Lol stupid douchebags bringing facts and numbers into arguments. Wtf amirite?
The DashHoles have a name for "bringing facts and numbers into arguments."
They call it "trolling."
Topic: Apple and DASH (Read 2455 times)
The DashHoles have a name for "bringing facts and numbers into arguments."
They call it "trolling."
Lol stupid douchebags bringing facts and numbers into arguments. Wtf amirite?
It is always interesting to see Monero fanatics like smoothie & jwinterm rush into action whenever
someone criticizes their cryptocurrency. Their arguments with numbers is like accusing a pregnant woman
of being just a little pregnant
Newsflash guys : either she is pregnant or she is not .. either your cryptocurrency was involved in an instamine or it was not.
Another newsflash : a clean project does not exist, far more important is how projects cope with setbacks and how they strive
to go foward by focussing on development and having longterm roadmaps in place.
someone criticizes their cryptocurrency. Their arguments with numbers is like accusing a pregnant woman
of being just a little pregnant
Newsflash guys : either she is pregnant or she is not .. either your cryptocurrency was involved in an instamine or it was not.
Another newsflash : a clean project does not exist, far more important is how projects cope with setbacks and how they strive
to go foward by focussing on development and having longterm roadmaps in place.
She is not pregnant.
An instamine and a de optimized miner are two very different things and in any case only relevant as a measure of the current development team. The history is explained here https://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/858/monero-origins-optimized-crippled-miner/859. Monero was forked from Bytecoin and Bytecoin has all sorts of "ethical" issues. This is no secret. The objectionable code was originally released as FLOSS, by a developer no longer involved in the project and was promptly re written fixing the problem by one of the current developers once the problem was identified.
I should add that in the Dash case the instamine is really only somewhat relevant in that it involved the current lead developer. Given that this is no secret and the current trading liquidity of Dash its relevance falls with each day of trading, so focusing on this as a way to criticize Dash is becoming a real waste of time.
Edit: Apparently Apple has relented and reinstated Dash which is a good thing. Still the whole model of blocking applications from sources other than the Apple store on IOS is fundamentally Orwellian and will lead to the demise of Apple.
It is always interesting to see Monero fanatics like smoothie & jwinterm rush into action whenever
someone criticizes their cryptocurrency. Their arguments with numbers is like accusing a pregnant woman
of being just a little pregnant
Newsflash guys : either she is pregnant or she is not .. either your cryptocurrency was involved in an instamine or it was not.
Another newsflash : a clean project does not exist, far more important is how projects cope with setbacks and how they strive
to go foward by focussing on development and having longterm roadmaps in place.
someone criticizes their cryptocurrency. Their arguments with numbers is like accusing a pregnant woman
of being just a little pregnant
Newsflash guys : either she is pregnant or she is not .. either your cryptocurrency was involved in an instamine or it was not.
Another newsflash : a clean project does not exist, far more important is how projects cope with setbacks and how they strive
to go foward by focussing on development and having longterm roadmaps in place.
Too bad Monero has just as tainted instamine history as Dash. At least Dash fully acknowledge its instamine history,
where as Monero does everything it can to avoid bringing up its own crippled miner history.
Good luck trying to find a clean project when every cryptocurrency out there has its own growing-up pains, even
Bitcoin has its own instamine problem with over a million of bitcoins in the hands of one person or group (Satoshi).
It doesn't prevent people from actually using it, now does it ....
If a cryptocurrency turns out to be usefull it will have value and people will use it, regardless of what petty trolls
post in forums such as these.
where as Monero does everything it can to avoid bringing up its own crippled miner history.
Good luck trying to find a clean project when every cryptocurrency out there has its own growing-up pains, even
Bitcoin has its own instamine problem with over a million of bitcoins in the hands of one person or group (Satoshi).
It doesn't prevent people from actually using it, now does it ....
If a cryptocurrency turns out to be usefull it will have value and people will use it, regardless of what petty trolls
post in forums such as these.
You can have your own opinion, but you don't get too have your own set of facts.
Yes, the publicly available CPU miner available on release wasn't optimized, or more likely intentionally deoptimized, but after several weeks an optimized version was released, during which time only a few percent, I think around 3℅ of the total supply before tail emission starts was mined.
Dash instamine is like 33% of current supply that happened in a few hours. 3% is not just as tainted as 33%.
Also, Monero went on to add a tail emission and perpetual inflation, while dash went on to drastically reduce emission and implement a quasi-PoS system that would enrich large holders.
It appears qwizzie does not know how to accurately compare things.
3 != 33
weeks != hours
hmm would I rather have something that had an emission of
3% of total supply over weeks
OR
33% of total supply in hours
?
