This message was too old and has been purged

[toknormal]

In fact if you are basing your opinion of the team on the relative few of us who do post on bitcointalk at all you are probably getting a very misleading perception

And what perception should we be getting ? That you guys are prepared to let your project stand on its merits without getting stuck into tribal flamewars or maligning the technical competence of other devs, or "recommending that competing coins be ditched" ?

But as I said you should make up your own mind about which coin(s) to support if any.

Really ? That remark's a bit difficult to square with the propaganda factory of the last few pages such as:

In reality I talk to a lot of people who are considering getting involved with Monero and a few who are evaluating both Monero and DRK, and in practice there is a lot more concern about the DRK instamine

Wrong. There's practically zero concern about the so called "DRK instamine" otherwise it would never have sustained its success and reached a number 5 marketcap more than a year after it was launched. Nor would it have consistently widened its gap over Monero from a factor of 3 a few months ago to nearly 6 now.

When I post on these things I do so as a long-term cryptocurrency enthusiast whose interests go beyond just Monero.

So are we all and believe it or not many of us actually appreciate diversity and the fact that the anonymous 'bandwagon' has several strings to its bow. But the tactics you guys use much of the time don't remotely do justice to that sentiment or the positions your hold within your own project. There doesn't seem to be any other reason for that other than the fact that you've got chips on your shoulders the size of houses over your market recognition deficit.

Like g4q34g4qg47ww, I suggest you try getting on with the job, let the market take care of itself and find some footsoldiers to do your mud-slinging at the competition for you.

[illodin]

Sure there might be other problems, but not that one.

What is the concrete problem DRK is having (in addition to constant trolling) now or in the future that is a direct result of the unfortunate launch?

Perpetual criticism that it is the fruit of a poison tree. Meaning either incompetence or fraud, and both are indeed poison to outsiders who dislike both and are structurally unable to distinguish them.

That does not mean zero success, but it will be an unnecessary burden to bear, and that's a tough obstacle in a brutally competitive market.

So the concrete and actual problem is FUD. Agreed pretty much.

FUD is a problem yes, but in this case it is the symptom and not the cause. The cause can only be addressed by moving to a different coin that wasn't instamined. It will forever be the case that people researching dark will hit google and find

this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=560138.0
or this: http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=a_massive_investigation_of_instamines_and_fastmines_for_the_top_alt_coins#darkcoin

You can't put humpty dumpty back together, sorry.

FUD is a symptom of instamine, which won't cause any concrete problems, except FUD. People in the future will find out many coins were mined fast early on, for them it won't make any difference whether they were mined in 2 seconds or in 2 years.

It does make a difference.

There is such a thing as integrity and reputation, and to normal people outside of the sociopaths who are all too common around cryptocurrencies, those do matter

I disagree. Normal people outside of crypto think even Bitcoin is a ponzi scam and don't want to buy it because the Bitcoiners just want to sell their coins to the new idiots. And they don't want to be that new idiot. For them it doesn't make any difference whether the coins were mined in a day or a year.

[smooth]

In reality I talk to a lot of people who are considering getting involved with Monero and a few who are evaluating both Monero and DRK, and in practice there is a lot more concern about the DRK instamine

Wrong. There's practically zero concern about the so called "DRK instamine" from any quarter that matters otherwise it would never have reached a number 5 marketcap more than a year after it was launched. Nor would it have consistently widened its gap over Monero from a factor of 3 a few months ago to nearly 6 now.

As I explained earlier the (essentially fake imo) market cap is easily explainable by most of the supply being controlled by insiders. With enough control of existing supply, reduction of new supply, redirecting new supply from mining to existing holders via PoS masternodes, etc., you can make the price and therefore "reported" market cap anything they want.

Unless there are outsiders willing to buy your holdings at the current price, the reported cap is meaningless, and I don't believe there are. I will acknowledge I can't prove that, but will will see how it plays out. You can't play supply games forever, though historically such schemes have gone on for a very long time on occasion.

[smooth]

I disagree. Normal people outside of crypto think even Bitcoin is a ponzi scam and don't want to buy it because the Bitcoiners just want to sell their coins to the new idiots.

Some do, some don't, and in a sense they may be right. Bitcoin doesn't have exactly the best distribution. The first two year were a sort of slow motion instamine, though largely without the questions of integrity or incompetence. The game changed once cryptocurrencies matured to the point that coins trade and have value almost immediately.

And they don't want to be that new idiot. For them it doesn't make any difference whether the coins were mined in a day or a year.

Disagree. Some criticize the two year "instamine" on exactly that basis. More would and do criticize a two day instamine even more harshly.

Well designed coins that are not in fact intended as ponzi schemes should take care not to mine out too far ahead of adoption, and should not do so in a shady and/or incompetent way. That includes Bitcoin. I certainly don't see anything that was incompetent about Bitcoin's early years and very little that was shady about it. At the time, four years seemed like a reasonable adoption window to distribute 50% of the coins. This may have turned out to be wrong, but it was not unreasonable. Two days is unreasonable.

[MasterMined710]

There was no premise at all, and no lying about it. WTF, I have no idea where you got that from?

I thought monero was premined, i get all the shitcoins confused. Seems like i saw it was like 2+% premined. Maybe it was another anon shitcoin but pretty sure it was monero. I'll find it.

"Pretty sure" = "dead wrong" in this case.

Yeah i could not find it searching for "monero premine". I think what they were talking about was the crippled miner and they added it all up to like 2.6% of the coin that was "unfair mined". Most coins including bitcoin have issues with premine, instamine or unfair mining in the beginning. I can't think of any coins that don't have some kind of mining issue so 2+% is not a big deal imo.
Are you saying you never heard that and don't know the statistic i'm talking about? You might as well come clean because i will find it. It was in one of the main monero threads.

[smooth]

There was no premise at all, and no lying about it. WTF, I have no idea where you got that from?

I thought monero was premined, i get all the shitcoins confused. Seems like i saw it was like 2+% premined. Maybe it was another anon shitcoin but pretty sure it was monero. I'll find it.

"Pretty sure" = "dead wrong" in this case.

Yeah i could not find it searching for "monero premine". I think what they were talking about was the crippled miner and they added it all up to like 2.6% of the coin that was "unfair mined". Most coins including bitcoin have issues with premine, instamine or unfair mining in the beginning. I can't think of any coins that don't have some kind of mining issue so 2+% is not a big deal imo.
Are you saying you never heard that and don't know the statistic i'm talking about? You might as well come clean because i will find it. It was in one of the main monero threads.

Yes i'm well aware of the optimized miner (and I'm also pretty sure that 100% of coins have optimized hardware/software miners at any given time). I don't think its the same thing as a premise or instamine at all. They mined say 2.5% of the coins over several months at a cost of probably hundreds of thousands of dollars, and apparently made a profit in that area by selling them. Good for them.

[toknormal]

As I explained earlier the (essentially fake imo) market cap is easily explainable by most of the supply being controlled by insiders. With enough control of existing supply, reduction of new supply, redirecting new supply from mining to existing holders via PoS masternodes, etc., you can make the price and therefore "reported" market cap anything they want.

You must think we're complete idiots. You're arrogant enough to malign both the dev and the entire market anyway so I wouldn't put it past you.

You might be surprised to find that I actually hold quite some Monero (it's not exactly expensive) but every time you post on here I feel increasingly that it's an un-neccessary hedge because that project looks like going exactly nowhere.

[smooth]

As I explained earlier the (essentially fake imo) market cap is easily explainable by most of the supply being controlled by insiders. With enough control of existing supply, reduction of new supply, redirecting new supply from mining to existing holders via PoS masternodes, etc., you can make the price and therefore "reported" market cap anything they want.

You must think we're all complete idiots. You're arrogant enough to malign both the dev and the entire market anyway so I wouldn't put it past you.

I don't know who is an idiot, who is crazy, and who is crazy like a fox. It is quite hard to tell. You are denying that controlling supply can push up the price?

You might be surprised to find that I actually hold quite some Monero (it's not exactly expensive) but every time you post on here I feel increasingly that it's an un-neccessary hedge because that project looks like going exactly nowhere.

Nice troll there, and if you want to dump, please do. We're not in the business of trying to pump up the coin at all.

Too bad your comments bear no actual resemblance to the development work being done, but I wouldn't expect anything else from DRK supporters.

