Why the darkcoin/dash/dashpay instamine matters

[illodin]

I think I just tried to explain it to you. If you don't want to understand it, I can't help you.

[generalizethis]

I think I just tried to explain it to you. If you don't want to understand it, I can't help you.

Where is your explanation of how throwing Bitcoin under the bus refutes what Fluffy said? Did I miss it? Where is it? I'm looking above but all I see is a question and an implication but not an explanation. Why don't you explain to us why Dash is more or less trustless than Bitcoin or more or less trustless than Monero and in what way? Do I need to fear a double spend or a masternode attacking my masternode? Are those an even-swap of risks. Seems like Dash has too many working parts for it to be an even-swap, so I asked for an explanation. I'm going to bed, but I'm looking forward to this like Christmas, so please don't disappoint.

[toknormal]

I like this quote...

Once zero coin, or bytecoin with a decent wallet it released or another darkcoin clone is released.... dark coin will sink like a stone.[/b]

...that was a year ago when Darkcoin's price was 0.0038.

Well it "sank" up the way by 326% after a year of "instamine" reminders culminating in them going desperate full throttle recently.

A "perfectly launched" clone did appear and it did this:

[iCEBREAKER]

XPOST of high relevance:

Dash can always do with some new discussion.

Let's start with these points.

Let's take a look at the first 5 h of Darkcoin (XCoin at that time)...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg4589219#msg4589219
Edufield said (after failed launch) that he will wait the next day to launch DRK (XCoin at that time) it is 11 pm.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg4591407#msg4591407
Edufield disregard windows wallet and daemon and hurry up his launch, presumably to not have windows miners on board.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg4592827#msg4592827
Edufield say he added four nodes for the launch at 4 am (5 hours later, despite his promise to wait). The 4 nodes from Edufield are 3 amazons AWS + another unknown (whois IP). Launch started at 3h54 am.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg4593601#msg4593601
Edufield said the github version was not updated, nobody could compile and only Edufield was able to mine until that time. It is 5.09 am and Edufield instamined alone 1153 block at 500 DRK + 60 block at reward 277 = 593120 DRK for him alone in about 1 hour.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg4593987#msg4593987
No windows wallet confirmed at 5h47 am, despite a user attempt to make one avaiable, that Edufield dismissed quickly.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg4594096#msg4594096
Illodin, understand dev has instamined alot of coin.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg4595573#msg4595573
From this list of nodes, at 8h34 am (4h40 after launch) there were 50 Amazon AWS node and 50 microsoft cloud computing instamining DRK (checked using IP whois service). This is 100/124 nodes using cloud computing to instamine DRK. We are at block 2870 and block reward is 500. From block 1153-1729 block reward is 277. After that it is 500 again hence 2294 block at 500 + 576 at 277 = 1306552 DRK (worth about 13M$ now) were instamined in less than 5 hour by Edufield and coworkers using about 100 cloud mining instances. Edufield himself instamined in not even 5 h from 600K to 1169K DRK ((1306K-600K)*100/124 + 600K) depending how many of the 100 cloud mining instance were its own. All this while having purposefully set the difficult ridiculously low and block reward 100 times what it is now.

From 6M$ - 13M$ in 5 h, Edufield did some lucrative work here!

Edufield is nominee for the Master Scammer 2014 award!

Thanks cryptohunter, good work!

[iCEBREAKER]

Update:

The latest cargo cult dogma declares the Dash insta-mine to be OK, because

1) it's all been re-distributed
2) Bytecoin did it too

Nevermind that

It is impossible to know -- in both cases -- how the coins were or weren't redistributed, especially if we believe the anonymity works, so this is a baseless claim.

As far as rationalization skills go, Tash and illodim get a D minus.   

Just in case there's someone who doesn't already know - Bytecoin was mined 82% before it was publicly announced. When the insiders hold 82% of the coin there's ever gonna be it's pretty easy to pump it.