I can't really see the connection between the two. Apple is a big company which means they cannot really go anonymous. Therefore, they can't let us buy with cryptocurrencies because that would mean they're going anonymous over the others. It means fraud, and it's illegal.
Too bad Monero has just as tainted instamine history as Dash. At least Dash fully acknowledge its instamine history,
where as Monero does everything it can to avoid bringing up its own crippled miner history.
Good luck trying to find a clean project when every cryptocurrency out there has its own growing-up pains, even
Bitcoin has its own instamine problem with over a million of bitcoins in the hands of one person or group (Satoshi).
It doesn't prevent people from actually using it, now does it ....
If a cryptocurrency turns out to be usefull it will have value and people will use it, regardless of what petty trolls
post in forums such as these.
where as Monero does everything it can to avoid bringing up its own crippled miner history.
Good luck trying to find a clean project when every cryptocurrency out there has its own growing-up pains, even
Bitcoin has its own instamine problem with over a million of bitcoins in the hands of one person or group (Satoshi).
It doesn't prevent people from actually using it, now does it ....
If a cryptocurrency turns out to be usefull it will have value and people will use it, regardless of what petty trolls
post in forums such as these.
You can have your own opinion, but you don't get too have your own set of facts.
Yes, the publicly available CPU miner available on release wasn't optimized, or more likely intentionally deoptimized, but after several weeks an optimized version was released, during which time only a few percent, I think around 3℅ of the total supply before tail emission starts was mined.
Dash instamine is like 33% of current supply that happened in a few hours. 3% is not just as tainted as 33%.
Also, Monero went on to add a tail emission and perpetual inflation, while dash went on to drastically reduce emission and implement a quasi-PoS system that would enrich large holders.
Too bad Monero has just as tainted instamine history as Dash. At least Dash fully acknowledge its instamine history,
where as Monero does everything it can to avoid bringing up its own crippled miner history.
Good luck trying to find a clean project when every cryptocurrency out there has its own growing-up pains, even
Bitcoin has its own instamine problem with over a million of bitcoins in the hands of one person or group (Satoshi).
It doesn't prevent people from actually using it, now does it ....
If a cryptocurrency turns out to be usefull it will have value and people will use it, regardless of what petty trolls
post in forums such as these.
where as Monero does everything it can to avoid bringing up its own crippled miner history.
Good luck trying to find a clean project when every cryptocurrency out there has its own growing-up pains, even
Bitcoin has its own instamine problem with over a million of bitcoins in the hands of one person or group (Satoshi).
It doesn't prevent people from actually using it, now does it ....
If a cryptocurrency turns out to be usefull it will have value and people will use it, regardless of what petty trolls
post in forums such as these.
What company would have anything to do with dash or darkcoin. I mean do a google search.. mostly accurate accounts of the intentional scamming captive instamine and years of people coming to realise this coin is dirty and to be avoided. Never has a coins dark past been so documented in such detail.
As you see more acceptance of CC in general you will see more shunning of scam coins with a provable scammy origin.
Dash/dark is not the only one but theirs has been covered more than any other and is there in black and white as it unfolded.
Keep to clean projects.
As you see more acceptance of CC in general you will see more shunning of scam coins with a provable scammy origin.
Dash/dark is not the only one but theirs has been covered more than any other and is there in black and white as it unfolded.
Keep to clean projects.
Let me offer you guys a somewhat more reasonable explanation :
Looks like the mentioned Dash in that article is about the following (rather popular) app for MacOS
https://kapeli.com/dash
Appearently that app got removed because it was linked to another account that got involved with review rating tempering.
Apple then removed that specific (non-crypto) Dash app.
This is unrelated to our own Dash app that we tried to get into the Apple store but could explain why Apple is overly cautious about Dash apps getting registered in their app store.
Was googling Dash and the iOS app store and there are all these articles this week about a different "Dash". Quite confusing.
http://www.imore.com/solving-dash
http://www.imore.com/solving-dash
Looks like the mentioned Dash in that article is about the following (rather popular) app for MacOS
https://kapeli.com/dash
Appearently that app got removed because it was linked to another account that got involved with review rating tempering.
Apple then removed that specific (non-crypto) Dash app.
This is unrelated to our own Dash app that we tried to get into the Apple store but could explain why Apple is overly cautious about Dash apps getting registered in their app store.
