the time of this short unoptimized miner period, made a article and sold all the coins that they mined, negating the effects of the miner and solidiyfing excellent distribution in Monero. **Not to mention that all cryptocurrencies go through "unoptimized miner" periods, as users with the skill and knowhow will always be able to create optmized versions of public equipment for themselves, as shown in Bitcoin and everything else in life**

While Dash's/Darkcoin's past, current, and future developer had a 2million instamine where only he could mine for a period of time on a restricted linux-only release to likely make sure the amount of coins instamined were as high as possible(Since he also started mining Dash/Darkcoin before it's intended release date), where the block reward and max coin supply was sliced and diced to make the instamined coins worth more. And even then, a year after, there's still a wallet with inputs connected to the instamine, that owns 11% of all Dash/Darkcoins in existence.

Thanks coins101(Added in some of the parts you forgot to mention in all your previous posts).

I'm a troll

Your blatant lying and trolling is getting irratating. In this case you cannot say it was deoptimized as Monero was a fork of Bytecoin, therefore the miner was transferred over. Thankful-for-Today did not deoptimize it, there is no proof of that. Everything you've said against Monero is pure speculative, none of it has any ground in fact. Everything said against Dash is shown the in blockchain, and is all Objective. Dash having a likely intended instamine/premine launch is Objective/Fact.

Evan Duffield explanation of what happened goes against what actually happened. His cutting of the max coin supply is obvious proof that his testimony of the events on those 2 days are not the truth.

Kind of sad that Dash supporters result to false information.

lol, sweeping Monero scam launch under the carpet...QED. take a break dude

[iCEBREAKER]

So, is it fair to say pretty much all alt coins are fraud?

No, it's not fair to say that.

But the rough consensus of the community is that Dark-cum-Dash is the most reprehensible of all the fraud coins:



Dash is so awful, it makes PayCoin look good!

[generalizethis]

So, is it fair to say pretty much all alt coins are fraud?

(Sigh) This what the scammers would like everyone to believe, but you can do your own research.

www.dewww.devtome.com/doku.php?id=a_massive_investigation_of_instamines_and_fastmines_for_the_top_alt_coins

[BlockaFett]

So, is it fair to say pretty much all alt coins are fraud?

No, it's not fair to say that.

But the rough consensus of the community is that Dark-cum-Dash is the most reprehensible of all the fraud coins:



Dash is so awful, it makes PayCoin look good!

Love how Ice thinks a poll means stuff.  And 21 votes is 'rough consensus of the community' when that's probably just most of the Monero community, like on every other poll they did recently.  You're special mate

[BlockaFett]

So, is it fair to say pretty much all alt coins are fraud?

(Sigh) This what the scammers would like everyone to believe, but you can do your own research.

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

I like this bit:

"When your cryptocurrency is enriching the few for the sake of the rest of us, how is that different that the USD and basic economic configuration today? "

So that's almost an exact definition of a crippled miner launch, where the devs enrich themselves over and above that of the miners.  Which is what happened in Monero's case: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1034864.msg11264770#msg11264770

Second, that article is a year old and the author says: NOTE: Mining of coins is ONLY ONE ASPECT OF A COIN.

then where he says:  Hopefully one can see after reading this article that coins like Novacoin, Goldcoin, Blackcoin, Darkcoin, etc are obviously bad investments.

Now year later the dev is still there and 'Darkcoin' is the top alt after LTC...wheras Nova, Gold, Black all gone.  So he was right about some coins...

[Prosperityforall]

Below is exactly what happened. Anything other than that is speculation/trolling, which coins101 is doing. Comparing a coin(Monero) that had a "unoptimized miner" to a coin(Dash) that had all it's core features changed to benefit the 2million coin instaminers, is like comparing apples and oranges. Monero never had it's core features changed, the most it's had was a unoptimized miner to which an entire article was written about how the guys who optimized the miner sold all their coins, negating any of the effects of the miner.

Furthmore, none of that has anything to do with the topic of this thread, mods (?). The topic of this thread is whether Evan regets instamining Dash. Something interesting to note also, is that there's currently a Dash address claimed to be owned by Otoh(With no proof at all that it's his so it could all be deception) that has inputs linked to the Dash instamine scam. How do you Dash supporters feel about someone owning 11% of your coin supply wih inputs dating all the way back to the instamine? That confirms that Dash has horrible distribution.
 

