CoinMarketCap.com - Market Cap Rankings of All Cryptocurrencies!

[Lebubar]

Nobody give a shit about your opinion.
There is conflict of interest here, so all what you are saying means nothing. You are loosing your time.
Nobody give a shit of someone opinion where there is conflict of interest.

So wait, when the Dash developers asked coinmarketcap to take the "significantly premined" tag off, was that a conflict of interest and something that should be disregarded?

Accurate evidence is accurate evidence, regardless of the source. Unless you can show the evidence to be inaccurate, conflict of evidence is a bullshit objection to evidence you don't like.

You are not objective :

There was nothing wrong with the history of Monero. It's one of if not the cleanest coins and launches in history.

[Jeff8247]

LOL edited because its not even worth it.

[Prosperityforall]

I don't agree -- I think a badly flawed retargeting that spews out an enormous number of blocks ahead of schedule is also an instamine. But in any case Dash created a large number of extra coins because the per-block reward was 500 when it should have been lower. Then they cut it, but never did anything about the extra coins (other than keep them).

The issue is how you define what is a good retargeting. People accuses some altcoins which used the same retargeting scheme of Bitcoin (each 2016 blocks) of being instamined just because the blocks were generated more faster because of the big and fast increases in the hash rate. But what developers can do about this?

As someone who've looked through currencies starting from Pandacoin to Blackcoin to Auroracoin, and beyond, I myself have never seen someone accuse an altcoin of having an instamine just because the blocks were generated fast, not once.

The only time I've seen altcoins accused of being an instamine, and rightly so, was Dash/Darkcoin because it had it's core paramters changed after the instamine occured, and coins like Asiacoin where it had a hidden instamine. That is why we need a new filter to filter out coins that had illegtimate instamines where the actual core parameters were changed after launch to benefit early miners.

Of course the most infamous example of a instamine is Dash.

[Prosperityforall]

From what I gathered:

. Dash/Darkcoin's developer, Evan Duffield, released the coin to the small pool of linux only miners(Of which he himself was one)

LMAO no one knows how to use Linux!! Linux only, thats just gold!!

Go do your homework, I didn't make the point of whether people can use Linux. I can use a airplane after a few years of training. The point that was made is that 90%+ of people who use computers use Windows with Linux compromising not even 5% of operaitng systems used worldwide.

The fact that mining was only available on one of the least used major operating systems shows that Evan Duffield and co. tried to get as much coins for himself/themselves as possible, further pushing the extreme likelihood that the instamine was premedidated or done on purpose.

[smooth]

I don't agree -- I think a badly flawed retargeting that spews out an enormous number of blocks ahead of schedule is also an instamine. But in any case Dash created a large number of extra coins because the per-block reward was 500 when it should have been lower. Then they cut it, but never did anything about the extra coins (other than keep them).

The issue is how you define what is a good retargeting.

Yes I agree, but I think there is a reasonable quantitative or quantitative standard. I asked before what constitutes a "significant" premine but there was no answer. Presumably there is some threshold below which it isn't considered "significantly premined". The same can apply to instamines.

LTC for example has about 1% of the current supply mined out by fast (2016 block) retargeting. That seems pretty insignificant to me, compared to say dash at 35%, which is obviously "significant".

[Lebubar]

^^^^^^^^
Non-objectivness detected...
Red flag!

[BlockaFett]

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.

You are correct. Dash and Monero cannot be compared in the slightest. Dash, as a fork of Litecoin at the time, suffered some issues that were related to the Litecoin code by a programmer new to the code base. It took a day or two to diagnose and fix and much longer to get a working explorer to figure out that so many blocks were created before the difficulty adjusted. There is no proof about the intentions of the developer. Monero on the other hand had code intentionally inserted with no other purpose than to make the built in miner inefficient at launch so that the developer could take advantage. Monero is the only coin being discussed here that was provably and intentionally manipulated by the developer to give themselves an advantage.

Personally, I think this is a very slippery slope. If we start trying to define new categories like "launch issues", "fast-mined" (which most PoS coins would fall into), "insta-mined", or other categories like "dishonest developer" - all categories with very subjective definitions - you'll end up in a slug-fest between competing coins trying to get their competition labeled. Thank you coinmarketcap for deciding to stay above the fray.

So much this...

Here the important word is : INTENTIONALLY, which make no doubt about Monero SCAM. Something intentional was made to give benefice of few over the others.
You got it... while other people are denying:

There was nothing wrong with the history of Monero. It's one of if not the cleanest coins and launches in history.

Just lol..

Bump for Smooth and his Monero goon squad

[nachoig]

As someone who've looked through currencies starting from Pandacoin to Blackcoin to Auroracoin, and beyond, I myself have never seen someone accuse an altcoin of having an instamine just because the blocks were generated fast, not once.

The only time I've seen altcoins accused of being an instamine, and rightly so, was Dash/Darkcoin because it had it's core paramters changed after the instamine occured, and coins like Asiacoin where it had a hidden instamine. That is why we need a new filter to filter out coins that had illegtimate instamines where the actual core parameters were changed after launch to benefit early miners.

Of course the most infamous example of a instamine is Dash.

Devtome putted Vertcoin, Peercoin and Litecoin in the questionable category because of this.
http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=a_massive_investigation_of_instamines_and_fastmines_for_the_top_alt_coins#questionable_cryptocurrency_alternatives

And Primecoin in the extreme caution section.
http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=a_massive_investigation_of_instamines_and_fastmines_for_the_top_alt_coins#primecoin

Yes I agree, but I think there is a reasonable quantitative or quantitative standard. I asked before what constitutes a "significant" premine but there was no answer. Presumably there is some threshold below which it isn't considered "significantly premined". The same can apply to instamines.

LTC for example has about 1% of the current supply mined out by fast (2016 block) retargeting. That seems pretty insignificant to me, comparted to say dash at 35%, which is obviously "significant".

Anyway I think it's hard to have a truly instamined coin just because of retargeting.

You have to create a scheme where the rewards are very low after the first blocks. Only difficult adjustement issues can't do this.

Also there are some coins which goes to this in a pre-programated way. Blackcoin, for example, had a very shot POW phase, just 1 week. Now it's not mineable anymore, but can do this called an instamine? This is the design from the day zero, which is very different from a coin which changes this afterwards.

[smooth]

You have to create a scheme where the rewards are very low after the first blocks. Only difficult adjustement issues can't do this.

What about coins like PPC where the rewards are automatically cut as the difficulty rises? There is no manipulation or changing of (the rules of) the parameters, but the mining is still pretty front-loaded in practice.

I don't see how you make an objective distinction between that and say BTC which is pre-programmed to cut in half every four years. Is it just a question of speed, or something else?

[BlockaFett]

You have to create a scheme where the rewards are very low after the first blocks. Only difficult adjustement issues can't do this.

What about coins like PPC where the rewards are automatically cut as the difficulty rises? There is no manipulation or changing of (the rules of) the parameters, but the mining is still pretty front-loaded in practice.

I don't see how you make an objective distinction between that and say BTC which is pre-programmed to cut in half every four years. Is it just a question of speed, or something else?

Please stop bullying Gliss to change CMC's category sytem to try to black-list each of your competitors and pump your bagholding sh*tcoin for you, Smooth.   You don't own CMC, and they already said they don't want to become subjective.  You have to be pretty thick to still be here crying like a 5 year old trying to find a definition that fits your scam and maybe CMC will accept.  

Take your Goon Squad and troll off....

cheers

[smooth]

You have to create a scheme where the rewards are very low after the first blocks. Only difficult adjustement issues can't do this.

What about coins like PPC where the rewards are automatically cut as the difficulty rises? There is no manipulation or changing of (the rules of) the parameters, but the mining is still pretty front-loaded in practice.

I don't see how you make an objective distinction between that and say BTC which is pre-programmed to cut in half every four years. Is it just a question of speed, or something else?

Please stop bullying Gliss to change CMC's category sytem to try to black-list each of your competitors and pump your bagholding sh*tcoin for you, Smooth.   You don't own CMC, and they already said they don't want to become subjective.  You have to be pretty thick to still be here crying like a 5 year old trying to find a definition that fits your scam and maybe CMC will accept.  

Take your Goon Squad and troll off....

If there is any bullying here, it is your "Goon squad" and "troll off" type comments.

Gliss presented three options and opened it for discussion (i.e. "until we can figure out a more appropriate solution"), which other than defensiveness, hostility, and thread derailing from Dash supporters has been reasonably constructive.

I recognize you would be very happy to shut down the discussion and have nothing done about disclosure of instamines. That much is obvious.

[Lebubar]

You are in conflict of interest.

Your opinion don't count, only peanuts.

You are not objective :

There was nothing wrong with the history of Monero. It's one of if not the cleanest coins and launches in history.

"If not THE CLEANEST",  i just can't stop loled.. Tks for this.

Edit : i just check the coinmarketcap site, and oh! Bytecoin +7% , trollero -16%..
Just stop it...

[arielbit]

i suggests this..

Dash    $ 15,935,866    $ 2.99    5,321,001 DASH ^{inst blck}


at the bottom of CMC there will be

* Not Mineable
** Significantly Premined
^inst Significantly Instamined
^blck block reward changed

this way instamined scam coins and block reward changing scams won't be CMC resistant.

[smooth]

Mining schedule/reward changes after launch is certainly a totally objective and questionable (at best) practice that can be noted sure. Likewise extra coins mined (but not burned) due to (alleged) bugs.

Gliss, what do you think about that idea?

[coins101]

i suggests this..

Dash    $ 15,935,866    $ 2.99    5,321,001 DASH ^{inst blck}


at the bottom of CMC there will be

* Not Mineable
** Significantly Premined
^inst Significantly Instamined
^blck block reward changed

this way instamined scam coins and block reward changing scams won't be CMC resistant.

Please then also add

^crip Launched with de-optimized or crippled code

That is historically factual, and admitted by the project and its devs.

[smooth]

i suggests this..

Dash    $ 15,935,866    $ 2.99    5,321,001 DASH ^{inst blck}


at the bottom of CMC there will be

* Not Mineable
** Significantly Premined
^inst Significantly Instamined
^blck block reward changed

this way instamined scam coins and block reward changing scams won't be CMC resistant.

Please then also add

^crip Launched with de-optimized or crippled code

That is historically factual, and admitted by the project and its devs.

It's not objective, which is what Gliss said he wants. Take Monero for example. We think it was crippled, but who is to say. Maybe the original developers were just retarded, or maybe we don't even know what we're talking about. Moreover, who is going to evaluate all these mining functions from various coins and make a determination. It isn't something that can be determined objectively by a simple rule (or at all).

[illodin]

linux only miners(Of which he himself was one)

Linux is free, freely available and relatively use to use.

If you claim this to be an issue, then for you its use is only prevented by evolutionary disadvantage.

Over 90% of all people that own a computer use Windows, not the still relatively unpopular Linux. Please go and learn logic, then come back to me.

Do you think over 90% of the people that mine crypto coins don't have access to Linux computer?

[smooth]

linux only miners(Of which he himself was one)

Linux is free, freely available and relatively use to use.

If you claim this to be an issue, then for you its use is only prevented by evolutionary disadvantage.

Over 90% of all people that own a computer use Windows, not the still relatively unpopular Linux. Please go and learn logic, then come back to me.

Do you think over 90% of the people that mine crypto coins don't have access to Linux computer?

You guys should take this elsewhere unless you are proposing coinmarketcap to track and report which operating systems are supported by a coin and when it is supported. That's fairly absurd.

[fluffypony]

Please then also add

^crip Launched with de-optimized or crippled code

That is historically factual, and admitted by the project and its devs.

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

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

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

We could have kept the fix to ourselves and just mined away, amassing a fat stash of XMR. We were under no obligation to release the code for a faster miner, we weren't even in a position of stewardship of the Monero project, we were just a bunch of enthusiasts. If we'd mined for a year with the improved miner we could easily have controlled 90% of the hash rate between us (the improved miner was 12x faster than the original) and mined several million XMR. We could've thrown a flashy GUI together, made wild promises of all sorts of stuff we were going to create (with screenshots) and slowly dumped our stash on an overexcited market.

The 7 members of the Monero core team could be USD millionaires today if we had done that. If I had to throw some numbers out, we'd probably have been able to accumulate around 5.5 million XMR, so 785 000 XMR each. At the current spot price thats only $345 000 for each of us, but since we'd be pumping out screenshots and other flashy nonsense I'm sure we'd be trading over 0.01 BTC, which would put our stash at a cool $1.73 million for each of us (and the total stash would be worth $12 million).

Something to think about.

[smooth]

Kind of off topic here. Let's be respectful and stick to discussing cmc?