CoinMarketCap.com - Market Cap Rankings of All Cryptocurrencies!

[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.

[BlockaFett]

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.

You're a Monero investor ...I would say the opposite, Monero core team came here and accused Dash of a "premine" and petitioned CMC to show that which they did.  I dispute that any Darkcoins where premined so I just asked the both Monero core devs for their evidence of premine, which I didn't get.  So maybe it's Monero who is attacking here (and being hurtful to their cause). I haven't asked CMC to do anything negative with Monero.  Just for Monero to justify why Dash, as of today, is a premine, as they claim.

[smooth]

Monero core team came here and accused Dash of a "premine" and petitioned CMC to show that which they did.

That's not at all what happened.

Some other guy asked about Dash (not someone I recognized as a Monero supporter, certainly not a well-known one), and said it was an instamine. I think he said that about Dash because he was annoyed at your constant and amazingly poorly-informed chattering about the well-documented hitbtc scams. So if anyone is actually responsible for Dash being tagged, it is you BockaFett. Maybe you should shut up for a while and stop trying to act like everything you construe as positive for or favorable about Monero is obviously a lie and needs to be contested, even if you actually have no information about it at all.

After that, I replied and provided supporting evidence for Dash being an instamine. CMC, I guess, looked at that evidence and decided to tag it. I'm guessing because I haven't communicated with them outside making that post.

There was no accusing, and no petitioning by the core team. I don't think fluffypony even posted about it at all before CMC's decision was made and you started flipping out, as usual, so he replied to you, although I'm not positive of that.

Stop lying please.

EDIT: Yes I looked back and the original complaint about Dash actually mentioned you BlockaFett by name. So yes you were absolutely the one who instigated this with your big (and ignorant) mouth. Congrats!

[BlockaFett]

Monero core team came here and accused Dash of a "premine" and petitioned CMC to show that which they did.

That's not at all what happened.

Some other guy asked about Dash (not someone I recognized as a Monero supporter, certainly not a well-known one), and said it was an instamine. I think he said that about Dash because he was annoyed at your constant and amazingly poorly-informed chattering about the well-documented hitbtc scams. So if anyone is actually responsible for Dash being tagged, it is you BockaFett. Maybe you should shut up for a while and stop trying to act like everything you construe as positive for or favorable about Monero is obviously a lie and needs to be contested, even if you actually have no information about it at all.

After that, I replied and provided supporting evidence for Dash being an instamine. CMC, I guess, looked at that evidence and decided to tag it. I'm guessing because I haven't communicated with them outside making that post.

There was no accusing, and no petitioning by the core team. I don't think fluffypony even posted about it at all before CMC's decision was made and you started flipping out, as usual, so he replied to you, although I'm not positive of that.

Stop lying please.

EDIT: Yes I looked back and the original complaint about Dash actually mentioned you BlockaFett by name. So yes you were absolutely the one who instigated this with your big (and ignorant) mouth. Congrats!

It's amazing, now no one from Trollero petitioned CMC (despite calls to action like this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1034864.msg11170842#msg11170842) and it's my big mouth that got CMC to do the very thing you have been calling for them to do for days?  And I am constantly trolling about HitBTC when that's what you and Fluffy were here initially about asking CMC to remove it because then Bytecoin would have 90% of it's volume delisted?  Sounds like Orwellian double-speak to me Smooth...you guys should read 1984 with all your other antics, it's right up your street I think....

[smooth]

Monero core team came here and accused Dash of a "premine" and petitioned CMC to show that which they did.

That's not at all what happened.

Some other guy asked about Dash (not someone I recognized as a Monero supporter, certainly not a well-known one), and said it was an instamine. I think he said that about Dash because he was annoyed at your constant and amazingly poorly-informed chattering about the well-documented hitbtc scams. So if anyone is actually responsible for Dash being tagged, it is you BockaFett. Maybe you should shut up for a while and stop trying to act like everything you construe as positive for or favorable about Monero is obviously a lie and needs to be contested, even if you actually have no information about it at all.

After that, I replied and provided supporting evidence for Dash being an instamine. CMC, I guess, looked at that evidence and decided to tag it. I'm guessing because I haven't communicated with them outside making that post.

There was no accusing, and no petitioning by the core team. I don't think fluffypony even posted about it at all before CMC's decision was made and you started flipping out, as usual, so he replied to you, although I'm not positive of that.

Stop lying please.

EDIT: Yes I looked back and the original complaint about Dash actually mentioned you BlockaFett by name. So yes you were absolutely the one who instigated this with your big (and ignorant) mouth. Congrats!

It's amazing, now no one from Trollero petitioned CMC (despite calls to action like this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1034864.msg11170842#msg11170842) and it's my big mouth that got CMC to do the very thing you have been calling for them to do for days?  And I am constantly trolling about HitBTC when that's what you and Fluffy were here initially about asking CMC to remove it because then Bytecoin would have 90% of it's volume delisted?

First of all, I don't remember posting about hitbtc at all, so I think you are lying again. Second of all, I would like see your evidence that the complaints about hitbtc are motivated by anything other than hitbtc being a scam site with fake volume. Because I've actually traded there and my experience agrees with it. Do you have any actual knowledge or experience to contradict this, or is it yet another example of you making shit up because it happens to suit your rabid anti-Monero agenda.

EDIT: I just checked my past posts and besides one comment here about hitbtc after the tag had already been added to Dash I did not mention it, so no I had nothing to do with your ignorant little argument with someone over hitbtc throwing a bad light on Dash and leading to the Dash instamine discussion here, just as i said. The only time I could find where I did mention hitbtc was not here but on a Monero thread back on April 10 when someone asked if its removal would be bad for Monero (reducing its reported volume and further concentrating it on Poloniex) and I agreed it would be a negative but said I would be happy to see the scam removed anyway.

So again, please stop lying and talking out of your ass BlockaFett.

[reflexmk]

-snip-

You call youurself a dev and you dont know what premine is. What a moron. DASH was not premined, and displaying it like that is incorrect and unprofessional from a site claiming to know what its doing.

-snip-

Put CoinMarketCap asside, lets here it from you, a simple YES or NO, was DASH premined ? As in mined before launch? Please be simple in your answer.

Should I insert a personal insult to get a response? You moron, a simple YES or NO, was DASH premined? As in mined before launch??

[farfiman]

Put CoinMarketCap asside, lets here it from you, a simple YES or NO, was DASH premined ? As in mined before launch? Please be simple in your answer.

YES- all mining that happened before the as planned mining emission  could be considered as so.

[reflexmk]

Put CoinMarketCap asside, lets here it from you, a simple YES or NO, was DASH premined ? As in mined before launch? Please be simple in your answer.

YES- all mining that happened before the as planned mining emission  could be considered as so.

That's just plain retarded. How much did you buy the legendary account for?

[iCEBREAKER]

Displaying it as significant premine is hardly accurate.  An instamine is not a premine.

When the insta-mine happens before the pre-announced Official Launch Time, and is of such a massive scale, the terminology becomes a distinction without a difference.

In Dash's case the instamine happened so quickly and was so massive as to be functionally equivalent to a premine.

I like how the DashHoles' best defense of their scam-mine is to deploy the good old tu quoque fallacy and quibble about definitions.

It's also fun to watch them insult CMC for having the integrity to do the right thing.  That's right DashHoles, attack-the-attacker... 

[iCEBREAKER]

Dear CMC,

Thank you for applying the handy shitcoin auto-filter to Dash.  I've used that link as my BTCT profile's web site for a long time, and very glad it's been upgraded in light of Dash's scandalous actual vs theoretical emission.

I'd like to propose CMC use actual vs theoretical emission as a metric for ranking coins.

If you like, feel free to call the ratio/deviation between actual and theoretical a coin's iCE FACTOR.   

[Gliss]

Given the debate here, it's probably best to take the significantly premined mark off of Dash until we can figure out a more appropriate solution.  I agree that instamine is not the same as premine.

I see a few options here:
1) Change label to "Significantly mined around launch" or something among those lines
2) Make an instamine label
3) Not care about tracking instamine

I'm preferring #3 because "instamine" is not a well defined term and can be applied subjectively.

[iCEBREAKER]

Put CoinMarketCap asside, lets here it from you, a simple YES or NO, was DASH premined ? As in mined before launch? Please be simple in your answer.

YES- all mining that happened before the as planned mining emission  could be considered as so.

I agree that instamine is not the same as premine.

Gliss, please don't reward Dark/Dash for being sneaky enough to hide their insta/pre-mine in a cloud of meaningless distinctions.

When the insta-mine happens before the pre-announced Official Launch Time, and is of such a massive scale, the terminology becomes a distinction without a difference.

In Dash's case the instamine happened so quickly and was so massive as to be functionally equivalent to a premine.

Are you really going to let Dash slide by the handy shitcoin auto-filter on such a slimy technicality?  Please don't!

The fact is the Official Dash Launch Timeline is still unclear (I wonder why) and the actual emission bears no resemblance to theoretical.

You do honest coins with fair launches a great disservice by including in their number a 'sham cloaked in a fiasco' like Dash.

Cheers!

[Prosperityforall]

If the definition of premine is that a section of the coins were allocated to a selected party via changing the emission schedule, then Dash had a premine, as all of that was done in 2 days for Linux-only users "mainly Evan Duffield and co". Or changing the term from Premine to **Significantly fastmined* might be suited better.

Leaving it in the same category as other coins that did not ever change their emission schedule/block reward after launch is unfair.

[Minotaur26]

Given the debate here, it's probably best to take the significantly premined mark off of Dash until we can figure out a more appropriate solution.  I agree that instamine is not the same as premine.

I see a few options here:
1) Change label to "Significantly mined around launch" or something among those lines
2) Make an instamine label
3) Not care about tracking instamine

I'm preferring #3 because "instamine" is not a well defined term and can be applied subjectively.

Thank you for being professional and impartial. We had some issues at launch that came from a bug on LTC, you would have to include them in the same new category, as several hundred thousand were mined in the first hour, Monero also had early mining issues with an intentionally de-optimized miner for 19 days. Where does it end? Your role is to be impartial and present the coin rankings, and specially not to get involved in the drama between coins that are direct competitors and have conflict of interests trying to use your site as a competitive advantage.

Good luck with the site.

[Prosperityforall]

Given the debate here, it's probably best to take the significantly premined mark off of Dash until we can figure out a more appropriate solution.  I agree that instamine is not the same as premine.

I see a few options here:
1) Change label to "Significantly mined around launch" or something among those lines
2) Make an instamine label
3) Not care about tracking instamine

I'm preferring #3 because "instamine" is not a well defined term and can be applied subjectively.

Thank you for being professional and impartial. We had some issues at launch that came from a bug on LTC, you would have to include them in the same new category, as several hundred thousand were mined in the first hour, Monero also had early mining issues with an intentionally de-optimized miner for 19 days. Where does it end? Your role is to be impartial and present the coin rankings, and specially not to get involved in the drama between coins that are direct competitors and have conflict of interests trying to use your site as a competitive advantage.

Good luck with the site.

That is false. If what you're saying was true, then Evan Duffield would not have sliced the block reward after the instamine happened or cut the coin supply, but he did both of those. He could have even relaunched the coin, but he chose not to. That means the instamine was very likely intentional, there is no other way to put it.

Leaving Dash where it had a 2million coin output in 2 days and where it's block reward and coin supply was changed in the same category as coins that never had such things done, is highly unfair.

Gliss should be impartial, and that means seperating the coins based on what actually happened and in this case, Dash had a premine or at the very least, **Significantly Fastmined**. You've mentioned Monero, but Monero has never had any of it's core parameters changed so Dash and Monero cannot be compared in the slightest.

[Fixx]

Please update EmerCoin!

EMC added here - https://www.livecoin.net/trade/index
This pair of EMC / USD
And here - https://www.cryptopia.co.nz/Exchange?market=EMC_BTC
EMC/BTC pair

[JGCMiner]

Given the debate here, it's probably best to take the significantly premined mark off of Dash until we can figure out a more appropriate solution.  I agree that instamine is not the same as premine.

I see a few options here:
1) Change label to "Significantly mined around launch" or something among those lines
2) Make an instamine label
3) Not care about tracking instamine

I'm preferring #3 because "instamine" is not a well defined term and can be applied subjectively.

I see this as a wise choice. It is easy to see why you would not want to dig through this forum trying to vet the launch of every coin listed on your site based on a subjective criteria.

[bigrcanada]

Put CoinMarketCap asside, lets here it from you, a simple YES or NO, was DASH premined ? As in mined before launch? Please be simple in your answer.

YES- all mining that happened before the as planned mining emission  could be considered as so.

I agree that instamine is not same as premine.

I think it is obvious that there is desperate agenda from another coin.  MR.  ICEBREAKER has been one of our worst trolls and antagonists.    I think sticking to facts is prudent.

The Fact is... Evan,  nearly 16 months ago put the question up to vote on whether or not we should burn the coins or relaunch the coin once it was discovered there were some technical issues with the launch.   We, the whole community at that time voted no,  leave it be.  I'll contact our Dev team and foundation board to chime in to explain this in more detail via PM.

[coins101]

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

So here is where we find the Trollero 'dev', out to campaign against the competition instead of 'dev'ing.

No, you said the Monero scam launch was not just a few coins.

This is what you said:

If you want to express the effect of the deliberately de-optimized miner in terms of the current supply of monero it would be around 2.5x (roughly 1/2.5 of the nominal total coin supply currently exists), so probably <2.5%.

If you want to express the effect of some people optimizing miners better than others, that might be as much as 12.5% or more if you consider that it goes on forever (for every coin, nothing special about Monero).

2.5% - 15%

You were there on launch day. If you weren't part of the scam, you should have looked at the code and discovered the scam built into the scam launch. So you were either lazy or incompetent. You can't be involved in the launch of a project involving people's money and just sit back and not inspect the code from a project you suspected as a scam.

The crippled launch code was there for one or two months. A kid found the exploit and joined in the scam. Who knows, maybe that was when the game was up, and they 'had' to do something.

Public evidence of the crippled code being used and abused

http://da-data.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/minting-money-with-monero-and-cpu.html

Quote from the guy who found them out:

The more I looked at it, the more clear it became:  The original developers deliberately crippled the miner.  It wasn't just slow, and it wasn't just naive;  it was deliberately obfuscated and made slow....

CMC you need to add a new note for known scam launch, admitted by the devs. Which they have admitted here on your thread. If you act on DASH based on their trolling, you need to take account of one of their lead devs admissions that their code was a scam at launch and at best he didn't check it, when he should have.

But the fact remains, Monero had a scam launch code baked in. No dispute.

We've admitted to the crippled miner.

They were even warned to check the code a week before the launch

@ OP: Pls take your time to discuss your project thoroughly before you start implementing! If this fork is made in a rush, in a rush it will be forgotten.
Pls take time to think about the best ways to do what you do. Thats all I ask for.

Good luck!

But they went ahead with the scam launch code, knowingly or otherwise.

[iCEBREAKER]

If the definition of premine is that a section of the coins were allocated to a selected party via changing the emission schedule, then Dash had a premine, as all of that was done in 2 days for Linux-only users "mainly Evan Duffield and co". Or changing the term from Premine to **Significantly fastmined* might be suited better.

Leaving it in the same category as other coins that did not ever change their emission schedule/block reward after launch is unfair.

Yes, it sets an unfair and horrible precedent for Gliss to excuse/ignore Dash's functional equivalent of a premine just because DashHoles make the excuse that it could technically be considered an instamine instead.

The quibbling over obviously overlapping definitions is the DashHoles acting like squids, shooting ink into the water to blind us as they escape from justice and transparency.

Gliss, how about adding a ***significant theoretical/actual emission divergence warning for coins with a high iCE FACTOR?