Topic: [DASH] Dash - Building the IoM | Dash Nation Progress Thread - page 31. (Read 41794 times)
Still stuck in the past Smooth? No worries, when you start looking to the future Dash will still be there and overflowing with innovation as always.
Lord, give me strength. There is nothing in any post I've seen from any of you guys that can prove that a) Evan mined all the coins, and b) That he knowingly perpetrated a scam.
Prove either one of those things, and you have your smoking gun. I will not address this subject with you again. Your time for controlling the Dash discussion is at an end.
Prove either one of those things, and you have your smoking gun. I will not address this subject with you again. Your time for controlling the Dash discussion is at an end.
Please review #1-7:
Quote
1. Evan had at least two years of experience with crypto before launching Dash. There was no "lack of experience" as you claim. (Your statement about what "caused mistakes to be made" was opinion, by the way. I'm glad we have agreed to exclude opinion from this thread.)
2. Evan stated months ahead of the launch that he was working on a "for-profit" coin launch.
3. Evan deliberately withheld the development and feature plans until after the end of the instqamine.
4. Evan misled people about the launch schedule, launching much earlier than promised. During the first hour, over 500000 coins were mined, and in 8 hours, over a million coins.
5. Evan later cut the mining rewards and coin supply, increasing the effective size of the instamine by a factor of four or more.
6. In total, the instamine of 2 million coins represents over 30% of the current supply of Dash.
7. "Official Communication" from Dash blaming the instamine on inherited Litecoin code (which is factually false).
8. Dash ANN OP claiming the coin was "fairly and transparently launched".
2. Evan stated months ahead of the launch that he was working on a "for-profit" coin launch.
3. Evan deliberately withheld the development and feature plans until after the end of the instqamine.
4. Evan misled people about the launch schedule, launching much earlier than promised. During the first hour, over 500000 coins were mined, and in 8 hours, over a million coins.
5. Evan later cut the mining rewards and coin supply, increasing the effective size of the instamine by a factor of four or more.
6. In total, the instamine of 2 million coins represents over 30% of the current supply of Dash.
7. "Official Communication" from Dash blaming the instamine on inherited Litecoin code (which is factually false).
8. Dash ANN OP claiming the coin was "fairly and transparently launched".
Those are all factual. The reader can draw his or her own conclusion from these objective facts.
In order to become the Internet of Money, Dash will have to get out from under Bitcoin's shadow when it comes to exchanges. What is the short-term plan?
https://www.rebelmouse.com/dashnation/ditching-btc-1695039752.html
https://www.rebelmouse.com/dashnation/ditching-btc-1695039752.html
...
You are incorrect. Every single statement I made is factual and objective.
Anything conjectural about it, you are basing on your own interpretation of what I wrote.
With respect to #7 specifically, it is false to state that the Litecoin difficulty adjustment was responsible for the production of extra coins, because that was responsible only for a small portion of the extra coins. The vast majority of the coins came from block rewards that were stuck at the maximum value due to another bug, one that was not related to Litecoin, and which would have happened regardless of the rate of difficulty adjustments.
The Official Communication also states that Evan made a patch to the code to fix the difficulty adjustment within a few hours of launch. I can find no evidence of such a patch implementing any such hard fork prior to the one that ended the instamine after day two. Unless I'm mistaken, this is another factually incorrect statement.
You are incorrect. Every single statement I made is factual and objective.
Anything conjectural about it, you are basing on your own interpretation of what I wrote.
With respect to #7 specifically, it is false to state that the Litecoin difficulty adjustment was responsible for the production of extra coins, because that was responsible only for a small portion of the extra coins. The vast majority of the coins came from block rewards that were stuck at the maximum value due to another bug, one that was not related to Litecoin, and which would have happened regardless of the rate of difficulty adjustments.
The Official Communication also states that Evan made a patch to the code to fix the difficulty adjustment within a few hours of launch. I can find no evidence of such a patch implementing any such hard fork prior to the one that ended the instamine after day two. Unless I'm mistaken, this is another factually incorrect statement.
They're also old news, practically pre-historic in the timeline of crypto and only a very small number of posters seem to give a damn
That does jive with the fact that the edits to the Dash OP in terms of how to characterize the launch are relatively recent and the "Official Communication" document is from three months ago.
