Why the darkcoin/dash/dashpay instamine matters

[smooth]

The reality is that some people are butthurt because they have some other coin that like to do well, but it typically doesn't and thus they are anxiously trying to troll DRK to somehow bring it down in their twisted logic.

That kind of personal attack is dumb and doesn't even fit the facts. If you assume that I'm making these points because I'm butthurt because Monero "isn't doing well," then you have to ignore the fact that the XMR/DRK ratio has been in an approximate trading range for six months and has favored XMR over the past month. It doesn't fit at all.

How about you go back and look at the specific numbered items in my original post and instead of endeavoring to refute them like some kind of spin doctor or debating society, consider how a reasonable person might interpret them in such a way as to make an inference that is unfavorable.

If you can't see that then I will respectfully acknowledge a difference of opinion with you. If you can, then I think we can still respectfully acknowledge differences of opinion or interpretation without getting into alleged motives to attack DRK that don't even make any sense.

Joshuar, I agree that premines and instamines are largely the same and I don't consider them fraudulent if everything is clearly disclosed up front and not changed later. They might be "scams" in the looser sense of not being a good deal of the investor or a model for long term success (much the same thing), but that's quite different. I draw a distinction between that and an instamine that is "accidental", and which had misleading statements, withholding of information and other actions taken to disguise it as something other than a premine.

[AlexGR]

The reality is that some people are butthurt because they have some other coin that like to do well, but it typically doesn't and thus they are anxiously trying to troll DRK to somehow bring it down in their twisted logic.

That kind of personal attack is dumb and doesn't even fit the facts. If you assume that I'm making these points because I'm butthurt because Monero "isn't doing well," then you have to ignore the fact that the XMR/DRK ratio has been in an approximate trading range for six months and has favored XMR over the past month. It doesn't fit at all.

I simply said what the reality of the situation is. No intention of personal attack.

I have no interest in further participating here. I started writing the same things to answer the same arguments, but it's just going circles.

The arguments have been heard and it's going over and over the same.

If someone thinks DRK is a scam, and they somehow risk losing money, just don't buy it. It's as simple as that.

[smooth]

The reality is that some people are butthurt because they have some other coin that like to do well, but it typically doesn't and thus they are anxiously trying to troll DRK to somehow bring it down in their twisted logic.

That kind of personal attack is dumb and doesn't even fit the facts. If you assume that I'm making these points because I'm butthurt because Monero "isn't doing well," then you have to ignore the fact that the XMR/DRK ratio has been in an approximate trading range for six months and has favored XMR over the past month. It doesn't fit at all.

I simply said what the reality of the situation is. No intention of personal attack.

"butthurt" = reality of the situation and not a personal attack?

I think you need to take a step back and recover a little objectivity here.

Maybe you weren't referring to me. If so, then I'd definitely agree with you that some people behave in that manner.

I still think it's reasonable to ask you: Is it possible for reasonable person to interpret the facts stated in my numbered items in such a way as to make an inference that is unfavorable. Yes or no?

[slapper]

smooth

Start showing some class man. It just might make a bigger difference than all these threads attacking other coins, their developers and even the cults. You don't code, you have a bit of a technical background but you abuse it all the time and bring disrepute to yourself and anything associated with you. This has been mentioned countless number of times. In the past pony used to act a lot more classless but at least he has toned down the rhetoric.

You, othe, Latapie, on the other hand are on a different planet altogether. Even if a scam, CryptoNote is a boon from some really hard core, gifted people. Just because we forked it for good, doesn't provide you or anyone acting in the core team to start acting like you need to liberate people of their misery. Just because you paid someone to write code doesn't make this your own project and or provide you the license to act like the way you have been doing.

All smart techs have great marketing behind it. If you can't win people over, at least don't alienate them for us. Just keep your head in the grindstone and let the community sort it out.

[slapper]

smooth

Start showing some class man. It just might make a bigger difference than all these threads attacking other coins, their developers and even the cults. You don't code, you have a bit of a technical background but you abuse it all the time and bring disrepute to yourself and anything associated with you. This has been mentioned countless number of times. In the past pony used to act a lot more classless but at least he has toned down the rhetoric.

You, othe, Latapie, on the other hand are on a different planet altogether. Even if a scam, CryptoNote is a boon from some really hard core, gifted people. Just because we forked it for good, doesn't provide you or anyone acting in the core team to start acting like you need to liberate people of their misery. Just because you paid someone to write code doesn't make this your own project and or provide you the license to act like the way you have been doing.

All smart techs have great marketing behind it. If you can't win people over, at least don't alienate them for us. Just keep your head in the grindstone and let the community sort it out.

dude its just "coal", what are you upset about? plus:

You cocksuckers have sucked reptilia's dick for so long, you don't even realize that not everyone prefers to get taken advantage of.

Boolberry is technically much superior to Monero in every way, so what is your point?

Guys feel free to throw Boolberry at these dickwads and in fact in open threads more and more, places where fags like aminorex (and his sockpuppet accounts) are spreading propaganda for their own pump/dump and profiteering schemes. Some of the Monero disillusioned pricks don't even care what bile they are spewing on a daily basis.

Start showing some class man. lol

Hello puppet. And you will never get it either. And you always wonder why DRK goes up and you have to shill day in and day out and no one gives two shits. Start alienating more people. You will make it big one day. You are the new elite.

Too bad Mintpal is gone. Would be a perfect time to slap the images of dumps happening during those times.

[AlexGR]

I still think it's reasonable to ask you: Is it possible for reasonable person to interpret the facts stated in my numbered items in such a way as to make an inference that is unfavorable. Yes or no?

The "reasonable person" is a rubber that can be stretched any way you like.

For example, I believe that an objectively "reasonable person" could contemplate the possibility that BTC is a pyramid that will enrich its creator since its creator reached billionaire status with his solo-mined / stealth-mined coins.

In the context of this thread, this "reasonable person" is a hypocrite, as he will only "see" a scam in DRK and not BTC.

So, we return to the rubbery definition that suits any argument.

In the end of the day, the financial value of the entire DRK instamine was 50 BTC at that time. And that's just the size of the first BTC block.

When one says about BTC "it was worthless coins then", he must also see that the same was true with DRK more or less.

If one applies retroactive valuation with todays prices, things look far worse for BTC (34k BTCs vs 1mn BTCs).

And when the argument comes, that Evan proposed to fix this with airdroping new coins and was voted down by the community (while Satoshi didn't offer such a distribution fix), we get "ok, it's his coins, why didn't he distribute them"... Like the same question can't be asked for Satoshis 1m coins...

See the hypocrisy and double standards?

And I'm not saying Satoshi is a scammer btw or that bitcoin is a scam. I'm just highlighting how a "questioning skeptic" can see these things. In fact one of the first times I read about bitcoin, it was just a critique of how the hell is it supposed to beat the elites and the financial oligarchy, when it introduces a new class of elites with the creator being on top of a huge pile of coins he created...

[smooth]

I still think it's reasonable to ask you: Is it possible for reasonable person to interpret the facts stated in my numbered items in such a way as to make an inference that is unfavorable. Yes or no?

The "reasonable person" is a rubber that can be stretched any way you like.

Okay I'll take it you don't want to answer, and want to continue the spin doctor, debating society approach. Fair enough, you aren't required to answer my questions if you don't want.

Peace AlexGR.

BTW:

hypocrite, as he will only "see" a scam in DRK and not BTC.

My question was about the numbered items in my original posts, factual events (to the best of my knowledge) that did not occur with BTC and did occur with DRK.

[nachoig]

If you go the Pyramid/Ponzi route, every crypto has the same characteristic, including Bitcoin. Buyers buy and expect to sell higher to someone who will buy at a higher price, later, either due to speculative reasons, or the technology reaching a point of greater maturity and adoption.

In the same wave-length, Satoshi is a pyramid "scammer" for establishing a "pyramid" with deflationary characteristics over the longer run, coupled with scarcity, while he owns 1m coins that have made him a 9 digit net worth....

So, with this this logic, the guy who bought 2 pizzas with BTC 10000 should be a big retarded.

You are trying to claim about redistribution in an anonymous coin. But even if this wasn't being an anonnymous, how could you claim about the ownership of the new addresses?

DRK wasn't anonymous to begin with. Serious anonymity started being implemented by summer 2014 and even then, few people started mixing. Coin mixing is optional, not mandatory. So, in a sense, DRK can be used exactly as BTC, or it can also be used with DarkSend. It's not a prerequisite.

Summer of 2014 in the South hemisphere is between December and March.  

Even if we accept the above example, who exactly is cheated? People who have the coins get better value for it. People who don't have it, gain or lose nothing as they are not invested. As *potential buyers*, and if they choose to buy, they will gain more wealth preservation from a lower-inflation model.

The only people who feel "cheated", are in the context of an informal altcoin race, where altcoin holders of other coins perceive the change in inflation of a competitor as something that negatively affects their own coin, as it becomes less preferable to the competitor with less inflation and better price-potential.

The economy and the contracts per si are being cheated, and probably miners too (except the early miners).

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=970176.msg10612547#msg10612547

The differences in launches and parameters are known. How does that invalidate the economic impact of each "scam"? Why are you saying "nonsense"?

2mn coins x 0.000025 = 50 btc max, with the scenario of Evan solomining and retaining everything (it didn't happen like that, but anyway let's say it did). That's the furthest extent of the proposed "scam" with the economic value back then.

And again, 50 btc was just the first BTC block.

The discussion is not about economic value. It's about unfair practices.

Nobody would be happy anyway, so it's useless to discuss any of this.

If it wasn't the instamine, it would be "masternodes", it would be the economic incentives, it would be the closed source and the NSA "backdoors" (as it was for quite a while) and other $hit like that.

Bitcoin didn't change the rules of emission, although of its inumerous crashes. This is why it doesn't have any unfair practice. Other coins are instamined too, but they stated this in a clearly way before their launch. Darkcoin didn't this.

About masternodes: Well, the idea is not bad. The lack of economic incentives to run a node in the classical proof-of-work coins is a serious issue in my opinion. Darkcoin at least seems to more worried about providing a solution abou this, although the way how is this being done is very discutible. Beyond Darkcoin, NODE is another cryptocurrency which has a technology which can solve this issue with the proof-of-activity concept.

The reality is that some people are butthurt because they have some other coin that like to do well, but it typically doesn't and thus they are anxiously trying to troll DRK to somehow bring it down in their twisted logic. This isn't working (because the FUD or legitimate criticism they are using is already priced-in) and they get even crazier, and then they troll harder etc etc.

Don't worry. Unfortunately in this world many people and institutions with questionable practices are the winners. The top 10 coin market cap is a beautiful example of this. Only 3 or maybe 4 of these coins really deserves to stay at that list. The guys behind Darkcoin has the right resources: marketing, PR, contacts on the media and a lot of arguments about how a cryptocurrency should be.

I saw some Darkcoiners at the DRK announce thread on this forum making some sactires about Litecoin. It seems they are really looking to surpass Litecoin's market cap. In my opinion it's really hard to have a convicent answer to why Litecoin. It's a legit coin, with fair launch and respectable people behind its development. But unfortunately, they have a very commodist position, as I stated here one month ago: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=956231.msg10486790#msg10486790

So, that being said, unfortunatelly Dakcoin/DASH is really a serious candidate to this (and probably this will happen). There are a lot of coins which really deserves to stay about Litecoin. But Darkcoin, with its cheating, doen't deserve this position.

Joshuar, I agree that premines and instamines are largely the same and I don't consider them fraudulent if everything is clearly disclosed up front and not changed later.

Close topic.

[Melbustus]

...
In fact:

1. Within the very first hour over 500,000 coins were mined

2. Within 8 hours over 1.5 million coins were mind, which is most of the instamine.

On the matter of the instamine itself, to focus on the amount of the instamine and the subsequent disposition of the coins is to ignore a whole host of extremely deceptive and arguably fraudulent practices that surrounded it:

3. That Evan misled people into thinking that the launch would not happen for days (and specifically "definitely" not in "hours"), then it happened in a few hours, late at night in the US and during the early morning hours in Europe. Considering the >500K coins mined in the very first hour alone, the effect of this "ambush" was enormous.

4. That the stated reason for delaying the launch for days was to do more testing and fix bugs. Yet when the coin was lunched it still had a "serious error." Why was the rushed ambush launch done in this manner?

5. That Evan withheld information about the purpose, features, and goals of he coin development until after the instamine was complete. It was absolutely impossible for you to have any reason to mine this coin unless your strategy was to mine 100% of new coins that were launched, you just happened to stumble into it, you were friends with Evan, or you were Evan. In effect it turns the instamine into a premine, because the coins were mined before the coin was properly announced.

6. That various changes have been made to rewards, etc. multiple times., always in the direction of reducing/restricting/locking up supply, to the benefit of existing holders. The latest version of this is masternode payments, which look very much like a HYIP (a form of financial fraud which attracts new investors by offering high yields to the benefit of earlier investors)

Now it is possible all of this was an accident. If so, you are asking us to believe in a string of extraordinary coincidences all apparently (by sheer luck) benefiting the same party or parties.

If it is instead not all an "accident" then it is evidence of deliberate fraud on the part of the person or persons still involve with running the project. That is certainly relevant and troubling information, even if the nature of circumstantial evidence (even strong circumstantial evidence) is that it can't be 100% proven. Things might be different if there were a complete and transparent change of leadership (as for example with BitMonero->Monero, and probably some other coins). But that is not the case. The person (assuming, not necessarily with certainty, that he acted alone) responsible everything reported above is still there.

None of this proves it was not an accident, but given the fairly strong circumstantial case, I'm going to not only stay away, but advise other people to stay away.
...

Thanks for the info. I've stayed away from DRK just because the Masternode structure is an unnecessary hack given that CryptoNote coins exist (and that credible Zerocash coins may exist at some point). I've paid little attention otherwise; good to know there are other reasons to ignore it.

[smooth]

CryptoNote

This thread has nothing to do with cryptonote. Agree or disagree, please keep it on topic. Thanks.

[slapper]

CryptoNote

This thread has nothing to do with cryptonote. Agree or disagree, please keep it on topic. Thanks.

Get the gist of my post. It wasn't about CryptoNote.

[AlexGR]

Nachoig I said I'll refrain, but since you posted after that, I'll reply to this one and I'm out for good.

So, with this this logic, the guy who bought 2 pizzas with BTC 10000 should be a big retarded.

That's why you can't have both "back then" and retroactively applied reasoning.

Summer of 2014 in the South hemisphere is between December and March.  

Yes, I was talking about North...

The economy and the contracts per si are being cheated, and probably miners too (except the early miners).

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=970176.msg10612547#msg10612547

Future miners mine a more precious coin, so it evens out.

The discussion is not about economic value. It's about unfair practices.

Actual scams tend to have both victims and an economic size. "A scam of X size was perpetrated against Y parties". That's why I insist on these two. If there are no such identifiable variables, it is extremely hard to fit the "scam" profile.

Bitcoin didn't change the rules of emission, although of its inumerous crashes. This is why it doesn't have any unfair practice. Other coins are instamined too, but they stated this in a clearly way before their launch. Darkcoin didn't this.

Fairness is very, very relative. In this case we take Bitcoin as the standard-bearer and then compare others to it. But Bitcoin itself is not the fairest coin either: It did favor early miners (and I'm not talking about Satoshi, but about the programmed block reward reduction). It was also pre-programmed to evolve that way into the future. But future miners now get far more valuable coins. So, in a sense, they get way more. But they also have to compete much harder and with expensive equipment.

Then you have issues of mining (cpu vs asic), you have issues of fairness regarding whether the devs should get something or it should be all about the miners and investors, you have issues regarding democracy and voted by the community reductions that have no impact on other parties, etc etc. It's a huge discussion all around.

Don't worry. Unfortunately in this world many people and institutions with questionable practices are the winners. The top 10 coin market cap is a beautiful example of this. Only 3 or maybe 4 of these coins really deserves to stay at that list. The guys behind Darkcoin has the right resources: marketing, PR, contacts on the media and a lot of arguments about how a cryptocurrency should be.

I saw some Darkcoiners at the DRK announce thread on this forum making some sactires about Litecoin. It seems they are really looking to surpass Litecoin's market cap. In my opinion it's really hard to have a convicent answer to why Litecoin. It's a legit coin, with fair launch and respectable people behind its development. But unfortunately, they have a very commodist position, as I stated here one month ago: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=956231.msg10486790#msg10486790

So, that being said, unfortunatelly Dakcoin/DASH is really a serious candidate to this (and probably this will happen). There are a lot of coins which really deserves to stay about Litecoin. But Darkcoin, with its cheating, doen't deserve this position.

Actually Litcoin also had an instamine, it's just that nobody was trolling them for it... they were even self-marketed as fairer compared to BTC:

I'd like to point out that peacefulmind is flatout lying about Litecoin being "the fairest launch in history". Not close.  

http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=a_massive_investigation_of_instamines_and_fastmines_for_the_top_alt_coins#litecoin

Litecoin created ~440,000 coins in about 8 hours from the moment coins were being created, clearly an instamine.

however, this was 3 years ago and we are at 29,200,000 LTCs in existence. The effective instamine was 450,000/29,200,000 = 1.5% more or less.

Even though this didn't necessarily go to developers, it was a rather "meh" start to pump out that many coins in 1/3 of a day.

[smooth]

Litecoin created ~440,000 coins in about 8 hours from the moment coins were being created, clearly an instamine.

This thing you have about bringing up coins other than the one being discussed as if they are somehow relevant is getting tedious.

But since you did bring it up, let me ask:

What actions were taken by the LTC developer to deceive, mislead, conceal, expand or otherwise exploit the instamine?

In other words was anything like these things done:

3. That Evan misled people into thinking that the launch would not happen for days (and specifically "definitely" not in "hours"), then it happened in a few hours, late at night in the US and during the early morning hours in Europe. Considering the >500K coins mined in the very first hour alone, the effect of this "ambush" was enormous.

4. That the stated reason for delaying the launch for days was to do more testing and fix bugs. Yet when the coin was lunched it still had a "serious error." Why was the rushed ambush launch done in this manner?

5. That Evan withheld information about the purpose, features, and goals of he coin development until after the instamine was complete. It was absolutely impossible for you to have any reason to mine this coin unless your strategy was to mine 100% of new coins that were launched, you just happened to stumble into it, you were friends with Evan, or you were Evan. In effect it turns the instamine into a premine, because the coins were mined before the coin was properly announced.

6. That various changes have been made to rewards, etc. multiple times., always in the direction of reducing/restricting/locking up supply, to the benefit of existing holders. The latest version of this is masternode payments, which look very much like a HYIP (a form of financial fraud which attracts new investors by offering high yields to the benefit of earlier investors)

[smooth]

CryptoNote

This thread has nothing to do with cryptonote. Agree or disagree, please keep it on topic. Thanks.

Get the gist of my post. It wasn't about CryptoNote.

Help me out please. I can't find the part of your post that was about darkcoin/dash.

[stealth923]

CryptoNote

This thread has nothing to do with cryptonote. Agree or disagree, please keep it on topic. Thanks.

Get the gist of my post. It wasn't about CryptoNote.

Help me out please. I can't find the part of your post that was about darkcoin/dash.

Smooth, you do realise with the amount of effort you have spent slandering and bringing up the 1+ year old instamine non-issue, you could have had a working GUI wallet, fixed monero's problems and kept a little class......

Why not let things be, put your head down and do something useful with your time to help Monero and its community?

Then maybe, JUST maybe you may see a glimmer of hope that Monero might actually be worth something one day.....or not...

[smooth]

Subject: Re: Why the darkcoin/dash instamine matters

Monero

Wow, people really do have a problem staying on topic around here. Must be something in the water.

[stealth923]

Subject: Re: Why the darkcoin/dash instamine matters

Monero

Wow, people really do have a problem staying on topic around here. Must be something in the water.

No probs ill create a thread just so you can answer

Edit: here you go, now you can stay on topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1001299.0

[lucasjkr]

Dark coins been out for months now. Why is everyone upset about an instamine now?

[GTO911]

Dark coins been out for months now. Why is everyone upset about an instamine now?

Because it was dying until Evan came out with the artificially inflating Masternode pyramid scheme

[nachoig]

So, with this this logic, the guy who bought 2 pizzas with BTC 10000 should be a big retarded.

That's why you can't have both "back then" and retroactively applied reasoning.

The same goes when you try to see the price of these instamined coins in BTC.

Summer of 2014 in the South hemisphere is between December and March.  

Yes, I was talking about North...

I don't care. I live in the South hemisphere, but in opposite to Notherns, I don't try to enforce the using about the stations of the year over the internet. It would be great if people from North stop this practice.

The economy and the contracts per si are being cheated, and probably miners too (except the early miners).

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=970176.msg10612547#msg10612547

Future miners mine a more precious coin, so it evens out.

So, why offer new coins at mining now? Drop the new coins to zero, put only the transaction fees, and people (including miners) will gain a very very precious coin and speculators will be very happy. Coins which are still offering rewards at every new block are scamming you with inflation.

The discussion is not about economic value. It's about unfair practices.

Actual scams tend to have both victims and an economic size. "A scam of X size was perpetrated against Y parties". That's why I insist on these two. If there are no such identifiable variables, it is extremely hard to fit the "scam" profile.

There are a lot of coins with no economic value at all which are scams because the way of the mining schemes. The fact of nobody gived a shit to these coins and so the coin didn't gain economic value doesn't stop the fact of being a scam.

Bitcoin didn't change the rules of emission, although of its inumerous crashes. This is why it doesn't have any unfair practice. Other coins are instamined too, but they stated this in a clearly way before their launch. Darkcoin didn't this.

Fairness is very, very relative. In this case we take Bitcoin as the standard-bearer and then compare others to it. But Bitcoin itself is not the fairest coin either: It did favor early miners (and I'm not talking about Satoshi, but about the programmed block reward reduction). It was also pre-programmed to evolve that way into the future. But future miners now get far more valuable coins. So, in a sense, they get way more. But they also have to compete much harder and with expensive equipment.

Then you have issues of mining (cpu vs asic), you have issues of fairness regarding whether the devs should get something or it should be all about the miners and investors, you have issues regarding democracy and voted by the community reductions that have no impact on other parties, etc etc. It's a huge discussion all around.

Of course every single coin here favours more early miners/adopters than the laters. But there is an important difference here: Bitcoin didn't change the rules ex-post to favours (even more) them. Darkcoin changed. And also, to have a deflationary coin, or a coin where at a point doesn't generate new coins, you'll need at some point to cut the rewards until they stop to generate new coins.

Don't worry. Unfortunately in this world many people and institutions with questionable practices are the winners. The top 10 coin market cap is a beautiful example of this. Only 3 or maybe 4 of these coins really deserves to stay at that list. The guys behind Darkcoin has the right resources: marketing, PR, contacts on the media and a lot of arguments about how a cryptocurrency should be.

I saw some Darkcoiners at the DRK announce thread on this forum making some sactires about Litecoin. It seems they are really looking to surpass Litecoin's market cap. In my opinion it's really hard to have a convicent answer to why Litecoin. It's a legit coin, with fair launch and respectable people behind its development. But unfortunately, they have a very commodist position, as I stated here one month ago: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=956231.msg10486790#msg10486790

So, that being said, unfortunatelly Dakcoin/DASH is really a serious candidate to this (and probably this will happen). There are a lot of coins which really deserves to stay about Litecoin. But Darkcoin, with its cheating, doen't deserve this position.

Actually Litcoin also had an instamine, it's just that nobody was trolling them for it... they were even self-marketed as fairer compared to BTC:

I'd like to point out that peacefulmind is flatout lying about Litecoin being "the fairest launch in history". Not close.  

http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=a_massive_investigation_of_instamines_and_fastmines_for_the_top_alt_coins#litecoin

Litecoin created ~440,000 coins in about 8 hours from the moment coins were being created, clearly an instamine.

however, this was 3 years ago and we are at 29,200,000 LTCs in existence. The effective instamine was 450,000/29,200,000 = 1.5% more or less.

Even though this didn't necessarily go to developers, it was a rather "meh" start to pump out that many coins in 1/3 of a day.

devtome only looks about the relation between the number of the coins mined in the genesis block or in the first hours and the present number of coins. This is very superficial.

In the case of Litecoin, his was caused the blocks were generated at a more fast rate than the 2.5 minutes interval. This is common at the launch, specially if you don't have a difficulty adjustment per block (like BTC, LTC adjusts its difficulty every 2016 blocks). But every single block at Litecoin generated the right number of coins. In Darkcoin, what happened is totally different (credits to fluffyponny for the graph):



This comment is also relevant about this: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2zufu1/a_great_podcast_by_lets_talk_bitcoin_discussing/cpn7fgn