CoinMarketCap.com - Market Cap Rankings of All Cryptocurrencies!

[AdamWhite]

I would argue that since the code was barely able to compile at launch, and no Windows wallets were available, the DASH "instamine" is essentially a premine.

also LOL at all the Dashtards getting their panties in a bunch because the fraudulent instamine gets mentioned elsewhere than on their shitty wiki site that no one visits

[spatula]

CoinMarketCap could easily put an end to this debate by changing the tag to "significantly pre-mined, insta-mined or ninja-mined". So my suggestion is to make this change.

This. Or alternately select coins that had a clearly scheduled release time publically announced say a minimum of 24 hours ahead of any mining, with coins subsequently emitted substantially in accordance with the originally published schedule. Filter the rest.

XMR should be included with this tag as well because of the scam mining software they released on launch. It is was purposely "de-optimized" so that the developers and insiders could mine at 100x the speed of the normal user.

Smooth and friends claim that this was an oversight or an accident, just like Evan claims the same for that launch of xcoin/dash. Same issue, same tag?

Did XMR changed the emission curve? NO. Bitcoin itself had a terrible unoptimized miner at first. Your comment does not hold no one believes you, everyone knows you are lying and dash gets more hate. The end.

Smooth has admitted that the miner he released with XMR was purposely de-optimized. He also claims to have not known this at the time. How do you not even know the history of your own coin?

[smooth]

CoinMarketCap could easily put an end to this debate by changing the tag to "significantly pre-mined, insta-mined or ninja-mined". So my suggestion is to make this change.

This. Or alternately select coins that had a clearly scheduled release time publically announced say a minimum of 24 hours ahead of any mining, with coins subsequently emitted substantially in accordance with the originally published schedule. Filter the rest.

XMR should be included with this tag as well because of the scam mining software they released on launch. It is was purposely "de-optimized" so that the developers and insiders could mine at 100x the speed of the normal user.

That's false. The difference in the deliberately de-optimized code was more like 2x-9x, and it was fixed by us as soon as we found out about it, affecting roughly 1% of the coins, or possibly less (it is hard to know how many of the coins were mined by non-scammers but it was clearly a lot). That's likely not "significant" even if the definition included it

Yes, with a lot of work and a high level of expertise in completely rewriting and optimizing code over a period of two months you could eventually speed it up by around 100x but that was not (beyond the 9x) from removing the deliberately de-optimized part, it was investing a lot of skill and effort in improving something from which any deliberate de-optimizations had already long since been removed.

Smooth and friends claim that this was an oversight or an accident, just like Evan claims the same for that launch of xcoin/dash. Same issue, same tag?

No, because mining optimization has nothing to do with premining or instamining. The supply of coins was and is unchanged from its original specifications.

Every single coin has miners optimizing in different ways, its always been that way since day one of crypto, and it will always be that way until the last day. That's not a scam, it's skill. I will grant the original de-optimizations that lasted a few weeks was indeed a scam by the original developer (not us) but it was small in magnitude and didn't affect the supply of coins at all, only who mined them.

The launch was clean in the sense that it was clearly announced ahead of time (and indeed the code was available so anyone could have examined the mining code and optimized it themselves if they wanted), launched on schedule, difficulty and speed of emissions promptly adjusted as specified, and the emissions were never subsequently changed. There is no premine/instamine issue here, whatever other issues there may be.

[smooth]

CoinMarketCap could easily put an end to this debate by changing the tag to "significantly pre-mined, insta-mined or ninja-mined". So my suggestion is to make this change.

This. Or alternately select coins that had a clearly scheduled release time publically announced say a minimum of 24 hours ahead of any mining, with coins subsequently emitted substantially in accordance with the originally published schedule. Filter the rest.

XMR should be included with this tag as well because of the scam mining software they released on launch. It is was purposely "de-optimized" so that the developers and insiders could mine at 100x the speed of the normal user.

Smooth and friends claim that this was an oversight or an accident, just like Evan claims the same for that launch of xcoin/dash. Same issue, same tag?