The people running the Dash project damn well know that investors and other market participants do care about this stuff, or they wouldn't still be trying to spin it in 2016.
Calling it old news and pre-historic is a nice attempt to brush aside the issues, but the actions of your own project betray you.
Quote
Dashes launch is no secret and if anyone is genuinely concerned there have been many detailed articles
Unfortunately many of those detailed articles, when put out by Dash and/or Dash supporters, end up being grossly inaccurate and deceptive, and therefore represent an ongoing attempt to mislead and scam investors, as I documented above.
...
You are incorrect. Every single statement I made is factual and objective.
Anything conjectural about it, you are basing on your own interpretation of what I wrote.
With respect to #7 specifically, it is false to state that the Litecoin difficulty adjustment was responsible for the production of extra coins, because that was responsible only for a small portion of the extra coins. The vast majority of the coins came from block rewards that were stuck at the maximum value due to another bug, one that was not related to Litecoin, and which would have happened regardless of the rate of difficulty adjustments.
The Official Communication also states that Evan made a patch to the code to fix the difficulty adjustment within a few hours of launch. I can find no evidence of such a patch implementing any such hard fork prior to the one that ended the instamine after day two. Unless I'm mistaken, this is another factually incorrect statement.
You are incorrect. Every single statement I made is factual and objective.
Anything conjectural about it, you are basing on your own interpretation of what I wrote.
With respect to #7 specifically, it is false to state that the Litecoin difficulty adjustment was responsible for the production of extra coins, because that was responsible only for a small portion of the extra coins. The vast majority of the coins came from block rewards that were stuck at the maximum value due to another bug, one that was not related to Litecoin, and which would have happened regardless of the rate of difficulty adjustments.
The Official Communication also states that Evan made a patch to the code to fix the difficulty adjustment within a few hours of launch. I can find no evidence of such a patch implementing any such hard fork prior to the one that ended the instamine after day two. Unless I'm mistaken, this is another factually incorrect statement.
They're also old news, practically pre-historic in the timeline of crypto and only a very small number of posters seem to give a damn, posters who bring up the first 48 hours of Dashes history time and time and time again, they're up to about 10 pages of posts on that single point over the last day or so and I've yet to see a concerned comment from any established poster outside that small group. Trolling, spam and a side order of off-topic.
Dashes launch is no secret and if anyone is genuinely concerned there have been many detailed articles on it thanks to the constant repetition of those same few points by these same few trolls but you won't find those trolls uttering a single true word on the present state of Dash and what kind of shape it's in for the future, they're shit scared of that subject and will put a great deal of effort into disrupting it. Some stay stuck in the same rut indefinitely, Dash evolves.
Why does Dash have what it takes to become the Internet of Money?
https://www.rebelmouse.com/dashnation/the-internet-1715527827.html
https://www.rebelmouse.com/dashnation/the-internet-1715527827.html
The constant false narrative by the people who present half facts half spin is a big reason Dash has been held back for the last 2 years.
Where is the "false narrative"? These are all objective factual statements:
Quote
1. Evan had at least two years of experience with crypto before launching Dash. There was no "lack of experience" as you claim. (Your statement about what "caused mistakes to be made" was opinion, by the way. I'm glad we have agreed to exclude opinion from this thread.)
2. Evan stated months ahead of the launch that he was working on a "for-profit" coin launch.
3. Evan deliberately withheld the development and feature plans until after the end of the instqamine.
4. Evan misled people about the launch schedule, launching much earlier than promised. During the first hour, over 500000 coins were mined, and in 8 hours, over a million coins.
5. Evan later cut the mining rewards and coin supply, increasing the effective size of the instamine by a factor of four or more.
6. In total, the instamine of 2 million coins represents over 30% of the current supply of Dash.
7. "Official Communication" from Dash blaming the instamine on inherited Litecoin code (which is factually false).
8. Dash ANN OP claiming the coin was "fairly and transparently launched".
2. Evan stated months ahead of the launch that he was working on a "for-profit" coin launch.
3. Evan deliberately withheld the development and feature plans until after the end of the instqamine.
4. Evan misled people about the launch schedule, launching much earlier than promised. During the first hour, over 500000 coins were mined, and in 8 hours, over a million coins.
