Topic: CoinMarketCap.com - Market Cap Rankings of All Cryptocurrencies! - page 53. (Read 639542 times)

same blockchain, same distribution issues.  Distribution issues being the real problem terms like "premine" or "crippled miner" are implying.  how does changing the devs fix that?

EDIT: "Monero has never had any of it's core features changed" i agree on that ...

No, let me explain this again. We did not release anything. The original developer released it, and then, after several days of odd behavior, we kicked him out. Not for that specific thing, mind you, but if we had known about that at the time, that would certainly be another good reason to kick him out. (In hindsight it isn't surprising at all.)

In fact, after taking one of the things we told people was that we weren't that familiar with the code and it could contain back doors or bugs, they should be careful. It was very much a use-at-your-own risk situation and disclosed as such. (This was borne out to be a valid concern in September when an exploit was used to attack the coin.)

I'm sorry but there is simply no comparison between something a former developer did that might have given him a discount on mining at most 1% of the coins (but did not affect the rate of mining at all), and an instamine done by the still current developer that massively wrecked the entire coin-distribution schedule of the coin, followed by changing the schedule again later.

I realize you are trying to create an equivalence here for advocacy reasons, but first of all there isn't one and second of all, they are two independent coins and sets of issues. This method of trying to defend the instamine by pointing to different flaws in a different coin is frankly silly.

The core difference here is that Monero was originally launched by Thankful-for-Today. The current development team as far as I know, did not launch Monero. Therefore saying things like "You launched or released this miner for Monero xyz" is false.

The major points of this are:

. Monero was launched by someone who is no longer involved in the currency
. Monero's beginnings has been in the open, recorded and is verifiable, the core devs seem to be very open
. Monero has never had any of it's core features changed

. Dash was launched by Evan Duffield and Evan Duffield is still Dash's main core developer
. Dash's beginnings are here and there, Evan Duffield says, " Oh it was a mistake that 2million coins were instamined in 2 days", but the events during the instamine say completely otherwise, that it was done on purpose
. Dash had a instamine/premine where all of it's core features were changed after launch

Monero cannot be compared to Dash in any way, shape, or form.

I wasnt aware of the 9x speed difference and I accept that at your word, sorry about that. Look smooth, check my comment history, I like XMR and I'm not trying to throw mud. What you are doing here is throwing mud.

You released a miner that had been de-optimized on purpose. You say you didn't know, but it's what happened. You can not honestly compare that to miners being optimized over time. The miner you release was literally a scam, and you know that's not the same as miners being optimized over time.

Both coins have had launch issues, but you downplay yours as accidents and oversights. You tell me that there are documents explaining the shady history of Monero, and at the same time criticize Evans explanation of events.

You ask to be given the benefit of the doubt about the shady history of Monero, but attack Dash at every opportunity. Can we just stop with that please? I've said my peace, thanks for listening.

"No, because mining optimization has nothing to do with premining or instamining. The supply of coins was and is unchanged from its original specifications. "

Massively disingenuous.  Crippled miner scam is well known and means the dev's get more of the *distribution* than they should...the whole reason why "premine" and "instamines" you say are bad.  The terms Instamine/Premine the way you use them are only to imply a *distribution* problem..  It's the same thing.  

The fact that you always twist things to never admit the faults in Monero shows IMO you aren't "fighting scams" but trying to hurt the competition to raise your own price (despite it failing week after week).

For example, you repeated again core team members' positions "after petitioning" except that I told you didn't petition anything:


I've also did not say that "I don't know" the Darkcoin lanch time, I said that the launch time itself was ambiguous because Evan himself announced several different earliest launch times and then actuallly launched before any of them.

If you continue misquoting and misstating my positions I'll just conclude you are a worthless troll and ignore you. I don't think you always are, but in this case you are acting that way.

We didn't launch the coin. It was launched by some other guy who was doing a bunch of dodgy stuff so the community threw him out. The team that took over didn't even know each other, or the code, at first, we just came together to get rid of the scumbag and create a new team to maintain and develop the coin going forward. We forked it and took over. Then we found the de-optimized stuff while becoming familiar with the code later.

There is a history write up somewhere, but I'm terrible with remembering where those kind of documents are.

That's false. The difference in the deliberately de-optimized code was more like 2x-9x, and it was fixed by us as soon as we found out about it, affecting roughly 1% of the coins, or possibly less (it is hard to know how many of the coins were mined by non-scammers but it was clearly a lot). That's likely not "significant" even if the definition included it

Yes, with a lot of work and a high level of expertise in completely rewriting and optimizing code over a period of two months you could eventually speed it up by around 100x but that was not (beyond the 9x) from removing the deliberately de-optimized part, it was investing a lot of skill and effort in improving something from which any deliberate de-optimizations had already long since been removed.


