CoinMarketCap.com - Market Cap Rankings of All Cryptocurrencies!

[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).

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......

Just putting that comment into context.

Not wishing to dwell on it.

Obviously, as I said, in the case of Monero, we believe (subjectively) it was deliberate. But this isn't about Monero, it is about what coinmarketcap should track and report. There is nothing objective about it, and can't be applied broadly to a database of coins in any rational manner.

Let's stop discussing Monero or any specific coins here and stick to discussing what can be objectively reported by coinmarketcap that would be useful to people who are looking at a large database of coins.

[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.

Please then also add

^crip Launched with de-optimized or crippled code

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

then make minermarketcap.com

we are talking about coins not miners

[BlockaFett]

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.

FluffyPony I am still waiting for you to present the evidence of the Dash premine accusation that you were throwing around here yesterday:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=199685.msg11215773#msg11215773

And everything you said above is subjective - there is no way to know if you and Smooth were deliberately scamming or not with knowledge of the crippled miner.  You can cry about how it wasn't a scam but unfortunately the world doesn't work like that.  It happened and there is no way to know, so you trying to wriggle out of it isn't "factual" lol. I vote for scamming personally given your behavior on public forums, but that is just my opinion.  And I won't start pressuring 3rd party websites to try to agree with my subjective opinion and change their business model to become subjective info site rather than an objective info site based on that.  But you were certainly incompetent if not criminal.  

BTW:

"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"

Just FYI but it takes a lot more than screenshots to make a coin have value, like development, innovation, usefulness to a market, and credibility of the developers. Seems like Monero is struggling just to stay in the top 20 let alone trade at 0.01 BTC.

[coins101]

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....
-snip-

In that case, my suggestion reflects facts and is therefore relevant.

"Launched with de-optimized or crippled code."

Well done for creating a fix for the purposely deceptive code, if that is what you are saying. But I am pleased that you agree that the code was included as part of the launch package with an original intent to deceive, whatever its root origins.

[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....

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.

You're only reason for being here is to pressure Gliss to *change* CoinMarketCap's classification system to fit your purposes: denigrating Dash - The leading alt after LTC and your largest competitor with 6x you current valuation - at a time when your own valuation is sliding off a cliff.  

Gliss has said he would prefer not to change the rating system and I agree with that.  You don't, so you are still here trying to find new Orwellian classifications that don't classify Monero's launch as a scam - with code proven to let the developers (YOU) mine more coins than the shleps (YOUR INVESTORS) - but do classify Dash's launch as a scam - which noone can prove objectively what the intention was.

give it a break Smooth - credibility - zero.

[smooth]

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....
-snip-

In that case, my suggestion reflects facts and is therefore relevant.

"Launched with de-optimized or crippled code."

Well done for creating a fix for the purposely deceptive code, if that is what you are saying. But I am pleased that you agree that the code was included as part of the launch package with an original intent to deceive, whatever its root origins.

Again, there is no objectivity to that. "De-optimized" and "crippled" are totally subjective concepts.

Something like changing the mining schedule or coin supply is objective.

[smooth]

Gliss, here is a good idea of something to add to the site (or is it already there somewhere?):

IMO, if coinmarketcap wanted to add something useful to identify potential investment risk for true proof-of-work coins, the current annual inflation rate for each coin should be calculated and displayed.

[Lebubar]

Gliss,

smooth and fluffypony are in conflict of interest here. They are "official" (pseudo, so-called) "dev" of other coin, so their opinion in this debate = 0.

This is objectiveness. Conflict of interest = Your vote (and opinion) don't count.

What lack of ethics you have trolleros...

[Prosperityforall]

To Gliss,

Objectively speaking: A instamined currency would be one where the core features like block reward and coin supply were changed/did not go as planned, after launch that have benefitted a group of very early miners

Gliss is right that it needs to be objective, and the instamines we already know, such as the ones in Dash and Asiacoin, are objective, as the actual core parameters were changed. This rules out the need of saying subjective things like "Evan did the instamine on purpose", or "It was a total coincidence", since the objective proof of the instamine lies in the actual core features having changed(Practically the math behind the currency) after launch.

