Keep digging your own grave idiots!
Well if I had a shovel. Unfortunately you've been hogging it
Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 1581. (Read 9723858 times)
November 20, 2015, 01:39:44 PM
Well if I had a shovel. Unfortunately you've been hogging it
November 20, 2015, 01:32:00 PM
Did you even read that "Vote" thread? That doesn't look good at all. There was a hard cap of 84 million, yet the vote option says that the coins were to be issued forever. And Evan never responds again to clarify. How is this a legitimate vote?
Holy shit, the more you look the more of a scam this is. Keep digging your own grave idiots!
Holy shit, the more you look the more of a scam this is. Keep digging your own grave idiots!
November 20, 2015, 01:28:42 PM
MMh, Monero... Where have I heard this before?
Yes, here, in the Dash thread. Every day, several times, by a desperate salesman called Icebreaker a crowd of sock puppets
November 20, 2015, 01:26:02 PM
You are blatantly lying when you claim XMR "has had almost nothing done on it since."
Ah ! Apologies.
It hired someone to 'clean up the code'.
Forgot about that
and confirming the number of commits (presently 1,263).
Well when you make the mistake of hiring highly trained typists instead of creative developers who can understand what their users want then you do end up with a lot of commits.
Better luck next time with your investments
November 20, 2015, 01:24:42 PM
A reminder on the trolls modus operandi: http://pastebin.com/irj4Fyd5
Maybe they're forum-sliding this but it could just be another slow day in trollHQ.
Maybe they're forum-sliding this but it could just be another slow day in trollHQ.
Yep, this is exactly what DASH and its scam community do. Why do you think your topic is 5000+ pages?
Forum sliding:
Quote
If a very sensitive posting of a critical nature has been posted on a forum - it can be quickly removed from public view by 'forum sliding.' In this technique a number of unrelated posts are quietly prepositioned on the forum and allowed to 'age.' Each of these misdirectional forum postings can then be called upon at will to trigger a 'forum slide.' The second requirement is that several fake accounts exist, which can be called upon, to ensure that this technique is not exposed to the public. To trigger a 'forum slide' and 'flush' the critical post out of public view it is simply a matter of logging into each account both real and fake and then 'replying' to prepositined postings with a simple 1 or 2 line comment. This brings the unrelated postings to the top of the forum list, and the critical posting 'slides' down the front page, and quickly out of public view. Although it is difficult or impossible to censor the posting it is now lost in a sea of unrelated and unuseful postings. By this means it becomes effective to keep the readers of the forum reading unrelated and non-issue items.
November 20, 2015, 01:19:25 PM
Lets look at what Nick Szabo actually said in context.
When we do that, we find that in fact, he's talking about technologies needing practical exposure to markets and users in order to evolve. He's talking about it being messy "out there" and that iterative cycles of deploy-learn-develop are required to produce something that's robust enough and practical enough at the same time to be successful.
Few cryptos have done as much justice to this ethic than Dash. It's basically had a baptism of fire since day one and successfully responded and improved according to market and industry priorities. Deployments have been delivered, revisions created, long term design goals refined and focused, new opportunities discovered - all from having been "out there". Most importantly - it survived and now has a roadmap that does justice to that survival.
Meanwhile, by way of contrast, lets take something like Monero: Ironically, that WAS designed in secret in an ivory tower, got shoved "out there", has had almost nothing done on it since, has lost 90% of its value from launch, suffers from confidence problems, the wrong monetary model and a defective implementation at launch - all on top of an almost non-existent set of end user tools.
When we do that, we find that in fact, he's talking about technologies needing practical exposure to markets and users in order to evolve. He's talking about it being messy "out there" and that iterative cycles of deploy-learn-develop are required to produce something that's robust enough and practical enough at the same time to be successful.
Few cryptos have done as much justice to this ethic than Dash. It's basically had a baptism of fire since day one and successfully responded and improved according to market and industry priorities. Deployments have been delivered, revisions created, long term design goals refined and focused, new opportunities discovered - all from having been "out there". Most importantly - it survived and now has a roadmap that does justice to that survival.