5. Evan later cut the mining rewards and coin supply, increasing the effective size of the instamine by a factor of four or more.
6. In total, the instamine of 2 million coins represents over 30% of the current supply of Dash.
7. "Official Communication" from Dash blaming the instamine on inherited Litecoin code (which is factually false).
8. Dash ANN OP claiming the coin was "fairly and transparently launched".
If there is any "false narrative" here, it is the claims like "fairly and transparently launched" which are being made by Dash.
BTW, "a lot of coins were mined in the first 48 hours" is misleading spin. A lot of coins were mined within one one hour of the early launch, and then in the first 6-8 hours. The rest of the 48 hours was just icing on the cake.
1. Fact
2. Fact
3. Conjecture (Not Fact)
4. Conjecture (The launch time was posted)
5. Fact
6. Fact
7. There is a basis for saying that
8. Conjecture
Some facts and some conjecture. Try harder, please. I'm not buying what you're selling.
You are incorrect. Every single statement I made is factual and objective.
Anything conjectural about it, you are basing on your own interpretation of what I wrote.
With respect to #7 specifically, it is false to state that the Litecoin difficulty adjustment was responsible for the production of extra coins, because that was responsible only for a small portion of the extra coins. The vast majority of the coins came from block rewards that were stuck at the maximum value due to another bug, one that was not related to Litecoin, and which would have happened regardless of the rate of difficulty adjustments.
The Official Communication also states that Evan made a patch to the code to fix the difficulty adjustment within a few hours of launch. I can find no evidence of such a patch implementing any such hard fork prior to the one that ended the instamine after day two. Unless I'm mistaken, this is another factually incorrect statement.
Prove either one of those things, and you have your smoking gun. I will not address this subject with you again. Your time for controlling the Dash discussion is at an end.
The constant false narrative by the people who present half facts half spin is a big reason Dash has been held back for the last 2 years.
Where is the "false narrative"? These are all objective factual statements:
Quote
1. Evan had at least two years of experience with crypto before launching Dash. There was no "lack of experience" as you claim. (Your statement about what "caused mistakes to be made" was opinion, by the way. I'm glad we have agreed to exclude opinion from this thread.)
2. Evan stated months ahead of the launch that he was working on a "for-profit" coin launch.
3. Evan deliberately withheld the development and feature plans until after the end of the instqamine.
4. Evan misled people about the launch schedule, launching much earlier than promised. During the first hour, over 500000 coins were mined, and in 8 hours, over a million coins.
5. Evan later cut the mining rewards and coin supply, increasing the effective size of the instamine by a factor of four or more.
6. In total, the instamine of 2 million coins represents over 30% of the current supply of Dash.
7. "Official Communication" from Dash blaming the instamine on inherited Litecoin code (which is factually false).
8. Dash ANN OP claiming the coin was "fairly and transparently launched".
2. Evan stated months ahead of the launch that he was working on a "for-profit" coin launch.
3. Evan deliberately withheld the development and feature plans until after the end of the instqamine.
4. Evan misled people about the launch schedule, launching much earlier than promised. During the first hour, over 500000 coins were mined, and in 8 hours, over a million coins.
5. Evan later cut the mining rewards and coin supply, increasing the effective size of the instamine by a factor of four or more.
6. In total, the instamine of 2 million coins represents over 30% of the current supply of Dash.
7. "Official Communication" from Dash blaming the instamine on inherited Litecoin code (which is factually false).
8. Dash ANN OP claiming the coin was "fairly and transparently launched".
If there is any "false narrative" here, it is the claims like "fairly and transparently launched" which are being made by Dash.
BTW, "a lot of coins were mined in the first 48 hours" is misleading spin. A lot of coins were mined within one one hour of the early launch, and then in the first 6-8 hours. The rest of the 48 hours was just icing on the cake.
1. Fact
2. Fact
3. Conjecture (Not Fact)
4. Conjecture (The launch time was posted)
5. Fact
6. Fact
7. There is a basis for saying that
8. Conjecture
Some facts and some conjecture. Try harder, please. I'm not buying what you're selling.
You are incorrect. Every single statement I made is factual and objective.
Anything conjectural about it, you are basing on your own interpretation of what I wrote.