I think apple will also reject monero as dash and monero both seem to be more anonymous than bitcoin. They don't like the things that may put them in legal problem later on. They will never understand or support the anonymity for sure including other big corporations tied by government rules and big banks.
and yes monero seems to going back home... but hey you can expect to use the same crypto currency for drugs & computer hardware right ? ^^
Apple accepted Monero on Jaxx.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/56xrpn/anthony_diiorio_on_twitter_great_news_for_monero/
Apple rejected Dash because it's a scam, not because of Darksend's broken Coinjoin implementation.
I think apple will also reject monero as dash and monero both seem to be more anonymous than bitcoin. They don't like the things that may put them in legal problem later on. They will never understand or support the anonymity for sure including other big corporations tied by government rules and big banks.
and yes monero seems to going back home... but hey you can expect to use the same crypto currency for drugs & computer hardware right ? ^^
As to the cryptographic locking in of the boot loader ; as long as that boot loader accepts to install free systems on top of it, I don't mind it too much. At a low enough level, there's in fact no clear distinction between hardware and firmware/software. It is a kind of engineering decision what's going to be pure hardware, and what's going to be more a software/firmware implementation. If you use propriety hardware, there are *in any case* things you cannot change, and things that you even don't know how it's done, and what exactly is done. So whether some low-level software/firmware is locked down by cryptographic techniques, or whether exactly that same function was burned into silicon, at a certain point, doesn't matter. It can seem frustrating that "software" that is "outside of the chip" and is "executed" at boot time (or all the time) cannot be modified because it needs a cryptographic signature, but that "software that is out of the chip" implements a function that could have been just as well burned into silicon on chip, and you wouldn't know about it, or complain about it.
In my professional life, I live exactly on the hardware/software boundary (in scientific applications, where all this stuff doesn't matter in fact). So I'm perfectly well aware that the choice of putting something in hardware or doing it in software, or in between in firmware, is essentially a matter of engineering decisions.
When one doesn't know the hardware, in any case, one is in the hands of the hardware designer. The hardware can do anything in any case. Whether that hardware "locks" a piece of low-level software to it, doesn't change anything fundamentally. Whatever one can complain about in this software, could have been burned into the hardware too. The fact that engineers decided to put it into software only gave them less performance and more flexibility (which is usually the trade off in these cases). You can see software-locked-to-hardware as nothing else but a kind of "hardware extension".
There are two things that matter:
1) at a sufficiently high level, it should be possible to put free software on it (for instance, the OS)
2) one should be able to verify that the low-level software that is locked down, is not modified (by calculating a hash for instance).
In my professional life, I live exactly on the hardware/software boundary (in scientific applications, where all this stuff doesn't matter in fact). So I'm perfectly well aware that the choice of putting something in hardware or doing it in software, or in between in firmware, is essentially a matter of engineering decisions.
When one doesn't know the hardware, in any case, one is in the hands of the hardware designer. The hardware can do anything in any case. Whether that hardware "locks" a piece of low-level software to it, doesn't change anything fundamentally. Whatever one can complain about in this software, could have been burned into the hardware too. The fact that engineers decided to put it into software only gave them less performance and more flexibility (which is usually the trade off in these cases). You can see software-locked-to-hardware as nothing else but a kind of "hardware extension".
There are two things that matter:
1) at a sufficiently high level, it should be possible to put free software on it (for instance, the OS)
2) one should be able to verify that the low-level software that is locked down, is not modified (by calculating a hash for instance).
There is nothing wrong with a store selling only English and Spanish books. What is very wrong and Orwellian is for a furniture manufacturer to sell bookcases that detect what store a book was purchased from and only allow those books that were sold from their own store.
It is only truly Orwellian if it is imposed by violence. I would think that anybody has the right to sell any device he likes, and if those devices are *technically* made such that you can't use them for your purposes, and are cryptographically locked onto the manufacturer's signatures, that's his good right, even though it is a kind of scamming the customer, if that was not clearly stated when the device was sold. If you don't like that, and you are informed about it, you have the right not to buy that stuff.
If your furniture manufacturer has clearly informed you about the technical way his bookcases work, and will avoid storing any book that was not bought from a certain store, then it is up to you to buy the bookcase or not. What would be wrong, is if violent agents such as a state would come and use violence on you because you tried to modify your bookcase ; but if technically it is done such that you CAN'T modify your bookcase, that's your problem. You shouldn't have bought it. I for sure wouldn't buy it. But the seller should be perfectly clear about the cryptographic limitations he has built into the stuff he sells you.
Very true.
This is why we must not support this furniture manufacturer,
no matter how beautiful the bookcases it builds are.
Vote with your money and do not support a company doing things you don't like because that is the only thing they listen to.
This is why we must not support this furniture manufacturer,
no matter how beautiful the bookcases it builds are.
Vote with your money and do not support a company doing things you don't like because that is the only thing they listen to.
