SCAM Darkcoin instamine 2 millions DRKs (50% of darkcoin in circulation)

[BlockaFett]

Hi Fluffy

Sorry there seems to be some confusion.

You are making 2 claims here:

1. That Evan Duffield "mined 15% of the total currency with his buddies within a few hours of launch"

2. That Evan Duffield is "a scammer" (because that implies fraud)

It is public knowledge that the DRK launch was open to anyone with Linux and on a BCT thread.  This means anyone checking the ANN list (as a lot of people were at the time including me) could have mined them.

You are suggesting that you have evidence that Even and some associates mined 15% of the currency.

Incidentally, the 15% figure is what I took from here: http://en.wiki.dashninja.pl/wiki/FAQ#Was_Darkcoin_Instamined.3F - in actuality it's just over 9%.

In court you have to prove this, supposition doesn't matter, especially as it was an open launch on the most popular forum.

On the contrary, lawyers mostly argue precisely over supposition. For instance: "we know Mary hated Sue, but did she hate Sue enough to kill her? We think so, because Mary wrote in her diary that she 'could ring Sue's neck' the day before Sue died from strangulation" from which the judge, or jury if you're in the USA, can convict Mary despite there being little to no "evidence" by your strict (and incorrect from a legal perspective) definition of "proof".

Think about this: what evidence in the legal system *isn't* circumstantial evidence? If Mary's DNA was found at the scene is that not circumstantial evidence? Of course it is, she could've been there that day to resolve her issues with sue. Since all evidence is circumstantial, what really is "proof" from a legal point of view?

Well, in the criminal justice system prima facie evidence (even if it is what you call "supposition") is often considered on the basis of a ruling being beyond reasonable doubt. For civil cases (fraud being special in most countries, as it can be tried under criminal and/or civil law) it's a bit different, as the evidence is considered on a balance of probabilities.

Thus in this open discussion the burden of proof need not be even as exact as a balance of probabilities, but for the purpose of your argument I have provided prima facie evidence that demonstrates, on a balance of probabilities, the following:

1. Evan chose not to relaunch Darkcoin a second time after (by his own admission) he messed it up. He had reason to relaunch, and he had already established that it was not difficult to do. Thus the evidence speaks to him willingly choosing not to.

2. Evan lied about not knowing how many coins had been mined by the time he fixed the emission problem at block 4500.

3. Evan stalled the release of a Windows client to purposely cripple those who would have mined the currency at launch.

Now that I've presented my circumstantial evidence for a second time, why don't you present some counter-evidence of your own?

If you were in court and you made this claim, the defense attorney would simply ask "anyone could have mined DRK from that forum, but you are claiming that 15% of it was mined by Mr Duffield.  How did you come to this % number, and how do you know this wasn't mined by other people instead?"

I.e. in legal terms you would be trying to prove a negative; there is no way that you can prove that Evan mined 15% of the coins or any % for that matter without evidence showing who mined what.  

Which is why I assumed as a lead dev of a top 20 coin, you would have some actual evidence for the % that Evan mined that no one else has seen, before you put your neck out like that in making such a serious accusation.  But as everyone can see, you don't...

EDIT: you have still not addressed anything to justify your additional claim of fraud on the part of Evan.  Care to do that here?

[Hypnotique]

Bitcoin wasn't instamined. 1 million bitcoins were mined after roughly 6 months.

The Evan Duffield scammer instamined 2+ million in 48 hours. See the difference?

get your facts straight

Those facts would be what exactly?

1,000,000 coins divided by 7200 coins / day (50 coins per block * 6 blocks per hour * 24 hours in a day) = 138 days.

[generalizethis]

www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fraud&allowed_in_frame=0


If 500k coins in an hour is an instamine
and Evan claims in the literature that it wasn't an instamine
then Evan is fraudulent if 500k coins were mined in the first hour.




Then again Evan may be really stupid and not know what words mean, either way I don't want him running a project I'm involved with or getting others to risk their money without knowing all the details.

[BlockaFett]

www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fraud&allowed_in_frame=0


If 500k coins in an hour is an instamine
and Evan claims in the literature that it wasn't an instamine
then Evan is fraudulent if 500k coins were mined in the first hour.




Then again Evan may be really stupid and not know what words mean, either way I don't want him running a project I'm involved with or getting others to risk their money without knowing all the details.

you are confused on your definitions, dude.

[fartbags]

If anyone is actually interested in taking all the instamined coins away, you can fork the code, start a new blockchain and eliminate those coins.

[generalizethis]

I'll just write something and hope the syllogism disappears.

Yeah, that's the confusion 

Re-read until your cognitive dissonance clears up.

www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fraud&allowed_in_frame=0


If 500k coins in an hour is an instamine
and Evan claims in the literature that it wasn't an instamine
then Evan is fraudulent if 500k coins were mined in the first hour.



Then again Evan may be really stupid and not know what words mean, either way I don't want him running a project I'm involved with or getting others to risk their money without knowing all the details.

[smooth]

Monero idealists are saying it doesn't matter that the hashrate is dominated by botnets.

Off topic for the thread but in point of fact there isn't really any evidence that Monero hashrate is "dominated" by botnets. I'm sure there are bots mining but the fact that I can mine at a profit on my own equipment (and have done so for months) while paying for electricity is very strong evidence that their involvement is limited.

[Lebubar]

I'll just write something and hope the syllogism disappears.

Yeah, that's the confusion 

Re-read until your cognitive dissonance clears up.

www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fraud&allowed_in_frame=0


If 500k coins in an hour is an instamine
and Evan claims in the literature that it wasn't an instamine
then Evan is fraudulent if 500k coins were mined in the first hour.



Then again Evan may be really stupid and not know what words mean, either way I don't want him running a project I'm involved with or getting others to risk their money without knowing all the details.

Where he say that it was not instamined???

Copy of the wiki :
"Was Darkcoin Instamined?
~2mn coins were issued in the first 48 hours due to problems with the difficulty readjustment. That represents approximately 10-15% of the total money supply that will ever be issued.

The majority of these coins were distributed through the market in the following weeks and months at very low price levels* (0.0000x BTC per DRK to 0.000x BTC per DRK) and a lot of them were also absorbed in the April/May 2014 price increase.

• Examples of prices and selling action almost two weeks after launch:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg4861558#msg4861558

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg4889177#msg4889177

• Forum member coins101 did a blockchain analysis of Darkcoins distribution as of September 2014:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=778616.0"

[BlockaFett]

I'll just write something and hope the syllogism disappears.

Yeah, that's the confusion  

Re-read until your cognitive dissonance clears up.

www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fraud&allowed_in_frame=0


If 500k coins in an hour is an instamine
and Evan claims in the literature that it wasn't an instamine
then Evan is fraudulent if 500k coins were mined in the first hour.



Then again Evan may be really stupid and not know what words mean, either way I don't want him running a project I'm involved with or getting others to risk their money without knowing all the details.

apparently you are confused on logic as well, because with your definition 'the fraud' is a logical syllergy of course.  It's the definition (the axioms in your syllergistic logic) that are confused, because instamine just mean fast emission.  Saying that is a fraud is an additional step, you have to know who instamined them and then they have to have claimed not to have done that to acquire money..  Which seeing as it was launched on a public forum, and the dev gave a full account, you can't.

Maybe learn about cognitive dissonance too; presenting a tautology to prove an argument where you have confused the definitions means that your argument demonstrate cognitive dissonance, it doesn't mean that generically someone you disagree with is wrong?

[generalizethis]

I'll just write something and hope the syllogism disappears.

Yeah, that's the confusion 

Re-read until your cognitive dissonance clears up.

www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fraud&allowed_in_frame=0





Then again Evan may be really stupid and not know what words mean, either way I don't want him running a project I'm involved with or getting others to risk their money without knowing all the details.

apparently you are confused on logic as well, because with your definition 'the fraud' is a logical syllergy of course.  It's the definition (the axioms in your syllergistic logic) that are confused, because instamine just mean fast emission.  Saying that is a fraud is an additional step, you have to know who instamined them..  Which seeing as it was launched on a public forum, you can't.

