Bitcoin Forum
November 18, 2017, 01:09:21 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: DRK vs XMR warez  (Read 12984 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic.
toknormal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442


View Profile
February 21, 2015, 10:56:49 PM
 #21



1510967361
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1510967361

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1510967361
Reply with quote  #2

1510967361
Report to moderator
Coinlancer is Disrupting the Freelance marketplace!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1510967361
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1510967361

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1510967361
Reply with quote  #2

1510967361
Report to moderator
NemesisT
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 17


View Profile
February 22, 2015, 02:32:51 AM
 #22

Monero already won, you can all stop pretending an instamined scam even matter at this point.
stealth923
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
February 22, 2015, 03:02:05 AM
 #23

Monero already won, you can all stop pretending an instamined scam even matter at this point.

I guess you have never seen coinmarket cap....Monero #20....Darkcoin #5....

Darkcoin has 7x the value and 7x the volume.

Monero doesnt even have an official wallet GUI.....and zero adoption - have fun!

rustynailer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 726


Boycott Qatar 2022


View Profile
February 22, 2015, 03:02:56 AM
 #24

Why even compare those two coins when Shadow (sdc) beats them all in privacy, distribution and usability.
PoS
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 187


If you can be anything, be kind and fair


View Profile
February 22, 2015, 08:44:08 AM
 #25


[1] - stop with the instamined crap. It wasn't and everyone's bored with that year-old stale fud


I could have sworn I saw some pretty good evidence that there was in fact a large instamine. I remember seeing graphs and such. The number 2 million seems to ring a bell, but I'm not sure.
Unlike conventional instamines where devs stash diminishes over time in this scam the dev stash gets bigger with his masternode payments every passing day, together with early whales making it totally centralized.
It is a dead coin walking, the only good thing no execution date is set.

toknormal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442


View Profile
February 22, 2015, 10:25:33 AM
 #26


Lets see:



Meanwhile......







Kienbui
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 247


View Profile WWW
February 22, 2015, 01:58:56 PM
 #27

Monero already won, you can all stop pretending an instamined scam even matter at this point.

With great benefit to creator, Darkcoin can keep its creator continue to innovate. By the other hand Monero creators can easily drop Monero to follow their other dreams. They don't have enought benefit to stick with it.

With master nodes, Darkcoin can attract more talent tech gurus come and bring more value.

nakaone
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
February 22, 2015, 02:09:56 PM
 #28

when you really break it down and assume they are both not pnd shitcoins the winner will be the one who offers the best way to reach privacy, because this is the niche they are aiming for.

now you can start to think about which groups like privacy and start making assumptions about whether the utility of privacy is elastic or non-elastic.

after that you probably have the winner - or you conclude that this coin is not invented at all at this point of time.



illodin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


View Profile
February 22, 2015, 02:15:04 PM
 #29

when you really break it down and assume they are both not pnd shitcoins the winner will be the one who offers the best way to reach privacy, because this is the niche they are aiming for.

now you can start to think about which groups like privacy and start making assumptions about whether the utility of privacy is elastic or non-elastic.

after that you probably have the winner - or you conclude that this coin is not invented at all at this point of time.

Privacy is not the only niche DRK excels at. Real-time transaction confirmations is another feature that might be essential for some, and useful for everyone, and all of its applications are not yet discovered. Masternodes offer an investing opportunity for those who are not into mining, and the features and applications that could be built on top of the masternode network open up a lot of new possibilities.
Este Nuno
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


amarha


View Profile
February 22, 2015, 04:05:55 PM
 #30

One thing that I've noticed is that the instamine seems to actually have turned out to be a good thing for DRK(in the short term at least) as it clearly gives Evan Duffield a massive incentive to continue to develop and foster growth. Also it enables funding to further the project and it seems that DRK has been pretty consistent with development. Personally I completely dismissed DRK at some point last year and I'm surprised to see that it's continued to do fairly well. But it makes sense because the incentives are aligned with continued development. Long term though single individuals holding so much supply can be dangerous. Even Bitcoin has this same issue though with Satoshi.