Meanwhile, by way of contrast, lets take something like Monero: Ironically, that WAS designed in secret in an ivory tower, got shoved "out there", has had almost nothing done on it since, has lost 90% of its value from launch, suffers from confidence problems, the wrong monetary model and a defective implementation at launch - all on top of an almost non-existent set of end user tools.
Shipping broken code is fine or even ideal for some projects, but not ones involving people's money.
Fintech has higher standards, such as ACTUALLY TESTING YOUR CODE BEFORE YOU LAUNCH A PRODUCT.
Dash's 'design in secret, then launch and find out what's broken' approach is ass-backwards. That's exactly how the instamine fiasco happened.
It's equivalent to building a house from the roof down, and pouring the foundation as the last step.
That's not at all what Szabo endorsed and only a DashHole cultist would fail to see the difference.
Your tu quoque (appeal to hypocrisy) is a logical fallacy, but I will address it anyway. Bytecoin was designed in secret; Monero is being rewritten in public starting from that point. As for end user tools, the CLI and mymonero.org web wallet work just fine for sending/receiving XMR.
You are blatantly lying when you claim XMR "has had almost nothing done on it since." Anyone may easily verify you are a fucking liar by clicking
https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/tree/master
and confirming the number of commits (presently 1,263).
Dash
November 20, 2015, 01:18:06 PM
All of this is besides the point. tantestafana2 said there was a vote and that 95% of the community voted for the huge reduction in coin emission. When i asked where this vote was, not only did you not provide the information, but you attacked me and tried to change the subject.
Thanks for confirming tantestafana2 is another one of your paid or bagholding defenders who sits around this thread all day spouting constant lies.
Dash
That's because I have you on ignore, and I'd happily never see any posts from any of you if other members wouldn't quote you. It was on DashTalk, I believe, or somewhere here. It was almost 2 years ago, and I'm not about to go search for it.
OK, someone else found it, and I see mention 88% yes at the time. The vote is still open, so who knows how the thread has been manipulated over time. So my memory was off (no surprise) I stand corrected, it was more like 88% of the community voted for it. What difference does it make? Other than to show Evan was always asking the community for their opinions. BTW, reminds me of the good old days when our thread was used for constructive work.
November 20, 2015, 01:08:33 PM
Dash
That's because there was no vote. Just more lies from your full-time defender tantestefana2
Hello everyone and happy Friday!
Anyone who's been around long enough knows nothing in Darkcoin is ever set in stone and we listen to the community. Last time we removed the block halving we received a lot of crap, here's the problems with yearly halving.
- It's too fast and could destroy the coin
- It's way too much (50% per year)
- We already have formula for controlling the supply
Problems with not having a fixed supply:
- We'll have a constant amount of inflation forever. Most of us are in the austrian camp of economics, so I'd like to fix this.
In true Darkcoin fashion, I'd like to propose a solution that no other crypto has and fixes all of the issues. A yearly reduction of supply of 20%. With this we'll hit the cap of coins near 2056. I'm guessing we'll have somewhere near 25M coins (12M minimum, 49M maximum. Depends on how many miners we attract).
Let's have a vote!
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/darkcoin-reward-schedule-vote-525093
Anyone who's been around long enough knows nothing in Darkcoin is ever set in stone and we listen to the community. Last time we removed the block halving we received a lot of crap, here's the problems with yearly halving.
- It's too fast and could destroy the coin
- It's way too much (50% per year)
- We already have formula for controlling the supply
Problems with not having a fixed supply:
- We'll have a constant amount of inflation forever. Most of us are in the austrian camp of economics, so I'd like to fix this.
In true Darkcoin fashion, I'd like to propose a solution that no other crypto has and fixes all of the issues. A yearly reduction of supply of 20%. With this we'll hit the cap of coins near 2056. I'm guessing we'll have somewhere near 25M coins (12M minimum, 49M maximum. Depends on how many miners we attract).
Let's have a vote!
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/darkcoin-reward-schedule-vote-525093
Now what about gtfy?