Maybe learn about cognitive dissonance too; presenting a tautology to prove an argument where you have confused the definitions means that your argument demonstrate cognitive dissonance, it doesn't mean that generically someone you disagree with is wrong?

If 500k coins in an hour is an instamine
and Evan claims in the literature that it wasn't an instamine
then Evan is fraudulent if 500k coins were mined in the first hour.

I don't need to prove what the word fraudulent means anymore than I need to prove what the word If means. The definition was provided for you as I don't think you know what it means. The syllogism stands because Evan continues to misrepresent the fact that there was an instamine. You can haggle over what constitutes an instamine, but not that Evan was aware of the amount of coins mined or that he has never admitted to it as an instamine. So either reinvent what an instamine is in most people's opinion or STFU and stop wasting my time.

I did give him the out of being stupid by the way. Because he may be like you and not think 500k in an hour constitutes an instamine.

[BlockaFett]

I'll just write something and hope the syllogism disappears.

Yeah, that's the confusion 

Re-read until your cognitive dissonance clears up.

www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fraud&allowed_in_frame=0





Then again Evan may be really stupid and not know what words mean, either way I don't want him running a project I'm involved with or getting others to risk their money without knowing all the details.

apparently you are confused on logic as well, because with your definition 'the fraud' is a logical syllergy of course.  It's the definition (the axioms in your syllergistic logic) that are confused, because instamine just mean fast emission.  Saying that is a fraud is an additional step, you have to know who instamined them..  Which seeing as it was launched on a public forum, you can't.

Maybe learn about cognitive dissonance too; presenting a tautology to prove an argument where you have confused the definitions means that your argument demonstrate cognitive dissonance, it doesn't mean that generically someone you disagree with is wrong?

If 500k coins in an hour is an instamine
and Evan claims in the literature that it wasn't an instamine
then Evan is fraudulent if 500k coins were mined in the first hour.

I don't need to prove what the word fraudulent means anymore than I need to prove what the word If means. The definition was provided for you as I don't think you know what it means. The syllogism stands because Evan continues to misrepresent the fact that there was an instamine. You can haggle over what constitutes an instamine, but not that Evan was aware of the amount of coins mined or that he has never admitted to it as an instamine. So either reinvent what an instamine is in most people's opinion or STFU and stop wasting my time.

I did give him the out of being stupid by the way. Because he may be like you and not think 500k in an hour constitutes an instamine.

Wrong on so many levels, don't know where to begin (or be bothered too - sorry )

[generalizethis]

I'll just write something and hope the syllogism disappears.

Yeah, that's the confusion  

Re-read until your cognitive dissonance clears up.

www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fraud&allowed_in_frame=0


If 500k coins in an hour is an instamine
and Evan claims in the literature that it wasn't an instamine
then Evan is fraudulent if 500k coins were mined in the first hour.



Then again Evan may be really stupid and not know what words mean, either way I don't want him running a project I'm involved with or getting others to risk their money without knowing all the details.

Where he say that it was not instamined???

Copy of the wiki :
"Was Darkcoin Instamined?
~2mn coins were issued in the first 48 hours due to problems with the difficulty readjustment. That represents approximately 10-15% of the total money supply that will ever be issued.

The majority of these coins were distributed through the market in the following weeks and months at very low price levels* (0.0000x BTC per DRK to 0.000x BTC per DRK) and a lot of them were also absorbed in the April/May 2014 price increase.

• Examples of prices and selling action almost two weeks after launch:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg4861558#msg4861558

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg4889177#msg4889177

• Forum member coins101 did a blockchain analysis of Darkcoins distribution as of September 2014:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=778616.0"

Now have Evan put in writing that Dash coin was instamined, so I can make it my signature--then I'll be satisfied. Because what you have there is qualifying it without saying it and then claiming that it was redistributed fairly--not the same thing in most anyone's book. And where was that found? Was it on the main page of the Dashcoin page or tucked into the Q and A section where only someone looking for it or who stumbled on it while looking for another answer would see it?