And about Bytecoin being anonymous:

Doesn't count as anonymous because 80%+ of the utxoset is owned by entities who mined them before it became public and global, which means that those entities can deanonymise pretty much all future transactions.

Marketcap is irrelevant as it's easily inflated (doubly so when all you have to do is slightly bump the price due to the massive amount that's already emitted).

Those coins mined early have all been sold and redistributed already (coin is 3 years old and dumped heavy early on) it's the same as the 2 million Dash, no worries at all, clear sailing.

[minersday]

Update:

The latest cargo cult dogma declares the Dash insta-mine to be OK, because

1) it's all been re-distributed
2) Bytecoin did it too

Nevermind that

It is impossible to know -- in both cases -- how the coins were or weren't redistributed, especially if we believe the anonymity works, so this is a baseless claim.

As far as rationalization skills go, Tash and illodim get a D minus.   

Just in case there's someone who doesn't already know - Bytecoin was mined 82% before it was publicly announced. When the insiders hold 82% of the coin there's ever gonna be it's pretty easy to pump it.


And about Bytecoin being anonymous:

Doesn't count as anonymous because 80%+ of the utxoset is owned by entities who mined them before it became public and global, which means that those entities can deanonymise pretty much all future transactions.

Marketcap is irrelevant as it's easily inflated (doubly so when all you have to do is slightly bump the price due to the massive amount that's already emitted).

Those coins mined early have all been sold and redistributed already (coin is 3 years old and dumped heavy early on) it's the same as the 2 million Dash, no worries at all, clear sailing.

I don't know much, but I would say that the inventor/implementor of a NEW technology is entitled to his/her share of the profits/winnings, wouldn't you agree?
Isn't that how it works in the real corporate world? You build a new startup in the hopes of a profit and investors investing in your technology and your inventions get out there...
But what do I know..

[smooth]

I don't know much, but I would say that the inventor/implementor of a NEW technology is entitled to his/her share of the profits/winnings, wouldn't you agree?

Sure, just be honest and transparent about it.

[ANN] [DASH] Dash | First anonymous coin | 50% mined first day by insiders

And don't claim the coins have been "redistributed by the market" when there is no possible way you can prove that, or that it was an "accident" when actions on that day, and contemporaneous statements by those involved such as illodin suggest otherwise.

Given clear and honest disclosure, if people want in, they want in. Fair enough.

Of course, given that there hasn't been that kind of disclosure for over a year, with many people getting involved based on false, misleading, or hidden information, I'm not sure you can erase the fraud after the fact. What's done is done.

[minersday]

I don't know much, but I would say that the inventor/implementor of a NEW technology is entitled to his/her share of the profits/winnings, wouldn't you agree?

Sure, just be honest and transparent about it.

[ANN] [DASH] Dash | First anonymous coin | 50% mined first day by insiders

And don't claim the coins have been "redistributed by the market" when there is no possible way you can prove that, or that it was an "accident" when actions on that day, and contemporaneous statements by those involved such as illodin suggest otherwise.

Given clear and honest disclosure, if people want in, they want in. Fair enough.

Of course, given that there hasn't been that kind of disclosure for over a year, with many people getting involved based on false, misleading, or hidden information, I'm not sure you can erase the fraud after the fact. What's done is done.

Corporates do this behind our backs and so do startups and the US president? =D, I'm not saying it's right, but we do have to live in the real world thou..
If I remember correctly Bill Gates didn't even have the OS ready when he sold it to investors, was this false, misleading or hidden information, or just good business?
And so in in time everything comes into the light and there truth has to be told what ever it is...

[smooth]

I don't know much, but I would say that the inventor/implementor of a NEW technology is entitled to his/her share of the profits/winnings, wouldn't you agree?

Sure, just be honest and transparent about it.

[ANN] [DASH] Dash | First anonymous coin | 50% mined first day by insiders

And don't claim the coins have been "redistributed by the market" when there is no possible way you can prove that, or that it was an "accident" when actions on that day, and contemporaneous statements by those involved such as illodin suggest otherwise.

Given clear and honest disclosure, if people want in, they want in. Fair enough.

Of course, given that there hasn't been that kind of disclosure for over a year, with many people getting involved based on false, misleading, or hidden information, I'm not sure you can erase the fraud after the fact. What's done is done.

Corporates do this behind our backs and so do startups and the US president? =D, I'm not saying it's right

That's exactly the point.

Corporations and presidents have plenty of critics calling them out when what they do is seen as wrong, do they not?

If I remember correctly Bill Gates didn't even have the OS ready when he sold it to investors

I don't know exactly what Bill Gates told IBM, investors, etc. Let's stick with what we do know -- about Dash -- and that's referenced in the first post here and subsequent discussion.

We can leave digging into Microsoft to the dozens or hundreds of lawyers, writers and journalists who have investigated it over the decades. Why should Dash get a pass from the same scrutiny?

[minersday]

That's exactly the point.

Corporations and presidents have plenty of critics calling them out when what they do is seen as wrong, do they not?

Yes there are, but you know what, you can't satisfy every person out there, there are always critics and different thinkers, that's the way life is...
But that's the freedom of speech, which is great!

I don't know exactly what Bill Gates told IBM, investors, etc. Let's stick with what we do know -- about Dash -- and that's referenced in the first post here and subsequent discussion.
We can leave digging into Microsoft to the dozens or hundreds of lawyers, writers and journalists who have investigated it over the decades. Why should Dash get a pass from the same scrutiny

This is exactly my point, we don't know the future of this yet.

[generalizethis]

That's exactly the point.

Corporations and presidents have plenty of critics calling them out when what they do is seen as wrong, do they not?

Yes there are, but you know what, you can't satisfy every person out there, there are always critics and different thinkers, that's the way life is...
But that's the freedom of speech, which is great!

I don't know exactly what Bill Gates told IBM, investors, etc. Let's stick with what we do know -- about Dash -- and that's referenced in the first post here and subsequent discussion.
We can leave digging into Microsoft to the dozens or hundreds of lawyers, writers and journalists who have investigated it over the decades. Why should Dash get a pass from the same scrutiny

This is exactly my point, we don't know the future of this yet.

We certainly know dash's past even though they keep changing the name on us. And if you think institutional investors (whom dash will need to get to their moon objective) are going to look past shadiness, you need to think more clearly on the subject.

"You want me to trust your assertion that you accidentally mined 2 million coins and didn't relaunch to validate your claim of a fair launch?" says Institutional Investor.

"But it was an accident!" says Evan.

"Get out of my office." says Institutional Investor.

[minersday]

That's exactly the point.

Corporations and presidents have plenty of critics calling them out when what they do is seen as wrong, do they not?

Yes there are, but you know what, you can't satisfy every person out there, there are always critics and different thinkers, that's the way life is...
But that's the freedom of speech, which is great!

I don't know exactly what Bill Gates told IBM, investors, etc. Let's stick with what we do know -- about Dash -- and that's referenced in the first post here and subsequent discussion.
We can leave digging into Microsoft to the dozens or hundreds of lawyers, writers and journalists who have investigated it over the decades. Why should Dash get a pass from the same scrutiny

This is exactly my point, we don't know the future of this yet.

We certainly know dash's past even though they keep changing the name on us. And if you think institutional investors (whom dash will need to get to their moon objective) are going to look past shadiness, you need to think more clearly on the subject.

"You want me to trust your assertion that you accidentally mined 2 million coins and didn't relaunch to validate your claim of a fair launch?" says Institutional Investor.

"But it was an accident!" says Evan.

"Get out of my office." says Institutional Investor.

That's one way of looking at it and there are several others, you certainly are entitled to that.
But there are also other ways of looking at it, for one there's the matter of inventors compensation (see law discussions on this). If you claim it's fraud, some other could claim it's inventors compensation and there's nothing wrong with that one. That's the thing that kickstarts projects keeps inventor happy and motivated to develop the product and so on...
There are several inventors of software products that are rich as hell. I'm not envy of them, they certainly earned it....

[generalizethis]

That's exactly the point.

Corporations and presidents have plenty of critics calling them out when what they do is seen as wrong, do they not?

Yes there are, but you know what, you can't satisfy every person out there, there are always critics and different thinkers, that's the way life is...
But that's the freedom of speech, which is great!

I don't know exactly what Bill Gates told IBM, investors, etc. Let's stick with what we do know -- about Dash -- and that's referenced in the first post here and subsequent discussion.
We can leave digging into Microsoft to the dozens or hundreds of lawyers, writers and journalists who have investigated it over the decades. Why should Dash get a pass from the same scrutiny

This is exactly my point, we don't know the future of this yet.

We certainly know dash's past even though they keep changing the name on us. And if you think institutional investors (whom dash will need to get to their moon objective) are going to look past shadiness, you need to think more clearly on the subject.

"You want me to trust your assertion that you accidentally mined 2 million coins and didn't relaunch to validate your claim of a fair launch?" says Institutional Investor.

"But it was an accident!" says Evan.

"Get out of my office." says Institutional Investor.

That's one way of looking at it and there are several others, you certainly are entitled to that.
But there are also other ways of looking at it, for one there's the matter of inventors compensation (see law discussions on this). If you claim it's fraud, some other could claim it's inventors compensation and there's nothing wrong with that one. That's the thing that kickstarts projects keeps inventor happy and motivated to develop the product and so on...
There are several inventors of software products that are rich as hell. I'm not envy of them, they certainly earned it....

That's a faulty comparison because inventors and corporations don't accidentally give themselves a huge payoff and then claim that it was fairly launched--doing that sort of thing during an IPO would land you in hot water. There seems to be a cognitive dissonance when I say that the problem is that he gave himself a payoff (accidentally) , but also claims it was a fair launch. If Evan had just given himself a payoff, but never claimed that the coin wasn't insta or fast-mined there wouldn't be a problem. At least I wouldn't have a problem with it. But as it stands, it looks like he's bating people into one perception of the coin, and then when investors find out, they either get out or play a (conscious or unconscious) game of greater fool and hope that others on the outside will rationalize it the same way they have to because they are stuck with their own (conscious or unconscious) buyer's remorse. Smooth did a public service with this thread, sorry it ruins the gameplan.

[minersday]

That's exactly the point.

Corporations and presidents have plenty of critics calling them out when what they do is seen as wrong, do they not?

Yes there are, but you know what, you can't satisfy every person out there, there are always critics and different thinkers, that's the way life is...
But that's the freedom of speech, which is great!

I don't know exactly what Bill Gates told IBM, investors, etc. Let's stick with what we do know -- about Dash -- and that's referenced in the first post here and subsequent discussion.
We can leave digging into Microsoft to the dozens or hundreds of lawyers, writers and journalists who have investigated it over the decades. Why should Dash get a pass from the same scrutiny

This is exactly my point, we don't know the future of this yet.

We certainly know dash's past even though they keep changing the name on us. And if you think institutional investors (whom dash will need to get to their moon objective) are going to look past shadiness, you need to think more clearly on the subject.

"You want me to trust your assertion that you accidentally mined 2 million coins and didn't relaunch to validate your claim of a fair launch?" says Institutional Investor.

"But it was an accident!" says Evan.

"Get out of my office." says Institutional Investor.

That's one way of looking at it and there are several others, you certainly are entitled to that.
But there are also other ways of looking at it, for one there's the matter of inventors compensation (see law discussions on this). If you claim it's fraud, some other could claim it's inventors compensation and there's nothing wrong with that one. That's the thing that kickstarts projects keeps inventor happy and motivated to develop the product and so on...
There are several inventors of software products that are rich as hell. I'm not envy of them, they certainly earned it....

That's a faulty comparison because inventors and corporations don't accidentally give themselves a huge payoff and then claim that it was fairly launched--doing that sort of thing during an IPO would land you in hot water. There seems to be a cognitive dissonance when I say that the problem is that he gave himself a payoff (accidentally) , but also claims it was a fair launch. If Evan had just given himself a payoff, but never claimed that the coin wasn't insta or fast-mined there wouldn't be a problem. At least I wouldn't have a problem with it. But as it stands, it looks like he's bating people into one perception of the coin, and then when investors find out, they either get out or play a (conscious or unconscious) game of greater fool and hope that others on the outside will rationalize it the same way they have to because they are stuck with their own (conscious or unconscious) buyer's remorse. Smooth did a public service with this thread, sorry it ruins the gameplan.

You know that investors/corporations only talk money. As long as they make the money they don't care if somebody else has some funds or any other stuff for that matter and that's the cold fact.

[illodin]

Privacy should be inherent at the protocol level, not attempted as an added feature

Why?

It is not a matter of if the masternode system will fail, it is a matter of when

Whether they are taken down with subpoenas or hackers the system is not designed to last. The system was designed to maximize income for the beneficiaries of the instamine at the expense of everyone else. 

If masternodes start getting taken down by the authorities of some country, they get moved elsewhere, the incentive to run them is there and getting larger the less there are nodes / the more are taken down. But why would they have a problem with masternodes btw? Hackers however, hmm, how?

[generalizethis]

That's exactly the point.

Corporations and presidents have plenty of critics calling them out when what they do is seen as wrong, do they not?

Yes there are, but you know what, you can't satisfy every person out there, there are always critics and different thinkers, that's the way life is...
But that's the freedom of speech, which is great!

I don't know exactly what Bill Gates told IBM, investors, etc. Let's stick with what we do know -- about Dash -- and that's referenced in the first post here and subsequent discussion.
We can leave digging into Microsoft to the dozens or hundreds of lawyers, writers and journalists who have investigated it over the decades. Why should Dash get a pass from the same scrutiny

This is exactly my point, we don't know the future of this yet.

We certainly know dash's past even though they keep changing the name on us. And if you think institutional investors (whom dash will need to get to their moon objective) are going to look past shadiness, you need to think more clearly on the subject.

"You want me to trust your assertion that you accidentally mined 2 million coins and didn't relaunch to validate your claim of a fair launch?" says Institutional Investor.

"But it was an accident!" says Evan.

"Get out of my office." says Institutional Investor.

That's one way of looking at it and there are several others, you certainly are entitled to that.
But there are also other ways of looking at it, for one there's the matter of inventors compensation (see law discussions on this). If you claim it's fraud, some other could claim it's inventors compensation and there's nothing wrong with that one. That's the thing that kickstarts projects keeps inventor happy and motivated to develop the product and so on...
There are several inventors of software products that are rich as hell. I'm not envy of them, they certainly earned it....

That's a faulty comparison because inventors and corporations don't accidentally give themselves a huge payoff and then claim that it was fairly launched--doing that sort of thing during an IPO would land you in hot water. There seems to be a cognitive dissonance when I say that the problem is that he gave himself a payoff (accidentally) , but also claims it was a fair launch. If Evan had just given himself a payoff, but never claimed that the coin wasn't insta or fast-mined there wouldn't be a problem. At least I wouldn't have a problem with it. But as it stands, it looks like he's bating people into one perception of the coin, and then when investors find out, they either get out or play a (conscious or unconscious) game of greater fool and hope that others on the outside will rationalize it the same way they have to because they are stuck with their own (conscious or unconscious) buyer's remorse. Smooth did a public service with this thread, sorry it ruins the gameplan.

You know that investors/corporations only talk money. As long as they make the money they don't care if somebody else has some funds or any other stuff for that matter and that's the cold fact.

It's a cold rationalization. Good luck finding greater fools. 

[minersday]

That's exactly the point.

Corporations and presidents have plenty of critics calling them out when what they do is seen as wrong, do they not?

Yes there are, but you know what, you can't satisfy every person out there, there are always critics and different thinkers, that's the way life is...
But that's the freedom of speech, which is great!

I don't know exactly what Bill Gates told IBM, investors, etc. Let's stick with what we do know -- about Dash -- and that's referenced in the first post here and subsequent discussion.
We can leave digging into Microsoft to the dozens or hundreds of lawyers, writers and journalists who have investigated it over the decades. Why should Dash get a pass from the same scrutiny

This is exactly my point, we don't know the future of this yet.

We certainly know dash's past even though they keep changing the name on us. And if you think institutional investors (whom dash will need to get to their moon objective) are going to look past shadiness, you need to think more clearly on the subject.

"You want me to trust your assertion that you accidentally mined 2 million coins and didn't relaunch to validate your claim of a fair launch?" says Institutional Investor.

"But it was an accident!" says Evan.

"Get out of my office." says Institutional Investor.

That's one way of looking at it and there are several others, you certainly are entitled to that.
But there are also other ways of looking at it, for one there's the matter of inventors compensation (see law discussions on this). If you claim it's fraud, some other could claim it's inventors compensation and there's nothing wrong with that one. That's the thing that kickstarts projects keeps inventor happy and motivated to develop the product and so on...
There are several inventors of software products that are rich as hell. I'm not envy of them, they certainly earned it....

That's a faulty comparison because inventors and corporations don't accidentally give themselves a huge payoff and then claim that it was fairly launched--doing that sort of thing during an IPO would land you in hot water. There seems to be a cognitive dissonance when I say that the problem is that he gave himself a payoff (accidentally) , but also claims it was a fair launch. If Evan had just given himself a payoff, but never claimed that the coin wasn't insta or fast-mined there wouldn't be a problem. At least I wouldn't have a problem with it. But as it stands, it looks like he's bating people into one perception of the coin, and then when investors find out, they either get out or play a (conscious or unconscious) game of greater fool and hope that others on the outside will rationalize it the same way they have to because they are stuck with their own (conscious or unconscious) buyer's remorse. Smooth did a public service with this thread, sorry it ruins the gameplan.

You know that investors/corporations only talk money. As long as they make the money they don't care if somebody else has some funds or any other stuff for that matter and that's the cold fact.

It's a cold rationalization. Good luck finding greater fools. 

I would add, that if you knew or had a hunch that putting 1 dollar into stocks would grow in a few days to 10 dollars, wouldn't you take it? As long as it's legal of course.
I know I would and would be tempting to invest more, for example 100 dollars that would be 1000 dollars..
but that's only my opinion, if this makes a person a fool then so be it, but he/she would be a rich fool =)

[iCEBREAKER]

Privacy should be inherent at the protocol level, not attempted as an added feature

Why?

Because mathematically proven 'good crypto' is preferable to Dash's 'bad crypto.'

https://downloads.getmonero.org/whitepaper_review.pdf

You can't simply glue privacy onto a Bitcoin-like transparent protocol/blockchain.  A house is only as strong as its foundation.

[illodin]

Privacy should be inherent at the protocol level, not attempted as an added feature

Why?

Because mathematically proven 'good crypto' is preferable to Dash's 'bad crypto.'

https://downloads.getmonero.org/whitepaper_review.pdf

You can't simply glue privacy onto a Bitcoin-like transparent protocol/blockchain.  A house is only as strong as its foundation.

Do you think you answered the question?

[minersday]

Privacy should be inherent at the protocol level, not attempted as an added feature

Why?

Because mathematically proven 'good crypto' is preferable to Dash's 'bad crypto.'

https://downloads.getmonero.org/whitepaper_review.pdf

You can't simply glue privacy onto a Bitcoin-like transparent protocol/blockchain.  A house is only as strong as its foundation.

And why would this matter, Windows was built on top of DOS, and still it's the most widest used OS, and that's only one example.