No, because mining optimization has nothing to do with premining or instamining. The supply of coins was and is unchanged from its original specifications.

Every single coin has miners optimizing in different ways, its always been that way since day one of crypto, and it will always be that way until the last day. That's not a scam, it's skill. I will grant the original de-optimizations that lasted a few weeks was indeed a scam by the original developer (not us) but it was small in magnitude and didn't affect the supply of coins at all, only who mined them.

The launch was clean in the sense that it was clearly announced ahead of time (and indeed the code was available so anyone could have examined the mining code and optimized it themselves if they wanted), launched on schedule, difficulty and speed of emissions promptly adjusted as specified, and the emissions were never subsequently changed. There is no premine/instamine issue here, whatever other issues there may be.

Smooth has admitted that the miner he released with XMR was purposely de-optimized. He also claims to have not known this at the time. How do you not even know the history of your own coin?

I would argue that since the code was barely able to compile at launch, and no Windows wallets were available, the DASH "instamine" is essentially a premine.

also LOL at all the Dashtards getting their panties in a bunch because the fraudulent instamine gets mentioned elsewhere than on their shitty wiki site that no one visits

XMR should be included with this tag as well because of the scam mining software they released on launch. It is was purposely "de-optimized" so that the developers and insiders could mine at 100x the speed of the normal user.

Smooth and friends claim that this was an oversight or an accident, just like Evan claims the same for that launch of xcoin/dash. Same issue, same tag?

Not sure what you mean Smooth.  

The result I posted is totally accurate and correct based on what you said and I stand by it 100%.

If you disagree, please be specific to what I wrote otherwise it isn't clear what you mean.

I.e. this:

Monero core team members position on accusations that Dash was premined after petitioning CoinMarketCap to mark Dash as a "significantly premined coin":

FluffyPony: Accused Dash dev of premining (relating to the launch 16 month ago), for the first time today, upgraded from being an "instamine" before today.  Refused to provide any evidence to backup the premine accusation.

Smooth: Refused to say if he is making the same accusation that any Darkcoin were mined before the launch and also doesn't know the Darkcoin launch date.

Paraphrasing someone else's statement while subtly (or not-so-subtly) changing the meaning is a cheap rhetorical trick. If you are going to quote, just quote.

Also, I didn't "petition" anything, I just replied to a post here and quoted factual (at least factual in the sense they were accurate quotes) information about the launch (two of Evan's posts and a FAQ entry).  I don't know what fluffypony may or may not have petitioned.

Seriously, you are really bad at not injecting bias when you try to summarize or paraphrase. Best you stick to just quoting what was actually said.

Ok so I will leave it there, unless one of you decides to fill in the blanks. The answers I got are:

Monero core team members position on accusations that Dash was premined after petitioning CoinMarketCap to mark Dash as a "significantly premined coin":

FluffyPony: Accused Dash dev of premining (relating to the launch 16 month ago), for the first time today, upgraded from being an "instamine" before today.  Refused to provide any evidence to backup the premine accusation.

Smooth: Refused to say if he is making the same accusation that any Darkcoin were mined before the launch and also doesn't know the Darkcoin launch date.

Fluffypony's opinions are his own, as are mine. There have been no statements made at all on behalf of the core team, so you can leave that part of it out entirely.

You should simply accept that I reject your attempt to create a narrow range of how I may express my opinion. It has been expressed. Read it. That's all you get.

Apologies I think you misunderstood my question.

Fluffy has today for the first time to accuse of Dash as being a premine and when I asked him for evidence he put me on ignore after I had to ask 5 times: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11215773

As a fellow member of the core team, and some posts suggesting that you agree with that, I am asking you are you making the same accusation or not?

That is a binary question, you either are making this accusation or you aren't.

If you answer is that there is no clear answer, then I presume you are not making the same accusation?

So to avoid a lot of further messages, to clarify again, are you able to make the accusation that Dash is a premine like Fluffy has done, or you are not able?  It has to be one or the other...which is it?

This. Or alternately select coins that had a clearly scheduled release time publically announced say a minimum of 24 hours ahead of any mining, with coins subsequently emitted substantially in accordance with the originally published schedule. Filter the rest.

BlockFett please read the italicized portion of my previous reply before asking again.  

Dash is technically premined. If premined in the crypto-world is where a section of the coins were reserved for a selected party by changing the core parameters, then Dash was premined. Dash's 'issues' fall into the area between a Premine and a instamine, as it has all the features of a Premine, with the excepion that the scam occured after it's release.

So maybe a new name, maybe a 'aftermine', 'afterpremine', or just add a new 'instamine' filter list where currencies that had their core parameters changed after release are excluded.

CoinMarketCap could easily put an end to this debate by changing the tag to "significantly pre-mined, insta-mined or ninja-mined". So my suggestion is to make this change.