...
We're talking about *applications* that do this, not Apple itself. It is very strange to limit customers in the kind of applications that they can run, based upon which specific things that application handles. It is almost as if they would only allow PDF readers that can read English and Spanish texts, but PDF readers that can display Russian or French texts would be banned from the Apple store. You can say that Apple only promotes languages that are growing, but why stop applications that can read French documents ?
We're talking about *applications* that do this, not Apple itself. It is very strange to limit customers in the kind of applications that they can run, based upon which specific things that application handles. It is almost as if they would only allow PDF readers that can read English and Spanish texts, but PDF readers that can display Russian or French texts would be banned from the Apple store. You can say that Apple only promotes languages that are growing, but why stop applications that can read French documents ?
There is nothing wrong with a store selling only English and Spanish books. What is very wrong and Orwellian is for a furniture manufacturer to sell bookcases that detect what store a book was purchased from and only allow those books that were sold from their own store.
Could anybody explain to me, why corporation Apple allow integrate crypto-currency into applications except DASH?
In my opinion Apple want follow the trend of cryptos coins and they choose coins that has potential in the future. Not DASH only that be rejected by Apple, ETC too be rejected by Apple. Maybe both are not potential growing up in the future.We're talking about *applications* that do this, not Apple itself. It is very strange to limit customers in the kind of applications that they can run, based upon which specific things that application handles. It is almost as if they would only allow PDF readers that can read English and Spanish texts, but PDF readers that can display Russian or French texts would be banned from the Apple store. You can say that Apple only promotes languages that are growing, but why stop applications that can read French documents ?
....
I've heard about those locked boot loaders. One should avoid buying such devices, but I think it must be possible to hack them open. I don't think there is any legal procedure that can be used against you for REMOVING software or firmware from a device ; and if so, it would be the OEM that would have a strange hardware selling licence. I've never had an intel machine on which I couldn't remove windows entirely (that's usually the first thing I do with a new computer). It is true that UEFI is a pain, but I thought even (though I never bothered) that there are laws in some countries that force microsoft to pay back the windows license if you ask to remove it.
There could be manufacturers that lock down windows in the UEFI. Then one mustn't buy stuff from them. They can make life technically difficult, but I don't see how you could be legally annoyed by doing away with software.
I've heard about those locked boot loaders. One should avoid buying such devices, but I think it must be possible to hack them open. I don't think there is any legal procedure that can be used against you for REMOVING software or firmware from a device ; and if so, it would be the OEM that would have a strange hardware selling licence. I've never had an intel machine on which I couldn't remove windows entirely (that's usually the first thing I do with a new computer). It is true that UEFI is a pain, but I thought even (though I never bothered) that there are laws in some countries that force microsoft to pay back the windows license if you ask to remove it.
There could be manufacturers that lock down windows in the UEFI. Then one mustn't buy stuff from them. They can make life technically difficult, but I don't see how you could be legally annoyed by doing away with software.
I'm not sure if removing UEFI locks is prohibited by law, but it seems to be prohibited by technical measures on newer processors from both AMD and Intel:
https://libreboot.org/faq/#intelme
https://libreboot.org/faq/#amd
IThat was not my point. The Intel ME is seriously problematic. However, I think it is not as dramatic as it seems at first sight. My point was that one shouldn't buy hardware with windows-locked-up UEFI. One should keep the UEFI but one that allows you to install free systems. Up to now I never had a problem with that. There are European laws that FORBID OEM to lock down an operating system, so there will always be manufacturers that allow Linux installs.
That said, there is (and I have to thank you for those links) a serious problem with that ME (bigger than I had realized) - but I consider that it is their good right. The reason why - even though intel's secret key is essentially the back door in every computer that the NSA would like to impose so much - I'm not really so worried about it, is that foreign states use intel PC too, including their intelligence services. Now, either these people are vastly incompetent and are putting their state's secrets open to read by the NSA, or they cracked the ME and then they are vastly incompetent by using intel machines in the US government because now THEIR machines are open to just any foreign cracker that broke the ME, if this were such a wide open back door. Also, there are too many things that the US government *doesn't* get right if it were true that they can just enter every computer in the world without the slightest effort.
That said, this ME *is* a problem and it is one day going to blow in Intel's face. When a totally unknown party will have hacked into the ME.
Could anybody explain to me, why corporation Apple allow integrate crypto-currency into applications except DASH?
In my opinion Apple want follow the trend of cryptos coins and they choose coins that has potential in the future. Not DASH only that be rejected by Apple, ETC too be rejected by Apple. Maybe both are not potential growing up in the future. Jump to: