DRK vs XMR warez

[toknormal]

[1714041260]

1714041260

[1714041260]

1714041260

[1714041260]

1714041260

[NemesisT]

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

[stealth923]

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]

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

[PoS]

[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]

Lets see:



Meanwhile......

[Kienbui]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[ArticMine]

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   for "Lenovo" http://www.bing.com/news/search?q=lenovo&FORM=HDRSC6

[BitcoinEXpress]

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]

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


~BCX~

https://getmonero.org/knowledge-base/people

[Este Nuno]

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]

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]

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.

[celestio]

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

[BCwinning]

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