Is Smooth a Hypocrite ?

[adhitthana]

Iamnotback...are you also posting as "cryptosecurity"?
Did you start this thread?...just asking

No. He's not posting as "cryptosecurity" and he didn't start the thread.

~CfA~

How do you know?

[1713255274]

1713255274

[1713255274]

1713255274

[1713255274]

1713255274

[1713255274]

1713255274

[From Above]

Iamnotback...are you also posting as "cryptosecurity"?
Did you start this thread?...just asking

No. He's not posting as "cryptosecurity" and he didn't start the thread.

~CfA~

How do you know?

Read my post history

BTW that's offtopic

~CfA~

[iamnotback]

Iamnotback...are you also posting as "cryptosecurity"?
Did you start this thread?...just asking

Absolutely not. I had posted in the prior thread he started, actually defending smooth. I am not colluding with him and I don't know who he is.

I will STFU on this topic.

[smooth]

I haven't read 100% of the posts on this thread (mostly just the first page) so I may have missed something. But the main question seems to be whether I endorse their launch strategy or anything else about it. The answer is mostly no, I just mined it, as a few said earlier in the thread.

The only thing I would endorse is that the web site itself doesn't seem half bad. It is a lot like reddit without the uncontrolled sock puppets. There have been some good crypto posts and discussion on there, and I was planning to mirror major Monero announcements on there so people could have another place to discuss if desired (but there haven't been any major Monero announcements recently so I haven't yet don't that)

If people want to try that (usually for free either by my bitcointalk account offer or their facebook/reddit offers), I see no harm in it. Does not require you to buy anything at all.

[smooth]

if the launch was public knowledge, and there was no funny business with changing coin supply, or some people had access to better miners etc, then it's OK IMO

As far as I know that is what happened.

I saw the post on bitcointalk and like many new coins that I have mined I decided to mine it. I presume other people also saw that post.

And especially after he had basically talked me out of thinking that Bitshares might be a credible team to partner with.

I don't remember ever discussing Bitshares with you or anyone else. It seems unlikely because with one small exception I have always been entirely ignorant about Bitshares, something that even today puts me at a disadvantage in understanding Steem (since it is based closely on Bitshares). The exception is that I was pretty sure their original model of pegged assets was catastrophically unstable and would not work. They later added a price feed, which improved it somewhat.

It may be that I made some general remarks that could be interpreted as arguing against the success of Bitshares model, but I don't know.

Btw, I heard about Dan Larimer's plan to stealth mine when he first published the blog post about using such a technique to launch and avoid legal issues of ICOs. I believe I was the one who mentioned it to smooth because of the communication between us about legality and ethics of ICOs and distribution schemes. I did not mine Steemit.

The blog post was not made until several days after the Steem launch. I was already mining it.

[iamnotback]

And especially after he had basically talked me out of thinking that Bitshares might be a credible team to partner with.

I don't remember ever discussing Bitshares with you or anyone else. It seems unlikely because with one small exception I have always been entirely ignorant about Bitshares, something that even today puts me at a disadvantage in understanding Steem (since it is based closely on Bitshares). The exception is that I was pretty sure their original model of pegged assets was catastrophically unstable and would not work. They later added a price feed, which improved it somewhat.

It may be that I made some general remarks that could be interpreted as arguing against the success of Bitshares model, but I don't know.

Thanks for the explanation.

I'll refresh your memory.

It was after I had announced Zero Knowledge Transactions and it was clear that Monero had a competitive solution RingCT and I was shopping ZKT around to potentially BBR and also I approached Bitshares briefly. Thus that must have been roughly Aug or Sept. There is a post from AnonyMint user name at the Bitshares forum as evidence.

I was discussing with you in private about the merits of ICOs and making money from launching a coin in what ever means. And you were trying to tell me that there is basically no money in it and that is why Monero's plan is the best, because the XMR devs just do it as a hobby or labor of love and don't take it too seriously as a way to generate income. You were always in general coaxing me away from any concept of making money from developing and launching CC, and to the open source hobbyist Monero way.

And I mentioned Bitshares as an example with their significant marketcap which had been as high as $40 million at one point for afair the ProtoShares. And had also mentioned Dash. That is when you instructed me about how all the mcaps are fake and you made me aware that insiders buy from themselves to make it appear that the volume is real.

I said okay maybe for Dash, but Bitshares seems to have legit technology and theirs might be real. And you said that look how Bitshares is trying to sell services (at that time in 2015) because they are basically cash strapped and aren't earning hardly anything from creating CCs.

In short, you were trying to discourage me from pursuing making a CC if I expected to earn any $ from doing so. That is not to say you were discouraging me from creating a CC if not for expectation of a payday. That is not to say you were wishing for me to fail if I did attempt to. I think you felt you were just giving sound feedback.

To be fair, you were aware of my illness and perhaps you were concerned and felt I might be better off to take employment, get medical insurance, and have a more stable and less risky source of potential income and funding for health care.

But I just know that before that discussion, I never thought about the altcoin market as being one giant scam and being entirely fake. I really bought into your take on that. But now in hindsight, I think you are not entirely correct. Seems people who have produced less technology than I am working on, having reaped some significant paydays.

Waves raised ~$15 million and referred to IOHK's open source without apparently having developed anything at all. It was apparently purely a marketing campaign. Heck I never expected even a $million, so with better tech than they have, why shouldn't I be able to get my $500,000 and also do some good for the CC community.

When I respect someone, it means I listen intently to what they have to say.

[iamnotback]

I haven't read 100% of the posts on this thread (mostly just the first page) so I may have missed something. But the main question seems to be whether I endorse their launch strategy or anything else about it. The answer is mostly no, I just mined it, as a few said earlier in the thread.

The only thing I would endorse is that the web site itself doesn't seem half bad. It is a lot like reddit without the uncontrolled sock puppets. There have been some good crypto posts and discussion on there, and I was planning to mirror major Monero announcements on there so people could have another place to discuss if desired (but there haven't been any major Monero announcements recently so I haven't yet don't that)

If people want to try that (usually for free either by my bitcointalk account offer or their facebook/reddit offers), I see no harm in it. Does not require you to buy anything at all.

1. I am curious how you can offer Streemit accounts to Bitcointalk users? Do you have some special affiliation with Steem that enables you to do that?

2. And I am wondering why you are doing that promotion for them? Is that so you can improve the liquidity of the coin so you can sell? I mean you are promoting a stealth mined coin which seems to go against your highly public ethics against non-fair mining. Normally I wouldn't care at all what you do or why, but it is just because of your desire to use the bully-pulpit.

3. Lastly I have no qualms about you not endorsing something meaning you think it might fail technically, marketing, or business wise. But if you mean that your reputation should matter when endorsing ethics of distribution schemes, then I want to inform you that I no longer support you in that. And in fact, I might become quite a thorn to those who continue to berate others about Right and Wrong, as if God appointed you to do that.

In short, those enforcers on this forum make me want to puke. Any one doing censorship (other than self-moderated threads for their own official coin thread), bullying by politik, or any other holier than thou crap will be on my personal shit (do not like) list (which basically means nothing so no big deal).

In other words, I am urging us all to stop the nonsense political control game. Let it run wild and free. Don't be afraid to not be in control. Don't be afraid. Just let nature be.

The next time some Monero person tries to berate me or talk down to me, or I see someone using their political clout to try to control the discussion, I am going to vomit on their lap.

[smooth]

I haven't read 100% of the posts on this thread (mostly just the first page) so I may have missed something. But the main question seems to be whether I endorse their launch strategy or anything else about it. The answer is mostly no, I just mined it, as a few said earlier in the thread.

The only thing I would endorse is that the web site itself doesn't seem half bad. It is a lot like reddit without the uncontrolled sock puppets. There have been some good crypto posts and discussion on there, and I was planning to mirror major Monero announcements on there so people could have another place to discuss if desired (but there haven't been any major Monero announcements recently so I haven't yet don't that)

If people want to try that (usually for free either by my bitcointalk account offer or their facebook/reddit offers), I see no harm in it. Does not require you to buy anything at all.

1. I am curious how you can offer Streemit accounts to Bitcointalk users? Do you have some special affiliation with Steem that enables you to do that?

No I don't. Anyone who has the cli wallet can create an account using the create_account command. It costs 10 coins (about $3) but as long as I don't get Sybil attacked that cost is not a concern for me at all. It is also possible for anyone to mine accounts without paying any coins, which I have also done for various people I know (from forum or otherwise). Those accounts are turned over for free if and when they want them.

Both mining and using the cli wallet/node requires a degree of technical skills (I think you have to compile it yourself, although it is possible there are Windows binaries somewhere), but once you have an account on the blockchain you can use the web site.

And I am wondering why you are doing that promotion for them? Is that so you can improve the liquidity of the coin so you can sell? I mean you are promoting a stealth mined coin which seems to go against your highly public ethics against non-fair mining. Normally I wouldn't care at all what you do or why, but it is just because of your desire to use the bully-pulpit.

Because I think it is a useful site, and maybe it helps my personal reputation a bit to help people out (I got one or two positive trusts from it, though I never asked for any). Getting a free account from the site directly requires linking it to your Facebook account, which a lot of crypto people don't like or may not even have.

No I don't think it will improve liquidity. It would take far more than that (probably impossible).

3. Lastly I have no qualms about you not endorsing something meaning you think it might fail technically, marketing, or business wise. But if you mean that your reputation should matter when endorsing ethics of distribution schemes, then I want to inform you that I no longer support you in that. And in fact, I might become quite a thorn to those who continue to berate others about Right and Wrong, as if God appointed you to do that.

OK, I mean when I'm busy with something else I barely comment. In fact I wouldn't even be writing this (or seen the thread) except that I was asked out-of-band by someone about it.

I have no problem with criticizing things I think are done poorly for whatever reason, and that includes Steem (as I just did in this thread, or maybe it was the other one).

If you think that community self-regulation is inappropriate when there is no other effective authority doing any regulation of abuses and scams, then we disagree. We also disagree on what it means to let things be wild and free, because pretty much all wild and free systems generally include some form of community self-regulation.

[TravelsAsia]

I don't care enough to care. 1 more pointless tread doesn't excite me.

[smooth]

In short, you were trying to discourage me from pursuing making a CC if I expected to earn any $ from doing so. That is not to say you were discouraging me from creating a CC if not for expectation of a payday. That is not to say you were wishing for me to fail if I did attempt to. I think you felt you were just giving sound feedback.

Okay yes I remember that. It seemed at the time Bitshares was going through a lot of turmoil, which included seeking alternate sources of funding such as building custom systems for banks (not clear that they ever got any takers). I still don't know the details of it, but it seems that project model has not worked out very well ultimately, just as I said at the time. It appears that Dan sold his remaining coins at a much-reduced price and moved on, though it isn't entirely clear whether he may contribute to it in some manner in the future. All in all I can't see how that is called a great success of a project; you might disagree.

The Bitshares model was not replicated when Dan went and started his new project Steem, which to my mind means someone who knows a lot more about that model than I do also didn't think much of it. Now he's tried another (stealth-mine) model, which I also don't think has really worked out all that well either (though the jury is still out on that one objectively).

So maybe you have your own ideas how to launch a coin and make money. If you have new approaches, good for you. But I wouldn't try too hard to replicate the others. They're mostly failures.

To be fair, you were aware of my illness and perhaps you were concerned and felt I might be better off to take employment, get medical insurance, and have a more stable and less risky source of potential income and funding for health care.

That's exactly right, and I think I said so at the time. I even suggested that you take up on some offers that you had for paying work to get your personal finances in better shape (so you could at least afford to take a trip to a developed country for medical evaluation and potentially treatment).

But I just know that before that discussion, I never thought about the altcoin market as being one giant scam and being entirely fake. I really bought into your take on that. But now in hindsight, I think you are not entirely correct. Seems people who have produced less technology than I am working on, having reaped some significant paydays.

Waves raised ~$15 million and referred to IOHK's open source without apparently having developed anything at all. It was apparently purely a marketing campaign. Heck I never expected even a $million, so with better tech than they have, why shouldn't I be able to get my $500,000 and also do some good for the CC community.

When I respect someone, it means I listen intently to what they have to say.

Well if you think you can raise money without having developed anything at all on the basis of, for example, very questionable claims about members of the IOHK team being on their team or being advisors (which IOHK denied) and you think that isn't a scam, go for it. I don't think that path leads anywhere except putting some money into the organizers pockets, and maybe a token that can be pumped. I don't believe the $15 million number either, but I'd believe they did raise some.

[fluffypony]

In short, those enforcers on this forum make me want to puke. Any one doing censorship (other than self-moderated threads for their own official coin thread), bullying by politik, or any other holier than thou crap will be on my personal shit (do not like) list (which basically means nothing so no big deal).

In other words, I am urging us all to stop the nonsense political control game. Let it run wild and free. Don't be afraid to not be in control. Don't be afraid. Just let nature be.

I tend to agree with you, but I also think that non-technical people are simply not in a position to fully comprehend the risks involved in poorly designed security software / consensus systems. This is evidenced by the Bitcoin block size debate, where a great deal of opinion has come from decidedly non-technical individuals.

Therefore, those that are technical, and I do not imply that I am included, have a right and perhaps even a responsibility to point technical and even ethical flaws out out in a way that is understandable to non-technical users. To this end, smooth has been consistent in his criticisms - he has even been consistent (to me at least) in his statements regarding Steem, effectively saying that the website is an interesting publishing platform, but the entire thing might be extremely broken, and he has not had the opportunity to fully comprehend how it all fits together.

A favourite post of mine, that I tend to go back to every time a criticism of mine is met with accusations of FUD, is this one by gmaxwell (emphasis mine) -

On Tuesday at a Bitcoin event I was still being harangued by Ripple/Stellar advocates claiming the absolute soundness of the system.  I care about the whole cryptocurrency ecosystem since, in the minds of the public any failure is harmful to all of us, and I don't want to see anyone suffer losses not even the gullible... But it makes no sense for me to spend my limited time providing free consulting for the impossibly torrent of ill-advised, impossibility claiming, systems... especially when they're not thankful and/or respond with obfuscation that makes their work unrealizable or hand-waving without admitting their new assumptions. I don't want to see anyone get hurt, but ... hey, I spoke up a bit and people continued on anyways without asking the kind of tough questions they should have been asking. I'm certainly not going to spend all me time correcting everyone who is wrong on the internet, especially when altcoin folks have been known to play pretty dirty toward their critics. No one should assume that other people are going to go out of their way to beg them to not use something broken.

Perhaps in the future more people will ask the hard questions and demand better answers?  If so, it would be worth more time for experienced people to spend time reviewing other systems and we could all benefit. Otherwise, perhaps those who aren't interested in standing up to some of the rigor we'd normally expect from a cryptosystem will stop calling their broken altcoins "cryptocurrencies".  Those of us who actually want to build sound systems don't want our work sullied by these predictable failures, and being able to say "I told you so" is no consolation.

[illodin]

main question seems to be whether I endorse their launch strategy or anything else about it.

Main question is the contrast to when Dash is launched with better distribution than Steem you make it your multi-year mission mission to label it a scam and people selling with profit scammers.

And the rest of the Monero brigade is too confused or afraid to attack Steem for the same reasons they relentlessly attack Dash year after year. Perhaps Steem needs to add privacy features until that starts to happen?

[smooth]

main question seems to be whether I endorse their launch strategy or anything else about it.

Main question is the contrast to when Dash is launched with better distribution than Steem you make it your multi-year mission mission to label it a scam and people selling with profit scammers.

First off that statement is obviously nonsense because no one knows the distribution of Dash, nor can we can really compare on a apples-to-apples basis between Steem at a few months old and Dash at a few months old.

But let's compare Dash with Steem.

Dash was launched with misleading statements by the developer about the launch time. Steem did not do this and in fact relaunched with a day advance notice of a specific launch time after there were some problems with the first launch. By that time some community members had already posted guides for how to compile and mine and even some lesser-skilled miners had started attempting it, making it somewhat less of a stealthy launch.

The Steem code was essentially feature-complete at launch so everyone could look through the source code as I did in order to determine what the coin was intended to do (and everyone had extra time to do this given the relaunch). Dash, on the other hand, did not release any feature or development plan information whatsoever until after the conclusion of the instamine, and in fact deliberately withheld it.

The Steem developer told people at launch that he was mining a lot and released the names of the accounts he was using for mining, making it all transparent, disclosed to all participants, and verifiable on the blockchain (there are no relevant privacy features and the blockchain uses transparent named accounts for all operations).

Steem mining proceeded at a constant rate for one month. Dash's instamine was front-loaded primarily onto literally one hour (and remember that is one hour following a misleading launch time), then front-loaded to a lesser extent over the first 8 hours and finally concluded after two days. At some point during the month the Steem developer stated he had mined "enough", cut back on his mining so others could mine more (and again, it was verifiable on the blockchain that he actually did this).

At the conclusion of the pure-PoW mining phase, all of the coins from the developer mining accounts were merged into the transparent 'steemit' account, with a stated plan to sell them off to pay for development and distribute them for free to new users (each new account requires 10 STEEM funding). These actions have occurred and are transparent on the blockchain. Where did the Dash instamine coins go? How much was mined by the developers or others? Is there similar transparency? Are there or have there ever been explicit, transparent and verifiable plans to distribute it?

Unlike Dash, there have been no supply or emissions cuts in Steem that have the effect of amplifying the early mining. There have been no new schemes introduced to pay more of the supply to the instaminers, and indeed some of the tweaks and proposals that have been made have the effect of diluting early holdings even faster.

And finally, on top of all this, Steem isn't even trying to by a cryptocurrency, it is a social media site. The Steem token is totally unsuitable for use as a cryptocurrency, and no one (including the devs) suggests otherwise. So again, comparing it and its distribution with Dash (even if Dash's distribution were likewise transparent which it mostly is not) makes no sense.

So while I will repeat that I don't think their stealth mine strategy is a good idea, nor do I personally support it, nor do I think it has worked out particularly as they had planned, nor do I suggest that anyone invest in it, comparing it to Dash or suggesting that it is somehow more of a fraudulent launch than Dash ignores all or nearly all facts about what actually happened with each coin.

[cryptohunter]

I see steem as equally as bad as dash.

If steem were to captive instamine as dash did and not be branded with exactly the same brush they should have kept a full transparent ledger of their instamine and how it is getting paid out to posters on steemit.

Both are as bad as each other. If you don't like what one did it is impossible to like the other.

I have not seen smooth promote steem myself and he did say he though the start was very unfair (even though yes it was honestly unfair to a degree that does not make it any better). I have always found him to be rather honest and up front in the past over things. However yes I would think he should not approve of steem in its current form.

If steem has a full ledger for every instamined coin that would be different but until they do they are no better than dash. You could argue evans has hung around working and using his premine stash too.

[generalizethis]

I see steem as equally as bad as dash.

If steem were to captive instamine as dash did and not be branded with exactly the same brush they should have kept a full transparent ledger of their instamine and how it is getting paid out to posters on steemit.

Both are as bad as each other. If you don't like what one did it is impossible to like the other.

I have not seen smooth promote steem myself and he did say he though the start was very unfair (even though yes it was honestly unfair to a degree that does not make it any better). I have always found him to be rather honest and up front in the past over things. However yes I would think he should not approve of steem in its current form.

If steem has a full ledger for every instamined coin that would be different but until they do they are no better than dash. You could argue evans has hung around working and using his premine stash too.

Is steem claiming "No premine, fairly and transparently launched"? If they aren't making these claims, and are open and upfront about what they did, then they are not similar to dash in the respect to truth in advertising--one is the guy who is ridiculously jacked and admits to steroids and another guy who is ridiculously jacked and claims he never ever used performance enhancing drugs; one is a juicer and the other is a juicer and a liar.

[smooth]

I see steem as equally as bad as dash.

If steem were to captive instamine as dash did and not be branded with exactly the same brush they should have kept a full transparent ledger of their instamine and how it is getting paid out to posters on steemit.

Funny thing there is just such a transparent ledger -- the blockchain!

The disposition of the "stealth mined" coins is entirely transparent on the blockchain here:

https://steemd.com/@steemit

They originally flowed in from the mining accounts that were named steemit## and sminer## which you can see on the history if you go far enough back. There were a few other accounts such as "administrator" and "moderator" that were also disclosed on the original thread as being theirs.

Coins that are used to fund new user accounts are sent from there to here first:

https://steemd.com/@steem

Coins that are sold to fund development are sent to @bittrex or maybe @blocktrades. Ned, the CEO of Steemit, has been transparent with the community about when he is selling coins for that purpose (although it is obvious on the blockchain anyway).

The payouts to posters are newly-created coins (like mining) not from any account.

However yes I would think he should not approve of steem in its current form.

I don't.

If steem has a full ledger for every instamined coin that would be different

Well they do, but I still don't "approve" it.

[smooth]

I see steem as equally as bad as dash.

If steem were to captive instamine as dash did and not be branded with exactly the same brush they should have kept a full transparent ledger of their instamine and how it is getting paid out to posters on steemit.

Both are as bad as each other. If you don't like what one did it is impossible to like the other.

I have not seen smooth promote steem myself and he did say he though the start was very unfair (even though yes it was honestly unfair to a degree that does not make it any better). I have always found him to be rather honest and up front in the past over things. However yes I would think he should not approve of steem in its current form.

If steem has a full ledger for every instamined coin that would be different but until they do they are no better than dash. You could argue evans has hung around working and using his premine stash too.

Is steem claiming "No premine, fairly and transparently launched"? If they aren't making these claims, and are open and upfront about what they did, then they are not similar to dash in the respect to truth in advertising--one is the guy who is ridiculously jacked and admits to steroids and another guy who is ridiculously jacked and claims he never ever used performance enhancing drugs; one is a juicer and the other is a juicer and a liar.

For a while I think their thread did say "No premine" which was literally true but misleading. They caught some heat for it (with good reason) and it was removed. But if we are going to compare with Dash lets keep in mind what the Dash thead still says:

Dash has no premine and was fairly and transparently launched

Really???

[illodin]

The Steem code was essentially feature-complete at launch so everyone could look through the source code as I did in order to determine what the coin was intended to do

Just like everyone could've installed VirtualBox+Linux on their Windows machines at Dash launch to mine yet that's one of the key points you like to attack.

Which is easier, reading through code to determine wtf it is, or following through 5 step instructions on how to install VirtualBox+Linux?

The Steem developer told people at launch that he was mining a lot and released the names of the accounts he was using for mining, making it all transparent, disclosed to all participants, and verifiable on the blockchain (there are no relevant privacy features and the blockchain uses transparent named accounts for all operations).

How do you know he didn't have more accounts he didn't disclose?

The Steem token is totally unsuitable for use as a cryptocurrency, and no one (including the devs) suggests otherwise. So again, comparing it and its distribution with Dash (even if Dash's distribution were likewise transparent which it mostly is not) makes no sense.

Why are they unsuitable as cc? Are they better suitable as speculation tokens? They seem to be perfectly suitable for generating BTC and new bagholders judging from the Bittrex action.

[iamnotback]

Before I catch up on reading this thread since my last post upthread, I'd like to make the excuse that I was about to passout from sleeplessness when I wrote my two posts as response to smooth. So I may not have articulated well my stance and maybe even caused misunderstandings.

Also my objective is not to cause any problem for smooth. My hope is actually that all of us would just accept that the altcoin arena is a game.

I think using our reputations and politik to belittle others and to declare scams, is counter productive.

I am coming to the realization (click link below) that this arena is a game and anything one might think of as a scam or worse in some ethical way, is just part of the game:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1505886.msg15233191#msg15233191

It is such a PITA to wade through all the irrelevant verbiage. What matters to us are:

1. How to make some money
2. Marketing evaluation/ideas
3. Technology evaluation/ideas
4. Business model evaluation/ideas

I don't want to have to appease the guy with 62 upvotes on his reputation and his politik of groupies who gave him that rating.

I don't want to be tied to that irrelevant crap of every time I want to post some idea or thought and being attacked by these enforcers (mostly from the Monero community).

What I am saying is that originally I bought into what appears to have been smooth's notion of righteousness and proper ethics (not to say he is the only one, but he sort of ended up as a defacto leader to some degree). Now I think it is hypocrite bullshit. And I am calling it out as bullshit and hoping smooth will abandon that. But I doubt he will.

I will still respect smooth as a good person. And I appreciate all his has done to share his thoughts with me. And I don't want to backstab him after he helped me. So it is with somewhat difficulty, that I say that I won't support the concept of having oversight by those "who know better".

Also I apologize to generalthis et al, for switching sides so abruptly but it is just became clear to me that I was on the wrong path and interpretation of the reality. I urge these guys to wake up also.

I wish smooth would realize that even he really wants a free market. That allowed him to mine and promote Steem/Steemit. And then I have no need nor reason to care why or what he did. It is his personal free will and choice. Let's please stop trying to run the altcoin arena as if it was a NannyState because it isn't and no one can make it so. Those who are infatuated with their ability to bully others here on the forum, are the ones in delusion. To the extent I did, I wrong was and I apologize.

Sorry.

[smooth]

The Steem code was essentially feature-complete at launch so everyone could look through the source code as I did in order to determine what the coin was intended to do

Just like everyone could've installed VirtualBox+Linux on their Windows machines at Dash launch to mine yet that's one of the key points you like to attack.

I think you have me confused with cryptohunter. I don't think Windows binaries are that big a deal, although certainly if you are going to huge number of coins in the first hour even time spent compiling is a disadvantage. Steem didn't do that; mining was flat and there was plenty of time to figure out how to compile it (or follow the posted instructions).

Go ahead and look at my Dash instamine thread. It doesn't mention it, except to point out how Evan was offering 5000 XCO for someone to compile it shortly after launch, demonstrating that he had already mined a lot of it.

Which is easier, reading through code to determine wtf it is, or following through 5 step instructions on how to install VirtualBox+Linux?

You could do exactly the same virtual box deal with steem, so that can't possibly be a point in favor of Dash. By the time of the relaunch there was a step-by-step mining guide posted.

The Steem developer told people at launch that he was mining a lot and released the names of the accounts he was using for mining, making it all transparent, disclosed to all participants, and verifiable on the blockchain (there are no relevant privacy features and the blockchain uses transparent named accounts for all operations).

How do you know he didn't have more accounts he didn't disclose?

It doesn't matter if he did. He transparently mined almost all the coins anyway. Hardly anything left to hide, especially after accounting for the (relatively tiny) mining done by me and a few others.

The Steem token is totally unsuitable for use as a cryptocurrency, and no one (including the devs) suggests otherwise. So again, comparing it and its distribution with Dash (even if Dash's distribution were likewise transparent which it mostly is not) makes no sense.

Why are they unsuitable as cc? Are they better suitable as speculation tokens? They seem to be perfectly suitable for generating BTC and new bagholders judging from the Bittrex action.

It is unsuitable because in unlocked form it has permanent 100+% per year inflation. Unless you live in Venezuela, I can't really see anyone finding that an attractive proposition (and even then, Bitcoin or something else is far more attractive). In locked form it has 0-10% inflation but can't be spent and can only be unlocked slowly over a two-year period.

The purpose of the token is to serve, in locked form, as a form of sybil-resistant karma, reputation, and voting power on the social media site. The unlocked form exists only temporarily to facilitate transfers, after which someone needs to relatively quickly relock it or see it inflated away. Steemit, by the way, doesn't use the karma aspect of their holdings at all (voting or posting on the site). The coins just sit there in a transparent account doing nothing (which causes them to slowly lose value).

Whether or not you think any of this is a good idea (many aspects of it are half-baked at best IMO), there is no way to consider any of this a cryptocurrency where you (or at least some people even if not you) might consider speculating on it becoming widely accepted as a currency.

There is a smartcoin USD-pegged token (that doesn't exist yet) that will be used to payout rewards for the best posts, but that's still not something you would want to speculate on either, unless you feel like speculating on a likely-inferior-to-the-original USD (other than possibly speculating on the failure of the pegging as recently happened with Nubits).