This shows how Evan thought the hash rate would be more in the center, but this project was uber popular and we've been hugging the bottom emissions rate just about this whole time. Also, note, after much more discussion, the reduction of supply was lowered to 7% as I think Evan's calculations were a bit off, and it turns out to be far more gentle.
November 20, 2015, 01:00:58 PM
All of this is besides the point. tantestafana2 said there was a vote and that 95% of the community voted for the huge reduction in coin emission. When i asked where this vote was, not only did you not provide the information, but you attacked me and tried to change the subject.
Thanks for confirming tantestafana2 is another one of your paid or bagholding defenders who sits around this thread all day spouting constant lies.
Dash
That's because I have you on ignore, and I'd happily never see any posts from any of you if other members wouldn't quote you. It was on DashTalk, I believe, or somewhere here. It was almost 2 years ago, and I'm not about to go search for it.
OK, someone else found it, and I see mention 88% yes at the time. The vote is still open, so who knows how the thread has been manipulated over time. So my memory was off (no surprise) I stand corrected, it was more like 88% of the community voted for it. What difference does it make? Other than to show Evan was always asking the community for their opinions. BTW, reminds me of the good old days when our thread was used for constructive work.
November 20, 2015, 12:58:51 PM
WOW!!! that is cool...are we doing a similar android wallet? this amazing!
We already have a Dash wallet!!!
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=hashengineering.darkcoin.wallet
Besides that, fulltimegeek is quitting his job to work full time on Dash and he happens to be an Android developer, so expect nice news on that front
November 20, 2015, 12:58:00 PM
Dash
That's because there was no vote. Just more lies from your full-time defender tantestefana2
Who is the liar? Hmm Adan?
Hello everyone and happy Friday!
Anyone who's been around long enough knows nothing in Darkcoin is ever set in stone and we listen to the community. Last time we removed the block halving we received a lot of crap, here's the problems with yearly halving.
- It's too fast and could destroy the coin
- It's way too much (50% per year)
- We already have formula for controlling the supply
Problems with not having a fixed supply:
- We'll have a constant amount of inflation forever. Most of us are in the austrian camp of economics, so I'd like to fix this.
In true Darkcoin fashion, I'd like to propose a solution that no other crypto has and fixes all of the issues. A yearly reduction of supply of 20%. With this we'll hit the cap of coins near 2056. I'm guessing we'll have somewhere near 25M coins (12M minimum, 49M maximum. Depends on how many miners we attract).
Let's have a vote!
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/darkcoin-reward-schedule-vote-525093
Anyone who's been around long enough knows nothing in Darkcoin is ever set in stone and we listen to the community. Last time we removed the block halving we received a lot of crap, here's the problems with yearly halving.
- It's too fast and could destroy the coin
- It's way too much (50% per year)
- We already have formula for controlling the supply
Problems with not having a fixed supply:
- We'll have a constant amount of inflation forever. Most of us are in the austrian camp of economics, so I'd like to fix this.
In true Darkcoin fashion, I'd like to propose a solution that no other crypto has and fixes all of the issues. A yearly reduction of supply of 20%. With this we'll hit the cap of coins near 2056. I'm guessing we'll have somewhere near 25M coins (12M minimum, 49M maximum. Depends on how many miners we attract).
Let's have a vote!
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/darkcoin-reward-schedule-vote-525093
EDIT: at the end of the discussion we vote for a 7% yearly reduction.
Now what about gtfy?
November 20, 2015, 12:55:07 PM
Once again the Darktards trying to twist things around. Where does it say anything about a relaunch?
This was something that was voted on. I didn't like the idea myself, and argued against it. But the community was over 95% for it, so it was done. Another instance of Evan coming to the community for guidance. And there initially was no limit technically to the number of coins to be produced. The way the number of coins was limited was by reducing the emissions by 7% per year. Otherwise we kept the same setup. This calculates over the next 100 or so years as halving.
Also, Evan's initial estimates on how many coins would be produced assumed a lower hash rate (that it would never get so high as to hug the minimum reward).