Did XMR changed the emission curve? NO. Bitcoin itself had a terrible unoptimized miner at first. Your comment does not hold no one believes you, everyone knows you are lying and dash gets more hate. The end.

Smooth has admitted that the miner he released with XMR was purposely de-optimized. He also claims to have not known this at the time. How do you not even know the history of your own coin?

We didn't launch the coin. It was launched by some other guy who was doing a bunch of dodgy stuff so the community threw him out. The team that took over didn't even know each other, or the code, at first, we just came together to get rid of the scumbag and create a new team to maintain and develop the coin going forward. We forked it and took over. Then we found the de-optimized stuff while becoming familiar with the code later.

There is a history write up somewhere, but I'm terrible with remembering where those kind of documents are.

[smooth]

"Because the time of "launch" was very ambiguous."

So if *you don't know* the launch date, how do you know there was a premine?

What part of ambiguous and open to interpretation and reasonable disagreement is not clear?

I.e. how can you say with enough certainty that there was a premine, to warrant throwing accusations like this around, and even pressuring 3rd party websites to warn their users of this on your behalf?  Are you saying that you don't actually know if there was a premine?

I made no accusation with respect to premine, nor did I pressure. I posted evidence of the instamine, described as such. You can see it back on this thread.

Again if there was a premine, where is your research / hard evidence / blocks / dates etc like any normal person would give before slandering a coin that if price gets negatively affected you will directly benefit?

You throw the word slander around occasionally but it doesn't mean something you don't like, or that make you uncomfortable, or that impede promotion of a coin. It means untrue statements that cause harm. My statements are not untrue.

OK so can you confirm that your position is that you are not accusing Dash of having a premine?  I am looking for clarification to this specific question.

My posts say what I want to say. I'm not going to dumb down a nuanced discussion at your request.

Ok I am not surprised you can't answer simple question like this either Smooth to be honest after your lead dev today accuses straight out that Dash is a premine for the first time, you are ambiguous, and neither of you can present any factual research or are even aware of the actual launch date or which blocks are involved.

First of all he's not my lead dev, he is one of the core team. Second of all, I don't speak for him, nor does he speak for me. If you have some concern about something he said, you will have to ask him about it. Finally I did present factual research in terms of when the public launch was repeatedly scheduled and rescheduled over a period of a few hours (including links to and quotes from specific posts), and the facts about specific blocks is clear from the blockchain and various graphs (with almost 600k coins mined in the first hour, so if the launch was even one hour ahead of schedule, that would be at a minimum a 600k premine). So it is nonsense that no "factual research" is presented.

Apologies to this thread that the Monero trolling has spilled here and that CMC is now put in a really awkward position - Welcome to Trollero...

Name calling doesn't do your cause any favors, it just makes you look like a typical altcoin pumping zealot.

If you are starting up the convo again Smooth...I don't care about the conjecture and name calling, I just want a simple clarification of your position:

Are you accusing Dash of being a premine, yes or no? 

Why are you leaving this as a grey area, you either are able to make that accusation or you aren't which is it?

(this is going to get really tedious while I presumably have to keep repeating this question until Smooth actually answers it...and this is the 6th time I had to ask it plus another 6 times I asked Fluffy until he put me on ignore so he doesn't have to answer either...)

This is getting repetitious. I already said I've given my opinion on the question and I've also explained why there is no clear yes or no answer. No need to continue going in circles simply because you don't like my answer.

Apologies I think you misunderstood my question.

Fluffy has today for the first time to accuse of Dash as being a premine and when I asked him for evidence he put me on ignore after I had to ask 5 times: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=199685.msg11215773#msg11215773

As a fellow member of the core team, and some posts suggesting that you agree with that, I am asking you are you making the same accusation or not?

That is a binary question, you either are making this accusation or you aren't.

If you answer is that there is no clear answer, then I presume you are not making the same accusation?

So to avoid a lot of further messages, to clarify again, are you able to make the accusation that Dash is a premine like Fluffy has done, or you are not able?  It has to be one or the other...which is it?

Fluffypony's opinions are his own, as are mine. There have been no statements made at all on behalf of the core team, so you can leave that part of it out entirely.

You should simply accept that I reject your attempt to create a narrow range of how I may express my opinion. It has been expressed. Read it. That's all you get.

Ok so I will leave it there, unless one of you decides to fill in the blanks. The answers I got are:

Monero core team members position on accusations that Dash was premined after petitioning CoinMarketCap to mark Dash as a "significantly premined coin":

FluffyPony: Accused Dash dev of premining (relating to the launch 16 month ago), for the first time today, upgraded from being an "instamine" before today.  Refused to provide any evidence to backup the premine accusation.

Smooth: Refused to say if he is making the same accusation that any Darkcoin were mined before the launch and also doesn't know the Darkcoin launch date.

Paraphrasing someone else's statement while subtly (or not-so-subtly) changing the meaning is a cheap rhetorical trick. If you are going to quote, just quote.

Also, I didn't "petition" anything, I just replied to a post here and quoted factual (at least factual in the sense they were accurate quotes) information about the launch (two of Evan's posts and a FAQ entry).  I don't know what fluffypony may or may not have petitioned.

Seriously, you are really bad at not injecting bias when you try to summarize or paraphrase. Best you stick to just quoting what was actually said.

Not sure what you mean Smooth. 

The result I posted is totally accurate and correct based on what you said and I stand by it 100%.

If you disagree, please be specific to what I wrote otherwise it isn't clear what you mean.

I.e. this:

Monero core team members position on accusations that Dash was premined after petitioning CoinMarketCap to mark Dash as a "significantly premined coin":

FluffyPony: Accused Dash dev of premining (relating to the launch 16 month ago), for the first time today, upgraded from being an "instamine" before today.  Refused to provide any evidence to backup the premine accusation.

Smooth: Refused to say if he is making the same accusation that any Darkcoin were mined before the launch and also doesn't know the Darkcoin launch date.

For example, you repeated again core team members' positions "after petitioning" except that I told you didn't petition anything:

I didn't "petition" anything, I just replied to a post here and quoted factual (at least factual in the sense they were accurate quotes) information about the launch (two of Evan's posts and a FAQ entry).  I don't know what fluffypony may or may not have petitioned.

I've also did not say that "I don't know" the Darkcoin lanch time, I said that the launch time itself was ambiguous because Evan himself announced several different earliest launch times and then actuallly launched before any of them.

If you continue misquoting and misstating my positions I'll just conclude you are a worthless troll and ignore you. I don't think you always are, but in this case you are acting that way.

[BlockaFett]

CoinMarketCap could easily put an end to this debate by changing the tag to "significantly pre-mined, insta-mined or ninja-mined". So my suggestion is to make this change.

This. Or alternately select coins that had a clearly scheduled release time publically announced say a minimum of 24 hours ahead of any mining, with coins subsequently emitted substantially in accordance with the originally published schedule. Filter the rest.

XMR should be included with this tag as well because of the scam mining software they released on launch. It is was purposely "de-optimized" so that the developers and insiders could mine at 100x the speed of the normal user.

That's false. The difference in the deliberately de-optimized code was more like 2x-9x, and it was fixed by us as soon as we found out about it, affecting roughly 1% of the coins, or possibly less (it is hard to know how many of the coins were mined by non-scammers but it was clearly a lot). That's likely not "significant" even if the definition included it

Yes, with a lot of work and a high level of expertise in completely rewriting and optimizing code over a period of two months you could eventually speed it up by around 100x but that was not (beyond the 9x) from removing the deliberately de-optimized part, it was investing a lot of skill and effort in improving something from which any deliberate de-optimizations had already long since been removed.

Smooth and friends claim that this was an oversight or an accident, just like Evan claims the same for that launch of xcoin/dash. Same issue, same tag?

No, because mining optimization has nothing to do with premining or instamining. The supply of coins was and is unchanged from its original specifications.