[ErrorId]

So basically what this thread boils down to is, someone thought they found an issue with Darksend, but now say the original issue isn't what they thought it was and are coming at it from a different angle, and everything else since then is people who have no stake in DRK or plan on ever having a stake bitching that people got too many coins in the beggining? Satoshi has a million BTC, nobody gives a fuck, a few others also have a good number and the world keeps turning.

A mistake was made and corrected. Good work has been done. People have been shouting scam from day one and nothing has changed, the market is doing its thing and will continue to do so. Why waste all this energy? Use it to do something useful.

History is being made and all you guys want to do is fight. Why not fucking work together for a change so we can get crypto out to the world faster? We sure as fuck need it out there.

[smooth]

History is being made and all you guys want to do is fight. Why not fucking work together for a change so we can get crypto out to the world faster? We sure as fuck need it out there.

I'll agree with you on that. I'd in fact like to see DRK succeed rather than having nothing succeed I suppose, but frankly the DRK technology scares me to some extent because it is NSA PRISM 2.0 in my opinion. I'd rather see something, anything, without "nodes" succeed, whether I have a stake in it or not.

[GingerAle]

As I explained earlier the (essentially fake imo) market cap is easily explainable by most of the supply being controlled by insiders. With enough control of existing supply, reduction of new supply, redirecting new supply from mining to existing holders via PoS masternodes, etc., you can make the price and therefore "reported" market cap anything they want.

You must think we're complete idiots. You're arrogant enough to malign both the dev and the entire market anyway so I wouldn't put it past you.

You might be surprised to find that I actually hold quite some Monero (it's not exactly expensive) but every time you post on here I feel increasingly that it's an un-neccessary hedge because that project looks like going exactly nowhere.

Well this thread has devolved anyway, so might as well.....

the monero project is going as fast as a coin can go when the devs don't have an instamine stash (oh snap, he said it!)

look, the instamine, if its real or not, whatever. So a handful of people are going to get filthy rich if DRK goes "to the moon". I'm not a fan of the approach, but I understand the "bootstrapping" as it were. I understand it, I don't agree with it. Now, whether the privacy tech actually holds water is a different story. If DRK privacy tech fails + instamine.... well then..... those two ingredients make a whole different type of cake.

[illodin]

What matters is whether the coin will retain its value, or even increase in value, and what you can do with it. If someone else has more than you doesn't affect on how valuable it is to you. Might affect the jelly factor for some though as people in crypto have the highest sense of entitlement I've seen anywhere.

I'm gonna have to give up for today as I need to get some sleep. This relentless nitpicking on non-concrete issues is making me sort of understand why the Monero development is going so slow though.

[GingerAle]

So basically what this thread boils down to is, someone thought they found an issue with Darksend, but now say the original issue isn't what they thought it was and are coming at it from a different angle, and everything else since then is people who have no stake in DRK or plan on ever having a stake bitching that people got too many coins in the beggining? Satoshi has a million BTC, nobody gives a fuck, a few others also have a good number and the world keeps turning.

A mistake was made and corrected. Good work has been done. People have been shouting scam from day one and nothing has changed, the market is doing its thing and will continue to do so. Why waste all this energy? Use it to do something useful.

History is being made and all you guys want to do is fight. Why not fucking work together for a change so we can get crypto out to the world faster? We sure as fuck need it out there.

I've made a copy of the thread with only the Evil Knieval (alleged exploit finder) & Ed Duffy (DRK Developer) primary conversation in the opening post.

IMO, its still open. Evil Knieval claims he's making a darkcoin deanonymizing blockchain explorer, and there's current 2 BTC bounty for it, and Knieval has offered 1 BTC counter bounty.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=979315.0

[illodin]

So basically what this thread boils down to is, someone thought they found an issue with Darksend, but now say the original issue isn't what they thought it was and are coming at it from a different angle, and everything else since then is people who have no stake in DRK or plan on ever having a stake bitching that people got too many coins in the beggining? Satoshi has a million BTC, nobody gives a fuck, a few others also have a good number and the world keeps turning.

A mistake was made and corrected. Good work has been done. People have been shouting scam from day one and nothing has changed, the market is doing its thing and will continue to do so. Why waste all this energy? Use it to do something useful.