With respect to #7 specifically, it is false to state that the Litecoin difficulty adjustment was responsible for the production of extra coins, because that was responsible only for a small portion of the extra coins. The vast majority of the coins came from block rewards that were stuck at the maximum value due to another bug, one that was not related to Litecoin, and which would have happened regardless of the rate of difficulty adjustments.
The Official Communication also states that Evan made a patch to the code to fix the difficulty adjustment within a few hours of launch. I can find no evidence of such a patch implementing any such hard fork prior to the one that ended the instamine after day two. Unless I'm mistaken, this is another factually incorrect statement.
The constant false narrative by the people who present half facts half spin is a big reason Dash has been held back for the last 2 years
It's actually very simple.
There is a philosophy in crypto that alludes to the existence of an innate legitimising authority. Kind of like "these are the rules, if you follow them, you are legit and if you don't you're not and neither's your marketcap".
It's bogus of course - for 2 reasons in particular:
[1] - crypto is decentralised, there is no 'legitimising authority' neither explicit or implied other than the market
[2] - crypto is unbacked money
What the latter point means is that the tokens are worth exactly zip when they are created. Nor are they regulated, nor is there any “ethical dimension” to their creation (Unless people want to read their own ethical dimensions into it in which there'll be as many 'ethical dimensions' as observers).
They are simply tokens that only have any value if the market says they have.
The emission rate, who got how much, whether the dev changed the properties after launch doesn't matter SQUAT other than they are just another bunch of things to be priced in amongst everything else.
Just as we’ve seen in this thread, they matter to more to some buyers and less to others (and for some still, they are an out and out religion).
I didn't buy Dash because of a "fair launch". I couldn't care less about whether a coin had a fair launch or not unless I think it's going to affect its future value. For two years the same few conflicted trolls on bitcointalk have been attempting to convince me otherwise and for 2 years they've been proved wrong so I'm not exactly losing sleep over it.
Markets always sort these things out because, unlike conflicted bitcointalk pseudo-religious crypto nutcase zealots, they take everything into account and price everything in.
There is no black and white. No "legit" or "not legit". It is what it is and gets priced appropriately.
The constant false narrative by the people who present half facts half spin is a big reason Dash has been held back for the last 2 years.
Where is the "false narrative"? These are all objective factual statements:
Quote
1. Evan had at least two years of experience with crypto before launching Dash. There was no "lack of experience" as you claim. (Your statement about what "caused mistakes to be made" was opinion, by the way. I'm glad we have agreed to exclude opinion from this thread.)
2. Evan stated months ahead of the launch that he was working on a "for-profit" coin launch.
3. Evan deliberately withheld the development and feature plans until after the end of the instqamine.
4. Evan misled people about the launch schedule, launching much earlier than promised. During the first hour, over 500000 coins were mined, and in 8 hours, over a million coins.
5. Evan later cut the mining rewards and coin supply, increasing the effective size of the instamine by a factor of four or more.
6. In total, the instamine of 2 million coins represents over 30% of the current supply of Dash.
7. "Official Communication" from Dash blaming the instamine on inherited Litecoin code (which is factually false).
8. Dash ANN OP claiming the coin was "fairly and transparently launched".
2. Evan stated months ahead of the launch that he was working on a "for-profit" coin launch.
3. Evan deliberately withheld the development and feature plans until after the end of the instqamine.
4. Evan misled people about the launch schedule, launching much earlier than promised. During the first hour, over 500000 coins were mined, and in 8 hours, over a million coins.
5. Evan later cut the mining rewards and coin supply, increasing the effective size of the instamine by a factor of four or more.
6. In total, the instamine of 2 million coins represents over 30% of the current supply of Dash.
7. "Official Communication" from Dash blaming the instamine on inherited Litecoin code (which is factually false).
8. Dash ANN OP claiming the coin was "fairly and transparently launched".
If there is any "false narrative" here, it is the claims like "fairly and transparently launched" which are being made by Dash.
BTW, "a lot of coins were mined in the first 48 hours" is misleading spin. A lot of coins were mined within one one hour of the early launch, and then in the first 6-8 hours. The rest of the 48 hours was just icing on the cake.
1. Fact
2. Fact
3. Conjecture (Not Fact)
4. Conjecture (The launch time was posted)
5. Fact
6. Fact
7. There is a basis for saying that
8. Conjecture
Some facts and some conjecture. Try harder, please. I'm not buying what you're selling.