Every single coin has miners optimizing in different ways, its always been that way since day one of crypto, and it will always be that way until the last day. That's not a scam, it's skill. I will grant the original de-optimizations that lasted a few weeks was indeed a scam by the original developer (not us) but it was small in magnitude and didn't affect the supply of coins at all, only who mined them.

The launch was clean in the sense that it was clearly announced ahead of time (and indeed the code was available so anyone could have examined the mining code and optimized it themselves if they wanted), launched on schedule, difficulty adjusted as specified, and the emissions never changed. There is no premine/instamine issue here, whatever other issues there may be.

"No, because mining optimization has nothing to do with premining or instamining. The supply of coins was and is unchanged from its original specifications. "

Massively disingenuous.  Crippled miner scam is well known and means the dev's get more of the *distribution* than they should...the whole reason why "premine" and "instamines" you say are bad.  The terms Instamine/Premine the way you use them are only to imply a *distribution* problem..  It's the same thing.  

The fact that you always twist things to never admit the faults in Monero shows IMO you aren't "fighting scams" but trying to hurt the competition to raise your own price (despite it failing week after week).

[spatula]

CoinMarketCap could easily put an end to this debate by changing the tag to "significantly pre-mined, insta-mined or ninja-mined". So my suggestion is to make this change.

This. Or alternately select coins that had a clearly scheduled release time publically announced say a minimum of 24 hours ahead of any mining, with coins subsequently emitted substantially in accordance with the originally published schedule. Filter the rest.

XMR should be included with this tag as well because of the scam mining software they released on launch. It is was purposely "de-optimized" so that the developers and insiders could mine at 100x the speed of the normal user.

Smooth and friends claim that this was an oversight or an accident, just like Evan claims the same for that launch of xcoin/dash. Same issue, same tag?

Did XMR changed the emission curve? NO. Bitcoin itself had a terrible unoptimized miner at first. Your comment does not hold no one believes you, everyone knows you are lying and dash gets more hate. The end.

Smooth has admitted that the miner he released with XMR was purposely de-optimized. He also claims to have not known this at the time. How do you not even know the history of your own coin?

We didn't launch the coin. It was launched by some other guy who was doing a bunch of dodgy stuff so the community threw him out. The team that took over didn't even know each other, or the code, at first, we just came together to get rid of the scumbag and create a new team to maintain and develop the coin going forward. We forked it and took over. Then we found the de-optimized stuff while becoming familiar with the code later.

There is a history write up somewhere, but I'm terrible with remembering where those kind of documents are.

I wasnt aware of the 9x speed difference and I accept that at your word, sorry about that. Look smooth, check my comment history, I like XMR and I'm not trying to throw mud. What you are doing here is throwing mud.

You released a miner that had been de-optimized on purpose. You say you didn't know, but it's what happened. You can not honestly compare that to miners being optimized over time. The miner you release was literally a scam, and you know that's not the same as miners being optimized over time.

Both coins have had launch issues, but you downplay yours as accidents and oversights. You tell me that there are documents explaining the shady history of Monero, and at the same time criticize Evans explanation of events.

You ask to be given the benefit of the doubt about the shady history of Monero, but attack Dash at every opportunity. Can we just stop with that please? I've said my peace, thanks for listening.

[Prosperityforall]

The core difference here is that Monero was originally launched by Thankful-for-Today. The current development team as far as I know, did not launch Monero. Therefore saying things like "You launched or released this miner for Monero xyz" is false.

The major points of this are:

. Monero was launched by someone who is no longer involved in the currency
. Monero's beginnings has been in the open, recorded and is verifiable, the core devs seem to be very open
. Monero has never had any of it's core features changed

. Dash was launched by Evan Duffield and Evan Duffield is still Dash's main core developer
. Dash's beginnings are here and there, Evan Duffield says, " Oh it was a mistake that 2million coins were instamined in 2 days", but the events during the instamine say completely otherwise, that it was done on purpose
. Dash had a instamine/premine where all of it's core features were changed after launch

Monero cannot be compared to Dash in any way, shape, or form.