Contrast this to XMR where developer funding is a big problem. The XMR devs have put a very large amount of their own money in to paying for research and code reviews and such. And from what I've read the entire team holds less than 80k XMR between them(7 people?). This has been used as a selling point by some people in the XMR community as evidence of a fair distribution, which it seems to be. But fair in the short term doesn't necessarily equate to a situation where those who have the ability to produce the most value actually have the resources to do so. So we get to see the trade offs here between two currencies with similar goals.

edit: that 80k XMR number is probably way out date and doesn't consider the likelyhood that they've all bought more since the price has come down quite a bit.
nakaone
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
February 22, 2015, 05:24:43 PM
 #31

when you really break it down and assume they are both not pnd shitcoins the winner will be the one who offers the best way to reach privacy, because this is the niche they are aiming for.

now you can start to think about which groups like privacy and start making assumptions about whether the utility of privacy is elastic or non-elastic.

after that you probably have the winner - or you conclude that this coin is not invented at all at this point of time.

Privacy is not the only niche DRK excels at. Real-time transaction confirmations is another feature that might be essential for some, and useful for everyone, and all of its applications are not yet discovered. Masternodes offer an investing opportunity for those who are not into mining, and the features and applications that could be built on top of the masternode network open up a lot of new possibilities.


exactly - drk is in my opinion the most innovative bitcoin fork which exists (and probably the best).

additionally it has some interesting incentive structures

nevertheless it is a fork of bitcoin and the basic architecture of bitcoin is a transparent blockchain.

I believe in two things at least mid-term. a) no coin will replace bitcoin b) there are small niches which can be filled, the biggest of the small niches is privacy.

XMR is by core private - privacy has a non-elastic utility, therefore at this point of time there is no real competitor to xmr for this niche. money is an institution and economic network effects matter in cryptocurrency, therefore the likelyhood of xmr (in case it can solve its technical merits) for being the dominant private ledger is a this point quite high.

last year there was this altcoin observer started bie rpietela and the first 50 pages are worth reading for every person being interested in cryptoeconomics, especially the posts by PeterR are nuggets

BCwinning
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658


View Profile
February 22, 2015, 08:02:35 PM
 #32

One thing that I've noticed is that the instamine seems to actually have turned out to be a good thing for DRK(in the short term at least) as it clearly gives Evan Duffield a massive incentive to continue to develop and foster growth. Also it enables funding to further the project and it seems that DRK has been pretty consistent with development. Personally I completely dismissed DRK at some point last year and I'm surprised to see that it's continued to do fairly well. But it makes sense because the incentives are aligned with continued development. Long term though single individuals holding so much supply can be dangerous. Even Bitcoin has this same issue though with Satoshi.

Contrast this to XMR where developer funding is a big problem. The XMR devs have put a very large amount of their own money in to paying for research and code reviews and such. And from what I've read the entire team holds less than 80k XMR between them(7 people?). This has been used as a selling point by some people in the XMR community as evidence of a fair distribution, which it seems to be. But fair in the short term doesn't necessarily equate to a situation where those who have the ability to produce the most value actually have the resources to do so. So we get to see the trade offs here between two currencies with similar goals.

edit: that 80k XMR number is probably way out date and doesn't consider the likelyhood that they've all bought more since the price has come down quite a bit.
any coin that begs for money for the developer is a shitcoin.
Satoshi never did and I hold all developers to that standard.
Don't develop it than if you can't handle not getting handouts back from it.

https://www.rixty.com?ref=1337507 sign up for rixty
privacy, it does the body good.
Official Bitcoin Foundation Secretariat
The New World Order thanks you for your support of Bitcoin and encourages your continuing support so that they may track your expenditures easier.
ArticMine
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072


Monero Core Team


View Profile
February 23, 2015, 06:44:22 AM
 #33

One thing that I've noticed is that the instamine seems to actually have turned out to be a good thing for DRK(in the short term at least) as it clearly gives Evan Duffield a massive incentive to continue to develop and foster growth. Also it enables funding to further the project and it seems that DRK has been pretty consistent with development. Personally I completely dismissed DRK at some point last year and I'm surprised to see that it's continued to do fairly well. But it makes sense because the incentives are aligned with continued development. Long term though single individuals holding so much supply can be dangerous. Even Bitcoin has this same issue though with Satoshi.