So far, coins101 has pointed out that Thankful-for-Today released monero as a fork from Bytecoin, with Bytecoin having the unoptimized miner and that being transferred onto Monero. He also pointed out that the current monero dev team did not launch Monero and was unaware of any unoptimizations. Also that the unoptimized miner may have actually been an accident and almost irrelevant, as there's no evidence at all of the Thankful-for-Today character using it to any advantage via the hashrate performance seen at the time. Then he pointed out that the biggest miners at the time of this short unoptimized miner period, made a article and sold all the coins that they mined, negating the effects of the miner and solidiyfing excellent distribution in Monero. **Not to mention that all cryptocurrencies go through "unoptimized miner" periods, as users with the skill and knowhow will always be able to create optmized versions of public equipment for themselves, as shown in Bitcoin and everything else in life**

While Dash's/Darkcoin's past, current, and future developer had a 2million instamine where only he could mine for a period of time on a restricted linux-only release to likely make sure the amount of coins instamined were as high as possible(Since he also started mining Dash/Darkcoin before it's intended release date), where the block reward and max coin supply was sliced and diced to make the instamined coins worth more. And even then, a year after, there's still a wallet with inputs connected to the instamine, that owns 11% of all Dash/Darkcoins in existence.

Thanks coins101(Added in some of the parts you forgot to mention in all your previous posts).

I'm a troll

Your blatant lying and trolling is getting irratating. In this case you cannot say it was deoptimized as Monero was a fork of Bytecoin, therefore the miner was transferred over. Thankful-for-Today did not deoptimize it, there is no proof of that. Everything you've said against Monero is pure speculative, none of it has any ground in fact. Everything said against Dash is shown the in blockchain, and is all Objective. Dash having a likely intended instamine/premine launch is Objective/Fact.

Evan Duffield explanation of what happened goes against what actually happened. His cutting of the max coin supply is obvious proof that his testimony of the events on those 2 days are not the truth.

Kind of sad that Dash supporters result to false information.

lol, sweeping Monero scam launch under the carpet...QED. take a break dude

I forgot what it's like to speak with children again. Let me type it for you more clearly. Everything said against Monero is Subjective/Personalized/Opionated. None of it has any ground at all in fact. Monero having a deoptimized miner is Subjective, as it's a fork from Bytecoin. You cannot say it was purposely deoptimized because of that. Then to make things even simpler, all the mining that was done during that period was negated as the miners at that time wrote a article and sold all the Moneros that they mined. That means that Monero's distribution is better than average for cryptocurrencies, since many of it's early coins were sold off after being mined.

With Dash, it's developer launched it before it's intended release date, so it's instamine can be counted as a premine as well. To make matters worse, 2million Dash were mined in just 2 days, then it had it's coin ouput sliced and diced over 3 fold, along with it's max coin supply which was sliced from 80million to 20million. To make things even worse however, there's still a Dash address that owns 11% of the entire current coin supply, and is linked to the instamine.

Everything said against Dash is Objective/Factual, as it's in the blockchain. Everything said against Monero is opinonated/Subjective, as none of it has any grounds in fact.

Just in case you didnt see earlier.

[BlockaFett]

Below is exactly what happened. Anything other than that is speculation/trolling, which coins101 is doing. Comparing a coin(Monero) that had a "unoptimized miner" to a coin(Dash) that had all it's core features changed to benefit the 2million coin instaminers, is like comparing apples and oranges. Monero never had it's core features changed, the most it's had was a unoptimized miner to which an entire article was written about how the guys who optimized the miner sold all their coins, negating any of the effects of the miner.

Furthmore, none of that has anything to do with the topic of this thread, mods (?). The topic of this thread is whether Evan regets instamining Dash. Something interesting to note also, is that there's currently a Dash address claimed to be owned by Otoh(With no proof at all that it's his so it could all be deception) that has inputs linked to the Dash instamine scam. How do you Dash supporters feel about someone owning 11% of your coin supply wih inputs dating all the way back to the instamine? That confirms that Dash has horrible distribution.
 