[smooth]

You released a miner that had been de-optimized on purpose. You say you didn't know, but it's what happened. You can not honestly compare that to miners being optimized over time. The miner you release was literally a scam, and you know that's not the same as miners being optimized over time.

No, let me explain this again. We did not release anything. The original developer released it, and then, after several days of odd behavior, we kicked him out. Not for that specific thing, mind you, but if we had known about that at the time, that would certainly be another good reason to kick him out. (In hindsight it isn't surprising at all.)

In fact, after taking one of the things we told people was that we weren't that familiar with the code and it could contain back doors or bugs, they should be careful. It was very much a use-at-your-own risk situation and disclosed as such. (This was borne out to be a valid concern in September when an exploit was used to attack the coin.)

I'm sorry but there is simply no comparison between something a former developer did that might have given him a discount on mining at most 1% of the coins (but did not affect the rate of mining at all), and an instamine done by the still current developer that massively wrecked the entire coin-distribution schedule of the coin, followed by changing the schedule again later.

I realize you are trying to create an equivalence here for advocacy reasons, but first of all there isn't one and second of all, they are two independent coins and sets of issues. This method of trying to defend the instamine by pointing to different flaws in a different coin is frankly silly.

[BlockaFett]

The core difference here is that Monero was originally launched by Thankful-for-Today. The current development team as far as I know, did not launch Monero. Therefore saying things like "You launched Monero xyz" is false.

The major points of this are:

. Monero was launched by someone who is no longer involved in the currency
. Monero's beginnings has been in the open, recorded and is verifiable
. Monero has never had any of it's core features changed

. Dash was launched by Evan Duffield and Evan Duffield is still Dash's main core developer
. Dash's beginnings are here and there, Evan Duffield says, " Oh it was a mistake that 2million coins were instamined in 2 days", but the events during the instamine say completely otherwise, that it was done on purpose
. Dash had a instamine/premine where all of it's core features were changed after launch

Monero cannot be compared to Dash in any way, shape, or form.

same blockchain, same distribution issues.  Distribution issues being the real problem terms like "premine" or "crippled miner" are implying.  how does changing the devs fix that?

EDIT: "Monero has never had any of it's core features changed" i agree on that ...

[smooth]

"No, because mining optimization has nothing to do with premining or instamining. The supply of coins was and is unchanged from its original specifications. "

Massively disingenuous.  Crippled miner scam is well known and means the dev's get more of the *distribution* than they should...the whole reason why "premine" and "instamines" you say are bad.  The terms Instamine/Premine the way you use them are only to imply a *distribution* problem..  It's the same thing.  

The fact that you always twist things to never admit the faults in Monero shows IMO you aren't "fighting scams" but trying to hurt the competition to raise your own price (despite it failing week after week).

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 (again, we were the ones who disclosed it), it's just that frankly its really small compared to Dash. Maybe 10-20k coin at most, compared to 2 million, plus Dash had the change to emissions later (which magnifies the effect of the original 2M massive coin dump), and we didn't. You don't want to hear that, but those are the actual facts.

[BlockaFett]

You released a miner that had been de-optimized on purpose. You say you didn't know, but it's what happened. You can not honestly compare that to miners being optimized over time. The miner you release was literally a scam, and you know that's not the same as miners being optimized over time.

No, let me explain this again. We did not release anything. The original developer released it, and then, after several days of odd behavior, we kicked him out. Not for that specific thing, mind you, but if we had known about that at the time, that would certainly be another good reason to kick him out. (In hindsight it isn't surprising at all.)

In fact, after taking one of the things we told people was that we weren't that familiar with the code and it could contain back doors or bugs, they should be careful. It was very much a use-at-your-own risk situation and disclosed as such. (This was borne out to be a valid concern in September when an exploit was used to attack the coin.)

I'm sorry but there is simply no comparison between something a former developer did that might have given him a discount on mining at most 1% of the coins (but did not affect the rate of mining at all), and an instamine done by the still current developer that massively wrecked the entire coin-distribution schedule of the coin, followed by changing the schedule again later.

