450K coins isn't very many given LTC's supply.
Yes but the point was about fairness. Both BTC and LTC had start issues, in the sense that BTC was solomined and LTC was instamined. And even when a coin doesn't have these issues, it has cpu-botnets when it comes with new algorithms, it has whale miners dominating the hash rate, etc etc. I have yet to see what a "fair distribution coin" looks like. People don't have the same means to access new coins and this underlying problem creates distribution problems anyway, even if it is announced that a new great coin will be launched in a month from now.
And even when people do have the capacity to acquire significant market portions for peanuts, if they don't they then cry about it. People were buying 10k DRK batches for 0.25 btc / 100k DRK for 2.5btc. This went on for more than two weeks after launch.Some were saying, ok why part my 0.25 btc or 2.5 btc to buy a shitcoin - even when Evan had already published his plans for anonymity and intention to rival the top coins? There was general distrust about all those "clone coins" that were appearing.
The launch was problematic, the coin price at the time reflected this problem. Many coins = cheap coins = people could grab them for nothing off the market or through messages. So the market solved the distribution issue by making the plethora of coins have a very low price. The entire instamine was worth less than 50 BTC.
If one goes the scam route, Darkcoin was a 40something btc scam. That was the total marketcap two to three weeks after launch.
Bitcoin original blocks were 50 btc EACH. And satoshi mined a million BTCs. Was he a billion-USD scammer (late-2013 marketcap), or did he make a coin that exploded in value much later? Were the people who were buying 10.000 BTC pizzas idiots, or simply giving value to something that was -at the time- pretty much worthless?
Hypocrisy, in this case, is when one attacks someone else, based on retroactive reasoning and facts that may now be true but weren't at the time something happened. And it's going circles and circles over here for no reason other than competitive trolling. Let's troll our competitor so we can rise to the top. The community decided on the instamine issue that the coins were sufficiently distributed, rejected the airdrop proposal by Evan who wished to fix the issue, and we moved on. And that was in <0.002 prices, even before the market went to post 0.02+ levels which shuffled the market players multiple times.
So another aspect of the hypocrisy is that it pretends the instamined marketshare is somehow frozen solid in mid-january-2014 status, when the coins have already been shuffled around multiple times. But the truth isn't convenient for trolling.... so trolling is about projecting mid-jan-2014 distribution to the now (which is false), then retroactively applying the new value to what was then worthless (dafaq?), citing intention for a diff-retargeting bug that was already present in the forked LTC-code, claiming scam when Evan proposed to rectify the situation within 2-3 months after the launch, through the airdrop which was voted down / reacted violently against (back when prices were like 0.0012-0.0015) and finding all kind of crap to throw around for a developer that has stuck with his coin longer than Satoshi did for BTC before engaging into more interesting ventures.
No wonder dash had the same issue at the start, as it was based on LTC code, but with a spin regarding hash type and diff. adjustment.
No, if the only issue with XCoin was same slow difficulty retargeting as LTC, the instamine would have been far, far smaller. The main issue was the enormous coins per block during the first two days compared to any time after that. LTC kept the same coins per block for about four years, making it's instamine negligible.
The two coins had different economic parameters and thus a different reaction to the LTC-code re-targeting difficulty bug.
In any case, the bug wasn't put there by Evan. It was already there from the LTC code.
