Why the darkcoin/dash/dashpay instamine matters

[TPTB_need_war]

Without Masternodes they would either secure a shitcoin without value or they wouldn't even bother to mine it.
Masternode network is what gives Dash value. Darksend and Instantx is there thanks to it.

On this I agree, but the rewards are grossly excessive for the services provided.

I showed the high school level probability math that masternodes make InstantX insecure. I've already retorted the "why don't you break it then?" bullshit, so I won't again.

Masternodes destroy the network effects that a coin needs to attain adoption. I had already explained why, so I won't again.

The Dash scammers and accomplices are always trying to spin their scam as something other than a scam. Sigh.

did the monero wrote that fact about infinite supply in their ann Huh   if i was an investard in monero i would feel cheated if it isnt

No one can fork Monero without the support of the decentralized miners. The distinction from the Dash masternode scam, is that a masternode is staked only once with DRK (Dash tokens) and earns 50+% ROI per annum forever after for the largest holders of Dash tokens, thus further centralizing the coin meaning there is a centralized oligarchy which the investors are relying on for their future expecation of profits which afaics fulfills the Howey test for what is an investment security that is regulated by the Securities Act. A decentralized PoW miner is constantly expending on electricity in a competitive free market. Owning a lot of Monero doesn't give you any leverage as a miner.

I showed the high school level probability math that masternodes make InstantX insecure...Masternodes destroy the network effects that a coin needs to attain adoption.

Thats strange. I wonder why he didn’t listen.

The thing is, bedroom wannabees that "nearly" wrote the new Microsoft Word and spend all day long trashing real projects on bitconitalk form such a rich source of authoritative technical appraisal.

Evan should understand that.

Maybe if you re-assert your awesome pedigree he'll entertain you  (You've sure entertained us).

Quoted for posterity, so we can refer to this in retrospect when we can more clearly see who was the (ad hominem hurling[1]) fool here.

Btw, Evan did reply on my thread and did not deny the math error. He tried to claim it was an honest mistake, yeah right.  Then he disappeared upon being challenged.

[1] I suppose that is the first listed "talent" on your resume. I've never seen you respond factually nor display any significant technical acumen.

[smooth]

Anyone doing their own research for the truth , start here :

https://dashtalk.org

Thank you ceti. I will soon be updating the collection of references in the OP which will include some links to dashtalk.org. Stay tuned.

[TPTB_need_war]

enforcing worldwide spread is not easy, and perhaps not doable.
They tried doing it with porn in the 90's, file sharing in 2000's and so on...
and servers kept over heating and got fried up

As I explained the key distinction upthread, those are free markets because they are decentralized and there is no significant asymmetry of information which makes it otherwise.

It pisses me off when readers waste my expensive time by ignoring what I already wrote twice in this thread. This makes three times. Please readers don't make me teach this again by writing another post which ignores my prior points.

I still dont understand why your'e calling waves a scam only cuz it made an ico (like everyone now).
Its devs are legit, real names with real work behind them.
So they thought charles and kushti are friends which will support them, and were wrong, apologized and moved on.
everyone got their asses covered legaly ofc..
so if you think all ico's are scams, you got lots of work now not just on waves bro

Please clearify. tnx

1. I already provided the link to the thread two or three times in this thread, which explains that ICOs sold to non-accredited USA investors are ostensibly illegal.

I hate ICOs by now for other reasons:

2. They contribute to the mainstream thinking that crypto-currency is a scam and thus we will have great difficulty getting CC widely adopted if don't put a stop to these scams.

3. They extract capital to a few scammers, which could be better used to build our real ecosystems which are not vaporware and have real decentralized designs, such as Bitcoin and Monero.

4. They prey on the ignorance of n00b speculators, thus can never be a free market.

5. They can never attain adoption because they destroy the Nash equilibrium and decentralization of the ecosystem:

As an example: I can show that dash is an oligarchy, whether intentional or not, due to the way their paynode scheme works. These systems are designed to work trustlessly, so any hiccups (intentional or not) should be invalidated by the design, not left-up to the good or bad intentions of those who are engaged with it.

did the monero wrote that fact about infinite supply in their ann Huh   if i was an investard in monero i would feel cheated if it isnt

No one can fork Monero without the support of the decentralized miners. The distinction from the Dash masternode scam, is that a masternode is staked only once with DRK (Dash tokens) and earns 50+% ROI per annum forever after for the largest holders of Dash tokens, thus further centralizing the coin meaning there is a centralized oligarchy which the investors are relying on for their future expecation of profits which afaics fulfills the Howey test for what is an investment security that is regulated by the Securities Act. A decentralized PoW miner is constantly expending on electricity in a competitive free market. Owning a lot of Monero doesn't give you any leverage as a miner.

New post to better articulate why permissioned ledger, closed entopy systems likely have no value:

The problem with Emunie, as I talked about in the IOTA thread, is that any system that doesn't have permanent coin turnover via mining, removes mining completely, or puts some type of abstraction layer between mining and block reward (as in the case of IOTA), is a permissioned ledger.  People got too caught up in trying to improve on consensus mechanisms and forgot what actually constitutes a decentralized currency in the first place.

When Maxwell said he "proved mathematically that Bitcoin couldn't exist" and then it did exist, it was because he didn't take open entropy systems into account.  He already knew stuff like NXT or Emunie could exist, but nobody actually considered them to be decentralized.  They're distributed but not decentralized.  Basically stocks that come from a central authority and then the shareholders attempt to form a nash equilibrium to...siphon fees from other shareholders in a zero sum game because there is no nash equilibrium to be had by outsiders adopting a closed entropy system in the first place...

Take for example the real world use case of a nash equilbrium in finance.  There's many rival nations on earth and they're all competing in currency wars, manipulating, devaluing, etc.  They would all be better off with an undisputed unit of account that the other can't tamper with for trade.  In order to adopt said unit, it would have to be a permissionless system that each nation has access to where one of the group isn't suspected to have an enormous advantage over the others, otherwise they would all just say no.

This is why gold was utilized at all.  Yea, some territories had more than others, but nobody actually knew what was under the ground at the time.  Everyone just agreed it was scarce, valuable, and nobody really had a monopoly on it.  There are really no circumstances where people on an individual level or nation-state level can come together to form any kind of nash equilibrium in a closed entropy system.  The market is cornered by design, and for value to increase, others need to willingly submit to the equivalent of an extortion scheme.  The only time systems like that have value at all is when governments use coercion to force them onto people.

6. Because they are not decentralized and rely on expectation of profits based on the performance of a core group, ICOs turn what should be a competition for creating the best technology into a fist fucking fest of ad hominem and political games:

Let's psychoanalyze those want to troll me with a thread like this. Actually I have no censorship motivated objection about making a thread about me (I wish so much, it was possible to do something great without attaining any personal fame), it just feels really stupid because I (the idealist in me) think the technology is more important than the person, which is one of the main reasons I hate vaporware ICOs.

This thread serves mainly to deflect attention away from Dash's instamine scam.

+1 for conscious reason.

The subconscious reason this thread exists is the psychological phenomenon that it is better to destroy everyone, than to fail alone.

"I dropped my ice cream in the mud, so now I am throwing mud on your ice cream so we are the same, because God hates us equally".

This is what socialism built. Equality is prosperity, because fairness is the uniformity of nature's Gaussian distribution. Equality is a human right! Didn't you know that!

They would rather waste the time of important coders whose time would be better spent coding a solution for humanity, so as to satisfy their inability to accept their mistakes and jealousy.

7. ICOs have less liquidity because they are not widely distributed and due to #5:

you can read my observations here.

Interesting post.

The salient quote is of course:

Why litecoin? Liquidity. These guys own 5 and 6 digits amount of BTC. They need massive liquidity to increase their holdings by any significant degree. And as such litecoin has been a blessing. Will history repeat itself?

I've had that in my mind for a loooong time. Liquidity is absolutely necessary for the design, marketing, and distribution of crypto-currency, if you want to succeed.

[TPTB_need_war]

Dash got "distributed" in the two crashes of 2014 and 2015

OK, we'll just take your word on that, mate.

And before you start showing us pretty pictures, be sure those pictures have owners' names attached. Makes for even prettier pictures.

Market theory insures he is incorrect. The majority buys at the top and sells at the bottom. The insiders have the advantage of seeing what percentage of the float is real (not them), so they know exactly where the bottom is and can buy it.

Market theory insures he is incorrect. The majority buys at the top and sells at the bottom

That wasn't the point. The point was availability.

A market is not a socialist politburo charged with ensuring equal distribution.

[...]

Thats why I don't have much sympathy with the accusations levelled at Dash on the basis of mining history. It's irrelevant now [...]

You move the goal posts but that still doesn't absolve your error.

The point is an overly centralized distribution can't become less centralized to attain a normal equilibrium that would have been possible without the instamine.

Free market is synonymous with decentralized market.

[TPTB_need_war]

The salient distinction is that mining influence in Bitcoin has nothing to do with how many tokens you own. And mining expenditure is ongoing whereas staked masternodes are only deposited once.

We've already explained this before. I am not going to explain again why staking is not secure.

Mining influence in DASH has nothing to do with how many tokens you own either. Miners govern the coin in exactly the same way as other PoW coins - they can fork a chain at any time.

Masternodes/DGBB create an additional governance layer, providing, right now, funds for all sorts of beneficial projects directly from the blockchain.

Nobody is saying it's perfect, finished or a replacement for mining. It is, however, a good working solution <in the present> to the governance issues and decision making malaise that stunt the growth of other coins.

Masternodes can corrupt the security of the InstantX and the anonymity.

Evolution is building more corruptible features on masternodes.

Masternodes concentrate the coin supply to those who own the masternodes by paying them a dividend (up to 50% per annum according a chart that was on the Dash website last year), and the masternode has no significant ongoing cost, as the stake deposit is only made once.

The decentralization of the mining is irrelevant when the coin supply is largely controlled by those who instamined and have been concentrating their percentage of the coin supply, thus they can force any protocol change they want, because ultimately it is payers who control which protocol they sign their transactions to.

I don't have time to get in a detailed debate with you, but rest assured I can destroy all your arguments when I am ready to. That time is coming... just wait...

[iCEBREAKER]

Yeah okay, thanks. That's kinda what I thought.

I've always been a little bit on the fence about it. On the one hand it seems to get some praise from certain media outlets, but on the other hand it seems to get a lot of community disapproval.

Community disapproval can be very misleading on bitcointalk, especially where alts are concerned. This thread want exactly created to give a fair and unbiased perspective of Dash but I'd agree 100% with Smooth on this point:

Nevertheless, do your own homework. Reach your own conclusions. This is crypto. "Believe half of what you see and nothing of what you hear" (Poe)

DYODD.  Tone Vays did, and concluded the "accidental" (lol, ya right) instamine puts Dash firmly in the Scamcoin category.

[Macrochip]

You know I actually cared enough to read your diatribe on the first page Monero cripple-scam-botnet-miner smooth but I still have one question:

Why does the bugged fastmine matter? I mean you eloquently titled your thread with an indirect question and yet here we are: You haven't answered it.

Why DOES it matter? Explain. Because after 20 pages of piling bullshit upon bullshit you failed to do so.

[smooth]

You know I actually cared enough to read your diatribe on the first page Monero cripple-scam-botnet-miner smooth but I still have one question:

Why does the bugged fastmine matter? I mean you eloquently titled your thread with an indirect question and yet here we are: You haven't answered it.

Why DOES it matter? Explain. Because after 20 pages of piling bullshit upon bullshit you failed to do so.

Because the evidence shows a high probability of deceptive, misleading, and manipulative statements and actions by the insiders, and on top of that, those same insiders are still involved with running the coin now (including enormous holdings that give them effective control over both the market and the faux-decentralized masternode voting). So anyone getting involved with investing in this coin should know who they are trading against and how those very same people have acted in the past in order to gain an unfair advantage for themselves.

Expect to be left holding the bag someday IMO unless you are extremely good, extremely lucky, or you are an insider. The markets are open to anyone though, so make your own decisions.

[TPTB_need_war]

You know I actually cared enough to read your diatribe on the first page Monero cripple-scam-botnet-miner smooth but I still have one question:

Why does the bugged fastmine matter? I mean you eloquently titled your thread with an indirect question and yet here we are: You haven't answered it.

Why DOES it matter? Explain. Because after 20 pages of piling bullshit upon bullshit you failed to do so.

Because the evidence shows a high probability of deceptive, misleading, and manipulative statements and actions by the insiders, and on top of that, those same insiders are still involved with running the coin now (including enormous holdings that give them effective control over both the market and the faux-decentralized masternode voting). So anyone getting involved with investing in this coin should know who they are trading against and how those very same people have acted in the past in order to gain an unfair advantage for themselves.

Expect to be left holding the bag someday IMO unless you are extremely good, extremely lucky, or you are an insider. The markets are open to anyone though, so make your own decisions.

As I said the other day, smooth and have similar logic, but he is more eloquent.

Well summarized!

I would add that by giving away your money to the Dash insiders, you contribute the destruction of the crypto-currency ecosystem and reputation as a scam haven.

[generalizethis]

You know I actually cared enough to read your diatribe on the first page Monero cripple-scam-botnet-miner smooth but I still have one question:

Why does the bugged fastmine matter? I mean you eloquently titled your thread with an indirect question and yet here we are: You haven't answered it.

Why DOES it matter? Explain. Because after 20 pages of piling bullshit upon bullshit you failed to do so.

Because the evidence shows a high probability of deceptive, misleading, and manipulative statements and actions by the insiders, and on top of that, those same insiders are still involved with running the coin now (including enormous holdings that give them effective control over both the market and the faux-decentralized masternode voting). So anyone getting involved with investing in this coin should know who they are trading against and how those very same people have acted in the past in order to gain an unfair advantage for themselves.

Expect to be left holding the bag someday IMO unless you are extremely good, extremely lucky, or you are an insider. The markets are open to anyone though, so make your own decisions.

As I said the other day, smooth and have similar logic, but he is more eloquent.

Well summarized!

I would add that by giving away your money to the Dash insiders, you contribute the destruction of the crypto-currency ecosystem and reputation as a scam haven.

I'd just sum it up as: The dash instamine matters because it leads to a corrupt and centralized governance.

[Macrochip]

I'd just sum it up as: The dash instamine matters because it leads to a corrupt and centralized governance.

Except that it didn't and you can't prove otherwise. You can't even define what's supposed to be "corrupt" about it.

You know I actually cared enough to read your diatribe on the first page Monero cripple-scam-botnet-miner smooth but I still have one question:

Why does the bugged fastmine matter? I mean you eloquently titled your thread with an indirect question and yet here we are: You haven't answered it.

Why DOES it matter? Explain. Because after 20 pages of piling bullshit upon bullshit you failed to do so.

Because the evidence shows a high probability of deceptive, misleading, and manipulative statements and actions by the insiders, and on top of that, those same insiders are still involved with running the coin now (including enormous holdings that give them effective control over both the market and the faux-decentralized masternode voting). So anyone getting involved with investing in this coin should know who they are trading against and how those very same people have acted in the past in order to gain an unfair advantage for themselves.

Expect to be left holding the bag someday IMO unless you are extremely good, extremely lucky, or you are an insider. The markets are open to anyone though, so make your own decisions.

Thanks for that revealing comment. You simply assume the same exact people from day 1 are holding the same exact amounts or at least close to it and are just waiting to dump it all on poor "misled" investors to crash the market. Because let's just imply they had a crystal ball that told them what the price of Dash will be one day and also let's just assume they never sold anything when Dash hit 15 USD in 2014 with the subsequent slow dump from June to August.
So your entire argument hinges on an unprovable assumption that goes against any logic and market evidence.

As this is utterly ridiculous to any unbiased observer the question remains unanswered. How does it matter now? How would a new investor in Dash would be negatively affected by anything from 2 years ago today? Is it the full time developer Dash has? Is it the pioneering features that didn't exist before Dash? Would he be harmed by running an incentivized full node? How does it matter? What is "Still involved in the coin"  supposed to mean anyway? That they have a Dash wallpaper as their desktop background?

That's your M.O.: Vague empty statements and outrageous conclusions. Never seen anything different. Can't get more dishonest than that.

[generalizethis]

If the instaminers combined for 1-2 million coins and sold over time half of them at an average price $4, then they pocket $2-4 million and have enough dash left over to control 500-1000 masternodes that accrue 10-50% of their collateral every year (using the low 10%), we can see that, using a low figure, they would aggregate to 605-1210 nodes in that time--and this doesn't even include selling nodes when coins are priced high to buy cheaper nodes when the coin price lowers, so unless you are very, very chimerical, you can see even normal market movement doesn't explain away the postulation that the instaminers are holding a large number of coins and nodes.

Awaits Tok to niggle over the statement  of node ownership to distract attention from the obvious concentration of power that the instaminer's potential coin and node control creates.