So far, coins101 has pointed out that Thankful-for-Today released monero as a fork from Bytecoin, with Bytecoin having the unoptimized miner and that being transferred onto Monero. He also pointed out that the current monero dev team did not launch Monero and was unaware of any unoptimizations. Also that the unoptimized miner may have actually been an accident and almost irrelevant, as there's no evidence at all of the Thankful-for-Today character using it to any advantage via the hashrate performance seen at the time. Then he pointed out that the biggest miners at the time of this short unoptimized miner period, made a article and sold all the coins that they mined, negating the effects of the miner and solidiyfing excellent distribution in Monero. **Not to mention that all cryptocurrencies go through "unoptimized miner" periods, as users with the skill and knowhow will always be able to create optmized versions of public equipment for themselves, as shown in Bitcoin and everything else in life**

While Dash's/Darkcoin's past, current, and future developer had a 2million instamine where only he could mine for a period of time on a restricted linux-only release to likely make sure the amount of coins instamined were as high as possible(Since he also started mining Dash/Darkcoin before it's intended release date), where the block reward and max coin supply was sliced and diced to make the instamined coins worth more. And even then, a year after, there's still a wallet with inputs connected to the instamine, that owns 11% of all Dash/Darkcoins in existence.

Thanks coins101(Added in some of the parts you forgot to mention in all your previous posts).

I'm a troll

Your blatant lying and trolling is getting irratating. In this case you cannot say it was deoptimized as Monero was a fork of Bytecoin, therefore the miner was transferred over. Thankful-for-Today did not deoptimize it, there is no proof of that. Everything you've said against Monero is pure speculative, none of it has any ground in fact. Everything said against Dash is shown the in blockchain, and is all Objective. Dash having a likely intended instamine/premine launch is Objective/Fact.

Evan Duffield explanation of what happened goes against what actually happened. His cutting of the max coin supply is obvious proof that his testimony of the events on those 2 days are not the truth.

Kind of sad that Dash supporters result to false information.

lol, sweeping Monero scam launch under the carpet...QED. take a break dude

I forgot what it's like to speak with children again. Let me type it for you more clearly. Everything said against Monero is Subjective/Personalized/Opionated. None of it has any ground at all in fact. Monero having a deoptimized miner is Subjective, as it's a fork from Bytecoin. You cannot say it was purposely deoptimized because of that. Then to make things even simpler, all the mining that was done during that period was negated as the miners at that time wrote a article and sold all the Moneros that they mined. That means that Monero's distribution is better than average for cryptocurrencies, since many of it's early coins were sold off after being mined.

With Dash, it's developer launched it before it's intended release date, so it's instamine can be counted as a premine as well. To make matters worse, 2million Dash were mined in just 2 days, then it had it's coin ouput sliced and diced over 3 fold, along with it's max coin supply which was sliced from 80million to 20million. To make things even worse however, there's still a Dash address that owns 11% of the entire current coin supply, and is linked to the instamine.

Everything said against Dash is Objective/Factual, as it's in the blockchain. Everything said against Monero is opinonated/Subjective, as none of it has any grounds in fact.

Just in case you didnt see earlier.

you're just avoiding my points and throwing word around like 'subjective' which I don't think you understand correctly without being rude.

Objective means provable - Monero launched a miner with ***proven scam code*** in.  That is not subjective...I will repost what I said already:

------------

Just to correct some innacuracies here...

Monero didn't release an unoptimized miner, it was a de-optimized aka crippled-miner, for example:

My strong belief is that the skepticism was warranted: Here's the original slow-hash from bytecoin as it was copied into Bitmonero.  It has some doozies.  For example, on line 100, you might note that for every iteration through an inner loop repeated tens of thousands of times, the AES key is re-imported into the library.  The later loop, starting on line 113, is repeated half a million times, and is so abstracted through lots of memcpys and pointer manipulation it's hard to tell that all it really does is one round of AES encryption, a pointer dereference into a random scratchpad, a 64 bit multiplication, and another pointer dereference.  Phew.  This original code was roughly 50x slower than my final optimized code, and could have easily been used to fake two years of blockchain data on a single computer or a small cluster.  I'm pretty sure that's what happened.

http://da-data.blogspot.com.tr/2014/08/minting-money-with-monero-and-cpu.html

So where is the Monero core team's official explanation of releasing this??

...adding useless iterations and useless code to slow it down that are easy to spot.  Result is a clear intention to reduce coins produced by the community and lets the devs collect more.  Very clear intention to scam, totally *implausible* that this was an accident - very different to Dash which was a public launch so there was no advantage to the dev when mining started, and he gave a *plausible* explanation: https://dashtalk.org/threads/the-birth-of-darkcoin.162/

You can keep repeating the same thing saying "it wasn't a scam anything else is false" but this ^ is a fact.  So brushing it under the carpet just makes Monero look more dubious with the 1000s of posts attacking the Dash launch which has been dealt with 1000 times and priced-into the market after 14 months already.

