Topic: . - page 3. (Read 17898 times)

Another assumption.

I know you prefer to be a dumbass. 

I assume the guys who instamined 1.5 million coins in two days are disingenuous and the lack of proof of fair distribution means that i have to trust them in order to assume the distribution is spread out enough to be decentralized. Excuse me if i find this scenario laughable, naive, chimerical or stupid.

Another assumption. I bought mine masternodes. Does it make me an instaminer?

I know you prefer to be a communist 

Ah, and look at Bitcoin. See what is happening? Dash learnt a lot from it.

Yes, this would be a fantastic idea if dash wasn't an oligarchy of instaminers.

ASIC's are inevitable if there is incentive to make one for a specific algo.
How can you prevent centralization of cpu power? Buying 1000's of them? And there is this "problem" of botnets as you said.
You can't prevent it. ASIC's (like Antminer) has to be cheap enough to run it by 1000's of people at home.
But if it will be a problem for Dash, we can vote for a change in algo or any change to prevent centalization in the future.
Decentralized Governance by Blockchain is fantastic idea.

IMHO thats wrong
i think ASICs are the cancer of crypto. i prefer an algorithm which runs perfectly on cpu / gpu and cant be made better on an ASIC (monero tries to do that; but same as with ltc in the beginning: only future will show if thats a success or not).

IMHO asics lead to mining centralization.

one cpu one vote...that would be perfect. (granted cpu only has the "problem" of botnets - which sadly also tend to centralize mining)

Just think about it. What would happen if it was sha256 or script from the beginning?
ASIC's are needed, but in the later stage of Dash's life.

AFAIK it was?
i witnessed the start of Tenebrix and LTC and both where advertised as ASIC-resistant.

There are some advantages I guess.... the "benefactors" have a very good reason to support the coin to the best of their abilities meaning bounties,promoting, liquidity and anything else needed to keep it alive. Is this good for the rest of the investors/users is another question. 

How is it required for the coin's success that the founders premine a substantial amount?? Strange logic to say the least.

That's "ad-hominem". generalizethis is completely right. What we have here is a bit of founder's greed and pretty funny statement that 5% in the hands of founders "is required for coin's success". Investor can only hope Ewan doesn't decide he needs yacht at some point . In the other hand, more or less distribution with every coin is very unequal and that is true. So you have to consider all the factors involved and decide if and how much do you want to invest.

You're an idiot. It wasn't designed to be resistant forever.

Where did I claim that? Please kindly shove your strawman where the sun don't shine.

Also, I'm still waiting for your intervention in the Axiom thread btw. C'mon now, it had ninja launch, instamine amplified with huge instaPoS, instantly on exchanges, dev abandoned the project soon after. Should get your altruistic scam buster juices flowing.

And when you're done with Axiom, I have another one for you: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1180846.0;all

You're the self proclaimed scam buster champion with no hidden agendas after all.

Had to call on an expert to answer this precisely. But here you go.

"If any one of the hashes in the chain of 11 hashes has a lower entropy then the entire chain does. Say you found this vulnerability and didn't announce it. Instead you could use it to amplify your hashrate. With that you could take unfair levels of mining rewards, or potentially launch double-spend attacks.

Fixing it after the fact also probably means the inability to unwind the damage already done if it had gone on a long time undetected.

So 11 hashes is 11 times more likely to have a vulnerability than 1 hash."

100% responsibility would be to donate your stash of the coins to a charity because if you have ill-gotten coins because of a "bug" that you know you should do the right thing and give it up given that it isn't about the money right?

So ""it's required for the success of a cryptocurrency".?

What having an instamine? or having founders with a pretty big % of the total amount of coins?

I'm pretty sure not ALL investors have been "benefitting" from Dash/Dark/XCOIN/etc since its inception until now.

 

Okay so you put "NO PREMINE" on your thread title...

yet fail to mention the INSTAMINE on the front page of your thread and your website and forum.

If it isn't a problem and "corporations" instamine things why not openly advertise it as true and not disguise it as a version of crypto that is legitimate?

 

MORESO....



If you are going to take 100% responsibility of the instamine bug when your coin launched then please put "DASH was instamined and this many coins were mined in the first X hours" on the front page of your website, forum, and threads. You should have no problem advertising it since you are taking responsibility for it.

In for banter

"Our coin was instamined but it's ok to advertise NO PREMINE" is the type of semantic niggling that leads me to believe little to none of the dash defenders has an inkling of fairness in advertising. Sure it's true that high fructose corn syrup isn't sugar, but I'm certainly going to call bullshit on any company who has this additive in their products and puts "sugar free" on their labels. The reason is that the consumers who are most concerned about avoiding sugar calories are most likely the same ones who are looking to avoid corn syrup. Dash's advertising "no premine' gives the same impression to consumers who are most likely looking for a product that didn't reward itself dishonestly or accidentally. The fact that dash advertises "no premine" and then tries to hide the intsamine facts by burying it in their literature goes to show the community is aware of the bad perception it gives and that a few people would not buy the coin if they knew the truth. I'm amazed that Evan has come out of hiding to acknowledge it--though his defense is the standard, "but everyone does it," which is the cliche answer of those who got caught but aren't apologetic.

As for masternodes, you're an idiot if you think human dependency belongs in a cryptocurrency when it doesn't have to be there. These systems were designed to take as much error and greed out of the hands of humans as possible. A system that willingly incorporates it into their design, and especially a design for privacy, is begging for that system to break--whether this is added out of ignorance, stupidity, arrogance,  greed or another "accident" is beyond me. All I know is that it doesn't belong there.

It doesn't say "no instamine", so I think "no premine" is ok.



Defamed? It's gaining traction.
You can point out those "facts" as long as you can. I don't care about what you do with your time.



As I said, Dash explores. You can't even say nor imagine what system we can incorporate since we have "Decentralized Governance and Budget System".

Man, you care more about Dash than I  
Maybe not

Edit:
I forgot to add. Bye
I don't have as much time as you have for it.

Dash defamed itself. I'm merely pointing out the facts. Either it was instasmined by accident and the dev should have rescinded the launch to avoid later criticism or it was a sham launch to line his pockets. You can blame you dev for that, not me. And I will continue to point it out as long as the dash literature says "no premine."

As for dash's masternode system with its human points of failure, this system will garner the attention of authorities who can break it if the market cap ever gets big enough to matter. I intend for people to know all the flaws of your coin and make certain that a system that is flawed and gives people a false sense of security/privacy never lives long enough to reach that ignominious day. My motivation is to call the fraud for what it is and make certain that a good privacy coin takes its rightful place. If you have a problem with that, pick  another coin to shill.