Contrast this to XMR where developer funding is a big problem. The XMR devs have put a very large amount of their own money in to paying for research and code reviews and such. And from what I've read the entire team holds less than 80k XMR between them(7 people?). This has been used as a selling point by some people in the XMR community as evidence of a fair distribution, which it seems to be. But fair in the short term doesn't necessarily equate to a situation where those who have the ability to produce the most value actually have the resources to do so. So we get to see the trade offs here between two currencies with similar goals.

edit: that 80k XMR number is probably way out date and doesn't consider the likelyhood that they've all bought more since the price has come down quite a bit.
any coin that begs for money for the developer is a shitcoin.
Satoshi never did and I hold all developers to that standard.
Don't develop it than if you can't handle not getting handouts back from it.

I will take quality FLOSS funded by donations such a GNU/Linux over propriety software and its related scams and malware any day. Just try searching Bing news  Wink for "Lenovo" http://www.bing.com/news/search?q=lenovo&FORM=HDRSC6

Concerned that blockchain bloat will lead to centralization? Storing less than 4 GB of data once required the budget of a superpower and a warehouse full of punched cards. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/IBM_card_storage.NARA.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card
BitcoinEXpress
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1275



View Profile
February 23, 2015, 07:35:33 AM
 #34


Monero cons

Original authors are scam artists so other devs have taken it over (for XMR)



Who were the original authors and who are the devs today?


~BCX~
pandher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938


Stagnation is Death


View Profile WWW
February 23, 2015, 12:23:35 PM
 #35


Who were the original authors and who are the devs today?


~BCX~

https://getmonero.org/knowledge-base/people
Este Nuno
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


amarha


View Profile
February 23, 2015, 12:39:35 PM
 #36

One thing that I've noticed is that the instamine seems to actually have turned out to be a good thing for DRK(in the short term at least) as it clearly gives Evan Duffield a massive incentive to continue to develop and foster growth. Also it enables funding to further the project and it seems that DRK has been pretty consistent with development. Personally I completely dismissed DRK at some point last year and I'm surprised to see that it's continued to do fairly well. But it makes sense because the incentives are aligned with continued development. Long term though single individuals holding so much supply can be dangerous. Even Bitcoin has this same issue though with Satoshi.

Contrast this to XMR where developer funding is a big problem. The XMR devs have put a very large amount of their own money in to paying for research and code reviews and such. And from what I've read the entire team holds less than 80k XMR between them(7 people?). This has been used as a selling point by some people in the XMR community as evidence of a fair distribution, which it seems to be. But fair in the short term doesn't necessarily equate to a situation where those who have the ability to produce the most value actually have the resources to do so. So we get to see the trade offs here between two currencies with similar goals.

edit: that 80k XMR number is probably way out date and doesn't consider the likelyhood that they've all bought more since the price has come down quite a bit.
any coin that begs for money for the developer is a shitcoin.
Satoshi never did and I hold all developers to that standard.
Don't develop it than if you can't handle not getting handouts back from it.

"handouts" from performing skilled labour? That's a first.
stonehedge
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176


Decentralize Everything


View Profile WWW
February 23, 2015, 01:01:21 PM
 #37

One thing that I've noticed is that the instamine seems to actually have turned out to be a good thing for DRK(in the short term at least) as it clearly gives Evan Duffield a massive incentive to continue to develop and foster growth. Also it enables funding to further the project and it seems that DRK has been pretty consistent with development. Personally I completely dismissed DRK at some point last year and I'm surprised to see that it's continued to do fairly well. But it makes sense because the incentives are aligned with continued development. Long term though single individuals holding so much supply can be dangerous. Even Bitcoin has this same issue though with Satoshi.

Contrast this to XMR where developer funding is a big problem. The XMR devs have put a very large amount of their own money in to paying for research and code reviews and such. And from what I've read the entire team holds less than 80k XMR between them(7 people?). This has been used as a selling point by some people in the XMR community as evidence of a fair distribution, which it seems to be. But fair in the short term doesn't necessarily equate to a situation where those who have the ability to produce the most value actually have the resources to do so. So we get to see the trade offs here between two currencies with similar goals.

edit: that 80k XMR number is probably way out date and doesn't consider the likelyhood that they've all bought more since the price has come down quite a bit.
any coin that begs for money for the developer is a shitcoin.
Satoshi never did and I hold all developers to that standard.
Don't develop it than if you can't handle not getting handouts back from it.

"handouts" from performing skilled labour? That's a first.

Instamine talk is just too tiring.  Coins were distributed.  Many went to a dev who is no longer part of the team and sold up in the early days.  The rest were sold on open market.  I personally believe that Evan's DRK coins were mostly purchased.  I base this theory on the fact that Evan has been known to reach out to known whales to purchase large amounts of DRK for himself and family members.
celestio
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378



View Profile
February 23, 2015, 09:00:04 PM
 #38

One thing that I've noticed is that the instamine seems to actually have turned out to be a good thing for DRK(in the short term at least) as it clearly gives Evan Duffield a massive incentive to continue to develop and foster growth. Also it enables funding to further the project and it seems that DRK has been pretty consistent with development. Personally I completely dismissed DRK at some point last year and I'm surprised to see that it's continued to do fairly well. But it makes sense because the incentives are aligned with continued development. Long term though single individuals holding so much supply can be dangerous. Even Bitcoin has this same issue though with Satoshi.

Contrast this to XMR where developer funding is a big problem. The XMR devs have put a very large amount of their own money in to paying for research and code reviews and such. And from what I've read the entire team holds less than 80k XMR between them(7 people?). This has been used as a selling point by some people in the XMR community as evidence of a fair distribution, which it seems to be. But fair in the short term doesn't necessarily equate to a situation where those who have the ability to produce the most value actually have the resources to do so. So we get to see the trade offs here between two currencies with similar goals.

edit: that 80k XMR number is probably way out date and doesn't consider the likelyhood that they've all bought more since the price has come down quite a bit.
any coin that begs for money for the developer is a shitcoin.
Satoshi never did and I hold all developers to that standard.
Don't develop it than if you can't handle not getting handouts back from it.

"handouts" from performing skilled labour? That's a first.

Instamine talk is just too tiring.  Coins were distributed.  Many went to a dev who is no longer part of the team and sold up in the early days.  The rest were sold on open market.  I personally believe that Evan's DRK coins were mostly purchased.  I base this theory on the fact that Evan has been known to reach out to known whales to purchase large amounts of DRK for himself and family members.

No, they were not purchased. The majority of the coins that were instamined went to Evan and his partner, InternetApe, at the time. (I'm sure InternetApe mined much more than the 120,000 dark he said he did) Ever wondered why Evan could of donated full hour days to Darkcoin? Because of the instamined coins he gained.


Was there some instamine? "I" wouldnt call it instamine where the developers got all the coins as in a premine, but there was a good amount that was mines in the first 24-48 hours. I my self as one of the developers I mines ~120k DRK. and realized this could be a problem in the futures and gave away around 50k to get people interested.


"The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime" - Satoshi Nakamoto, June 17, 2010
celestio
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378



View Profile
February 23, 2015, 09:15:27 PM
 #39

One thing that I've noticed is that the instamine seems to actually have turned out to be a good thing for DRK(in the short term at least) as it clearly gives Evan Duffield a massive incentive to continue to develop and foster growth. Also it enables funding to further the project and it seems that DRK has been pretty consistent with development. Personally I completely dismissed DRK at some point last year and I'm surprised to see that it's continued to do fairly well. But it makes sense because the incentives are aligned with continued development. Long term though single individuals holding so much supply can be dangerous. Even Bitcoin has this same issue though with Satoshi.