If you want credibility before attacking the Dash dev, give your own full account of the above and explain to your community why this was released to the public - where is that explanation?

Here is what Monero core team said about their launch recently:

There was nothing wrong with the history of Monero. It's one of if not the cleanest coins and launches in history.

Doesn't fill you with a lot of confidence when they accuse rival Devs who work hard of being scammers, 100 times a day now, does it?

[Prosperityforall]

Below is exactly what happened. Anything other than that is speculation/trolling, which coins101 is doing. Comparing a coin(Monero) that had a "unoptimized miner" to a coin(Dash) that had all it's core features changed to benefit the 2million coin instaminers, is like comparing apples and oranges. Monero never had it's core features changed, the most it's had was a unoptimized miner to which an entire article was written about how the guys who optimized the miner sold all their coins, negating any of the effects of the miner.

Furthmore, none of that has anything to do with the topic of this thread, mods (?). The topic of this thread is whether Evan regets instamining Dash. Something interesting to note also, is that there's currently a Dash address claimed to be owned by Otoh(With no proof at all that it's his so it could all be deception) that has inputs linked to the Dash instamine scam. How do you Dash supporters feel about someone owning 11% of your coin supply wih inputs dating all the way back to the instamine? That confirms that Dash has horrible distribution.
 

So far, coins101 has pointed out that Thankful-for-Today released monero as a fork from Bytecoin, with Bytecoin having the unoptimized miner and that being transferred onto Monero. He also pointed out that the current monero dev team did not launch Monero and was unaware of any unoptimizations. Also that the unoptimized miner may have actually been an accident and almost irrelevant, as there's no evidence at all of the Thankful-for-Today character using it to any advantage via the hashrate performance seen at the time. Then he pointed out that the biggest miners at the time of this short unoptimized miner period, made a article and sold all the coins that they mined, negating the effects of the miner and solidiyfing excellent distribution in Monero. **Not to mention that all cryptocurrencies go through "unoptimized miner" periods, as users with the skill and knowhow will always be able to create optmized versions of public equipment for themselves, as shown in Bitcoin and everything else in life**

While Dash's/Darkcoin's past, current, and future developer had a 2million instamine where only he could mine for a period of time on a restricted linux-only release to likely make sure the amount of coins instamined were as high as possible(Since he also started mining Dash/Darkcoin before it's intended release date), where the block reward and max coin supply was sliced and diced to make the instamined coins worth more. And even then, a year after, there's still a wallet with inputs connected to the instamine, that owns 11% of all Dash/Darkcoins in existence.

Thanks coins101(Added in some of the parts you forgot to mention in all your previous posts).

I'm a troll

Your blatant lying and trolling is getting irratating. In this case you cannot say it was deoptimized as Monero was a fork of Bytecoin, therefore the miner was transferred over. Thankful-for-Today did not deoptimize it, there is no proof of that. Everything you've said against Monero is pure speculative, none of it has any ground in fact. Everything said against Dash is shown the in blockchain, and is all Objective. Dash having a likely intended instamine/premine launch is Objective/Fact.

Evan Duffield explanation of what happened goes against what actually happened. His cutting of the max coin supply is obvious proof that his testimony of the events on those 2 days are not the truth.

Kind of sad that Dash supporters result to false information.

lol, sweeping Monero scam launch under the carpet...QED. take a break dude

I forgot what it's like to speak with children again. Let me type it for you more clearly. Everything said against Monero is Subjective/Personalized/Opionated. None of it has any ground at all in fact. Monero having a deoptimized miner is Subjective, as it's a fork from Bytecoin. You cannot say it was purposely deoptimized because of that. Then to make things even simpler, all the mining that was done during that period was negated as the miners at that time wrote a article and sold all the Moneros that they mined. That means that Monero's distribution is better than average for cryptocurrencies, since many of it's early coins were sold off after being mined.

With Dash, it's developer launched it before it's intended release date, so it's instamine can be counted as a premine as well. To make matters worse, 2million Dash were mined in just 2 days, then it had it's coin ouput sliced and diced over 3 fold, along with it's max coin supply which was sliced from 80million to 20million. To make things even worse however, there's still a Dash address that owns 11% of the entire current coin supply, and is linked to the instamine.

Everything said against Dash is Objective/Factual, as it's in the blockchain. Everything said against Monero is opinonated/Subjective, as none of it has any grounds in fact.

Just in case you didnt see earlier.

Still trolling

Are you slow? Saying that it's a "scam" is Subjective aka Your Opinion. I could also say that Satoshi releasing Bitcoin the way he did was a scam, but that's just an opinion and has no grounds in fact.

As said before, everything said against Monero is Subjective. The whole reason for that is because Monero was a fork of Bytecoin, therefore everything was transferred from Bytecoin to Monero.

Everything said against Dash is Objective, the history is in the blockchain. Dash having a likely scam instamine is Objective. Are you a teenager? This trolling is ridiculous. Go do yourself a favor and search up the definitions of subjetive and objective.

[BlockaFett]

. And even then, a year after, there's still a wallet with inputs connected to the instamine, that owns 11% of all Dash/Darkcoins in existence.

You know that's not true, because the actual buyer replied to you already today:

That's interesting, because I first found of that address here. If even Dash supporters don't know of someone owning 11% of the coin supply with inputs being linked back to the original instamine, then wow, you must be really transparent Otoh /s

I did a search with that address and found no links back to you Otoh, so it's either you're lying, trying to cover up who the real owner is, or...because that address isn't linked to you at all, so you clearly have not made it as "obvious as possible".

lol, for some people, obvious as possible needs to be kindergarten style, believe me those with the smarts to know what's going on in this space know very well that it's me and when I started to invest in a 10% + stake in DASH, which was way after the instamine phase and also partly due to how that was handled, I want my dev to have an ongoing big interest in making this coin a success.

So you are just reposting stuff you know is not true, avoiding the proven Monero scam launch, and attacking Dash, even though early Bitcoiners are smart enough to invest like this while you troll...not much point talking on this anymore, more time wasting...go develop Monero - your Bittrex volume today...$8.  Lol Trollero

[Prosperityforall]

. And even then, a year after, there's still a wallet with inputs connected to the instamine, that owns 11% of all Dash/Darkcoins in existence.

You know that's not true, because the actual buyer replied to you already today:

That's interesting, because I first found of that address here. If even Dash supporters don't know of someone owning 11% of the coin supply with inputs being linked back to the original instamine, then wow, you must be really transparent Otoh /s

I did a search with that address and found no links back to you Otoh, so it's either you're lying, trying to cover up who the real owner is, or...because that address isn't linked to you at all, so you clearly have not made it as "obvious as possible".

lol, for some people, obvious as possible needs to be kindergarten style, believe me those with the smarts to know what's going on in this space know very well that it's me and when I started to invest in a 10% + stake in DASH, which was way after the instamine phase and also partly due to how that was handled, I want my dev to have an ongoing big interest in making this coin a success.

So you are just reposting stuff you know is not true, avoiding the proven Monero scam launch, and attacking Dash...not much point talking on this anymore, more time wasting...go develop Monero - your Bittrex volume today...$8.  Lol Trollero

Otoh said that the address was known to be connected to him, but when I did a search for any links I found none (0). That address has been in no way, shape, or form connected to the Otoh previously. It's likely he's lying or mistyped somehow. So again, you're wrong.

All my coins were bought way, way after the instamine, it's actually one of the reasons I liked and invested in this coin, the likelihood that the devs had a good stake in making it work long term, which is being born out in practice.

Your statements don't add up. That address isn't linked to you at all, has inputs from the original instamine, kind of sketchy if you ask me but I won't make any conclusions.

[BlockaFett]

. And even then, a year after, there's still a wallet with inputs connected to the instamine, that owns 11% of all Dash/Darkcoins in existence.

You know that's not true, because the actual buyer replied to you already today:

That's interesting, because I first found of that address here. If even Dash supporters don't know of someone owning 11% of the coin supply with inputs being linked back to the original instamine, then wow, you must be really transparent Otoh /s

I did a search with that address and found no links back to you Otoh, so it's either you're lying, trying to cover up who the real owner is, or...because that address isn't linked to you at all, so you clearly have not made it as "obvious as possible".

lol, for some people, obvious as possible needs to be kindergarten style, believe me those with the smarts to know what's going on in this space know very well that it's me and when I started to invest in a 10% + stake in DASH, which was way after the instamine phase and also partly due to how that was handled, I want my dev to have an ongoing big interest in making this coin a success.

So you are just reposting stuff you know is not true, avoiding the proven Monero scam launch, and attacking Dash...not much point talking on this anymore, more time wasting...go develop Monero - your Bittrex volume today...$8.  Lol Trollero

Otoh said that the address was known to be connected to him, but when I did a search for any links I found none (0). That address has been in no way, shape, or form connected to the Otoh previously. It's likely he's lying or mistyped somehow. So again, you're wrong.

