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

[—]

Poor coins101, he's trying so hard.

That Dash snakeoil is a hard sale maybe he and his fellow Dashers should consider selling vacuum cleaners in future at least there is a chance of seeing a hot blond instead of a dark cave.

[coins101]

Poor coins101, he's trying so hard.

That Dash snakeoil is a hard sale maybe he and his fellow Dashers should consider selling vacuum cleaners in future at least there is a chance of seeing a hot blond instead of a dark cave.

For the avoidance of doubt.

I asked very politely in the Monero thread a few days ago and again yesterday here for all of us to agree to disagree, and move on.

Smooth continued to wage a smear campaign. That is what this thread is, and he is leading the campaign.

So the facts needed to be explored to give some balance.  

He is the lead dev of a big and important crypto project. He should lead by good example because there are many people that look up to him as one of the lead devs.

Yet he maintains a white knight attitude that scams need to be uncovered. 'Ignoring a scam is in fact to be part of that scam'.

So now we find our White Knight who patrols the threads calling every project a scam, is actually up to his neck in it.

If you think I have a personal hatred of Smooth, then you are wrong. A few weeks ago I was defending him, until I was pointed to his smear campaign.

....
I'm not 100% sure smooth has been trolling, but I haven't read all his posts.

From my experience with seeing smooth in various threads, he strikes me as being an asset to any project. But I'll defer to the views of those here who have seen most of his posts.

But who really knows what went on at Bitmonero / Monero during its first few months. All we know is that there was a Proven Monero Scam Launch.

I have no truck with anyone else from Monero or the project. Good luck to you all.

[smooth]

You are still missing the point:

There were no error made in this coin but now there is an initiative to make some changes. Changes are always bad and changes destroy participant confidence even in case these changes are looking as useful. We have to be very careful before making any changes in coins Wink

In fact the coins were created at the rate specified in the original design but not what some people (myself included) thought was being discussed on the original thread. But in fact the coins did (and do) match the formula:

Block reward
Smoothly varing using the formula
(M-A) * (2-20) * (10-12)

So we then proceeded to discuss what to do about it. but first let's fix that funny ellipsis you like to use when selectively quoting for misleading purposes:

There are approximately 150k coins. There will likely be a "reverse stock split" turning these into 75k "new" coins at some point, because the mining reward is currently twice what is intended.

Ellipsis removed, we can now see that we were proposing to take the original 150k coins that were mined at the original rate, turn them into 75k using a reverse stock split, and then reduce the rate going forward. Later this was changed to a crowdfunding approach where the early miners would have donated half their coins to a bounty fund, but either way, they were not going to get to keep them (unlike Dash).

A necessary condition to actually do a curve switch is to collect excess coins from miners (see below).

The whole point of this proposal was to avoid being an instamine by not giving any advantage to the earliest miners (who would have had their faster-mined coin holdings cut in half).  This is exactly what was not done in Dash when the coin supply was cut by 75% but the original miners (including instaminers) got to keep all of their coins, which made the whole thing into a huge rip off (early holdings were arbitrarily multiplied by 4x)

In the end, however, no change was made. The Monero community decided to honor the original social contract and not reduce the emission rate. Exactly the opposite of Dash, which was not only instamined but had its emission rate cut (with no adjustment) and its supply cut after the fact by 75%.

But who really knows what went on at Bitmonero / Monero during its first few months.

It is quite clear what went on if you actually read the posts and don't quote selectively from them. There was no "scam launch" as you are calling it. Coins were created at a normal smooth rate according to the published formula right from the start (unlike Dash, which matched none of the several published formulas), when there was a proposal to change the curve going forward, an adjustment was going to be included to keep any early miners from having an advantage (again unlike Dash), and the coin supply was never drastically cut (again unlike Dash).

Monero is exactly the opposite of everything that happened in Dash.

Unlike Dash, Monero had:

1. No instamine due to bad difficulty adjustment
2. No instamine due to bugs creating extra coins that shouldn't exist at all (but were allowed to be kept anyway, unlike Bitcoin)
3. No proposal to change parameters without early miners forfeiting any advantage that would give them.
4. No cut to total supply target, multiplying the share of early-mined coins by 4x.
5. No reduction in the rate of emission, creating/increasing a retroactive instamine.

Case closed.

[coins101]

.....
Case closed.

Yep:

We've admitted to the crippled miner. We were the first ones to discover it, disclose it, and fix it. The reason I don't dwell on Monero's faults is not to hide them......

And the other lead dev:

....
The "dev" who launched Monero is thankful_for_today: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=233561

Thankfully when we (the current Monero core team) found the purposefully obfuscated code we immediately fixed it and made the fix freely available to all. This is what smooth means when he describes the Monero launch as fair. As dga says, at most thankful_for_today would've had a week of advantageous mining, but as our difficulty retargetting worked just fine and we didn't have crazy high initial block rewards there was very little that the scammer thankful_for_today could've made off with.

Note that these are all facts, directly observable by comparing increases in difficulty (ie. network hash rate) with the improved hashing code submitted to github. It does not require trust, it does not require anyone to take our word that coins have been sold or distributed, it is not based on hope. It is absolute, truthful, factual, verifiable by all.
...

+1 for owning up to the Proven Monero Scam Launch.

[smooth]

So let's see what we have here on this "Scam Launch" food fight:

Monero:

1. Crippled miner, may or may not have ever been know about or taken advantage of (in very limited quantity) by the original dev
2. Proposal to reduce rate of emissions and return early miners' coins, not adopted
3. Small bug with one transaction that may (unclear) have interrupted or slowed down mining for everyone for about a half hour
4. Every proposal to modify the social contract rejected

Dash:

1. Repeated misleading and deceptive statements from Evan on launch time
2. Slow difficulty adjustment that mined a million coins in a few hours and nearly two million in a day
3. A bug that created extra coins (kept by instaminers)
4. Cut to emissions (no return/reduction of early miners' coins)
5. Cut of 75% to the money supply (4x the value for intsaminers coins).
6. 45% of emissions redirected to masternodes (existing coin holders; largely instaminers and insider whales)

One of these coins is a huge instamine scam, with repeated actions taken to perpetuate and even expand the scam, and one had a few minor issues with its launch.

One particular idiot can't tell the difference and thinks that labeling Monero as "Proven Scam Launch" over a few minor glitches somehow makes Dash look like less of a scam despite the slow motion disaster listed as 1-6 above (well, except the instamine part, that was fast). Everyone else can clearly tell the difference and knows exactly how huge of a scam Dash was and is.

I wonder if Evan regrets instamining Dash (items 1-3) and then, on top of it, carrying on with his continued scamming (items 4-6).

[coins101]

Just how does someone get 10% of the mined coins in a week (that were declared), when the average Joe was scrapping around for a few coins a day?

Quite a few people who were at the Monero launch were reporting hitting 1-2 blocks per day. Over a two week period, they might have got 750-1,200 coins, lets be generous and say 5k.

Some people had managed to get really lucky and had 20k, about 10% of the supply at the time, in about a week.

.....
I already pledged 10k which is half of my coins...

I'd ask everyone to wait two weeks before making any decisions about relaunching too.

Oops.

I say we wait and see what happens over the next week or two. I'm pretty sure you are right about shitcoin central, no matter what we do here.

Two weeks? Whose going to want to stop, fix, fork and relaunch after spending all the effort and BTC on OTC transactions?

Stinks, doesn't it?

[smooth]

Just how does someone get 10% of the mined coins in a week (that were declared), when the average Joe was scrapping around for a few coins a day?

I've already answered that, but since you're digging through my post history you'll find it there too.

I've been a serious miner of many coins for years (on and off a least).

It certainly wasn't by misleading people about launch times and then instamining, like Evan. Does he regret it?

As for the "shitcoin central" quote where I was replying to tacotime, you have that exactly wrong, as usual. I was the one considering a new fork with a relaunch (for various reasons including the one minute block time), tacotime was against it. I agreed to wait two weeks and see whether another fork still made sense.

I don't know what to tell you smooth.  Yes, the situation is not ideal, but tonight we're at 315k on the network.

The miners are speaking.  There will be no merged mining of this chain.  We can deal with the adjusting subsidy at a later time via hardfork if necessary.  For now, the distribution is properly specified and everyone can make their choice appropriately.  One minute blocks yield high orphan rates, but we can later integrate GHOST if problems surrounding centralization arise.  It's not the end of the world.

Obviously in the end there was no fork by us. There was no need because no major problems arose.

[spatula]

Just how does someone get 10% of the mined coins in a week (that were declared), when the average Joe was scrapping around for a few coins a day?

I've already answered that, but since you're digging through my post history you'll find it there too.

I've been a serious miner of many coins for years (on and off a least).

It certainly wasn't by misleading people about launch times and then instamining, like Evan. Does he regret it?

So there was a optimized miner available (to insider scam devs) and you were still able to mine 10% of the coins available during that time while using the crippled scam miner only? How is that even possible? And if it is possible, is it believable?

[coins101]

Just how does someone get 10% of the mined coins in a week (that were declared), when the average Joe was scrapping around for a few coins a day?

I've already answered that, but since you're digging through my post history you'll find it there too.

I've been a serious miner of many coins for years (on and off a least).

It certainly wasn't by misleading people about launch times and then instamining, like Evan. Does he regret it?

So there was a optimized miner available (to insider scam devs) and you were still able to mine 10% of the coins available during that time while using the crippled scam miner only? How is that even possible? And if it is possible, is it believable?

Don't forget that everyone was being pointed to the OP where they would find a crippled miner, the ones that actually worked - you know by now, the crippled one that made their computers go loopty loo a few millions times each round.

Actually, this was one of the crippled loopty loo codes:

Code:

Skip to content
Sign up Sign in This repository
Explore
Features
Enterprise
Blog
 Watch 35  Star 66  Fork 80 monero-project/bitmonero
 tree: 1a8f5ce89a  bitmonero/src/crypto/slow-hash.c
Antonio Juarez on Mar 3, 2014 moved all stuff to github
0 contributors
RawBlameHistory    154 lines (135 sloc)  4.561 kb
// Copyright (c) 2012-2013 The Cryptonote developers
// Distributed under the MIT/X11 software license, see the accompanying
// file COPYING or http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php.

#include <assert.h>
#include <stddef.h>
#include <stdint.h>
#include <string.h>

#include "common/int-util.h"
#include "hash-ops.h"
#include "oaes_lib.h"

static void (*const extra_hashes[4])(const void *, size_t, char *) = {
  hash_extra_blake, hash_extra_groestl, hash_extra_jh, hash_extra_skein
};

#define MEMORY         (1 << 21) /* 2 MiB */
#define ITER           (1 << 20)
#define AES_BLOCK_SIZE  16
#define AES_KEY_SIZE    32 /*16*/
#define INIT_SIZE_BLK   8
#define INIT_SIZE_BYTE (INIT_SIZE_BLK * AES_BLOCK_SIZE)

static size_t e2i(const uint8_t* a, size_t count) { return (*((uint64_t*)a) / AES_BLOCK_SIZE) & (count - 1); }

static void mul(const uint8_t* a, const uint8_t* b, uint8_t* res) {
  uint64_t a0, b0;
  uint64_t hi, lo;

  a0 = SWAP64LE(((uint64_t*)a)[0]);
  b0 = SWAP64LE(((uint64_t*)b)[0]);
  lo = mul128(a0, b0, &hi);
  ((uint64_t*)res)[0] = SWAP64LE(hi);
  ((uint64_t*)res)[1] = SWAP64LE(lo);
}

static void sum_half_blocks(uint8_t* a, const uint8_t* b) {
  uint64_t a0, a1, b0, b1;

  a0 = SWAP64LE(((uint64_t*)a)[0]);
  a1 = SWAP64LE(((uint64_t*)a)[1]);
  b0 = SWAP64LE(((uint64_t*)b)[0]);
  b1 = SWAP64LE(((uint64_t*)b)[1]);
  a0 += b0;
  a1 += b1;
  ((uint64_t*)a)[0] = SWAP64LE(a0);
  ((uint64_t*)a)[1] = SWAP64LE(a1);
}

static void copy_block(uint8_t* dst, const uint8_t* src) {
  memcpy(dst, src, AES_BLOCK_SIZE);
}

static void swap_blocks(uint8_t* a, uint8_t* b) {
  size_t i;
  uint8_t t;
  for (i = 0; i < AES_BLOCK_SIZE; i++) {
    t = a[i];
    a[i] = b[i];
    b[i] = t;
  }
}

static void xor_blocks(uint8_t* a, const uint8_t* b) {
  size_t i;
  for (i = 0; i < AES_BLOCK_SIZE; i++) {
    a[i] ^= b[i];
  }
}

#pragma pack(push, 1)
union cn_slow_hash_state {
  union hash_state hs;
  struct {
    uint8_t k[64];
    uint8_t init[INIT_SIZE_BYTE];
  };
};
#pragma pack(pop)

void cn_slow_hash(const void *data, size_t length, char *hash) {
  uint8_t long_state[MEMORY];
  union cn_slow_hash_state state;
  uint8_t text[INIT_SIZE_BYTE];
  uint8_t a[AES_BLOCK_SIZE];
  uint8_t b[AES_BLOCK_SIZE];
  uint8_t c[AES_BLOCK_SIZE];
  uint8_t d[AES_BLOCK_SIZE];
  size_t i, j;
  uint8_t aes_key[AES_KEY_SIZE];
  OAES_CTX* aes_ctx;

  hash_process(&state.hs, data, length);
  memcpy(text, state.init, INIT_SIZE_BYTE);
  memcpy(aes_key, state.hs.b, AES_KEY_SIZE);
  aes_ctx = oaes_alloc();
  for (i = 0; i < MEMORY / INIT_SIZE_BYTE; i++) {
    for (j = 0; j < INIT_SIZE_BLK; j++) {
      oaes_key_import_data(aes_ctx, aes_key, AES_KEY_SIZE);
      oaes_pseudo_encrypt_ecb(aes_ctx, &text[AES_BLOCK_SIZE * j]);
      /*memcpy(aes_key, &text[AES_BLOCK_SIZE * j], AES_KEY_SIZE);*/
      memcpy(aes_key, state.hs.b, AES_KEY_SIZE);
    }
    memcpy(&long_state[i * INIT_SIZE_BYTE], text, INIT_SIZE_BYTE);
  }

  for (i = 0; i < 16; i++) {
    a[i] = state.k[     i] ^ state.k[32 + i];
    b[i] = state.k[16 + i] ^ state.k[48 + i];
  }

  for (i = 0; i < ITER / 2; i++) {
    /* Dependency chain: address -> read value ------+
     * written value <-+ hard function (AES or MUL) <+
     * next address  <-+
     */
    /* Iteration 1 */
    j = e2i(a, MEMORY / AES_BLOCK_SIZE);
    copy_block(c, &long_state[j * AES_BLOCK_SIZE]);
    oaes_encryption_round(a, c);
    xor_blocks(b, c);
    swap_blocks(b, c);
    copy_block(&long_state[j * AES_BLOCK_SIZE], c);
    assert(j == e2i(a, MEMORY / AES_BLOCK_SIZE));
    swap_blocks(a, b);
    /* Iteration 2 */
    j = e2i(a, MEMORY / AES_BLOCK_SIZE);
    copy_block(c, &long_state[j * AES_BLOCK_SIZE]);
    mul(a, c, d);
    sum_half_blocks(b, d);
    swap_blocks(b, c);
    xor_blocks(b, c);
    copy_block(&long_state[j * AES_BLOCK_SIZE], c);
    assert(j == e2i(a, MEMORY / AES_BLOCK_SIZE));
    swap_blocks(a, b);
  }

  memcpy(text, state.init, INIT_SIZE_BYTE);
  for (i = 0; i < MEMORY / INIT_SIZE_BYTE; i++) {
    for (j = 0; j < INIT_SIZE_BLK; j++) {
      /*oaes_key_import_data(aes_ctx, &long_state[i * INIT_SIZE_BYTE + j * AES_BLOCK_SIZE], AES_KEY_SIZE);*/
      oaes_key_import_data(aes_ctx, &state.hs.b[32], AES_KEY_SIZE);
      xor_blocks(&text[j * AES_BLOCK_SIZE], &long_state[i * INIT_SIZE_BYTE + j * AES_BLOCK_SIZE]);
      oaes_pseudo_encrypt_ecb(aes_ctx, &text[j * AES_BLOCK_SIZE]);
    }
  }
  memcpy(state.init, text, INIT_SIZE_BYTE);
  hash_permutation(&state.hs);
  /*memcpy(hash, &state, 32);*/
  extra_hashes[state.hs.b[0] & 3](&state, 200, hash);
  oaes_free(&aes_ctx);
}
Status API Training Shop Blog About
© 2015 GitHub, Inc. Terms Privacy Security Contact

Who was telling people where to get their crippled miners?

Before we can set up pools..

We need a miner.

Currently the mining is done In the wallet AFAIK

There is also a miner in the standard build, just no pool to connect it to.

Oops.

[smooth]

Just how does someone get 10% of the mined coins in a week (that were declared), when the average Joe was scrapping around for a few coins a day?

I've already answered that, but since you're digging through my post history you'll find it there too.

I've been a serious miner of many coins for years (on and off a least).

It certainly wasn't by misleading people about launch times and then instamining, like Evan. Does he regret it?

So there was a optimized miner available (to insider scam devs) and you were still able to mine 10% of the coins available during that time while using the crippled scam miner only? How is that even possible? And if it is possible, is it believable?

Not only was it possible, it wasn't even that hard, and as I've said a million times it indicates quite strongly that the original developers were not in fact using any optimized miner (or if they were, not much). I wasn't the only one mining say 10% or so either. It was easy if you were a serious miner at all.

If you look at the difficulty on the network at say block 5000 (middle of the first week) it was about 100k.

http://moneroblocks.eu/search/5000

Block difficulty 109110

That's a hash rate of 1818.5. A high end desktop hash rate using the crippled miner as we've seen earlier in this thread was about 8, so that was around 200 high end desktops mining at that point. Servers were/are faster.

Nobody was mining (much if at all) with a super-fast optimized miner in the first week. It's just not plausible given these numbers. This suggests that TFT didn't even know about the optimized miner from Bytecoin or didn't have access to it. Or maybe he was just honest (but weird) and didn't use it.

Totally different situation from Dash where Evan and a few others mined a million coins in a few hours.

[Brilliantrocket]

I still don't get what you Monero guys are trying to accomplish here. This instamine business won't kill the coin. That's not how life works, I regret to inform you. People won't abandon an income generating enterprise simply because of its shady past.

Take this extreme example. During WWII, Mercedes used Jewish slave labor. IG Farben produced a product that directly enabled the extermination of millions of human beings. Not only do many companies with such histories continue to exist today, but they've managed to cleanse any association with the holocaust from their public image! To me, this implies that people have a short memory, and that they will brush unpleasant events from the past aside if it means they can make a buck.

If you want Monero to succeed, the only option is to make it better than Dash. Good luck convincing people to buy a coin that inflates wildly, eroding their investment, rather than one that brings returns.

[Prosperityforall]

I still don't get what you Monero guys are trying to accomplish here. This instamine business won't kill the coin. That's not how life works, I regret to inform you. People won't abandon an income generating enterprise simply because of its shady past.

Take this extreme example. During WWII, Mercedes used Jewish slave labor. IG Farben produced a product that directly enabled the extermination of millions of human beings. Not only do many companies with such histories continue to exist today, but they've managed to cleanse any association with the holocaust from their public image! To me, this implies that people have a short memory, and that they will brush unpleasant events from the past aside if it means they can make a buck.

If you want Monero to succeed, the only option is to make it better than Dash. Good luck convincing people to buy a coin that inflates wildly, eroding their investment, rather than one that brings returns.

What you're saying would be true, if these were companies. These aren't companies however, they're 'cryptocurrencies'. The premise is that it should be relatively fair since it afterall, is decentralized, and there is no centralized agency to regulate things. Therefore, in the long run, things like a fraudelent instamine wouldn't work. In the case of centralized currencies like Ripple sure, instamines/premines would work, but in the case of decentralized-to-the-protocol-currencies, those things would not live long.

In order for any average consumer to even trust in a decentralized currency, they'd have to trust in it's past. These aren't centralized companies, and that's the mistake you're making---longterm.

[smooth]

I still don't get what you Monero guys are trying to accomplish here.

Despite what the obfuscators and whitewashers (and rabid "Monero Is A Scam" types) want to suggest, this thread has nothing to do with Monero.

Yes I want Monero to succeed, but that has nothing to do with the fact that I despise what Evan has done and continues to do with Dash.

As for whether Dash is going to succeed, we'll have to agree to disagree I suppose (maybe). I think it is virtually certain it will not, and anyone buying into this latest hype about "mainstream" adoption of Dash (it is light years away from getting any) or the idea of people outside of the altcoin ecosystem ever turning a blind eye to the fraudulent and/or near-fraudulent history of an embryonic system, particularly when less-impaired substitutes are available, is being played.  (Mercedes is a huge company with a lot of power and influence, not a tiny little cryptocoin with a nearly unlimited number of competitors.) As generalizethis pointed out quite insightfully, people "out there" already think Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme and Bitcoin is about a million times cleaner than Dash.

I don't begrudge you using it as a vehicle for making money though, I think you know that. I always have respect for a good trade.

I do wonder if Evan regrets instamining it though. Short term, it was a good trade for him, but at the cost of destroying any chance Dash could have had to actually making it big, or to make any real difference outside of altcoin speculation. Maybe he thinks that was worth it, I don't know.

[BagHolder010]

@ Smooth
Done with ur rant about Evan? now go back to work that's of course if you have any idea what you're doing lol; monero is going down if their developers spending time attacking other coins and specially a coin that has added so much to crypto but then the only thing you know about crypto is cry"p"to in forum. haha

[smooth]

@ Smooth
Done with ur rant about Evan? now go back to work that's of course if you have any idea what you're doing lol; monero is going down if their developers spending time attacking other coins and specially a coin that has added so much to crypto but then the only thing you know about crypto is cry"p"to in forum. haha

Spare us the concern trolling, puppet.

Your bigger concern should be Evan's instamining, deception, and manipulation. Maybe he gets away with it because people like you are too busy pretending to be concerned about other coins instead of helping you own dev make better decisions.

[BagHolder010]

@ Smooth
Done with ur rant about Evan? now go back to work that's of course if you have any idea what you're doing lol; monero is going down if their developers spending time attacking other coins and specially a coin that has added so much to crypto but then the only thing you know about crypto is cry"p"to in forum. haha

Spare us the concern trolling, puppet.

Your bigger concern should be Evan's instamining, deception, and manipulation. Maybe he gets away with it because people like you are too busy pretending to be concerned about other coins instead of helping you own dev make better decisions.

Spare us the concern trolling, developer "NOT".

Your'e biggest concern should be Monero's scam, development, and innovation. Maybe you get away with it because you copy coins and have no development skills nor ANY current Monero dev busy pretending to be the crypto hero when all you know about crypto is cry"p"to forums lol instead of helping you're own investors to make better decisions.

[coins101]

Can you see how smooth our white knight is, dear reader?

..... we can now see that we were proposing to take the original 150k coins that were mined at the original rate, turn them into 75k using a reverse stock split, and then reduce the rate going forward. Later this was changed to a crowdfunding approach where the early miners would have donated half their coins to a bounty fund, but either way, they were not going to get to keep them (unlike Dash).

...The whole point of this proposal was to avoid being an instamine[/i] by not giving any advantage to the earliest miners (who would have had their faster-mined coin holdings cut in half). ...

In the end, however, no change was made. The Monero community decided to honor the original social contract and not reduce the emission rate.

He admits to a scam launch, gives us a sense that something was going to be done about it and in the end nothing was done about it.

* He admits there was a scam and an instamine.

* He also admits nothing was done about it.

But that, apparently, is all ok. Because our White Knight explained everything that was going to be done to make the scam and instamine ok, even if it wasn't, in the end.

[PoS]

I still don't get what you Monero guys are trying to accomplish here.

Despite what the obfuscators and whitewashers (and rabid "Monero Is A Scam" types) want to suggest, this thread has nothing to do with Monero.

Yes I want Monero to succeed, but that has nothing to do with the fact that I despise what Evan has done and continues to do with Dash.

As for whether Dash is going to succeed, we'll have to agree to disagree I suppose (maybe). I think it is virtually certain it will not, and anyone buying into this latest hype about "mainstream" adoption of Dash (it is light years away from getting any) or the idea of people outside of the altcoin ecosystem ever turning a blind eye to the fraudulent and/or near-fraudulent history of an embryonic system, particularly when less-impaired substitutes are available, is being played.  (Mercedes is a huge company with a lot of power and influence, not a tiny little cryptocoin with a nearly unlimited number of competitors.) As generalizethis pointed out quite insightfully, people "out there" already think Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme and Bitcoin is about a million times cleaner than Dash.

I don't begrudge you using it as a vehicle for making money though, I think you know that. I always have respect for a good trade.

I do wonder if Evan regrets instamining it though. Short term, it was a good trade for him, but at the cost of destroying any chance Dash could have had to actually making it big, or to make any real difference outside of altcoin speculation. Maybe he thinks that was worth it, I don't know.

It can not succeed by the nature if its design. It is programmed to fail in the long run the only question is when.
The more masternodes you have the faster you set up another masternode, with more masternodes more masternotes come faster -> dead spiral  

[iCEBREAKER]

Can you see how smooth our white knight is, dear reader?

smooth has a negative opinion of Dash's instamine, and said so in public?

ZOMG!111!!11`~!~121!   

QUICK, ATTACK THE ATTACKER   

[generalizethis]

And despite the wall of noise two facts remain:

1. Over 500,000 coins were mined in the first hour.

2. Over 1,500,000 coins were mined in the first 8 hours.

^This we know, this can't be disputed, this can't be manipulated into another coin's problem, Evan did this whether it benefited him most or another most, he chose not to relaunch (hence while we're still talking about it), he chose to change the name three times and add fuel to cover-up fire, he chose to change the distribution, so start disproving with facts and stop projecting your crappy coin policies onto every dev willing to criticize an obvious instamine.