[iCEBREAKER]

I'd just sum it up as: The dash instamine matters because it leads to a corrupt and centralized governance.

Except that it didn't and you can't prove otherwise. You can't even define what's supposed to be "corrupt" about it.

our M.O.: Vague empty statements and outrageous conclusions. Never seen anything different. Can't get more dishonest than that.

Vertoe already proved Dash (then Darkcoin) is corrupt.  As a Dash core dev, vertoe would know better than anyone.

There is nothing vague about the specific conclusion that Dash is an instamined scamcoin.  I agree that Duffield's Golden Donkey HYIP and bad crypto are "outrageous."

[generalizethis]

I'd just sum it up as: The dash instamine matters because it leads to a corrupt and centralized governance.

Except that it didn't and you can't prove otherwise. You can't even define what's supposed to be "corrupt" about it.

And you can't prove that the instaminers aren't sitting on their pile of instamined coins and using them to manipulate votes or buying ads to trick greater fools into paying them node fees--that's what's corrupt about it. Do I need to make it simpler so you can understand?

[Macrochip]

If the instaminers combined for 1-2 million coins and sold over time half of them at an average price $4, then they pocket $2-4 million and have enough dash left over to control 500-1000 masternodes that accrue 10-50% of their collateral every year (using the low 10%), we can see that, using a low figure, they would aggregate to 605-1210 nodes in that time--and this doesn't even include selling nodes when coins are priced high to buy cheaper nodes when the coin price lowers, so unless you are very, very chimerical, you can see even normal market movement doesn't explain away the postulation that the instaminers are holding a large number of coins and nodes.

Awaits Tok to niggle over the statement  of node ownership to distract attention from the obvious concentration of power that the instaminer's potential coin and node control creates.

LOL. Yeah let's just assume "the instaminers" are a homogenous group with a common goal and they all act identical, not individually and they all have the same amount of coins and no one ever sold since 2014.
You just spun the narrative further which I exposed as fucking ridiculous and unrealistic.

I'd just sum it up as: The dash instamine matters because it leads to a corrupt and centralized governance.

Except that it didn't and you can't prove otherwise. You can't even define what's supposed to be "corrupt" about it.

And you can't prove that the instaminers aren't sitting on their pile of instamined coins and using them to manipulate votes or buying ads to trick greater fools into paying them node fees--that's what's corrupt about it. Do I need to make it simpler so you can understand?

I don't need to prove it because it's not happening. Whatever you mean by "manipulate votes" is bullshit. Every decision they make must be beneficial to the project as a whole otherwise they will destroy the value of their coins.

The question still remains unanswered after all:


Why does the bugged fastmine matter today?

[generalizethis]

If the instaminers combined for 1-2 million coins and sold over time half of them at an average price $4, then they pocket $2-4 million and have enough dash left over to control 500-1000 masternodes that accrue 10-50% of their collateral every year (using the low 10%), we can see that, using a low figure, they would aggregate to 605-1210 nodes in that time--and this doesn't even include selling nodes when coins are priced high to buy cheaper nodes when the coin price lowers, so unless you are very, very chimerical, you can see even normal market movement doesn't explain away the postulation that the instaminers are holding a large number of coins and nodes.

Awaits Tok to niggle over the statement  of node ownership to distract attention from the obvious concentration of power that the instaminer's potential coin and node control creates.

LOL. Yeah let's just assume "the instaminers" are a homogenous group with a common goal and they all act identical, not individually and they all have the same amount of coins and no one ever sold since 2014.
You just spun the narrative further which I exposed as fucking ridiculous and unrealistic.

I'd just sum it up as: The dash instamine matters because it leads to a corrupt and centralized governance.

Except that it didn't and you can't prove otherwise. You can't even define what's supposed to be "corrupt" about it.

And you can't prove that the instaminers aren't sitting on their pile of instamined coins and using them to manipulate votes or buying ads to trick greater fools into paying them node fees--that's what's corrupt about it. Do I need to make it simpler so you can understand?

I don't need to prove it because it's not happening. Whatever you mean by "manipulate votes" is bullshit. Every decision they make must be beneficial to the project as a whole otherwise they will destroy the value of their coins.

The question still remains unanswered after all:


Why does the bugged fastmine matter today?

It matters because you (someone who is probably benefitting from it) doesn't get to tell me that it doesn't, nor assert without any verifiable proof that some or all of the instaminers aren't currently hodling their coins--and since dash is designed as a corruptible system, there is no way to assert whether it is or isn't corrupt, therefore BUYER FUCKING BEWARE!

Deal with it

[Macrochip]

It matters because you doesn't get to tell me that it doesn't

I didn't tell you that it doesn't. I asked WHY it matters and you failed to come up with a sensible answer as of yet.

(someone who is probably benefitting from it)

Interesting. Am I an "instaminer" then? I thought it would be impossible to "benefit from it" unless you're an "instaminer". If I'm not an "instaminer" and I am supposedly "benefitting from it", could that mean anyone else could? Or did I have to go through some "rite of initiation" to start "benefitting from it"? Please tell me how and why I supposedly "benefit from it".

nor assert without any verifiable proof that some or all of the instaminers aren't currently hodling their coins

It's not my problem that you're too lazy to audit the blockchain.

and since dash is designed as a corruptible system

Which it isn't and you failed to prove.

there is no way to assert whether it is or isn't corrupt

Well I just did. U mad?

[generalizethis]

It matters because you doesn't get to tell me that it doesn't

I didn't tell you that it doesn't. I asked WHY it matters and you failed to come up with a sensible answer as of yet.

(someone who is probably benefitting from it)

Interesting. Am I an "instaminer" then? I thought it would be impossible to "benefit from it" unless you're an "instaminer". If I'm not an "instaminer" and I am supposedly "benefitting from it", could that mean anyone else could? Or did I have to go through some "rite of initiation" to start "benefitting from it"? Please tell me how and why I supposedly "benefit from it".

nor assert without any verifiable proof that some or all of the instaminers aren't currently hodling their coins

It's not my problem that you're too lazy to audit the blockchain for

and since dash is designed as a corruptible system

Which it isn't and you failed to prove.

there is no way to assert whether it is or isn't corrupt

Well I just did. U mad?

Not really, as I already went through this once and for all, so I don't have to deal with the same false assertions being made over and over and over.


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1443867.0

[generalizethis]

how many bitmonero, bmr, mro, xmr monero were cripplemined the first 3 months? 

the question they don't want to answer. 

Ask an objective question (in which case you can answer it from a block explorer, etc.) or might as well just make up your own answer.

I really thought you are an expert in making own assumptions and giving your own answers after all that bullshit i read from you on dash ... how often did you tell us eduffield has mined almost every xcoin within the instamine days? *facepalm* (or are you in blockchain analysis now, and can prove any of the "instamine scam" - "eduffield mined almost 2 mio coins" bullshit?!)

I really hate people throwing shit, and then if the shit hits the fan, and comes back to their own face, they just say, "hey that's something totally different" LOL

Questions:

How many dash were mined in the first two hours?

How many xmr were mined in the first two hours?

How many dash were mined in the first two days?

How many xmr were mined in the first two days?

How many dash were mined in first two months?

How many xmr were mined in first two months?

How much emissions were cut from dash's total supply?

How much emissions were cut from xmr's total supply?

Do the early mining totals potentially affect dash's power centralization (yes/no)? And if so, to what potential degree?

Do the early mining totals potentially affect xmr's power centralization (yes/no)? And if so, to what potential degree?

My guess is no dasher will answer these questions with just the numbers filled in--they will attempt to skew and spin, but never answer in a straight forward and direct manner (if at all).

[TPTB_need_war]

No, you have a problem with misreading, what I said was that your accusation is that TPTB_need_war is a sham, but you're incorrectly using the word scam as a stand-in.

Also, as far as breaking anonymity is concerned, this is a fallacy that I somewhat covered in this thread in #2:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1430839.0

BTW, Shadowcash was brazenly using this "prove it" argument until they weren't

And he can't even call me a sham, until he refutes my technical arguments, which the Dashtards gave up because they realized they couldn't.

And the "prove it" is scam methodology, when the masternodes are ostensibly (and mathematically obviously) monopolized by the instamine insiders  who have been receiving up to 50% per annum ROI on staking their instamined coins, and even the argument that they sold into the bubble as refuted by myself with basic market theory that says the majority buy the top and the insiders control the float so they have the information to know when to sell the top and buy the bottom because they control this.

We've refuted everything they say dozens and dozens of times. They just want to waste more of my time so I would be distracted from my coding. I must ignore them now.