Topic: . - page 4. (Read 17898 times)

Should be? Well, it is not. Now everybody can see what your motivation is in defaming Dash.




Bitcoin was an experiment. Dash also is an experiment but it explores. Its privacy hasn't been broken yet and it will be even improved.
But there are more things that make coin a currency.

Because they don't claim to be private, and if you look at my sig and my post history, you'll see that is my interest. It's sad that the leading market cap in privacy is a coin that depends on a hackneyed crypto system and a dev who is either a liar or shows poor long term planning. One of the cryptonote coins that launched fairly should be #1 (XMR, AEON, BBR), until a better privacy system is achieved (zerocash, quantum money...). It shows that some in the community are banking on public ignorance or are ignorant themselves of what makes a good privacy coin.

Yeah right.
Did I see you in those real scam coins thread? No, I didn't. Why?
Guess what?

If you are fine with a man in leadership who is either lying/misleading you about the instamine or didn't have the foresight to see that the instamine would haunt the community and a relaunch would be a simple and efficient means to avoid the situation permanently, then good for you. I just want those who aren't aware of the situation to have all the facts before they invest their money in what is either bad or worse management.

It seems that they really don't care about Dash

You're missing the point. If you want legitimacy as a coin without having to explain why the instamine doesn't matter, you relaunch the coin. I don't care if you relaunch dash or not. Masternodes are a ridiculous privacy system and that's enough to keep me out.

Glad to see you being more reasonable, but you still lack any factual/evidential basis on which to assert "all cryptocurrencies have founders with more than 5%."  Coblee doesn't have 5% of LTC; tacotime/fluffypony don't have 5% of XMR.

Now please maintain that rationality and follow our agreed-upon premises to their logical conclusion, that Dash should be relaunched in a fair, transparent, and competent manner.

Yes, lets just talk about this then. How is X11 bad for crypto?

It's used for proof-of-work and protecting our decentralized oracle implementation. How would you use a weakness in one of the 11 algorithms to attack the currency?

Do you also realize if I'm wrong and we got attacked, we would just switch to another algorithm? Just like if SHA256 had issues, the bitcoin team would have to switch as well. Instead of switching out the entire algorithm, we could use 10 hashes instead of 11 as the chain.

Also, speaking of distribution. The whole idea behind inventing X11 was that it would reduce the heat/wear-and-tear on GPUs that were used for mining. This allowed a really long period (...still going after 1.5 years) of hobbyist miners using GPUs to mine Dash.

The second launch was broken and not fair (~1.5 million coins in 48 hours), so you should have relaunched if you wanted to avoid the conversation we are having right now. Again, either you are lying or couldn't see an obvious pitfall (and i'm being generous with pitfall as some would say impossible gorge) on the road to legitimacy.

As for what you plan meeting reality and mashing algos together being good crypto, we'll have to agree to disagree.

You're right. I take it back, I shouldn't have speculated.


I take 100% responsibility for the instamine as a bug and as a feature of Dash. As it turns out, all cryptocurrencies have founders with more than 5%. It's not "everybody does it", but "it's required for the success of a cryptocurrency".

What an utterly irresponsible response for a coin's core dev/founder to make.

The uncalled for, unprofessional, baseless assumption of motivations ('I guess you bought hype about Darkcoin when it was $12') is bad enough.

But the 'everybody does it' tu quoquo is an atrocious deflection of responsibility for Dash's uniquely botched launch and concomitant insta/pre/oopsy-mine.

I did relaunch the coin! https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4588649

The first launch was broken and not "fair" so I relaunched...


Mass Adoption is the goal.... lots of hands are going to be in the pot.


Anyone that says X11 isn't secure doesn't understand how it's actually being used. Apples and Oranges.

If I had anything important to do (like sleeping or eating or watching tv) I wouldn't bother getting caught in a debate with them, it will never end as they take any answer you give and turn it into a strawman requiring yet another response.

Unless you enjoy endless back and forth trolling as much as they do of course but I never got that impression of you.

Your article doesn't persuade that the coin is fairly distributed. It's based on circumstantial evidence and supposed common sense--whereas the most common sense move would have been to relaunch the coin after the faulty launch (supposing that is the truth).

You can't have a decentralized, fungible, private currency with too many coins being held in too few hands*. Again, I'd have to trust you that this is true. I don't, anymore than i trust mashing 11 algos together is best practices in crypto or having human fail points in a privacy scheme is a good idea.

*quantum money being the only known exception has yet to be created.

A fair chance to mine? Was the code available? Yes . Was it pre-announced? Yes.

I'm still left to trust that the coin is fairly distributed with just your say so? There's proof in the article you didn't read. https://dashdot.io/alpha/?page_id=118


The "defense" is that founders need to be found. All cryptos that are successful have some sort of instamine. You might as well just get over it. Crypto is about trying to find solutions to fungibility, privacy, mass-adoption and pure decentralization. We are winning in all of those categories and if you get lost on minor details, like the launch, you're missing the bigger picture. Dash is the most advanced currency to ever exist and we have solved all of the problems in the space, next step is bringing it to the public. Do you think they care about the distribution of the coin? No.

We're trying to make the very first truly decentralized ecosystem to ever exist. From when you put in your money, to when you eventually get it out of the currency later, must ALL be decentralized. Who doesn't want that? That's not what Bitcoin is, it's a completely centralized ecosystem (one semi-decentralized currency, with 100% centralized companies to interact with).

Why is Bitcoin not 100% decentralized? The have centralized fungibility (bitcoinfog, sharedcoin, etc), centralized instant transactions (greenaddress), centralized funding (college grant money), centralized fiat conversion (coinbase, etc), centralized decision making, centralized governance... everything except the proof of work aspect is 100% old school. We need to move away from this, to something more decentralized, something that can't be corrupted. That is DASH.

Watch the video series if you actually want to learn what we're about: https://www.dashpay.io/dash-video-series/

Thanks for addressing these points and explaining your position.

I said "Definitely not. I'll also follow up with this post when I do set a time. "


Then 3 posts below, I set the time... like I said above. Can't read?

Never mind that a fair launch means everyone has a fair chance to mine. But accepting your premise that everyone instamines, I'm still left to trust that the coin is fairly distributed with just your say so and market information that could be manipulated (instaminers trading coins with themselves). And i have a hard trusting anyone whose defense is "but everyone does it."

And again, couldn't you foresee answering posts like this by not relaunching the coin if it was indeed accidentally instamined? Though I have my doubts about that being true given your nonchalant defense of the instamine.

Yes, it was launched as fair as Bitcoin. It was launched with prior notice and a completely public source code. Bugs or no bugs, it was completely transparent.


Insider manipulation? Watch my video here about Virtual Corporations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEJKZjTx9Bg

This is the structure that stops that from being a problem. People that have shares from the instamine or that are issued through the setup of a virtual corporation will have to sign some bylaws, which will make that type of behavior impossible. The founders need incentives, but they also need rules, which is what we're working on.

As for tainting the coin forever? All coins have instamines, some of them are slower than others. That's the point. Any coin that is even moderately successful has founders with more than 5% of the supply. That's called incentivizing the founders, it's required.

In the end the ONLY point of a fair launch is for distribution. So now answer my question:

Is the Dash distribution currently better than Bitcoins on July, 1 2010 (1.5 years after launch)?

That's eluding the questions with a question.

Again,