I realize you are trying to create an equivalence here for advocacy reasons, but first of all there isn't one and second of all, they are two independent coins and sets of issues. This method of trying to defend the instamine by pointing to different flaws in a different coin is frankly silly.

again, sounds like you are covering up problems in Monero but making spurious (and now easily disprovable) accusations against your competitors, and coming to market sites like CMC to presssure them to do your dirty work...?

[Prosperityforall]

The core difference here is that Monero was originally launched by Thankful-for-Today. The current development team as far as I know, did not launch Monero. Therefore saying things like "You launched Monero xyz" is false.

The major points of this are:

. Monero was launched by someone who is no longer involved in the currency
. Monero's beginnings has been in the open, recorded and is verifiable
. Monero has never had any of it's core features changed

. Dash was launched by Evan Duffield and Evan Duffield is still Dash's main core developer
. Dash's beginnings are here and there, Evan Duffield says, " Oh it was a mistake that 2million coins were instamined in 2 days", but the events during the instamine say completely otherwise, that it was done on purpose
. Dash had a instamine/premine where all of it's core features were changed after launch

Monero cannot be compared to Dash in any way, shape, or form.

same blockchain, same distribution issues.  Distribution issues being the real problem terms like "premine" or "crippled miner" are implying.  how does changing the devs fix that?

As is above, they cannot be compared.

One coin (XMR), has never had any of it's core features changed even when it was released by the suspicious Thankful-for-Today character.

The other coin (DASH), has had all of it's core features changed after the instamine/premine occured, leaving the developers and few other instaminers with an abundance of coins valued many times what it originally was.

Intially having a bad miner is nothing like having a premine/instamine. Virutally all currencies has had 'bad miners' as anyone with the skill would probably be able to create optimized versions of the miners for themselves regardless.

You cannot compare a coin that has never had it's core parameters changed, to one that has, so the distribution 'issues' are vastly different.

[BlockaFett]

"No, because mining optimization has nothing to do with premining or instamining. The supply of coins was and is unchanged from its original specifications. "

Massively disingenuous.  Crippled miner scam is well known and means the dev's get more of the *distribution* than they should...the whole reason why "premine" and "instamines" you say are bad.  The terms Instamine/Premine the way you use them are only to imply a *distribution* problem..  It's the same thing.  

The fact that you always twist things to never admit the faults in Monero shows IMO you aren't "fighting scams" but trying to hurt the competition to raise your own price (despite it failing week after week).

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 (again, we were the ones who disclosed it), it's just that frankly its really small compared to Dash. Maybe 10-20k coin at most, compared to 2 million, plus Dash had the change to emissions later (which magnifies the effect of the original 2M massive coin dump), and we didn't. You don't want to hear that, but those are the actual facts.

Essentially every single post you make is saying "The distribution problems being raised about Monero are non-issues" and at the same time "Dash's distribution is a big problem" (and as of  today, from at least 1 Monero core dev's perspective this has warped into a fullblown Premine, except no evidence provided yet).  I think no point in continuing because actually you just say all thiss whatever the truth is...again you are doing this evidently to raise Monero price because Dash is your largest competitor (you benefit) - simplest answer is usually the correct one.  No point in replying at this stage as this is evidently what's going on...

[smooth]

"No, because mining optimization has nothing to do with premining or instamining. The supply of coins was and is unchanged from its original specifications. "

Massively disingenuous.  Crippled miner scam is well known and means the dev's get more of the *distribution* than they should...the whole reason why "premine" and "instamines" you say are bad.  The terms Instamine/Premine the way you use them are only to imply a *distribution* problem..  It's the same thing.  

The fact that you always twist things to never admit the faults in Monero shows IMO you aren't "fighting scams" but trying to hurt the competition to raise your own price (despite it failing week after week).

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 (again, we were the ones who disclosed it), it's just that frankly its really small compared to Dash. Maybe 10-20k coin at most, compared to 2 million, plus Dash had the change to emissions later (which magnifies the effect of the original 2M massive coin dump), and we didn't. You don't want to hear that, but those are the actual facts.

