.

[generalizethis]

....I will continue to point it out as long as the dash literature says "no premine."

It doesn't say "no instamine", so I think "no premine" is ok.
Man, you care more about Dash than I  

Dash defamed itself. I'm merely pointing out the facts.

Defamed? It's gaining traction.
You can point out those "facts" as long as you can. I don't care about what you do with your time.

As for dash's masternode system with its human points of failure, this system will garner the attention of authorities who can break it if the market cap ever gets big enough to matter. I intend for people to know all the flaws of your coin and make certain that a system that is flawed and gives people a false sense of security/privacy never lives long enough to reach that ignominious day. My motivation is to call the fraud for what it is and make certain that a good privacy coin takes its rightful place. If you have a problem with that, pick  another coin to shill.

As I said, Dash explores. You can't even say nor imagine what system we can incorporate since we have "Decentralized Governance and Budget System".

"Our coin was instamined but it's ok to advertise NO PREMINE" is the type of semantic niggling that leads me to believe little to none of the dash defenders has an inkling of fairness in advertising. Sure it's true that high fructose corn syrup isn't sugar, but I'm certainly going to call bullshit on any company who has this additive in their products and puts "sugar free" on their labels. The reason is that the consumers who are most concerned about avoiding sugar calories are most likely the same ones who are looking to avoid corn syrup. Dash's advertising "no premine' gives the same impression to consumers who are most likely looking for a product that didn't reward itself dishonestly or accidentally. The fact that dash advertises "no premine" and then tries to hide the intsamine facts by burying it in their literature goes to show the community is aware of the bad perception it gives and that a few people would not buy the coin if they knew the truth. I'm amazed that Evan has come out of hiding to acknowledge it--though his defense is the standard, "but everyone does it," which is the cliche answer of those who got caught but aren't apologetic.

As for masternodes, you're an idiot if you think human dependency belongs in a cryptocurrency when it doesn't have to be there. These systems were designed to take as much error and greed out of the hands of humans as possible. A system that willingly incorporates it into their design, and especially a design for privacy, is begging for that system to break--whether this is added out of ignorance, stupidity, arrogance,  greed or another "accident" is beyond me. All I know is that it doesn't belong there.

[sohcboss]

In for banter

[smoothie]

So eduffield says the instamine wasn't a scam, i guess that's all the proof I need!  

What do you expect, that's he'll admit it?

Was the instamine a scam? "Definitely not"

Ok now it insta crashes when I type "setgenerate true".

Time to go to bed and try again next week?

Yeah, let's do that. I obviously need to do some more testing. Thanks everyone!

Best thing to do I guess. Please, confirm you won't be launching after some minutes/hours even if you fix it, and the sooner would be tomorrow, thanks.

Definitely not. I'll also follow up with this post when I do set a time.

Seeing a pattern?

Deceptive launch time, lack of windows wallets, the supposed "bug" that instamined over 23% of the total coins in circulation in 8 hours - anyone with brain sees exactly what happened here.

In regards to this: https://dashdot.io/alpha/?page_id=118

What is your response to this:

If you don’t like that it was an instamine, that’s fine, go invest in something else.

If you don't like hearing criticism about your oops!stamined scamcoin, that's fine, go click on another thread.

I'm going to venture a guess. You bought the original hype about Darkcoin when it was $12-15 (when we had no technology and just ideas!), then it fell to $5 and you were looking for something to blame and learned about the instamine? You've been waiting for months for it to collapse and it's not (real next-gen technology, really amazing 50+ member team, 10000+ hours of work has been put into this project in the last 1.5 years). What are you going to do when you finally realize it's not a scam, then it takes off and no one cares about the instamine because the technology is whats important?

The whole instamine is over blown because every coin that's even moderately successful has founders with >5%. Dash is on the low end, our founders have way less coins than the Bitcoin devs, Ripple, etc. Bitcoin for example was unknown with a handful of miners for nearly 1-2 years, they mined 6 million coins during that time. Satoshi alone was thought to have 10%. Our entire team combined has less than 10% of the supply (current supply, not total). So what?

What about corporations? They all start out with "Instamines". Does that make every corporation in history a scam?

Okay so you put "NO PREMINE" on your thread title...

yet fail to mention the INSTAMINE on the front page of your thread and your website and forum.

If it isn't a problem and "corporations" instamine things why not openly advertise it as true and not disguise it as a version of crypto that is legitimate?

 

MORESO....

