CoinMarketCap.com - Market Cap Rankings of All Cryptocurrencies! - page 47.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: BlockaFett on April 28, 2015, 11:06:54 PM

Quote from: smooth on April 28, 2015, 10:51:25 PM

Quote from: nachoig on April 28, 2015, 09:50:50 PM

You have to create a scheme where the rewards are very low after the first blocks. Only difficult adjustement issues can't do this.

What about coins like PPC where the rewards are automatically cut as the difficulty rises? There is no manipulation or changing of (the rules of) the parameters, but the mining is still pretty front-loaded in practice.

I don't see how you make an objective distinction between that and say BTC which is pre-programmed to cut in half every four years. Is it just a question of speed, or something else?

Please stop bullying Gliss to change CMC's category sytem to try to black-list each of your competitors and pump your bagholding sh*tcoin for you, Smooth. You don't own CMC, and they already said they don't want to become subjective. You have to be pretty thick to still be here crying like a 5 year old trying to find a definition that fits your scam and maybe CMC will accept.

Take your Goon Squad and troll off....

If there is any bullying here, it is your "Goon squad" and "troll off" type comments.

Gliss presented three options and opened it for discussion (i.e. "until we can figure out a more appropriate solution"), which other than defensiveness, hostility, and thread derailing from Dash supporters has been reasonably constructive.

I recognize you would be very happy to shut down the discussion and have nothing done about disclosure of instamines. That much is obvious.

BlockaFett

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 255

Quote from: smooth on April 28, 2015, 10:51:25 PM

Quote from: nachoig on April 28, 2015, 09:50:50 PM

You have to create a scheme where the rewards are very low after the first blocks. Only difficult adjustement issues can't do this.

What about coins like PPC where the rewards are automatically cut as the difficulty rises? There is no manipulation or changing of (the rules of) the parameters, but the mining is still pretty front-loaded in practice.

I don't see how you make an objective distinction between that and say BTC which is pre-programmed to cut in half every four years. Is it just a question of speed, or something else?

Please stop bullying Gliss to change CMC's category sytem to try to black-list each of your competitors and pump your bagholding sh*tcoin for you, Smooth. You don't own CMC, and they already said they don't want to become subjective. You have to be pretty thick to still be here crying like a 5 year old trying to find a definition that fits your scam and maybe CMC will accept.

Take your Goon Squad and troll off....

cheers

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: nachoig on April 28, 2015, 09:50:50 PM

You have to create a scheme where the rewards are very low after the first blocks. Only difficult adjustement issues can't do this.

What about coins like PPC where the rewards are automatically cut as the difficulty rises? There is no manipulation or changing of (the rules of) the parameters, but the mining is still pretty front-loaded in practice.

I don't see how you make an objective distinction between that and say BTC which is pre-programmed to cut in half every four years. Is it just a question of speed, or something else?

nachoig

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 250

Quote from: Prosperityforall on April 28, 2015, 09:14:15 PM

As someone who've looked through currencies starting from Pandacoin to Blackcoin to Auroracoin, and beyond, I myself have never seen someone accuse an altcoin of having an instamine just because the blocks were generated fast, not once.

The only time I've seen altcoins accused of being an instamine, and rightly so, was Dash/Darkcoin because it had it's core paramters changed after the instamine occured, and coins like Asiacoin where it had a hidden instamine. That is why we need a new filter to filter out coins that had illegtimate instamines where the actual core parameters were changed after launch to benefit early miners.

Of course the most infamous example of a instamine is Dash.

Devtome putted Vertcoin, Peercoin and Litecoin in the questionable category because of this.
http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=a_massive_investigation_of_instamines_and_fastmines_for_the_top_alt_coins#questionable_cryptocurrency_alternatives

And Primecoin in the extreme caution section.
http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=a_massive_investigation_of_instamines_and_fastmines_for_the_top_alt_coins#primecoin

Quote from: smooth on April 28, 2015, 09:25:43 PM

Yes I agree, but I think there is a reasonable quantitative or quantitative standard. I asked before what constitutes a "significant" premine but there was no answer. Presumably there is some threshold below which it isn't considered "significantly premined". The same can apply to instamines.

LTC for example has about 1% of the current supply mined out by fast (2016 block) retargeting. That seems pretty insignificant to me, comparted to say dash at 35%, which is obviously "significant".

Anyway I think it's hard to have a truly instamined coin just because of retargeting.

You have to create a scheme where the rewards are very low after the first blocks. Only difficult adjustement issues can't do this.

Also there are some coins which goes to this in a pre-programated way. Blackcoin, for example, had a very shot POW phase, just 1 week. Now it's not mineable anymore, but can do this called an instamine? This is the design from the day zero, which is very different from a coin which changes this afterwards.

BlockaFett

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 255

Quote from: Lebubar on April 28, 2015, 10:38:54 AM

Quote from: Taylor05 on April 28, 2015, 07:56:28 AM

Quote from: Prosperityforall on April 28, 2015, 07:28:23 AM

Gliss should be impartial, and that means seperating the coins based on what actually happened and in this case, Dash had a premine or at the very least, **Significantly Fastmined**. You've mentioned Monero, but Monero has never had any of it's core parameters changed so Dash and Monero cannot be compared in the slightest.

You are correct. Dash and Monero cannot be compared in the slightest. Dash, as a fork of Litecoin at the time, suffered some issues that were related to the Litecoin code by a programmer new to the code base. It took a day or two to diagnose and fix and much longer to get a working explorer to figure out that so many blocks were created before the difficulty adjusted. There is no proof about the intentions of the developer. Monero on the other hand had code intentionally inserted with no other purpose than to make the built in miner inefficient at launch so that the developer could take advantage. Monero is the only coin being discussed here that was provably and intentionally manipulated by the developer to give themselves an advantage.

Personally, I think this is a very slippery slope. If we start trying to define new categories like "launch issues", "fast-mined" (which most PoS coins would fall into), "insta-mined", or other categories like "dishonest developer" - all categories with very subjective definitions - you'll end up in a slug-fest between competing coins trying to get their competition labeled. Thank you coinmarketcap for deciding to stay above the fray.

So much this...

Here the important word is : INTENTIONALLY, which make no doubt about Monero SCAM. Something intentional was made to give benefice of few over the others.
You got it... while other people are denying:

Quote from: smooth on April 27, 2015, 03:09:50 PM

There was nothing wrong with the history of Monero. It's one of if not the cleanest coins and launches in history.

Just lol..

Bump for Smooth and his Monero goon squad

Lebubar

legendary

Activity: 1288

Merit: 1000

^^^^^^^^
Non-objectivness detected...
Red flag!

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: nachoig on April 28, 2015, 09:04:17 PM

Quote from: smooth on April 28, 2015, 08:29:51 PM

I don't agree -- I think a badly flawed retargeting that spews out an enormous number of blocks ahead of schedule is also an instamine. But in any case Dash created a large number of extra coins because the per-block reward was 500 when it should have been lower. Then they cut it, but never did anything about the extra coins (other than keep them).

The issue is how you define what is a good retargeting.

Yes I agree, but I think there is a reasonable quantitative or quantitative standard. I asked before what constitutes a "significant" premine but there was no answer. Presumably there is some threshold below which it isn't considered "significantly premined". The same can apply to instamines.

LTC for example has about 1% of the current supply mined out by fast (2016 block) retargeting. That seems pretty insignificant to me, compared to say dash at 35%, which is obviously "significant".

Prosperityforall

member

Activity: 490

Merit: 14

Quote from: Jeff8247 on April 28, 2015, 09:13:37 PM

Quote from: Prosperityforall on April 28, 2015, 07:51:12 PM

From what I gathered:

. Dash/Darkcoin's developer, Evan Duffield, released the coin to the small pool of linux only miners(Of which he himself was one)

LMAO no one knows how to use Linux!! Linux only, thats just gold!!

Go do your homework, I didn't make the point of whether people can use Linux. I can use a airplane after a few years of training. The point that was made is that 90%+ of people who use computers use Windows with Linux compromising not even 5% of operaitng systems used worldwide.

The fact that mining was only available on one of the least used major operating systems shows that Evan Duffield and co. tried to get as much coins for himself/themselves as possible, further pushing the extreme likelihood that the instamine was premedidated or done on purpose.

Prosperityforall

member

Activity: 490

Merit: 14

Quote from: nachoig on April 28, 2015, 09:04:17 PM

Quote from: smooth on April 28, 2015, 08:29:51 PM

I don't agree -- I think a badly flawed retargeting that spews out an enormous number of blocks ahead of schedule is also an instamine. But in any case Dash created a large number of extra coins because the per-block reward was 500 when it should have been lower. Then they cut it, but never did anything about the extra coins (other than keep them).

The issue is how you define what is a good retargeting. People accuses some altcoins which used the same retargeting scheme of Bitcoin (each 2016 blocks) of being instamined just because the blocks were generated more faster because of the big and fast increases in the hash rate. But what developers can do about this?

As someone who've looked through currencies starting from Pandacoin to Blackcoin to Auroracoin, and beyond, I myself have never seen someone accuse an altcoin of having an instamine just because the blocks were generated fast, not once.

The only time I've seen altcoins accused of being an instamine, and rightly so, was Dash/Darkcoin because it had it's core paramters changed after the instamine occured, and coins like Asiacoin where it had a hidden instamine. That is why we need a new filter to filter out coins that had illegtimate instamines where the actual core parameters were changed after launch to benefit early miners.

Of course the most infamous example of a instamine is Dash.

Jeff8247

full member

Activity: 219

Merit: 100

LOL edited because its not even worth it.

Lebubar

legendary

Activity: 1288

Merit: 1000

Quote from: smooth on April 28, 2015, 09:02:42 PM

Quote from: Lebubar on April 28, 2015, 09:00:34 PM

Nobody give a shit about your opinion.
There is conflict of interest here, so all what you are saying means nothing. You are loosing your time.
Nobody give a shit of someone opinion where there is conflict of interest.

So wait, when the Dash developers asked coinmarketcap to take the "significantly premined" tag off, was that a conflict of interest and something that should be disregarded?

Accurate evidence is accurate evidence, regardless of the source. Unless you can show the evidence to be inaccurate, conflict of evidence is a bullshit objection to evidence you don't like.

You are not objective :

Quote from: smooth on April 27, 2015, 03:09:50 PM

There was nothing wrong with the history of Monero. It's one of if not the cleanest coins and launches in history.

nachoig

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 250

Quote from: smooth on April 28, 2015, 08:29:51 PM

I don't agree -- I think a badly flawed retargeting that spews out an enormous number of blocks ahead of schedule is also an instamine. But in any case Dash created a large number of extra coins because the per-block reward was 500 when it should have been lower. Then they cut it, but never did anything about the extra coins (other than keep them).

The issue is how you define what is a good retargeting. People accuses some altcoins which used the same retargeting scheme of Bitcoin (each 2016 blocks) of being instamined just because the blocks were generated more faster because of the big and fast increases in the hash rate. But what developers can do about this?

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: Lebubar on April 28, 2015, 09:00:34 PM

Nobody give a shit about your opinion.
There is conflict of interest here, so all what you are saying means nothing. You are loosing your time.
Nobody give a shit of someone opinion where there is conflict of interest.

So wait, when the Dash developers asked coinmarketcap to take the "significantly premined" tag off, was that a conflict of interest and something that should be disregarded?

Accurate evidence is accurate evidence, regardless of the source. Unless you can show the evidence to be inaccurate, conflict of evidence is a bullshit objection to evidence you don't like.

Lebubar

legendary

Activity: 1288

Merit: 1000

Nobody give a shit about your opinion.
There is conflict of interest here, so all what you are saying means nothing. You are loosing your time.
Nobody give a shit of someone opinion where there is conflict of interest.
Go work please, or just quit you so-called-pseudo-'dev' job, and make politic.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: Kuriso on April 28, 2015, 07:54:39 PM

Further more, how did you provide evidence of the dash premine? Dash was never premined. No coins were mined before the public launch. How did you prove otherwise? You are you playing word games. At the very worst you can argue that it was instamined. The two are not equal and you know it. The fact you continue to play these charades further proves you have no honest intent. You're only goal is to continue to bash dash in a feeble attempt to make mon-troll-ero look better.

I never did. I provided evidence specifically for the instamine (see below #1). That's how it was described at the time. In fact a few posts later, I commented that I didn't think a premine and instamine are exactly the same thing (see below #2). There is an overlap though, the whole point of both is to front-load the distribution of coins. And Dash's "public launch" was a mess, with no clearly defined launch time, as previously discussed.

Here's the context. You can click through for the rest of the actual evidence of the instamine, I trimmed it here in the quote for brevity

#1 (bold emphasis added in the quote):

Quote from: smooth on April 25, 2015, 05:12:00 PM

Quote from: MikeCorleone on April 25, 2015, 03:15:48 PM

Why isn't Dash listed as an instamine, Gliss? I know you need 'evidence' so I'll do your research for you.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scam-darkcoin-instamine-2-millions-drks-50-of-darkcoin-in-circulation-560138

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-the-darkcoindashdashpay-instamine-matters-999886

http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=a_massive_investigation_of_instamines_and_fastmines_for_the_top_alt_coins#darkcoin

'That means in less than 8 hours, almost 5% of the Darkcoins that ever will be created spawned in that 1/3 of a day.'

Also

Quote from: http://en.wiki.dashninja.pl/wiki/FAQ#Was_Darkcoin_Instamined.3F

Was Darkcoin Instamined?
~2mn coins were issued in the first 48 hours due to problems with the difficulty readjustment. That represents approximately 10-15% of the total money supply that will ever be issued.

#2:

Quote from: smooth on April 27, 2015, 08:12:39 AM

I agree that an instamine isn't exactly the same as a premine but when 35% of the outstanding coins were created in one day that is highly significant. I'm not sure that one day gap really makes that big a difference compared to just issuing 35% of the coins in the genesis block. It's certainly worth noting somehow anyway.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: nachoig on April 28, 2015, 08:25:56 PM

I can't believe there are people here that don't understand what is an instamine or a premine. So, let's clarify the concepts:

Premine: The generation of coins in the genesis block. We call "significantly premined" when a large portion of these coins is generated in the first block.

Instamine: Generation in the very first blocks of a disproportional number of coins when compared with the following blocks.

People are using the idea of time in the wrong way. Instamine is not about time at all. It's about how many blocks with high rewards are offered, in case if you are on a decreasing or a finite emission scheme.

I don't agree -- I think a badly flawed retargeting that spews out an enormous number of blocks ahead of schedule is also an instamine. But in any case Dash created a large number of extra coins because the per-block reward was 500 when it should have been lower. Then they cut it, but never did anything about the extra coins (other than keep them).

nachoig

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 250

I can't believe there are people here that don't understand what is an instamine or a premine. So, let's clarify the concepts:

Premine: The generation of coins in the genesis block. We call "significantly premined" when a large portion of these coins is generated in the first/genesis block.

Instamine: Generation in the very first blocks of a disproportional number of coins when compared with the following blocks.

People are using the idea of time in the wrong way. Instamine is not about time at all. It's about how many blocks with high rewards are offered, in case if you are on a decreasing or a finite emission scheme.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: coins101 on April 28, 2015, 08:00:07 PM

Quote from: Prosperityforall on April 28, 2015, 07:57:41 PM

Mew?

Mew wasn't around in April 2014

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bmr-bitmonero-emission-curve-change-proposal-585480

Now who doesn't know what they are talking about.

Look if the poll had voted to change it, you might have an argument about shady emissions practices. The poll voted to not change it, so that is irrelevant. That was in fact one of the reasons it was voted down, twice. The second time the core team said flat out that we wouldn't support it (the first time, if I recall correctly, the core team didn't exist). We wanted no part of a retroactive instamine. Even the first time, the proposal was to essentially burn half of the already mined coins, or donate them to bounties or something. Another alternative considered was to first slow down the emissions below the new target to offset the original faster mining, so for someone arriving later, there would be no "extra" coins in existence. Nevertheless, it didn't pass, so no change was made.

Monero is fully on its original mining schedule with no premine, no instamine, nothing relevant to coinmarketcap here at all. Please stop spamming off-topic about it.

Prosperityforall

member

Activity: 490

Merit: 14

Quote from: coins101 on April 28, 2015, 08:00:07 PM

Quote from: Prosperityforall on April 28, 2015, 07:57:41 PM

Mew?

Mew wasn't around in April 2014

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bmr-bitmonero-emission-curve-change-proposal-585480

Now who doesn't know what they are talking about.

You're so clueless it's starting to get irritating now. There was a final lasting vote done on Monero's emission change on their previous forum forum.monero.cc of which I myself voiced by opinions and around 200 votes if I recall correctly, most in favor of not changing the emission rate.

Unlike Dash where one Developer, Evan Duffield changed the core features on a whim, Monero did several votes(Witht the last one including Mew and being the final one) on whether to change core features or not.

edit

coins101

legendary

Activity: 1456

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Prosperityforall on April 28, 2015, 07:57:41 PM

Mew?

Mew wasn't around in April 2014

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bmr-bitmonero-emission-curve-change-proposal-585480

Now who doesn't know what they are talking about.

Topic: CoinMarketCap.com - Market Cap Rankings of All Cryptocurrencies! - page 47. (Read 639542 times)