Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 5301. (Read 9723768 times)

Ozziecoin, Your pump and dump dance would probably be more effective if you were less transparently dishonest in your approach.  I'm normally happy to ignore the nonsense in the altcoin subform, but since you saw fit to go distrupt the coinjoin thread with some offtopic insult hurling I thought I'd bring the extensive response back here where its topical.

CoinJoin is trustless— which is orthogonal with centralized or decentralized, it could be implemented several ways (though trustlessness is usually a prerequisite to a decenteralized implementation). Post 5 in the CoinJoin thread writes in depth about implementing it in a decenteralized way, none of which appears to have been implemented by the darkcoin developers as far as I can tell— from what I've heard it seems that they're not even able to understand it. (This is a disappointment to me, since I was trying to describe these ideas clearly so others could understand them.)

More amusingly, what DarkCoin does is highly centralized because the software is closed— you can't get more centralized than closed source. What the actual behavior is, is anyone's guess— it's impossible to review due to it being closed— though "masternodes" does not sound like something decenteralized, it sounds like something that creates a small chokepoint which could be used to deanonymize its users, like a server based CoinJoin but worse since you have to hold a huge pile of coins to run a server.

As I've said before CoinJoin is interesting because it's inherently part of Bitcoin already— it just needed better tools (and now there are some, e.g. darkwallet) to make it available to people.  It's a privacy improvement over not having it, but it isn't perfect, but it also didn't require any changes to Bitcoin (much less a whole altcoin) to deploy it.  In an incompatible system much better is possible as is proposed by ZeroCash and much better is actually _realized_ by Bytecoin (and its forks... Monero, Fantomcoin, etc.), the later are actually working (if immature, due reinventing many wheels) implementations of much stronger privacy, decenteralized in their implementation, all released under a good open source license.

From what I can tell the only purpose DarkCoin serves is to depress me about the state of humanity.

My logic is that what drove the price so high isn't people wanting DRK because they understand it or because it's so awesome... who want to hold for the long term. That's a smaller part of it. But a larger part is speculators who want to get in, make a profit and get out. There are a lot more of these people at this stage in the DRK market I reckon. The number of actual investors or believers is much smaller. They get in and they are done, they just sit there and hold. But there is not enough of them at this point holding enough DRK to keep the price up. Speculators buy a lot of coins and just dump them back. True demand for the coin is not represented by the high price rises in an initial bubble.

So you have a bunch of people who only hold as long as they think the price will go up, or go back up. Because they didn't buy the coin because of fundamentals or anything, they sell as soon as they lose confidence in the market (like me!). They don't need bad news or lack of development... all that has to happen for them to want to sell is the price looks to become unfavorable, and/or volume drops away... that's it. As the market goes up it picks up these buyers, then when it comes back down they start selling (or right before it starts coming down). So the price declines while the market shakes out these sellers who are either taking profit or cutting losses depending, but eventually they sell out and only the holders remain... then the price can start climbing again. I think the fact that the process of retracement down to .015 took as long as it did is a good sign, I take that the sellers are not super eager, falling over themselves to let go of coins cheap they are pushing the price down only very slowly. They don't have a lot of strength now, hence the long drawn out decline, instead of a drop.

No one is going no want to sell much less than .015, and if anyone does, there will probably be buyers quickly snatching it up.

I think we're getting there (to a leveling out, and then into an uptrend eventually) . I can't see it going way down from here unless some of those big holders start dumping, which is unlikely as if they haven't dumped now, they probably will not choose this moment to start. A few large sells may dip us kind of low .014? .013 maybe I don't know. I don't think it will stay that low though.

I guess what I'm saying is this seems just like typical market dynamics that you might see no matter the fundamentals of a coin. The fundamentals I think will more solidly support increased value when (and if) DRK gets better established and can be clearly seen as the leader in anon tech. You can't expect it not to crash from the inevitable first bubble. In fact if there weren't the large incentive in the masternode system to hold this coin, I would almost certainly agree with Mike that we would go way back down... those MN holders have to be significant as far as keeping a lot of coins off the market.

There. My unprofessional, layman's theory that's probably not correct at all.

Is there any logic behind the consistent bleed out on the price? The last ones I can understand due to masternode issues and the 5x growth > 40% retractions, this one I don't understand yet.

NEVER sold a single DRK too !
am getting more and they stay in the bag until ….. lets talk in December ….>

You are right