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

[smooth]

Indeed. Ridiculous is putting it mildly. I wonder why Evan STILL didn't bother compiling a windows wallet even though he said he'd wait until the next day to relaunch    

Maybe because he only had Linux himself. Setting up a build environment for Windows with all the stuff that's needed is a lot of work. It can't be done in one day unless you already know how and have done it before.

Right  

Maybe it was divine intervention. Maybe the tooth fairy told him to speed up the launch.

Maybe. Which do you think is more likely though?

I think its more likely he never had any particular interest in creating (Windows) builds because

It would be so hard to realse a coin with compiled wallets? Oo

No but it would be hard for dev to instamine with them.

Didn't know I had that much influence in forming your opinion. And all this time I thought you came to your conclusions driven by penis envy of being in the shadow of the market leader.

Statements made at the time by people who were there have a lot of weight. Including Evan's own statements.

[smooth]

+1

The Monero emission change at the last minute was obviously intended to be part of the launch scam.

People liked the idea of a flatter bitcoin like emission curve, but then it was changed by the dev at the last minute.

Even back then people were flagging that there were problems that would come back and haunt Monero.

No shit batman.

Unlike Dash, it was never changed.

Thankful_for_today only ever implemented one speed. The previous commit is from Bytecoin. Easy to verify it in github.

[PoS]

Whenever coins101 begins his obvious trolling, direct him to this post.

Let me sum it up entirely:

Dash:

Evan Duffield who is Dash's developer, released Dash before it's intended release date and started mining it then. This means Dash also has a premine as well. During the first 2 days of Dash's existence, there was 500 coins per block that was being mined, and from that, 2million+ coins were mined. After 2million+ coins were mined in the first 2 days, the 500 coins per block output was reduced/sliced and diced to under 100, instantly making those instamined/premined coins worth more. Then to make things worse, the max coin supply was cut from avg. 80million to 20million. However, the likely scam/fraud didn't finish then, as all of that was done while mining was restricted to Linux-only users(90%+ of all people use Windows), and for a period of time, the only person able to mine Dash was it's developer, Evan Duffield, as the public miner wasn't working.  

What does the stat "90%+ of all people use Windows" has to do with this? More relevant stat would be, what percentage of crypto currency miners have access to Linux.

What to gain from that? Well for starters, Dash started off as a likely undeniable scam. It's Objective, as the history of this is recorded in the blockchain. None of this is personal, nor opinionated, it is all Fact. To make things even worse however, there's still an address that owns 11% of all Dash currently in existence, with inputs dating back to the instamine: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/dash/wallet.dws?559582.htm. So besides the fact that close to 40% of all Dash in existence currently were instamined in 2 days, there's also a guy that owns 11% of all dash. So practically 50% of all Dash *coins* are owned by the instaminers and 1 person, that's an absolute despicable distribution.

Having a strong hand and an investor is a positive thing for every other coin except DASH?

Also your logic that 50% is owned by instaminers is just flawed, or are you claiming that none of them has sold any coins? You're just putting numbers and pieces together and constructing fabricated results that suit your agenda.

Am I on ignore?

It is well documented that Evan was a active buyer.

So i got my 2 million premine in the pocket.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg4629218#msg4629218

yeh 500 reward accident  

..enjoy them while they last

[coins101]

Oh it was launched with just one emission speed. Never said otherwise.

But it was changed from the emission speed advertised, changed at the last minute, without explanation.

Has there been anything new about this coin? Has it been put on hold or is it still schedule for release. Also a name?

I'm starting to doubt there is really a good reason for this besides people wanting to pump and dump. The original is starting to get more and more traction in the community (beyond what may or may not exist on the darknet). It will be hard for a clone to overcome that lead.

If anything I'd propose a bitcoin spin-off clone instead. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563972.0

Better chance of adoption to overtake the original, maybe.

There are very good reasons for having a fork instead. With BCN we have a coin that refused to show itself for 2 years and has been 80% mined. Why would the markets accept that? Crypto distribution is absurdly bad (most, even big ones like LTC, have ~50% of coins held in the top 100 wallets). But this is taking it to a whole new level. Not to mention we have a dev team that we can't interact with and a very poorly chosen dispersement speed, with 80% mined in such a short time (compare to BTC distribution which extends into decades). Don't underestimate "instamining" stigma - it annihilated Quark and continues to plague DRK. A currency (exchange medium) is no good if many people don't want anything to do with it.

A fresh start pre-announced start gives a known market history, a fairer and longer distribution, and active development with feedback.

That said, I'm disappointed in what this thread turned out to be. We should've had discussion on the name and the parameters and other things and yet thankful_for_today is nowhere to be seen 4 days from the supposed launch.

+1

I liked the younger smooth, he sounded so much more sincere back then.

[coins101]

+1

The Monero emission change at the last minute was obviously intended to be part of the launch scam.

People liked the idea of a flatter bitcoin like emission curve, but then it was changed by the dev at the last minute.

Even back then people were flagging that there were problems that would come back and haunt Monero.

No shit batman.

You fucking liar, you make me dump all my dash, you and your kind are only lies, the Monero emission was not changed, go to hell you piece of shit.

Looks like I don't yet have you on ignore.

Did you read what I wrote carefully?

Changed at the last minute. Not changed after launch.

Please reconsider buying back all your DASH. I'd hate to think you made a rash decision based on an easy to make speed reading error.

What's your DASH addy, I'll donate you some DASH?

[BagHolder010]

Here is what Monero team don't seem to get including GingerAle, Fluffypony and Smooth. People don't care about Monero Launch scam, or DASH early mistake or Satoshi getting 1 Million bitcoins or even any other coin that the CREATER gets. I am no tech guy but Nakamoto Satoshi created this amazing idea that you or anyone here wouldn't even think it exist before he did it so I am no one to say you should not get that 1 million coins! Evan created instant transactions great this can get interesting, what did YOU do to crypto beside CRY"P"TO about people out of you're league in forums? what did MONERO add to anything, is there something new in you're agenda that can get me as investor to think well this coin MIGHT have a chance to be up there with the big boys?

~ Truth is incompetence does not bring smart money so you can say all you want, i've seen this before and still do in Bitcoin forums hating on Bitcoin itself by losers and low achievers and you're nothing but another loser.

it's true.

they made the miscalculation that if they throw enough sh*t at Dash they can hurt it enough so their coin can replace it - claims that "instamine=scam=bad investment" was their weapon of choice.  The only problem, Dash is a strong coin with big community and the most innovation, delivering new features people want, it has survived many attacks before, including this same one. Monero is a single-exchange clone made by fraud devs who do zero development unless it helps their personal agenda.

Smooth - you totally destroyed monero's image, this is you and fluffy's fault.  And now the only thing keeping you on Poloniex is a load of fake buy walls from whales like Warz who don't want to sh*t the money bed and think if they can fix the price where it is Monero's image will recover....it won't thanks to you, because you've just exposed Monero as an off-the-shelf scam-clone launch-scam with devs who can't be bothered to work but are fixated on attacking your biggest competitor to try to 'prove' to people you ambush around BCT that monero is better because Dash is illegitimate because you say so - playground tactics not serious development as you would expect if Monero had real value.

you don't see this yet i guess, but i do...way to give value to your investors and help take crypto forward.

bump - why this poll even exists.

It exists because they did too much shit ( and catapulted out ) at DASH tread. Obviously they can not do this in MONERO tread.

And... I do not see any newbies here too? Is this tread aimed to them? What a joke...

Have you noticed how they always mis quote people whenever anyone says incompetence Monero dev's? haha

I would love to see how many of those are Monero supporters or dev's can we have name's of all the voters please? LOL

Cry"p"to in forums, here is a new deal for Monero developers i'll spend 20 bitcoins into Monero's dead coin "since they can't bring ANYTHING new to crypto" if they do give us something new like something would make me say WOW they are actually working and not copying from byte or other coins anymore; or changing a color of a copied "LOL" GUI wallet from red to blue LOOOOOOOOOOL

Incompetence does not bring smart money, so RIGHT NOW show me what is in ur agenda if you got nothing then stop creating new accounts bashing Evan or wasting time as developers you're just making Monero look really really bad with you're CRY"P"TO in forums lol.

[smooth]

Oh it was launched with just one emission speed. Never said otherwise.

But it was changed from the emission speed advertised, changed at the last minute, without explanation.

It was never "changed" in any way. You can disagree with the choice of speed (as I did and still do), fair enough, but you are lying if you claim it was "changed"

Unlike Dash, which clearly was changed.

[coins101]

Oh it was launched with just one emission speed. Never said otherwise.

But it was changed from the emission speed advertised, changed at the last minute, without explanation.

It was never "changed" in any way. You can disagree with the choice of speed (as I did and still do), fair enough, but you are lying if you claim it was "changed"

Unlike Dash, which clearly was changed.

I have nothing to lie about. It seems pretty factual from the pre-ann thread:



I'm genuinely interested to know what was promised and what was delivered.

Everyone seemed to be under the impression that the emissions would not involve 80% in the first 4 years, but be distributed over a longer period - similar to bitcoin, in fact.

[smooth]

Oh it was launched with just one emission speed. Never said otherwise.

But it was changed from the emission speed advertised, changed at the last minute, without explanation.

It was never "changed" in any way. You can disagree with the choice of speed (as I did and still do), fair enough, but you are lying if you claim it was "changed"

Unlike Dash, which clearly was changed.

I have nothing to lie about. It seems pretty factual from the pre-ann thread:



I'm genuinely interested to know what was promised and what was delivered.

Everyone seemed to be under the impression that the emissions would not involve 80% in the first 4 years, but be distributed over a longer period - similar to bitcoin, in fact.

Here's TFT's very first post about it (on the Bytecoin thread), even before the pre-ANN:

Next week I will start my own fork of Bytecoin - another coin based on CryptoNote technology. It will be started from scratch (from block zero). I will write an anouncement today ot [ANN] subforum. Emission schedule will be more flat and block target will be reduced to 60 sec.

What was promised was "more flat" (later "flatter"). Flatter was delivered. Only a single speed speed factor was ever implemented, and was never changed. Close to bitcoin is subjective. Compared to Bytecoin or a lot of fast-mine (one week to one year) coins, it is certainly closer.

Please stay on topic. You are spamming the forum with anti-Monero rhetoric on inappropriate threads.

[Brilliantrocket]

Oh it was launched with just one emission speed. Never said otherwise.

But it was changed from the emission speed advertised, changed at the last minute, without explanation.

It was never "changed" in any way. You can disagree with the choice of speed (as I did and still do), fair enough, but you are lying if you claim it was "changed"

Unlike Dash, which clearly was changed.

I fail to see the problem with changing it. Some time ago the Monero Economic Workshop had a poll to change the Monero emission. That measure failed, but had it succeeded, why would it have been wrong to change the emission?

[coins101]

...
Please stay on topic. You are spamming the forum with anti-Monero rhetoric on inappropriate threads.

Looks pretty on topic to me:

Has there been anything new about this coin? Has it been put on hold or is it still schedule for release. Also a name?

I'm starting to doubt there is really a good reason for this besides people wanting to pump and dump. The original is starting to get more and more traction in the community (beyond what may or may not exist on the darknet). It will be hard for a clone to overcome that lead.

If anything I'd propose a bitcoin spin-off clone instead. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563972.0

Better chance of adoption to overtake the original, maybe.

There are very good reasons for having a fork instead. With BCN we have a coin that refused to show itself for 2 years and has been 80% mined. Why would the markets accept that? Crypto distribution is absurdly bad (most, even big ones like LTC, have ~50% of coins held in the top 100 wallets). But this is taking it to a whole new level. Not to mention we have a dev team that we can't interact with and a very poorly chosen dispersement speed, with 80% mined in such a short time (compare to BTC distribution which extends into decades). Don't underestimate "instamining" stigma - it annihilated Quark and continues to plague DRK. A currency (exchange medium) is no good if many people don't want anything to do with it.

A fresh start pre-announced start gives a known market history, a fairer and longer distribution, and active development with feedback.

That said, I'm disappointed in what this thread turned out to be. We should've had discussion on the name and the parameters and other things and yet thankful_for_today is nowhere to be seen 4 days from the supposed launch.

Monero "instamining stigma"

Seems like quite a few people thought there was a big change from that which was promised or expected.

In fact, it looks like there were, possibly still are, 'regrets about or akin to instamining Monero based on its promised emissions.'

Yep. Pretty on topic.

[smooth]

Monero "instamining stigma"

eizh's comments were a bit hyperbolic and likely out of frustration with the poor communication from TFT.

"it annihilated Quark and continues to plague DRK" -eizh

Quark: "Quark intended to mine 247 million coins within 6 months as part of it's fast distribution model"

DRK: "That means in less than 8 hours, almost 5% of the Darkcoins that ever will be created spawned in that 1/3 of a day"

(both from http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=a_massive_investigation_of_instamines_and_fastmines_for_the_top_alt_coins)

So no there is not much similarity here at all.