Contrast this to XMR where developer funding is a big problem. The XMR devs have put a very large amount of their own money in to paying for research and code reviews and such. And from what I've read the entire team holds less than 80k XMR between them(7 people?). This has been used as a selling point by some people in the XMR community as evidence of a fair distribution, which it seems to be. But fair in the short term doesn't necessarily equate to a situation where those who have the ability to produce the most value actually have the resources to do so. So we get to see the trade offs here between two currencies with similar goals.

edit: that 80k XMR number is probably way out date and doesn't consider the likelyhood that they've all bought more since the price has come down quite a bit.
any coin that begs for money for the developer is a shitcoin.
Satoshi never did and I hold all developers to that standard.
Don't develop it than if you can't handle not getting handouts back from it.

"handouts" from performing skilled labour? That's a first.
not at all. Every shitcoin clone out there asks for donations /handouts to continue to "develop" their
copy pasta scam. You "clone" a currency that you want others to use. But you want others to pay you to continue to develop the coin? labor rotflmao Real labor is a chinese building your iphone. Or a bangladeshi sewing your nike shoes.

What? OK so you rather choose a coin that has 2 million coins instamined(Darkcoin) in less than 3 days, most going to the developers at the time, over a coin that chooses to ask for donations(Monero) instead(and is like the holy grail in comparison)?

Nice judgement skills there mate.

edit

"The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime" - Satoshi Nakamoto, June 17, 2010
BCwinning
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658


View Profile
February 23, 2015, 09:22:56 PM
 #40

One thing that I've noticed is that the instamine seems to actually have turned out to be a good thing for DRK(in the short term at least) as it clearly gives Evan Duffield a massive incentive to continue to develop and foster growth. Also it enables funding to further the project and it seems that DRK has been pretty consistent with development. Personally I completely dismissed DRK at some point last year and I'm surprised to see that it's continued to do fairly well. But it makes sense because the incentives are aligned with continued development. Long term though single individuals holding so much supply can be dangerous. Even Bitcoin has this same issue though with Satoshi.

Contrast this to XMR where developer funding is a big problem. The XMR devs have put a very large amount of their own money in to paying for research and code reviews and such. And from what I've read the entire team holds less than 80k XMR between them(7 people?). This has been used as a selling point by some people in the XMR community as evidence of a fair distribution, which it seems to be. But fair in the short term doesn't necessarily equate to a situation where those who have the ability to produce the most value actually have the resources to do so. So we get to see the trade offs here between two currencies with similar goals.

edit: that 80k XMR number is probably way out date and doesn't consider the likelyhood that they've all bought more since the price has come down quite a bit.
any coin that begs for money for the developer is a shitcoin.
Satoshi never did and I hold all developers to that standard.
Don't develop it than if you can't handle not getting handouts back from it.

"handouts" from performing skilled labour? That's a first.
not at all. Every shitcoin clone out there asks for donations /handouts to continue to "develop" their
copy pasta scam. You "clone" a currency that you want others to use. But you want others to pay you to continue to develop the coin? labor rotflmao Real labor is a chinese building your iphone. Or a bangladeshi sewing your nike shoes.

What? OK so you rather choose a coin that has 2 million coins instamined in less than 3 days, most going to the developers at the time, over a coin that chooses to ask for donations instead(and is like the holy grail in comparison)?

Nice judgement skills there mate.
exactly which coin are you referring to Because I don't use either xmr or mon, and I aint your mate

https://www.rixty.com?ref=1337507 sign up for rixty
privacy, it does the body good.
Official Bitcoin Foundation Secretariat
The New World Order thanks you for your support of Bitcoin and encourages your continuing support so that they may track your expenditures easier.
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!