Essentially every single post you make is saying "The distribution problems being raised about Monero are non-issues" and at the same time "Dash's distribution is a big problem".  I think no point in continuing because actually you just say that whatever the truth is...again you are doing this evidently to raise Monero price because Dash is your largest competitor (you benefit) - simplest answer is usually the correct one.  No point in replying at this stage as this is evidently what's going on...

No my point is that 10-20k is a LOT less than 2 million, plus a redefine of the subsequent curve. A lot less meaning more than 99% less. It's just a really, really small issue you are reaching for. Sorry.

[BlockaFett]

"No, because mining optimization has nothing to do with premining or instamining. The supply of coins was and is unchanged from its original specifications. "

Massively disingenuous.  Crippled miner scam is well known and means the dev's get more of the *distribution* than they should...the whole reason why "premine" and "instamines" you say are bad.  The terms Instamine/Premine the way you use them are only to imply a *distribution* problem..  It's the same thing.  

The fact that you always twist things to never admit the faults in Monero shows IMO you aren't "fighting scams" but trying to hurt the competition to raise your own price (despite it failing week after week).

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 (again, we were the ones who disclosed it), it's just that frankly its really small compared to Dash. Maybe 10-20k coin at most, compared to 2 million, plus Dash had the change to emissions later (which magnifies the effect of the original 2M massive coin dump), and we didn't. You don't want to hear that, but those are the actual facts.

Essentially every single post you make is saying "The distribution problems being raised about Monero are non-issues" and at the same time "Dash's distribution is a big problem".  I think no point in continuing because actually you just say that whatever the truth is...again you are doing this evidently to raise Monero price because Dash is your largest competitor (you benefit) - simplest answer is usually the correct one.  No point in replying at this stage as this is evidently what's going on...

No my point is that 10-20k is a LOT less than 2 million, plus a redefine of the subsequent curve. A lot less meaning more than 99% less. It's just a really, really small issue you are reaching for. Sorry.

I don't know anything about early Monero distribution, it's not exactly of interest to me, just you either 100% attacking or competitor or 100% defending Monero, both spuriously, you don't seem to get how obvious this is...anyway...I think lets leave it now Smooth, I don't think this is going anywhere, and your core team getting CMC to change their data while your price has tanked is more a problem for Monero than Dash I suspect because obviously you guys should be *developing* (and lets be honest it is pathetic  ).

[BagHolder010]

Just wow, another no good Monero dev is trying to get attention. Fluffypony + Smooth just hating on the success Evan getting because not only they don't know what to do next beside copy pasting other people's work and can't bring any NEW technology to crypto World it hurts them that Evan getting known by magazines, Bitcoin developrs, and even Crypto websites and you don't get a 2nd look? that much jealousy?  THEN DO MORE WORK ON YOU'RE MONERO SHITTY SCAM prooooove to everyone that you are true devs with Uniq skills that no one else has but I know it's to hard so you come here attacking in forums much better than actually working.

Do 10% of Evan's work and then talk back at him but when ur a no body then better shut it and start working. "or studying"

[smooth]

Just wow, another no good Monero dev is trying to get attention. Fluffypony + Smooth just hating on the success Evan getting because not only they don't know what to do next beside copy pasting other people's work and can't bring any NEW technology to crypto World it hurts them that Evan getting known by magazines, Bitcoin developrs, and even Crypto websites and you don't get a 2nd look? that much jealousy?  THEN DO MORE WORK ON YOU'RE MONERO SHITTY SCAM prooooove to everyone that you are true devs with Uniq skills that no one else has but I know it's to hard so you come here attacking in forums much better than actually working.

Do 10% of Evan's work and then talk back at him but when ur a no body then better shut it and start working. "or studying"

Hey BagHolder010, what does this have to do with the Dark instamine (or anything else related to coinmarketcap)?

[BagHolder010]

It means go to work because if Monero was a company you would be fired.

[opennux]

BlockaFett et. al., you should probably inform your employer that the style you are employing are over-all hurtful towards your cause. It's largely unbefitting and most outsiders can see through it.