"80% mined in such a short time (compare to BTC distribution which extends into decades" -eizh

This isn't even correct. BTC mines 80% in about 9.5 years, not decades.

[smooth]

Oh it was launched with just one emission speed. Never said otherwise.

But it was changed from the emission speed advertised, changed at the last minute, without explanation.

It was never "changed" in any way. You can disagree with the choice of speed (as I did and still do), fair enough, but you are lying if you claim it was "changed"

Unlike Dash, which clearly was changed.

I fail to see the problem with changing it. Some time ago the Monero Economic Workshop had a poll to change the Monero emission. That measure failed, but had it succeeded, why would it have been wrong to change the emission?

Because a huge part of the value proposition of cryptocurrency is that your holdings aren't subject to changes based on political or dictatorial whims. If not for that, you might as well stick with fiat which is more efficient and has an enormous first-mover advantage. Every such change to a coin weakens it by creating a precedent and reasonable expectation of further changes, and every attempted change that fails strengthens it for the same reason. You can see this already with people saying that they fully expect Evan to make more changes (and indeed he just change the mining yet again, redirecting some rewards to "voting" -- effectively an increase in the money supply). Conversely I doubt people expect Monero to make these sorts of changes.

Also as a practical matter reducing emissions, or worse, reducing supply, further concentrates early adopter and insider holdings and reduces the incentive for later adopters. Later adopters can reasonably ask the question why not just buy into something else where I too can be an early adopter with less risk, and they'd be right. There has to be a balance between incentives to early adopters and incentives to late adopters. If you front load scarcity and price increases, that can be great for traders and insiders, but you undermine late adopter incentives

Given the way adoption of cryptocurrencies generally has been glacial you might argue that increasing supply (diluting early adopter holdings in favor of slower-than-expected late adopters) makes more sense than decreasing it, except of course for the lack of stability issue discussed two paragraphs back.

In reality you have to get it very close to right from the beginning or you are screwed. Attempting to fix it will destroy it.

The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime.

[coins101]

......In reality you have to get it very close to right from the beginning or you are screwed. Attempting to fix it will destroy it.
..

Well that all makes sense.

But, how many bitmonero/Monero 'lets change emissions' community surveys have there been? How many surveys on funding using block rewards, have there been?

The survey results may have led to no change, but that's as a result of community engagement and discussions. Some people would have wanted to make changes. What would have happened if any one of the various surveys had resulted in a change being the outcome?

Simply saying there was no change, therefore there is no further discussion is not really an answer.

[illodin]

Also as a practical matter reducing emissions, or worse, reducing supply, further concentrates early adopter and insider holdings and reduces the incentive for later adopters. Later adopters can reasonably ask the question why not just buy into something else where I too can be an early adopter with less risk, and they'd be right. There has to be a balance between incentives to early adopters and incentives to late adopters. If you front load scarcity and price increases, that can be great for traders and insiders, but you undermine late adopter incentives

Ask a late adopter which he wants to buy, a low inflation coin or a high inflation coin.

And, isn't the foremost purpose of a coin to be something people can use, and not only speculate on in hopes of getting rich?

[smooth]

......In reality you have to get it very close to right from the beginning or you are screwed. Attempting to fix it will destroy it.
..

Well that all makes sense.

But, how many bitmonero/Monero 'lets change emissions' community surveys have there been?

Two, I think. Both decided against.

How many surveys on funding using block rewards, have there been?

None that I know of. There was a brief discussion of it, but it never rose the the level of an organized survey or poll that I recall.

The survey results may have led to no change, but that's as a result of community engagement and discussions. Some people would have wanted to make changes. What would have happened if any one of the various surveys had resulted in a change being the outcome?

Something different?

Likewise, we could ask what would have happened if Evan didn't instamine Dash and didn't make a bunch of instaminer-, early-adopter- and insider-favoring monetary changes later. And of top if that we can ask what would have happened if Dash actually had sound technology?

I might be supporting it today!

[Prosperityforall]

This is cryptocurrencies. These things are "decentralized", and being so, there cannot be changes made on a whim. Such things destroy the point of even using the cryptocurrency and destroy it's decentralization.

Bitcoin's emission rate has not changed
Monero's emission rate has not changed

Dash's emission rate has been sliced and diced from what it formerly was by it's developer

Dash cannot be taken and will not be taken seriously as a currency in the future, outside of this small forum, I can assure you that. A similar thing happened to Vericoin where it was rolled back to a previous state, but destroying it's meaningful decentralization in the process. Now Vericoin is dead, the only reason Dash isn't is because of whales who accumalated very early on like Otoh propping the currency up.

I'll say it again, cryptocurrencies that have had their core values changed are not currencies anymore, they are just investments. That's all Dash is, an investment, nothing more.

[smooth]

Also as a practical matter reducing emissions, or worse, reducing supply, further concentrates early adopter and insider holdings and reduces the incentive for later adopters. Later adopters can reasonably ask the question why not just buy into something else where I too can be an early adopter with less risk, and they'd be right. There has to be a balance between incentives to early adopters and incentives to late adopters. If you front load scarcity and price increases, that can be great for traders and insiders, but you undermine late adopter incentives

Ask a late adopter which he wants to buy, a low inflation coin or a high inflation coin.

A true late adopter would be buying a low inflation coin regardless (unless the coin is specifically designed to maintain high inflation forever, but none of these are). The only question is whether that happens when things are actually somewhat mature and widely adopted (with correspondingly low risk), or is accelerated with a fast-mine (QRK/UNO) or an instamine (DRK) to quickly produce low inflation before there is any real adoption.

I would argue it also depends on price. A high inflation coin that is still in an early distribution phase will have a relatively low price, meaning it is easy, cheap, and low risk for early adopters to get in. The inflation is a viable trade off for the prospect of large gains if and when adoption occurs later.

And, isn't the foremost purpose of a coin to be something people can use, and not only speculate on in hopes of getting rich?

No coins are there. If and when some are, we can look back and see which made it. The closest was probably Bitcoin starting back in the peak of SatoshiDice and Silk Road which happened when it had pretty high inflation (much higher even than now -- still pretty high)

[illodin]

This is cryptocurrencies. These things are "decentralized", and being so, there cannot be changes made on a whim. Such things destroy the point of even using the cryptocurrency and destroy it's decentralization.

Bitcoin's emission rate has not changed
Monero's emission rate has not changed

Dash's emission rate has been sliced and diced from what it formerly was by it's developer

Dash cannot be taken and will not be taken seriously as a currency in the future, outside of this small forum, I can assure you that. A similar thing happened to Vericoin where it was rolled back to a previous state, but destroying it's meaningful decentralization in the process. Now Vericoin is dead, the only reason Dash isn't is because of whales who accumalated very early on like Otoh propping the currency up.

I'll say it again, cryptocurrencies that have had their core values changed, are not currencies anymore, they are just investments. That's all Dash is, an investment, nothing more.

Cryptocurrency is what the consensus decides it is.

[coins101]

....
eizh's comments were a bit hyperbolic and likely out of frustration with the poor communication from TFT.
....

Yeah, no I'm not buying what you're selling.

More than one person expected a different emissions schedule way different to what was delivered.

....
TFT:

1. will you be forking bimonero into a new coin or are you expecting monero to fork away into a new coin.
2. you now have two projects. fantomcoin and bitmonero ( I assume independent from monero)
3. what is your goal in producing two bytecoin clones.
4. how is fantomcoin different from bitmonero.
5. why is another clone of bytecoin, another cryptonight coin necessary.
6. have you added to the security/anonymity that cryptonight algorithum proposes... i.e honeypenny's work seems very thought out. (you have created 2 coins in a shorter period than honeypenny has taken to produce one coin.) either you are a super genius or is this a pump and dump or is it regret. regret of walking away from monero when you were ok with name change.
7. clearly you are knowledgeable and capable. why not work with the current monero team and build that coin. there are concerns about anynomity not being at all guaranteed (this is true for zerocash as well) since the IP address of sender is not obfuscated. is this not a concern for you as you are currently prolaiming fantomcoin and bitmonero as anonymous. is it what you had said about the emission curve of bitmonero at time of release that it would be flatter but in reality it was not. therefore, can your claims be trusted.


thanks.

Lets have some more retrospective analysis of what people were thinking at the time, rather than read what they were saying at the time.

And if everything was ok, why bother having a vote on changes just a few days into the launch?

Voting about emission curve change added: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=585480

Nah, not buying.