Tantestefana2 says 95% of the Darkcoin community voted to reduce the emission. So where's the vote?
Fine, I grant you it's not CERTAIN that Evan got a shitton of coins. It's still LIKELY given the circumstances.
What really made me WTF in your post is the "changing mind" thing about the emission schedule. That should not be changed lightly, if at all - you should know this.
What really made me WTF in your post is the "changing mind" thing about the emission schedule. That should not be changed lightly, if at all - you should know this.
This was something that was voted on. I didn't like the idea myself, and argued against it. But the community was over 95% for it, so it was done. Another instance of Evan coming to the community for guidance. And there initially was no limit technically to the number of coins to be produced. The way the number of coins was limited was by reducing the emissions by 7% per year. Otherwise we kept the same setup. This calculates over the next 100 or so years as halving.
Also, Evan's initial estimates on how many coins would be produced assumed a lower hash rate (that it would never get so high as to hug the minimum reward).
Tantestefana2 says 95% of the Darkcoin community voted to reduce the emission. So where's the vote?
November 20, 2015, 12:48:21 PM
HODL or buy if you don't have DASH (much mistake ), next months price will skyrocket I am 100% sure
), next months price will skyrocket I am 100% sure 
November 20, 2015, 12:47:16 PM
Just did some calculations on my nodes and the year ROI is ~17,8 % - server cost
Quite nice would say
My bank gives me 1,5-2% LOL !
Quite nice would say
My bank gives me 1,5-2% LOL !
November 20, 2015, 12:08:56 PM
You sound increasingly desperate, I understand why.
fraudulent reduction in coin emission
Why is changing the emission fraudulent in your opinion? Who was scammed by it? If the miners want to mine that fork and if the users choose to use it then we have a consensus.
There is no International Law of Crypto Currency Emission that says you can't change the emission. There are plenty of coins that haven't changed it, so use them if you can't accept one that has.
I wouldn't bother with this moron! Its obvious they are still trying to grasp at glass straws...and frankly its irrelevant what a hand full of douche bags think! Believe me, don't believe me ...couldn't care less...oh And DrkLvr/Adam....no I'm not going to prove shit to you about anything.
Probably trying to bury this:
They get very active when new stuff is announced which is probably why they spend way more time here than in the monero threads
WOW!!! that is cool...are we doing a similar android wallet? this amazing!
November 20, 2015, 12:06:50 PM
You sound increasingly desperate, I understand why.
fraudulent reduction in coin emission
Why is changing the emission fraudulent in your opinion? Who was scammed by it? If the miners want to mine that fork and if the users choose to use it then we have a consensus.
There is no International Law of Crypto Currency Emission that says you can't change the emission. There are plenty of coins that haven't changed it, so use them if you can't accept one that has.
I wouldn't bother with this moron! Its obvious they are still trying to grasp at glass straws...and frankly its irrelevant what a hand full of douche bags think! Believe me, don't believe me ...couldn't care less...oh And DrkLvr/Adam....no I'm not going to prove shit to you about anything.
Probably trying to bury this:
They get very active when new stuff is announced which is probably why they spend way more time here than in the monero threads
November 20, 2015, 12:02:03 PM
You sound increasingly desperate, I understand why.
fraudulent reduction in coin emission
Why is changing the emission fraudulent in your opinion? Who was scammed by it? If the miners want to mine that fork and if the users choose to use it then we have a consensus.
There is no International Law of Crypto Currency Emission that says you can't change the emission. There are plenty of coins that haven't changed it, so use them if you can't accept one that has.
I wouldn't bother with this moron! Its obvious they are still trying to grasp at glass straws...and frankly its irrelevant what a hand full of douche bags think! Believe me, don't believe me ...couldn't care less...oh And DrkLvr/Adam....no I'm not going to prove shit to you about anything.
November 20, 2015, 12:01:15 PM
Fine, I grant you it's not CERTAIN that Evan got a shitton of coins. It's still LIKELY given the circumstances.
What really made me WTF in your post is the "changing mind" thing about the emission schedule. That should not be changed lightly, if at all - you should know this.
What really made me WTF in your post is the "changing mind" thing about the emission schedule. That should not be changed lightly, if at all - you should know this.
This was something that was voted on. I didn't like the idea myself, and argued against it. But the community was over 95% for it, so it was done. Another instance of Evan coming to the community for guidance. And there initially was no limit technically to the number of coins to be produced. The way the number of coins was limited was by reducing the emissions by 7% per year. Otherwise we kept the same setup. This calculates over the next 100 or so years as halving.
Also, Evan's initial estimates on how many coins would be produced assumed a lower hash rate (that it would never get so high as to hug the minimum reward).
And toknormal becomes silent once again.
That might be because I happen to have a life outside of this thread - weird though it may may seem - and w.t.f. happened near on 2 years ago isn't exactly the top of my priority list since I bought my coins in markets, and even if it was, it isn't my job to do your research for you.
As it happens I have some recollection of Evan asking the community if they wanted him to relaunch the coin and them going absolutely apeshit and then him apologising for suggesting it.
If I had been around at the time, I'd have gone apeshit as well. There is no Dash or Dash equivalent without its early launch issues.
As I said to someone the other day. A coin with a dodgy launch survived and became successful - for some good reasons.
Live with it.
All of this is besides the point. tantestafana2 said there was a vote and that 95% of the community voted for the huge reduction in coin emission. When i asked where this vote was, not only did you not provide the information, but you attacked me and tried to change the subject.
Thanks for confirming tantestafana2 is another one of your paid or bagholding defenders who sits around this thread all day spouting constant lies.
Dash
November 20, 2015, 11:53:20 AM
You sound increasingly desperate, I understand why.
fraudulent reduction in coin emission
Why is changing the emission fraudulent in your opinion? Who was scammed by it? If the miners want to mine that fork and if the users choose to use it then we have a consensus.
There is no International Law of Crypto Currency Emission that says you can't change the emission. There are plenty of coins that haven't changed it, so use them if you can't accept one that has.
November 20, 2015, 11:53:09 AM
Fine, I grant you it's not CERTAIN that Evan got a shitton of coins. It's still LIKELY given the circumstances.
What really made me WTF in your post is the "changing mind" thing about the emission schedule. That should not be changed lightly, if at all - you should know this.
What really made me WTF in your post is the "changing mind" thing about the emission schedule. That should not be changed lightly, if at all - you should know this.
This was something that was voted on. I didn't like the idea myself, and argued against it. But the community was over 95% for it, so it was done. Another instance of Evan coming to the community for guidance. And there initially was no limit technically to the number of coins to be produced. The way the number of coins was limited was by reducing the emissions by 7% per year. Otherwise we kept the same setup. This calculates over the next 100 or so years as halving.
Also, Evan's initial estimates on how many coins would be produced assumed a lower hash rate (that it would never get so high as to hug the minimum reward).
And toknormal becomes silent once again.
That might be because I happen to have a life outside of this thread - weird though it may may seem - and w.t.f. happened near on 2 years ago isn't exactly the top of my priority list since I bought my coins in markets, and even if it was, it isn't my job to do your research for you.
As it happens I have some recollection of Evan asking the community if they wanted him to relaunch the coin and them going absolutely apeshit and then him apologising for suggesting it.
If I had been around at the time, I'd have gone apeshit as well. There is no Dash or Dash equivalent without its early launch issues.
As I said to someone the other day. A coin with a dodgy launch survived and became successful - for some good reasons.
Live with it.
All of this is besides the point. tantestafana2 said there was a vote and that 95% of the community voted for the huge reduction in coin emission. When i asked where this vote was, not only did you not provide the information, but you attacked me and tried to change the subject.
Thanks for confirming tantestafana2 is another one of your paid or bagholding defenders who sits around this thread all day spouting constant lies.
Dash
Yes... I was there for that vote. And I personally voted against a relaunch. This is old news and I and many others have answered. Stop being a lazy troll and read about this in sub forums. OK... Adam White!
Jump to: