Topic: CoinMarketCap.com - Market Cap Rankings of All Cryptocurrencies! - page 51. (Read 639542 times)

To follow your lead CMC should remove ALL asterix of any kind and let the investors do their own research.

My thoughts:

Instamine is entirely subjective - what emission curve constitutes the "insta" aka how do you define "instant" because that means literally "in one moment"?  do you include coins that ever changed block reward - manually or by fast algos? community knowledge / involvement / voting?  Mistake by dev or premeditated?  Dev "instamined" 95% personally or his cat jumped on the keyboard and killed his miner and he got 0.1% and who else got what?  Positions of the stars and planets at the moment of launch?

Premine is entirely objective - pre-mine has a clear *literal* definition: coins solo-mined by the dev before the launch date, easy to *prove* by anyone with a BCT link and blockexplorer.

And the *reason* for marking coins as such is to warn investors of a potential *distribution problem* - which can be for a 1000 reasons throughout the coin's life and is often impossible to know objectively, and requires a hell of a lot of on-going work by CMC to get right - and why?  So Monero can get definitions changed that have been working fine for CMC & it's users, to be more inline with their agenda?  

Thanks Gliss, I uses CMC everyday because I trust your data and it's well presented / easy to use, not someone's subjective opinion on what is good or not - thanks for keeping your impartiality.

You are deceiving us sir. You must read the comments on the article you link.


I do not have any Monero but you must be careful not to lie or to be deceptive. I lose a lot of respect for people like you when I see this.

Yes, in general, instamine is not necessarily the same as premine.

But in the case of Dash's first 24 hours, they are the same.

DashHoles are using the scammy ambiguity of the initial launch to hide what is, for all other intents and purposes except strict formal logic, yet another premine.

I think (2) is the best option because that can be objective. PoS coins that had a period of PoW should also be flagged with this. I think the definition should be based on what we collectively recognize as fastmine or ninjamine or instamine or fastmine. We can take some thoughts from the article written by whoisthelorax here. He defines it as "Obvious and proveable scammish behavior such as self evident instant mines, super quick block halving, unannounced premining activity, or premines that represent unusual amount of coins. Most statistics tend towards unfair early adopter benefit. Very little benefits long term, fair usage."

With DRK I think it is easy to to see that it represents an unusual amount of coins and that the "block halving" was super quick. The block reward went from nearly 500 coins for the first day and a half, and then it was less than 50 coins, and now 16 months later the block reward is less than 5 coins. I have made my own analysis of the first 4500 blocks to show what I mean.

For the first hour of Darkcoin mining there were 67500 DRK mined. If you only started mining on day 2 after block 4500 you would have to mine for 136 hours for there to be the same DRK created. That is nearly 6 days. If you are mining today it would take you 23 and half days for the same DRK to be created.

For the second hour there were 514040 DRK mined. If you only started mining on day 2 after block 4500 you would have to mine for 292 hours for there to be the same DRK created. That is more than 12 days. If you are mining today it would take you 178 days for the same DRK to be created.

For a cryptocurrency to be fairly launched it cannot have the same amount created in one hour that will be created in 6 months a year later. This is not good and must be marked so that those who visit CMC know!

I actually agree with him- This shouldnt be the place for the discussion. If Gliss wants to do the right thing he can follow the talk and evidence in the other threads. I'm done here.

Mr.  ICEBREAKER... For the sake of being a professional.  I'm going to PM you a response to this.  Your behaviour and character is deplorable.

Coinmarketcap should let people know that Dash was unquestionably instamined, whether the "community" voted for it or not.

Where are the results of this legendary pro-instamine vote, BTW?

bigrcanada, you need to be supervising the crew of screw-ups you hired instead of wasting time on the internet.  Do your investors know how much time you spend attacking people who criticize Dash?  Your bitterness will come through in the wine, and perhaps even Yelp reviews of the winery.

Sir.... I think this is completely disrespectful to the administrator of this thread Gliss.   Please carry this conversation on either Dash thread on any other thread you see fit.   This has been a disruptive dialogue by a very select few and frankly... We are all getting sick of this behaviour.  Please respect Gliss and move this else where.

Of course the community voted no (how many voted?)- they had all the instacoins- either by being part of the instamine or buying them very cheaply off others that were. If it was decide to burn them or relaunch they would lose their advantage.

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.

Yes, it sets an unfair and horrible precedent for Gliss to excuse/ignore Dash's functional equivalent of a premine just because DashHoles make the excuse that it could technically be considered an instamine instead.

The quibbling over obviously overlapping definitions is the DashHoles acting like squids, shooting ink into the water to blind us as they escape from justice and transparency.

Gliss, how about adding a ***significant theoretical/actual emission divergence warning for coins with a high iCE FACTOR?

So here is where we find the Trollero 'dev', out to campaign against the competition instead of 'dev'ing.

No, you said the Monero scam launch was not just a few coins.

This is what you said:


2.5% - 15%

You were there on launch day. If you weren't part of the scam, you should have looked at the code and discovered the scam built into the scam launch. So you were either lazy or incompetent. You can't be involved in the launch of a project involving people's money and just sit back and not inspect the code from a project you suspected as a scam.

The crippled launch code was there for one or two months. A kid found the exploit and joined in the scam. Who knows, maybe that was when the game was up, and they 'had' to do something.

Public evidence of the crippled code being used and abused

http://da-data.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/minting-money-with-monero-and-cpu.html

Quote from the guy who found them out:



They were even warned to check the code a week before the launch


But they went ahead with the scam launch code, knowingly or otherwise.

I think it is obvious that there is desperate agenda from another coin.  MR.  ICEBREAKER has been one of our worst trolls and antagonists.    I think sticking to facts is prudent.

The Fact is... Evan,  nearly 16 months ago put the question up to vote on whether or not we should burn the coins or relaunch the coin once it was discovered there were some technical issues with the launch.   We, the whole community at that time voted no,  leave it be.  I'll contact our Dev team and foundation board to chime in to explain this in more detail via PM.

I see this as a wise choice. It is easy to see why you would not want to dig through this forum trying to vet the launch of every coin listed on your site based on a subjective criteria.

Please update EmerCoin!

EMC added here - https://www.livecoin.net/trade/index
This pair of EMC / USD
And here - https://www.cryptopia.co.nz/Exchange?market=EMC_BTC
EMC/BTC pair

That is false. If what you're saying was true, then Evan Duffield would not have sliced the block reward after the instamine happened or cut the coin supply, but he did both of those. He could have even relaunched the coin, but he chose not to. That means the instamine was very likely intentional, there is no other way to put it.

Leaving Dash where it had a 2million coin output in 2 days and where it's block reward and coin supply was changed in the same category as coins that never had such things done, is highly unfair.

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.

Thank you for being professional and impartial. We had some issues at launch that came from a bug on LTC, you would have to include them in the same new category, as several hundred thousand were mined in the first hour, Monero also had early mining issues with an intentionally de-optimized miner for 19 days. Where does it end? Your role is to be impartial and present the coin rankings, and specially not to get involved in the drama between coins that are direct competitors and have conflict of interests trying to use your site as a competitive advantage.

Good luck with the site.

If the definition of premine is that a section of the coins were allocated to a selected party via changing the emission schedule, then Dash had a premine, as all of that was done in 2 days for Linux-only users "mainly Evan Duffield and co". Or changing the term from Premine to **Significantly fastmined* might be suited better.

Leaving it in the same category as other coins that did not ever change their emission schedule/block reward after launch is unfair.

Gliss, please don't reward Dark/Dash for being sneaky enough to hide their insta/pre-mine in a cloud of meaningless distinctions.

When the insta-mine happens before the pre-announced Official Launch Time, and is of such a massive scale, the terminology becomes a distinction without a difference.

In Dash's case the instamine happened so quickly and was so massive as to be functionally equivalent to a premine.

Are you really going to let Dash slide by the handy shitcoin auto-filter on such a slimy technicality?  Please don't!

The fact is the Official Dash Launch Timeline is still unclear (I wonder why) and the actual emission bears no resemblance to theoretical.

You do honest coins with fair launches a great disservice by including in their number a 'sham cloaked in a fiasco' like Dash.

Cheers!