I take 100% responsibility for the instamine as a bug and as a feature of Dash. As it turns out, all cryptocurrencies have founders with more than 5%. It's not "everybody does it", but "it's required for the success of a cryptocurrency".

If you are going to take 100% responsibility of the instamine bug when your coin launched then please put "DASH was instamined and this many coins were mined in the first X hours" on the front page of your website, forum, and threads. You should have no problem advertising it since you are taking responsibility for it.

[smoothie]

Either way, it's a losing proposition for an investor who values quality leadership.

Yes, it's terrible to invest in a project where the leader makes decisions that benefit the investors.

I'm pretty sure not ALL investors have been "benefitting" from Dash/Dark/XCOIN/etc since its inception until now.

 

[smoothie]

I take 100% responsibility for the instamine as a bug and as a feature of Dash. As it turns out, all cryptocurrencies have founders with more than 5%. It's not "everybody does it", but "it's required for the success of a cryptocurrency".

100% responsibility would be to donate your stash of the coins to a charity because if you have ill-gotten coins because of a "bug" that you know you should do the right thing and give it up given that it isn't about the money right?

So ""it's required for the success of a cryptocurrency".?

What having an instamine? or having founders with a pretty big % of the total amount of coins?

[generalizethis]

As for what you plan meeting reality and mashing algos together being good crypto, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Yes, lets just talk about this then. How is X11 bad for crypto?

It's used for proof-of-work and protecting our decentralized oracle implementation. How would you use a weakness in one of the 11 algorithms to attack the currency?

Do you also realize if I'm wrong and we got attacked, we would just switch to another algorithm? Just like if SHA256 had issues, the bitcoin team would have to switch as well. Instead of switching out the entire algorithm, we could use 10 hashes instead of 11 as the chain.

Also, speaking of distribution. The whole idea behind inventing X11 was that it would reduce the heat/wear-and-tear on GPUs that were used for mining. This allowed a really long period (...still going after 1.5 years) of hobbyist miners using GPUs to mine Dash.

Had to call on an expert to answer this precisely. But here you go.

"If any one of the hashes in the chain of 11 hashes has a lower entropy then the entire chain does. Say you found this vulnerability and didn't announce it. Instead you could use it to amplify your hashrate. With that you could take unfair levels of mining rewards, or potentially launch double-spend attacks.

Fixing it after the fact also probably means the inability to unwind the damage already done if it had gone on a long time undetected.

So 11 hashes is 11 times more likely to have a vulnerability than 1 hash."

[illodin]

Either way, it's a losing proposition for an investor who values quality leadership.

Yes, it's terrible to invest in a project where the leader makes decisions that benefit the investors.

I'm pretty sure not ALL investors have been "benefitting" from Dash/Dark/XCOIN/etc since its inception until now.

 

Where did I claim that? Please kindly shove your strawman where the sun don't shine.

Also, I'm still waiting for your intervention in the Axiom thread btw. C'mon now, it had ninja launch, instamine amplified with huge instaPoS, instantly on exchanges, dev abandoned the project soon after. Should get your altruistic scam buster juices flowing.

And when you're done with Axiom, I have another one for you: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1180846.0;all

You're the self proclaimed scam buster champion with no hidden agendas after all.

[Lukas_Jackson]

ther paradox from the instaminer first it was sold as ASIC resistant (the very reason for cloning this mutation) but he is pro ASIC's, go figure.

You're an idiot. It wasn't designed to be resistant forever.

[btcxyzzz]

If you are fine with a man in leadership who is either lying/misleading you about the instamine or didn't have the foresight to see that the instamine would haunt the community and a relaunch would be a simple and efficient means to avoid the situation permanently, then good for you. I just want those who aren't aware of the situation to have all the facts before they invest their money in what is either bad or worse management.

So you are like a crypto angel then that looks out for all the lost souls of the crypto world?
How honorable.
I'm telling you the Time Travel Signups are really looking for people like you.

That's "ad-hominem". generalizethis is completely right. What we have here is a bit of founder's greed and pretty funny statement that 5% in the hands of founders "is required for coin's success". Investor can only hope Ewan doesn't decide he needs yacht at some point . In the other hand, more or less distribution with every coin is very unequal and that is true. So you have to consider all the factors involved and decide if and how much do you want to invest.

[muyuu]

How is it required for the coin's success that the founders premine a substantial amount?? Strange logic to say the least.

[farfiman]

How is it required for the coin's success that the founders premine a substantial amount?? Strange logic to say the least.

There are some advantages I guess.... the "benefactors" have a very good reason to support the coin to the best of their abilities meaning bounties,promoting, liquidity and anything else needed to keep it alive. Is this good for the rest of the investors/users is another question. 

[onemorexmr]

ther paradox from the instaminer first it was sold as ASIC resistant (the very reason for cloning this mutation) but he is pro ASIC's, go figure.

You're an idiot. It wasn't designed to be resistant forever.

AFAIK it was?
i witnessed the start of Tenebrix and LTC and both where advertised as ASIC-resistant.

[Lukas_Jackson]

ther paradox from the instaminer first it was sold as ASIC resistant (the very reason for cloning this mutation) but he is pro ASIC's, go figure.

You're an idiot. It wasn't designed to be resistant forever.

AFAIK it was?
i witnessed the start of Tenebrix and LTC and both where advertised as ASIC-resistant.

Just think about it. What would happen if it was sha256 or script from the beginning?
ASIC's are needed, but in the later stage of Dash's life.

[onemorexmr]

ther paradox from the instaminer first it was sold as ASIC resistant (the very reason for cloning this mutation) but he is pro ASIC's, go figure.

You're an idiot. It wasn't designed to be resistant forever.

AFAIK it was?
i witnessed the start of Tenebrix and LTC and both where advertised as ASIC-resistant.

Just think about it. What would happen if it was sha256 or script from the beginning?
ASIC's are needed, but in the later stage of Dash's life.

IMHO thats wrong
i think ASICs are the cancer of crypto. i prefer an algorithm which runs perfectly on cpu / gpu and cant be made better on an ASIC (monero tries to do that; but same as with ltc in the beginning: only future will show if thats a success or not).

IMHO asics lead to mining centralization.

one cpu one vote...that would be perfect. (granted cpu only has the "problem" of botnets - which sadly also tend to centralize mining)

[Lukas_Jackson]

IMHO thats wrong
i think ASICs are the cancer of crypto. i prefer an algorithm which runs perfectly on cpu / gpu and cant be made better on an ASIC (monero tries to do that; but same as with ltc in the beginning: only future will show if thats a success or not).

IMHO asics lead to mining centralization.

one cpu one vote...that would be perfect. (granted cpu only has the "problem" of botnets - which sadly also tend to centralize mining)

ASIC's are inevitable if there is incentive to make one for a specific algo.
How can you prevent centralization of cpu power? Buying 1000's of them? And there is this "problem" of botnets as you said.
You can't prevent it. ASIC's (like Antminer) has to be cheap enough to run it by 1000's of people at home.
But if it will be a problem for Dash, we can vote for a change in algo or any change to prevent centalization in the future.
Decentralized Governance by Blockchain is fantastic idea.

[generalizethis]

IMHO thats wrong
i think ASICs are the cancer of crypto. i prefer an algorithm which runs perfectly on cpu / gpu and cant be made better on an ASIC (monero tries to do that; but same as with ltc in the beginning: only future will show if thats a success or not).

IMHO asics lead to mining centralization.

one cpu one vote...that would be perfect. (granted cpu only has the "problem" of botnets - which sadly also tend to centralize mining)

ASIC's are inevitable if there is incentive to make one for a specific algo.
How can you prevent centralization of cpu power? Buying 1000's of them? And there is this "problem" of botnets as you said.
You can't prevent it. ASIC's (like Antminer) has to be cheap enough to run it by 1000's of people at home.
But if it will be a problem for Dash, we can vote for a change in algo or any change to prevent centalization in the future.
Decentralized Governance by Blockchain is fantastic idea.

Yes, this would be a fantastic idea if dash wasn't an oligarchy of instaminers.

[Lukas_Jackson]

IMHO thats wrong
i think ASICs are the cancer of crypto. i prefer an algorithm which runs perfectly on cpu / gpu and cant be made better on an ASIC (monero tries to do that; but same as with ltc in the beginning: only future will show if thats a success or not).

IMHO asics lead to mining centralization.

one cpu one vote...that would be perfect. (granted cpu only has the "problem" of botnets - which sadly also tend to centralize mining)

ASIC's are inevitable if there is incentive to make one for a specific algo.
How can you prevent centralization of cpu power? Buying 1000's of them? And there is this "problem" of botnets as you said.
You can't prevent it. ASIC's (like Antminer) has to be cheap enough to run it by 1000's of people at home.
But if it will be a problem for Dash, we can vote for a change in algo or any change to prevent centalization in the future.
Decentralized Governance by Blockchain is fantastic idea.

Yes, this would be a fantastic idea if dash wasn't an oligarchy of instaminers.

Another assumption. I bought mine masternodes. Does it make me an instaminer?

I know you prefer to be a communist 

Ah, and look at Bitcoin. See what is happening? Dash learnt a lot from it.

[generalizethis]

IMHO thats wrong
i think ASICs are the cancer of crypto. i prefer an algorithm which runs perfectly on cpu / gpu and cant be made better on an ASIC (monero tries to do that; but same as with ltc in the beginning: only future will show if thats a success or not).

IMHO asics lead to mining centralization.

one cpu one vote...that would be perfect. (granted cpu only has the "problem" of botnets - which sadly also tend to centralize mining)

ASIC's are inevitable if there is incentive to make one for a specific algo.
How can you prevent centralization of cpu power? Buying 1000's of them? And there is this "problem" of botnets as you said.
You can't prevent it. ASIC's (like Antminer) has to be cheap enough to run it by 1000's of people at home.
But if it will be a problem for Dash, we can vote for a change in algo or any change to prevent centalization in the future.
Decentralized Governance by Blockchain is fantastic idea.

Yes, this would be a fantastic idea if dash wasn't an oligarchy of instaminers.

Another assumption. I bought mine masternodes. Does it make me an instaminer?

I know you prefer to be a communist 

Ah, and look at Bitcoin. See what is happening? Dash learnt a lot from it.

Another assumption.

I know you prefer to be a dumbass. 

I assume the guys who instamined 1.5 million coins in two days are disingenuous and the lack of proof of fair distribution means that i have to trust them in order to assume the distribution is spread out enough to be decentralized. Excuse me if i find this scenario laughable, naive, chimerical or stupid.

[toknormal]

Excuse me if i find this scenario laughable, naive, chimerical or stupid.

You are excused.

[smooth]

IMHO thats wrong
i think ASICs are the cancer of crypto. i prefer an algorithm which runs perfectly on cpu / gpu and cant be made better on an ASIC (monero tries to do that; but same as with ltc in the beginning: only future will show if thats a success or not).

IMHO asics lead to mining centralization.

one cpu one vote...that would be perfect. (granted cpu only has the "problem" of botnets - which sadly also tend to centralize mining)

ASIC's are inevitable if there is incentive to make one for a specific algo.
How can you prevent centralization of cpu power? Buying 1000's of them? And there is this "problem" of botnets as you said.
You can't prevent it. ASIC's (like Antminer) has to be cheap enough to run it by 1000's of people at home.
But if it will be a problem for Dash, we can vote for a change in algo or any change to prevent centalization in the future.
Decentralized Governance by Blockchain is fantastic idea.

Yes, this would be a fantastic idea if dash wasn't an oligarchy of instaminers.

It might, but I'm not sure. Voting tends to be centralizing since voting power is increasing returns in the number of votes you can control or influence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapley–Shubik_power_index

Democracy attempts avoid this by forbidding selling of votes, but as we all know that it is at best imperfect.

I think I lean toward the only possible system that may avoid being captured by a power elite is satoshi's ideal of setting as much "in stone" in possible and letting the market flow around those immovables.

Depending on your opinion as to the objectives of cryptocurrency that may be the only part that actually matters.

LTC captures this ideal better than DASH, especially given the history of not replacing the PoW in response to ASICs, shifting focus away from "features" etc. The culture of LTC seems pretty well grounded in not changing a lot of things. I'm not really a fan of LTC overall, but I see some things to admire about it.

Also, I find Evan's comment (in the "interview") that calls LTC a failure because the founder wasn't sufficiently incentivized and left to be bizarre especially since LTC has almost 10x the market cap of DASH and also because it contradicts the Bitcoin (300x DASH market cap) example as well. Satoshi was apparently well incentivized and left anyway (and his leaving did not preclude the system succeeding without him).

Overall Evan seems quite confused about the differences between a currency and company stock. Here is one. Aside from marginal liquidity effects, widespread distribution of a company stock has little to no bearing on the success of the company, in fact it can sometimes be a negative. There are many examples of successful privately held or closely held companies, as well companies that were once public but improve their performance after going private. None of these make any sense at all for a currency. A currency derives all or nearly all of its value from its distribution. You can't have a privately held currency with any value at all.

That said, the things people are doing with blockchain-based virtual corporations are interesting and potentially may amount to something, but I doubt their success, if any, will be found in the area of currency.