It probably is best to leave morals/speculation out of it no matter how probable..and just stick to what's known in the coin's history concerning it's parameters. In the case of Dash, it was instamined where it' actual block reward and coin supply were sliced after launch, obviously, hugely, benefitting very early miners. That is objective and therefore I believe it to be very reasonable to add a 'Instamine' currency filter for coins like Dash/Asiacoin and similar, especially since in the case of Dash, the 2million coin, 2 day instamine happened very early on and is not something a newcommer to crypto is likely to know about without research into the coin's history, and similar with Asiacoin where there was a hidden instamine that no one knew about until it was found coincidentally.

[Kuriso]

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.

How is it a conflict to have something removed that is not accurate?  Smooth, you've publicly stated you don't feel premine is equal to instamine.  You acknowledge that dark/dash was never premined but yet you are perfectly ok with them assigning this incorrect status.  Why?

When I asked you yesterday about the evidence you provided for a "premine", you said there was none.  You provided evidence of a instamine cloaked as a premine.  If the two are not the same why do you keep playing word games??

You are playing word games in an attempt to push your agenda.  This self fulfilling righteous witch hunt to rid crypto of scams and protect investors means nothing when you yourself cannot be honest in your intent.  The fact you continue to play these charades further proves you have no honest intent and you are not objective.  These actions are what turns your so called honest concerns into pure trolling.  Your only goal is to continue to bash dash in a feeble attempt to make monero some how look better.

I can think of several other coins, monero not one of those, right now that could and should be on your list but you only have your sights set on one.  If you were truly objective and worried about the safety of investors, why ignore the other coins with issues too?

[smooth]

Because I don't know the official public launch time for Dash. There were several statedIf it was mined before et
When I asked you yesterday about the evidence you provided for a "premine", you said there was none.  You provided evidence of a instamine cloaked as a premine.  If the two are not the same why do you keep playing word games??

I already explained that I can't figure out what Dash was because it didn't have a well-specified public launch time.

How can we tell if it was mined before its public launch if we can't figure out when that public launch was?

Anyway, let's move on. Obviously it isn't a clear enough premine to count as such for the purpose of coinmarketcap, which tends to want very specific and objective evidence for such things.

You are playing word games in an attempt to push your agenda.  This self fulfilling righteous witch hunt to rid crypto of scams and protect investors means nothing when you yourself cannot be honest in your intent.  The fact you continue to play these charades further proves you have no honest intent and you are not objective.  These actions are what turns your so called honest concerns into pure trolling.  You're only goal is to continue to bash dash in a feeble attempt to make monero some how look better.

I can think of several other coins, monero not one of those, right now that could and should be on your list but you only have your sights set on one.  If you were truly objective and worried about the safety of investors, why ignore the other coins with issues too?

I comment on what I know about, which at this point is obviously going to be coins that are more "visible" from the Monero perspective. If you want to share some of these other coins that are major scams and should be pursued as such, feel free to let me know about them. Obviously I don't have unlimited time but I do promise to at least take an honest look at what you give me. Fair enough?

[GingerAle]

i might as well weigh in here regarding defining an instamine:

I think the object way to do it is to indicate whether the emission curve ever deviates from the mathematical function that can fit 95% of the extant emission curve. I'm sure theres some mafs that can be applied here.

[nachoig]

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?

I agree, the true problem is changing the rules.

[kiklo]

@smooth

I love a good rant as much as the next guy, but there are limits.
This is the coinmarketcap forum not the Monero or Dash forums.

You guys have made your numerous suggestions,
But let's agree Coinmarketcap is offering a FREE, I repeat FREE service to the public.
As Such they get to define it however they see fit.

If you don't like the way they define things,
1. Mention it and see if they change it.
 (you have mentioned it over the past few pages)

If they don't change it , as it is their Right since they are providing the service for FREE.
1. Start your own Free Market reporting service, and quit whining about theirs.


 

[Lloydimiller4]

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.

How is it a conflict to have something removed that is not accurate?  Smooth, you've publicly stated you don't feel premine is equal to instamine.  You acknowledge that dark/dash was never premined but yet you are perfectly ok with them assigning this incorrect status.  Why?

When I asked you yesterday about the evidence you provided for a "premine", you said there was none.  You provided evidence of a instamine cloaked as a premine.  If the two are not the same why do you keep playing word games??

You are playing word games in an attempt to push your agenda.  This self fulfilling righteous witch hunt to rid crypto of scams and protect investors means nothing when you yourself cannot be honest in your intent.  The fact you continue to play these charades further proves you have no honest intent and you are not objective.  These actions are what turns your so called honest concerns into pure trolling.  Your only goal is to continue to bash dash in a feeble attempt to make monero some how look better.

I can think of several other coins, monero not one of those, right now that could and should be on your list but you only have your sights set on one.  If you were truly objective and worried about the safety of investors, why ignore the other coins with issues too?

I think the problem with figuring out how to label Dash as a premine or instamine comes because of what exactly happened. There is no denying the instamine, 2 million coins were mined in 48 hours, doesn't get much more instamined than that. There is the issue of labeling it a premine though, and I think the premine definition still fits because the date set to launch the coin was changed, and not announced publicly till after Evan started his instamine. Changing the set launch date 'on accident' and then starting to instamine surely counts as a premine, no?

Coinmarketcap should probably add a filter for instamined coins too, which in that case I think Dash would fit well to be filtered as a coin that had both an instamine and premine.

I don't think Smooth has any lack of interest in attacking other coins that come off as shady, or scammy, but Dash is a very big one, so it deserves more attention. Then there is the fact that there are often Dash trolls posting lies in the Monero thread....

[generalizethis]

@smooth

I love a good rant as much as the next guy, but there are limits.
This is the coinmarketcap forum not the Monero or Dash forums.

You guys have made your numerous suggestions,
But let's agree Coinmarketcap is offering a FREE, I repeat FREE service to the public.
As Such they get to define it however they see fit.

If you don't like the way they define things,
1. Mention it and see if they change it.
 (you have mentioned it over the past few pages)

If they don't change it , as it is their Right since they are providing the service for FREE.
1. Start your own Free Market reporting service, and quit whining about theirs.


 

Would it be hard to sync market data with a better looking site that uses devtome's analysis to give investors the best chance of avoiding scams and coins that are surreptitiously top-heavy?

It's weird that cmc lists premines but not instamines, but if they're unwilling to give total reporting, why not let the market decide on if it wants to know all the facts before investing? Maybe call it SturgeonsRazor.com?

[smooth]

I don't think Smooth has any lack of interest in attacking other coins that come off as shady, or scammy, but Dash is a very big one, so it deserves more attention. Then there is the fact that there are often Dash trolls posting lies in the Monero thread....

You are right. I've been extremely critical of all or nearly ICOs, for example. I consider that model to be sufficiently flawed by its nature that all or nearly all such coins can be considered scams by default, regardless of of whether or not any evidence of bad intent is visible. I guess those are marked on CMC as "significantly premined" so that part is good at least.

[Gliss]

For now, I feel it's best not to make any immediate changes to the filters.  If someone can come up with an objective and easily verifiable criteria for instamine that can be applied to all current and future mineable coins, I'll consider it.  Otherwise it's just going to be too much of a hassle to figure out how every new coin should get classified.

[iCEBREAKER]

For now, I feel it's best not to make any immediate changes to the filters.  If someone can come up with an objective and easily verifiable criteria for instamine that can be applied to all current and future mineable coins, I'll consider it.  Otherwise it's just going to be too much of a hassle to figure out how every new coin should get classified.

The burden is on the coin to demonstrate/prove it was not pre-mined.

Dash cannot do this, for reasons smooth explains very succinctly:

I can't figure out what Dash was because it didn't have a well-specified public launch time.

How can we tell if it was mined before its public launch if we can't figure out when that public launch was?

We're not talking about "every new coin" here.  Let's not defend the particular by retreating into the general.

The issue is whether or not the #3-by-market-cap, supposedly "non-premined" coin can actually be verified as "non-premined" and deserves to be excluded by the shitcoin filter.

You've just shown every new pre-mined coin how to game your system in the future: all they have to do is have an opaque/ambiguous initial public launch schedule and viola, premine filter avoided.

That is a mistake.  You should have stood by your original decision, and not let the DashHoles slide by the premine filter using slimy word games.

If you see a scam and don't say anything, you are a scammer.

[Lebubar]

Nice to ear about you Gliss.

To all Monero shills, crying baby. Stop spamming this thread now, if you want to discuss with him go through the official way, or PM him.
We ear you, no need to repeat trillions of times the sames things!
The number of Monero crying posting here is ridiculous. you are really loosing all credibility.
Stop crying.
Let the market and technology speak! Let focus on the future not the past...