All my coins were bought way, way after the instamine, it's actually one of the reasons I liked and invested in this coin, the likelihood that the devs had a good stake in making it work long term, which is being born out in practice.

Your statements don't add up. That address isn't linked to you at all, has inputs from the original instamine, kind of sketchy if you ask me but I won't make any conclusions.

so you didn't do even basic research.  Otoh has published all his buys / addresses on the Dash thread.  And here is an early Bitcoiner taking this investment on Dash...like I said, you will just keep typing anything, pretty much all garbage, sorry 

[Prosperityforall]

Stop acting stupid/trolling BlockaFett.

Otoh make the clear statement that he made it as "obvious as possible" that the address was his. Yet when I did a search there were absolutely no connections whatsoever between that address and him.

Therefore that can be counted as a lie. It's either he's trying to cover up the actual owner of that address, either that he lied and hasn't made it clear the address was his, or something else.

Either way it's bad, as that address has inputs connected to the original instamine, plus it owns 11% of all Dash in existence. As said before, Dash has horrible distribution regardless.

[generalizethis]

So, is it fair to say pretty much all alt coins are fraud?

(Sigh) This what the scammers would like everyone to believe, but you can do your own research.

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

I like this bit:

"When your cryptocurrency is enriching the few for the sake of the rest of us, how is that different that the USD and basic economic configuration today? "

So that's almost an exact definition of a crippled miner launch, where the devs enrich themselves over and above that of the miners.  Which is what happened in Monero's case: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1034864.msg11264770#msg11264770

Second, that article is a year old and the author says: NOTE: Mining of coins is ONLY ONE ASPECT OF A COIN.

then where he says:  Hopefully one can see after reading this article that coins like Novacoin, Goldcoin, Blackcoin, Darkcoin, etc are obviously bad investments.

Now year later the dev is still there and 'Darkcoin' is the top alt after LTC...wheras Nova, Gold, Black all gone.  So he was right about some coins...

And when everyone admits that dash was instamined, that the masternode incentive package encourages masternode operators to attack other mastenodes to gain the most profit, when everyone realizes that masternodes are centralizing in nature and have no business in a cryptosystem, then you'll get your race to the bottom and devtome's analysis proving correct--in the meantime keep distracting everyone of your coin's awfulness like a backstreetboy pointing to record sales and how many tone-deaf twelve-year-olds send them fan-mail.

[Prosperityforall]

. And even then, a year after, there's still a wallet with inputs connected to the instamine, that owns 11% of all Dash/Darkcoins in existence.

You know that's not true, because the actual buyer replied to you already today:

That's interesting, because I first found of that address here. If even Dash supporters don't know of someone owning 11% of the coin supply with inputs being linked back to the original instamine, then wow, you must be really transparent Otoh /s

I did a search with that address and found no links back to you Otoh, so it's either you're lying, trying to cover up who the real owner is, or...because that address isn't linked to you at all, so you clearly have not made it as "obvious as possible".

lol, for some people, obvious as possible needs to be kindergarten style, believe me those with the smarts to know what's going on in this space know very well that it's me and when I started to invest in a 10% + stake in DASH, which was way after the instamine phase and also partly due to how that was handled, I want my dev to have an ongoing big interest in making this coin a success.

So you are just reposting stuff you know is not true, avoiding the proven Monero scam launch, and attacking Dash...not much point talking on this anymore, more time wasting...go develop Monero - your Bittrex volume today...$8.  Lol Trollero

Otoh said that the address was known to be connected to him, but when I did a search for any links I found none (0). That address has been in no way, shape, or form connected to the Otoh previously. It's likely he's lying or mistyped somehow. So again, you're wrong.

All my coins were bought way, way after the instamine, it's actually one of the reasons I liked and invested in this coin, the likelihood that the devs had a good stake in making it work long term, which is being born out in practice.

Your statements don't add up. That address isn't linked to you at all, has inputs from the original instamine, kind of sketchy if you ask me but I won't make any conclusions.

so you didn't do even basic research.  Otoh has published all his buys / addresses on the Dash thread.  And here is an early Bitcoiner taking this investment on Dash...like I said, you will just keep typing anything, pretty much all garbage, sorry 

Again, are you slow? The address is not linked back to Otoh at all. Try searching it up yourself. Therefore Otoh has likely lied or somehow mistyped.