[generalizethis]

I'll just write something and hope the syllogism disappears.

Yeah, that's the confusion 

Re-read until your cognitive dissonance clears up.

www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fraud&allowed_in_frame=0





Then again Evan may be really stupid and not know what words mean, either way I don't want him running a project I'm involved with or getting others to risk their money without knowing all the details.

apparently you are confused on logic as well, because with your definition 'the fraud' is a logical syllergy of course.  It's the definition (the axioms in your syllergistic logic) that are confused, because instamine just mean fast emission.  Saying that is a fraud is an additional step, you have to know who instamined them..  Which seeing as it was launched on a public forum, you can't.

Maybe learn about cognitive dissonance too; presenting a tautology to prove an argument where you have confused the definitions means that your argument demonstrate cognitive dissonance, it doesn't mean that generically someone you disagree with is wrong?

If 500k coins in an hour is an instamine
and Evan claims in the literature that it wasn't an instamine
then Evan is fraudulent if 500k coins were mined in the first hour.

I don't need to prove what the word fraudulent means anymore than I need to prove what the word If means. The definition was provided for you as I don't think you know what it means. The syllogism stands because Evan continues to misrepresent the fact that there was an instamine. You can haggle over what constitutes an instamine, but not that Evan was aware of the amount of coins mined or that he has never admitted to it as an instamine. So either reinvent what an instamine is in most people's opinion or STFU and stop wasting my time.

I did give him the out of being stupid by the way. Because he may be like you and not think 500k in an hour constitutes an instamine.

Wrong on so many levels, don't know where to begin (or be bothered too - sorry )

Blocka, the only time you shut up is when you're wrong and are too stupid or too cowardly to admit it. So which is it.

[BlockaFett]

I'll just write something and hope the syllogism disappears.

Yeah, that's the confusion  

Re-read until your cognitive dissonance clears up.

www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fraud&allowed_in_frame=0


If 500k coins in an hour is an instamine
and Evan claims in the literature that it wasn't an instamine
then Evan is fraudulent if 500k coins were mined in the first hour.



Then again Evan may be really stupid and not know what words mean, either way I don't want him running a project I'm involved with or getting others to risk their money without knowing all the details.

Where he say that it was not instamined???

Copy of the wiki :
"Was Darkcoin Instamined?
~2mn coins were issued in the first 48 hours due to problems with the difficulty readjustment. That represents approximately 10-15% of the total money supply that will ever be issued.

The majority of these coins were distributed through the market in the following weeks and months at very low price levels* (0.0000x BTC per DRK to 0.000x BTC per DRK) and a lot of them were also absorbed in the April/May 2014 price increase.

• Examples of prices and selling action almost two weeks after launch:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg4861558#msg4861558

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg4889177#msg4889177

• Forum member coins101 did a blockchain analysis of Darkcoins distribution as of September 2014:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=778616.0"

Now have Evan put in writing that Dash coin was instamined, so I can make it my signature--then I'll be satisfied. Because what you have there is qualifying it without saying it and then claiming that it was redistributed fairly--not the same thing in most anyone's book. And where was that found? Was it on the main page of the Dashcoin page or tucked into the Q and A section where only someone looking for it or who stumbled on it while looking for another answer would see it?

Instamine isn't fraud you dolt.  That's why Coin Market Cap doesn't list instamines lol.  Fraud is when you defraud someone.  

Monero community is clinging to this word 'instamine' as it's the only criticism of Dash it can find.  And it wants to hurt Dash because (aparently) Monero has zero unique features or innovation so it's the only way it can continue.

Very sad to witness...

[smooth]

Instamine isn't fraud you dolt.  That's why Coin Market Cap doesn't list instamines lol.  Fraud is when you defraud someone.  

wikipedia: "In law, fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain."

The various misleading and deceptive statements made by Evan (and in some cases continue to be disseminated by the dash community in the FAQ) are outlined and documented with specific quotes here.

Monero supporters criticize dash because: a) it is an instamine scam (which dooms its already-minimal prospects for lasting success), b) its technology is weak and poorly designed, and c) the project and technology are inherently centralized (as explained by your whistleblower former core developer vertoe)

The strength and innovation of Monero's cryptonote techonology is well documented.

[qwizzie]

Wow look at that rise of Dash, 12% increase over the last 24 hours  



and it just keeps that rank 4 on http://coinmarketcap.com/ too, the market seems to really like Dash.

Its like nothing can get this coin down anymore, not the long dead posts that desperate trolls keep bumping up from ages ago
and certainly not any trolls posting pathetic looking posts like ''Does EVAN DUFFIELD regret instamining DRK/DASH at 100x emission?''
or ''we should contact the authorities!!''.

Oh well, i guess its business as usual for Dash + one sweet looking development teaser concept :
https://dashtalk.org/threads/self-sustainable-decentralized-governance-by-blockchain.4708/

edit : oh uhm.. carry on guys with this thread, i'm sure it matters to someone ... somewhere .. in a galaxy far far away


 

[smooth]

https://dashtalk.org/threads/self-sustainable-decentralized-governance-by-blockchain.4708/

Great, so the instaminers (35% of the current supply) and a few other whales can vote everything in their favor forever, whitewashing the centralization with a veneer of "decentralization." Its the dash way.

[generalizethis]

I'll just write something and hope the syllogism disappears.

Yeah, that's the confusion  

Re-read until your cognitive dissonance clears up.

www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fraud&allowed_in_frame=0


If 500k coins in an hour is an instamine
and Evan claims in the literature that it wasn't an instamine
then Evan is fraudulent if 500k coins were mined in the first hour.



Then again Evan may be really stupid and not know what words mean, either way I don't want him running a project I'm involved with or getting others to risk their money without knowing all the details.

Where he say that it was not instamined???

Copy of the wiki :
"Was Darkcoin Instamined?
~2mn coins were issued in the first 48 hours due to problems with the difficulty readjustment. That represents approximately 10-15% of the total money supply that will ever be issued.

The majority of these coins were distributed through the market in the following weeks and months at very low price levels* (0.0000x BTC per DRK to 0.000x BTC per DRK) and a lot of them were also absorbed in the April/May 2014 price increase.

• Examples of prices and selling action almost two weeks after launch:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg4861558#msg4861558

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg4889177#msg4889177

• Forum member coins101 did a blockchain analysis of Darkcoins distribution as of September 2014:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=778616.0"

Now have Evan put in writing that Dash coin was instamined, so I can make it my signature--then I'll be satisfied. Because what you have there is qualifying it without saying it and then claiming that it was redistributed fairly--not the same thing in most anyone's book. And where was that found? Was it on the main page of the Dashcoin page or tucked into the Q and A section where only someone looking for it or who stumbled on it while looking for another answer would see it?

Instamine isn't fraud you dolt.  That's why Coin Market Cap doesn't list instamines lol.  Fraud is when you defraud someone.  

Monero community is clinging to this word 'instamine' as it's the only criticism of Dash it can find.  And it wants to hurt Dash because (aparently) Monero has zero unique features or innovation so it's the only way it can continue.

Very sad to witness...

This is why I provided the definition of fraud which you obviously didn't read and proved my intuition about you correct.

fraud (n.) Look up fraud at Dictionary.com
mid-14c., "criminal deception" (mid-13c. in Anglo-Latin); from Old French fraude "deception, fraud" (13c.), from Latin fraudem (nominative fraus) "a cheating, deceit," of persons "a cheater, deceiver." Not in Watkins; perhaps ultimately from PIE *dhreugh- "to deceive" (cognates: Sanskrit dhruti- "deception; error"). Meaning "a fraudulent production, something intended to deceive" is from 1650s. The meaning "impostor, deceiver, pretender; humbug" is attested from 1850. Pious fraud (1560s) is properly "deception practiced for the sake of what is deemed a good purpose;" colloquially used as "person who talks piously but is not pious at heart."

Instamining a coin but never admitting it in literature or in media is a deceptive (fraudulent) act and cryptocoinmarketcap should delist dashcoin. Thank you for making my case.

[BlockaFett]

Instamine isn't fraud you dolt.  That's why Coin Market Cap doesn't list instamines lol.  Fraud is when you defraud someone.  

wikipedia: "In law, fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain."

The various misleading and deceptive statements made by Evan (and in some cases continue to be disseminated by the dash community in the FAQ) are outlined and documented with specific quotes here.

Monero supporters criticize dash because: a) it is an instamine scam (which dooms its already-minimal prospects for lasting success), b) its technology is weak and poorly designed, and c) the project and technology are inherently centralized (as explained by your whistleblower former core developer vertoe)

The strength and innovation of Monero's cryptonote techonology is well documented.

Sure Smoothie.  But for investment advice, I would rather write to Bernie Madoff in jail and ask for his opionions.  Sorry, you are widely known as a pure troll posing as a dev...

[BlockaFett]

I'll just write something and hope the syllogism disappears.

Yeah, that's the confusion  

Re-read until your cognitive dissonance clears up.

www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fraud&allowed_in_frame=0


If 500k coins in an hour is an instamine
and Evan claims in the literature that it wasn't an instamine
then Evan is fraudulent if 500k coins were mined in the first hour.



Then again Evan may be really stupid and not know what words mean, either way I don't want him running a project I'm involved with or getting others to risk their money without knowing all the details.

Where he say that it was not instamined???

Copy of the wiki :
"Was Darkcoin Instamined?
~2mn coins were issued in the first 48 hours due to problems with the difficulty readjustment. That represents approximately 10-15% of the total money supply that will ever be issued.

The majority of these coins were distributed through the market in the following weeks and months at very low price levels* (0.0000x BTC per DRK to 0.000x BTC per DRK) and a lot of them were also absorbed in the April/May 2014 price increase.

• Examples of prices and selling action almost two weeks after launch:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg4861558#msg4861558

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg4889177#msg4889177

• Forum member coins101 did a blockchain analysis of Darkcoins distribution as of September 2014:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=778616.0"

Now have Evan put in writing that Dash coin was instamined, so I can make it my signature--then I'll be satisfied. Because what you have there is qualifying it without saying it and then claiming that it was redistributed fairly--not the same thing in most anyone's book. And where was that found? Was it on the main page of the Dashcoin page or tucked into the Q and A section where only someone looking for it or who stumbled on it while looking for another answer would see it?

Instamine isn't fraud you dolt.  That's why Coin Market Cap doesn't list instamines lol.  Fraud is when you defraud someone.  

Monero community is clinging to this word 'instamine' as it's the only criticism of Dash it can find.  And it wants to hurt Dash because (aparently) Monero has zero unique features or innovation so it's the only way it can continue.

Very sad to witness...

This is why I provided the definition of fraud which you obviously didn't read and proved my intuition about you correct.

fraud (n.) Look up fraud at Dictionary.com
mid-14c., "criminal deception" (mid-13c. in Anglo-Latin); from Old French fraude "deception, fraud" (13c.), from Latin fraudem (nominative fraus) "a cheating, deceit," of persons "a cheater, deceiver." Not in Watkins; perhaps ultimately from PIE *dhreugh- "to deceive" (cognates: Sanskrit dhruti- "deception; error"). Meaning "a fraudulent production, something intended to deceive" is from 1650s. The meaning "impostor, deceiver, pretender; humbug" is attested from 1850. Pious fraud (1560s) is properly "deception practiced for the sake of what is deemed a good purpose;" colloquially used as "person who talks piously but is not pious at heart."

Instamining a coin but never admitting it in literature or in media is a deceptive (fraudulent) act and cryptocoinmarketcap should delist dashcoin. Thank you for making my case.

Basically, you're sounding like an idiot because you keep accusing Evan of instamining, but you have no proof of how many coins he mined or where they went.  Not worth me continuing.  

If you can produce physical evidence of how many coins Evan mined and then show that he decieved users from that, you have a case.

But you can't prove a negative, without evidence, you, Smooth, Fluffy are the fraudsters, using libel and slander to pump your sh*tcoin.  Sorry but enough...