History is being made and all you guys want to do is fight. Why not fucking work together for a change so we can get crypto out to the world faster? We sure as fuck need it out there.

I've made a copy of the thread with only the Evil Knieval (alleged exploit finder) & Ed Duffy (DRK Developer) primary conversation in the opening post.

IMO, its still open. Evil Knieval claims he's making a darkcoin deanonymizing blockchain explorer, and there's current 2 BTC bounty for it, and Knieval has offered 1 BTC counter bounty.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=979315.0

I'd rather a bounty was put up to hack the new MN blinding version currently on testnet.

[toknormal]

We're not in the business of trying to pump up the coin at all.

No. Your in the opposite business - of trying to throw as much mud as possible at a perfectly good competing project and hoping that some of it sticks simply because you've got a personal bone with their technical approach and the fact that it's popular.

The irony of all this is that their technical approach perfectly suits their design objectives and your technical approach perfectly suits yours so your sense of discomfort is completely unneccesary. There is no conflict but you don't appear to have an articulated enough understanding of the relative monetary and technical priorities to appreciate that.

[Brilliantrocket]

The Monero team should really focus on developing their coin, rather than being envious of others.  I said around 4 months ago that I'll put money into Monero the second I see a coin that I can actually use (Stable database+GUI). How much longer must I wait?

[smooth]

No. Your in the opposite business - of trying to throw as much mud as possible at a perfectly good competing project and hoping that some of it sticks simply because you've got a personal bone with their technical approach and the fact that it's popular.

That would be what I was doing, if I saw it as a "perfect good" project, but I don't, both on the basis of competence and/or integrity, and also technical grounds. Your opinion and mine are equally valid though, so people can make up their own minds. That's why they make chocolate and vanilla.

If another project comes along that has masternodes (at least for anonymity; using masternodes for something else might be fine) but no instamine and no blatant supply manipulation, I'll just criticize it on technical grounds alone, and likewise for the reverse.

[toknormal]

If another project comes along that has masternodes (at least for anonymity; using masternodes for something else might be fine) but no instamine and no blatant supply manipulation, I'll just criticize it on technical grounds alone, and likewise for the reverse.

Well if another project comes along without devs who can't get a useable wallet released in 8 months but still want to claim technical superiority, who don't need to scrape the barrel with allegations of "supply manipulation" to justify marketcaps, who can distinctly articulate monetary and technical design priorities and who don't need to malign their peers to justify their own existence, I'm sure I'll just criticise it on technical grounds as well 

[smooth]

If another project comes along that has masternodes (at least for anonymity; using masternodes for something else might be fine) but no instamine and no blatant supply manipulation, I'll just criticize it on technical grounds alone, and likewise for the reverse.

Well if another project comes along without devs who can't get a useable wallet released in 8 months but still want to claim technical superiority, who don't need to scrape the barrel with allegations of "supply manipulation" to justify marketcaps, who can distinctly articulate monetary and technical design priorities and who don't need to malign their peers to justify their own existence, I'm sure I'll just criticise it on technical grounds as well 

Hello? There are at least 5 usable wallets. Its something that is being quite adequately addressed by third parties so we've reduced its priority in favor of focusing on the core.

Other than trolling the wallet issue is a non-issue in practice. It's also rather lame that you continue to respond to criticism of DRK not on its merits but by attacking another coin. It would be as if someone criticized XMR for the blockchain being too big (a valid potential criticism) and our response was to say that someone else has an instamine. It's nonsense both ways.

[toknormal]

It's also rather lame that you continue to respond to criticism of DRK not on its merits but by attacking another coin

What you've promoted are not "criticisms" they're simply person preferences - a very different thing.

A valid technical "criticism" is where you point out areas that the project doesn't meet it's design specifications or market priorities - not *your* design specifications or priorities.

You've never even indicated that you remotely understand what Darkcoin's design goals were because otherwise you'd have realised that your so called "critiscisms" are actually where it is succeeding.

That's what's disingenuous of your entire repertoire here and the only reason it came to my attention was because of your blatant arrogance over other aspects such as your dismissal of the dev's competence and nonsense about "fake marketcaps".