The constant false narrative by the people who present half facts half spin is a big reason Dash has been held back for the last 2 years.
Where is the "false narrative"? These are all objective factual statements:
Quote
1. Evan had at least two years of experience with crypto before launching Dash. There was no "lack of experience" as you claim. (Your statement about what "caused mistakes to be made" was opinion, by the way. I'm glad we have agreed to exclude opinion from this thread.)
2. Evan stated months ahead of the launch that he was working on a "for-profit" coin launch.
3. Evan deliberately withheld the development and feature plans until after the end of the instqamine.
4. Evan misled people about the launch schedule, launching much earlier than promised. During the first hour, over 500000 coins were mined, and in 8 hours, over a million coins.
5. Evan later cut the mining rewards and coin supply, increasing the effective size of the instamine by a factor of four or more.
6. In total, the instamine of 2 million coins represents over 30% of the current supply of Dash.
7. "Official Communication" from Dash blaming the instamine on inherited Litecoin code (which is factually false).
8. Dash ANN OP claiming the coin was "fairly and transparently launched".
2. Evan stated months ahead of the launch that he was working on a "for-profit" coin launch.
3. Evan deliberately withheld the development and feature plans until after the end of the instqamine.
4. Evan misled people about the launch schedule, launching much earlier than promised. During the first hour, over 500000 coins were mined, and in 8 hours, over a million coins.
5. Evan later cut the mining rewards and coin supply, increasing the effective size of the instamine by a factor of four or more.
6. In total, the instamine of 2 million coins represents over 30% of the current supply of Dash.
7. "Official Communication" from Dash blaming the instamine on inherited Litecoin code (which is factually false).
8. Dash ANN OP claiming the coin was "fairly and transparently launched".
If there is any "false narrative" here, it is the claims like "fairly and transparently launched" which are being made by Dash.
BTW, "a lot of coins were mined in the first 48 hours" is misleading spin. A lot of coins were mined within one one hour of the early launch, and then in the first 6-8 hours. The rest of the 48 hours was just icing on the cake.
I'm not arguing about the instamine. It happened. A lot of coins were mined in the first 48 hours. That is a fact. Did Evan mine all of them? Impossible to say. Did Evan deliberately perpetrate a scam? No evidence has been presented to back that up.
The constant false narrative by the people who present half facts half spin is a big reason Dash has been held back for the last 2 years.
But the conjecture doesn't just end with the instamine. It's now Dash is bad crypto, Dash is centralized, Dash is just Evan's way or the highway.
They are fighting hard to have you believe this bias. Five school-boy bullies visited this thread at the same time to try and ram it down my throat....
By this point, to the lurkers of this thread, it's plain to see that some individuals have felt the need to spread this narrative due to the fact that they are threatened by the truth, which is that Dash is an incredible project. It has the decentralized team, technology, governance and funding to one day be the digital cash that Satoshi envisioned, the Internet Of Money.
Dash Nation represents positivity, progress, innovation and decentralized tech. Join us and see for yourself. We would love to have you with us, building a community around Dash.
Cheers,
Tao (Dash Nation Campaign Founder)
The constant false narrative by the people who present half facts half spin is a big reason Dash has been held back for the last 2 years.
But the conjecture doesn't just end with the instamine. It's now Dash is bad crypto, Dash is centralized, Dash is just Evan's way or the highway.
They are fighting hard to have you believe this bias. Five school-boy bullies visited this thread at the same time to try and ram it down my throat....
By this point, to the lurkers of this thread, it's plain to see that some individuals have felt the need to spread this narrative due to the fact that they are threatened by the truth, which is that Dash is an incredible project. It has the decentralized team, technology, governance and funding to one day be the digital cash that Satoshi envisioned, the Internet Of Money.
Dash Nation represents positivity, progress, innovation and decentralized tech. Join us and see for yourself. We would love to have you with us, building a community around Dash.
Cheers,
Tao (Dash Nation Campaign Founder)
I don't think there's any point in arguing about the instamine.
Some people have a problem with it and some don't.
Simple as that.
#DashNation #IoM
I don't think there's any point in arguing about the instamine.
Some people have a problem with it and some don't.
Simple as that.
Evan had a youthful exuberance, when coupled with a lack of experience caused some mistakes to be made.
Someone youthfully exuberant would not have been able to hold back on telling the world about the development and feature plans he was so excited about and instead wait until after the instamine was entirely completed. In fact he did exactly that which shows it was likely purposeful and calculated, not accidents and mistakes.
Evan had been around crypto for at least two years or so before launching Dash. He'd see it all, including premines, hidden premines, instamines, etc. He was no beginner and he knew exactly how to play the game.
Facts:
1. Evan had at least two years of experience with crypto before launching Dash. There was no "lack of experience" as you claim. (Your statement about what "caused mistakes to be made" was opinion, by the way. I'm glad we have agreed to exclude opinion from this thread.)
2. Evan stated months ahead of the launch that he was working on a "for-profit" coin launch.
3. Evan deliberately withheld the development and feature plans until after the end of the instqamine.
4. Evan misled people about the launch schedule, launching much earlier than promised. During the first hour, over 500000 coins were mined, and in 8 hours, over a million coins.
5. Evan later cut the mining rewards and coin supply, increasing the effective size of the instamine by a factor of four or more.
6. In total, the instamine of 2 million coins represents over 30% of the current supply of Dash.
These are all objective, documented facts. No opinion. People can draw their own conclusions as to whether this was an elaborate fraud or a legitimate coin project.
Let's just let the facts speak for themselves, and leave out opinion, including yours as what you think about Evan's bad intent.
We can add:
7. "Official Communication" from Dash blaming the instamine on inherited Litecoin code (which is factually false).
8. Dash ANN OP claiming the coin was "fairly and transparently launched".
Same old iCEBREAKER trying to "control" the narrative about Dash through spin, innuendo and ad hominem attacks.
You are still doing us a service by bumping this pro-Dash thread front and centre in the Altcoin discussion board.
All great things started small. You have to start somewhere as an organization. The exciting thing about Dash is that the technology exists to bring a true decentralized digital money to the public, outside of government control.
This is what Satoshi envisioned when he created Bitcoin. Unfortunately, it's fallen victim to centralization of funding sources and influence. The tug-of-war over development is just starting for it. The ability to make key decisions that improve the coin is key, and Dash has it with the DGBB (Decentralized Governance by Blockchain), with unbiased funding sources.
We are a young small coin with great technology that's been misunderstood because of lies and deception. We are growing though, and more people see the Dash difference each day. I have many positive conversations on Twitter, and I slowly see the perception changing.
Join Dash Nation and help us create the Internet of Money! Join a culture of positivity amid all of this negativity that consumes this space.
Dash Lead Developer Evan Duffield Discusses Evolution With The Daily Decrypt:
You are still doing us a service by bumping this pro-Dash thread front and centre in the Altcoin discussion board.
All great things started small. You have to start somewhere as an organization. The exciting thing about Dash is that the technology exists to bring a true decentralized digital money to the public, outside of government control.
This is what Satoshi envisioned when he created Bitcoin. Unfortunately, it's fallen victim to centralization of funding sources and influence. The tug-of-war over development is just starting for it. The ability to make key decisions that improve the coin is key, and Dash has it with the DGBB (Decentralized Governance by Blockchain), with unbiased funding sources.
We are a young small coin with great technology that's been misunderstood because of lies and deception. We are growing though, and more people see the Dash difference each day. I have many positive conversations on Twitter, and I slowly see the perception changing.
Join Dash Nation and help us create the Internet of Money! Join a culture of positivity amid all of this negativity that consumes this space.
Dash Lead Developer Evan Duffield Discusses Evolution With The Daily Decrypt:
There you go invoking Satoshi again. Satoshi envisioned a decentralized currency built on solid cryptography--dash is neither of these things. It's an instamined fraud built on the fault line that is X11 and the second rate anonymity method darksend. It created centralization through an instamine and exasperated it by creating pay-nodes that centralize power further. It's poor design, built on the back of a poor launch.
X11 is insecure because if one of the chains is exploited then the whole thing is garbage as the attack can go on so long that you simply can't remove the broken chain and roll back to a pre-broken state.
Darksend is second rate because it doesn't use the end-to-end principle to achieve anonymity.
Pay-nodes further centralization when a premine or instamine has occurred and there is no way to verify redistribution of the already centralized distribution--this applies to dash because of the instamine that constitutes 30% of current emissions mined in the first two days of launch.
Need me to explain any more facts?
You do know that once it happens and one can prove it, that that's that--the end. Some of us research the tech before we mistakenly plop down our hard earned money on badly built systems. Though I'm guessing that most of the dashers don't have the theoretical capabilities to realize the boat with the hole in it, is going to sink.
The onus is on the cryptosystem builder to show that his or her system is built on solid mathematical and cryptographic principles. There's a reason that the best minds in the room make fun of dash and it isn't because they're jealous or feel threatened--as much as dashtards would like to make that narrative the staple diet they feed to greater fools.
Evan had a youthful exuberance, when coupled with a lack of experience caused some mistakes to be made.
Someone youthfully exuberant would not have been able to hold back on telling the world about the development and feature plans he was so excited about and instead wait until after the instamine was entirely completed. In fact he did exactly that which shows it was likely purposeful and calculated, not accidents and mistakes.
Evan had been around crypto for at least two years or so before launching Dash. He'd see it all, including premines, hidden premines, instamines, etc. He was no beginner and he knew exactly how to play the game.
Facts:
1. Evan had at least two years of experience with crypto before launching Dash. There was no "lack of experience" as you claim. (Your statement about what "caused mistakes to be made" was opinion, by the way. I'm glad we have agreed to exclude opinion from this thread.)
2. Evan stated months ahead of the launch that he was working on a "for-profit" coin launch.
3. Evan deliberately withheld the development and feature plans until after the end of the instqamine.
4. Evan misled people about the launch schedule, launching much earlier than promised. During the first hour, over 500000 coins were mined, and in 8 hours, over a million coins.
5. Evan later cut the mining rewards and coin supply, increasing the effective size of the instamine by a factor of four or more.
6. In total, the instamine of 2 million coins represents over 30% of the current supply of Dash.
These are all objective, documented facts. No opinion. People can draw their own conclusions as to whether this was an elaborate fraud or a legitimate coin project.
Evan had a youthful exuberance, when coupled with a lack of experience caused some mistakes to be made.
Someone youthfully exuberant would not have been able to hold back on telling the world about the development and feature plans he was so excited about and instead wait until after the instamine was entirely completed. In fact he did exactly that which shows it was likely purposeful and calculated, not accidents and mistakes.
Evan had been around crypto for at least two years or so before launching XCoin/Darkcoin/Dash. He'd see it all, including premines, hidden premines, instamines, etc. He was no beginner and he knew exactly how to play the game.
Also Evan claims to hail from the financial realm, so I think he may know something about using bots to trade the market. I contemplate he may have been formulating the perfect plan for fooling the market with a bot that buys from itself.
P.S. note I corrected the thread title.
Evan had a youthful exuberance, when coupled with a lack of experience caused some mistakes to be made.
Someone youthfully exuberant would not have been able to hold back on telling the world about the development and feature plans he was so excited about and instead wait until after the instamine was entirely completed. In fact he did exactly that which shows it was likely purposeful and calculated, not accidents and mistakes.
Evan had been around crypto for at least two years or so before launching Dash. He'd see it all, including premines, hidden premines, instamines, etc. He was no beginner and he knew exactly how to play the game.
Facts:
1. Evan had at least two years of experience with crypto before launching Dash. There was no "lack of experience" as you claim. (Your statement about what "caused mistakes to be made" was opinion, by the way. I'm glad we have agreed to exclude opinion from this thread.)
2. Evan stated months ahead of the launch that he was working on a "for-profit" coin launch.
3. Evan deliberately withheld the development and feature plans until after the end of the instqamine.
4. Evan misled people about the launch schedule, launching much earlier than promised. During the first hour, over 500000 coins were mined, and in 8 hours, over a million coins.
5. Evan later cut the mining rewards and coin supply, increasing the effective size of the instamine by a factor of four or more.
6. In total, the instamine of 2 million coins represents over 30% of the current supply of Dash.
These are all objective, documented facts. No opinion. People can draw their own conclusions as to whether this was an elaborate fraud or a legitimate coin project.
Jump to: