Pages:
Author

Topic: DRK vs XMR warez - page 12. (Read 13382 times)

hero member
Activity: 795
Merit: 514
February 23, 2015, 09:59:09 PM
#41
any coin that begs for money for the developer is a shitcoin.
Satoshi never did and I hold all developers to that standard.
Don't develop it than if you can't handle not getting handouts back from it.

You have no idea who Satoshi is, nor whether he (or they) got paid.

If you'd rather developers steal coins from their users in the form of pre/insta-mines as opposed to asking for contributions, then you have a plethora of options. The rest of us have XMR.
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 500
February 23, 2015, 04:22:56 PM
#40
One thing that I've noticed is that the instamine seems to actually have turned out to be a good thing for DRK(in the short term at least) as it clearly gives Evan Duffield a massive incentive to continue to develop and foster growth. Also it enables funding to further the project and it seems that DRK has been pretty consistent with development. Personally I completely dismissed DRK at some point last year and I'm surprised to see that it's continued to do fairly well. But it makes sense because the incentives are aligned with continued development. Long term though single individuals holding so much supply can be dangerous. Even Bitcoin has this same issue though with Satoshi.

Contrast this to XMR where developer funding is a big problem. The XMR devs have put a very large amount of their own money in to paying for research and code reviews and such. And from what I've read the entire team holds less than 80k XMR between them(7 people?). This has been used as a selling point by some people in the XMR community as evidence of a fair distribution, which it seems to be. But fair in the short term doesn't necessarily equate to a situation where those who have the ability to produce the most value actually have the resources to do so. So we get to see the trade offs here between two currencies with similar goals.

edit: that 80k XMR number is probably way out date and doesn't consider the likelyhood that they've all bought more since the price has come down quite a bit.
any coin that begs for money for the developer is a shitcoin.
Satoshi never did and I hold all developers to that standard.
Don't develop it than if you can't handle not getting handouts back from it.

"handouts" from performing skilled labour? That's a first.
not at all. Every shitcoin clone out there asks for donations /handouts to continue to "develop" their
copy pasta scam. You "clone" a currency that you want others to use. But you want others to pay you to continue to develop the coin? labor rotflmao Real labor is a chinese building your iphone. Or a bangladeshi sewing your nike shoes.

What? OK so you rather choose a coin that has 2 million coins instamined in less than 3 days, most going to the developers at the time, over a coin that chooses to ask for donations instead(and is like the holy grail in comparison)?

Nice judgement skills there mate.
exactly which coin are you referring to Because I don't use either xmr or mon, and I aint your mate
sr. member
Activity: 770
Merit: 250
February 23, 2015, 04:15:27 PM
#39
One thing that I've noticed is that the instamine seems to actually have turned out to be a good thing for DRK(in the short term at least) as it clearly gives Evan Duffield a massive incentive to continue to develop and foster growth. Also it enables funding to further the project and it seems that DRK has been pretty consistent with development. Personally I completely dismissed DRK at some point last year and I'm surprised to see that it's continued to do fairly well. But it makes sense because the incentives are aligned with continued development. Long term though single individuals holding so much supply can be dangerous. Even Bitcoin has this same issue though with Satoshi.

Contrast this to XMR where developer funding is a big problem. The XMR devs have put a very large amount of their own money in to paying for research and code reviews and such. And from what I've read the entire team holds less than 80k XMR between them(7 people?). This has been used as a selling point by some people in the XMR community as evidence of a fair distribution, which it seems to be. But fair in the short term doesn't necessarily equate to a situation where those who have the ability to produce the most value actually have the resources to do so. So we get to see the trade offs here between two currencies with similar goals.

edit: that 80k XMR number is probably way out date and doesn't consider the likelyhood that they've all bought more since the price has come down quite a bit.
any coin that begs for money for the developer is a shitcoin.
Satoshi never did and I hold all developers to that standard.
Don't develop it than if you can't handle not getting handouts back from it.

"handouts" from performing skilled labour? That's a first.
not at all. Every shitcoin clone out there asks for donations /handouts to continue to "develop" their
copy pasta scam. You "clone" a currency that you want others to use. But you want others to pay you to continue to develop the coin? labor rotflmao Real labor is a chinese building your iphone. Or a bangladeshi sewing your nike shoes.

What? OK so you rather choose a coin that has 2 million coins instamined(Darkcoin) in less than 3 days, most going to the developers at the time, over a coin that chooses to ask for donations(Monero) instead(and is like the holy grail in comparison)?

Nice judgement skills there mate.

edit
sr. member
Activity: 770
Merit: 250
February 23, 2015, 04:00:04 PM
#38
One thing that I've noticed is that the instamine seems to actually have turned out to be a good thing for DRK(in the short term at least) as it clearly gives Evan Duffield a massive incentive to continue to develop and foster growth. Also it enables funding to further the project and it seems that DRK has been pretty consistent with development. Personally I completely dismissed DRK at some point last year and I'm surprised to see that it's continued to do fairly well. But it makes sense because the incentives are aligned with continued development. Long term though single individuals holding so much supply can be dangerous. Even Bitcoin has this same issue though with Satoshi.

Contrast this to XMR where developer funding is a big problem. The XMR devs have put a very large amount of their own money in to paying for research and code reviews and such. And from what I've read the entire team holds less than 80k XMR between them(7 people?). This has been used as a selling point by some people in the XMR community as evidence of a fair distribution, which it seems to be. But fair in the short term doesn't necessarily equate to a situation where those who have the ability to produce the most value actually have the resources to do so. So we get to see the trade offs here between two currencies with similar goals.

edit: that 80k XMR number is probably way out date and doesn't consider the likelyhood that they've all bought more since the price has come down quite a bit.
any coin that begs for money for the developer is a shitcoin.
Satoshi never did and I hold all developers to that standard.
Don't develop it than if you can't handle not getting handouts back from it.

"handouts" from performing skilled labour? That's a first.

Instamine talk is just too tiring.  Coins were distributed.  Many went to a dev who is no longer part of the team and sold up in the early days.  The rest were sold on open market.  I personally believe that Evan's DRK coins were mostly purchased.  I base this theory on the fact that Evan has been known to reach out to known whales to purchase large amounts of DRK for himself and family members.

No, they were not purchased. The majority of the coins that were instamined went to Evan and his partner, InternetApe, at the time. (I'm sure InternetApe mined much more than the 120,000 dark he said he did) Ever wondered why Evan could of donated full hour days to Darkcoin? Because of the instamined coins he gained.


Was there some instamine? "I" wouldnt call it instamine where the developers got all the coins as in a premine, but there was a good amount that was mines in the first 24-48 hours. I my self as one of the developers I mines ~120k DRK. and realized this could be a problem in the futures and gave away around 50k to get people interested.

legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1002
Decentralize Everything
February 23, 2015, 08:01:21 AM
#37
One thing that I've noticed is that the instamine seems to actually have turned out to be a good thing for DRK(in the short term at least) as it clearly gives Evan Duffield a massive incentive to continue to develop and foster growth. Also it enables funding to further the project and it seems that DRK has been pretty consistent with development. Personally I completely dismissed DRK at some point last year and I'm surprised to see that it's continued to do fairly well. But it makes sense because the incentives are aligned with continued development. Long term though single individuals holding so much supply can be dangerous. Even Bitcoin has this same issue though with Satoshi.

Contrast this to XMR where developer funding is a big problem. The XMR devs have put a very large amount of their own money in to paying for research and code reviews and such. And from what I've read the entire team holds less than 80k XMR between them(7 people?). This has been used as a selling point by some people in the XMR community as evidence of a fair distribution, which it seems to be. But fair in the short term doesn't necessarily equate to a situation where those who have the ability to produce the most value actually have the resources to do so. So we get to see the trade offs here between two currencies with similar goals.

edit: that 80k XMR number is probably way out date and doesn't consider the likelyhood that they've all bought more since the price has come down quite a bit.
any coin that begs for money for the developer is a shitcoin.
Satoshi never did and I hold all developers to that standard.
Don't develop it than if you can't handle not getting handouts back from it.

"handouts" from performing skilled labour? That's a first.

Instamine talk is just too tiring.  Coins were distributed.  Many went to a dev who is no longer part of the team and sold up in the early days.  The rest were sold on open market.  I personally believe that Evan's DRK coins were mostly purchased.  I base this theory on the fact that Evan has been known to reach out to known whales to purchase large amounts of DRK for himself and family members.
legendary
Activity: 826
Merit: 1002
amarha
February 23, 2015, 07:39:35 AM
#36
One thing that I've noticed is that the instamine seems to actually have turned out to be a good thing for DRK(in the short term at least) as it clearly gives Evan Duffield a massive incentive to continue to develop and foster growth. Also it enables funding to further the project and it seems that DRK has been pretty consistent with development. Personally I completely dismissed DRK at some point last year and I'm surprised to see that it's continued to do fairly well. But it makes sense because the incentives are aligned with continued development. Long term though single individuals holding so much supply can be dangerous. Even Bitcoin has this same issue though with Satoshi.

Contrast this to XMR where developer funding is a big problem. The XMR devs have put a very large amount of their own money in to paying for research and code reviews and such. And from what I've read the entire team holds less than 80k XMR between them(7 people?). This has been used as a selling point by some people in the XMR community as evidence of a fair distribution, which it seems to be. But fair in the short term doesn't necessarily equate to a situation where those who have the ability to produce the most value actually have the resources to do so. So we get to see the trade offs here between two currencies with similar goals.

edit: that 80k XMR number is probably way out date and doesn't consider the likelyhood that they've all bought more since the price has come down quite a bit.
any coin that begs for money for the developer is a shitcoin.
Satoshi never did and I hold all developers to that standard.
Don't develop it than if you can't handle not getting handouts back from it.

"handouts" from performing skilled labour? That's a first.
legendary
Activity: 952
Merit: 1000
Stagnation is Death
February 23, 2015, 07:23:35 AM
#35
legendary
Activity: 1210
Merit: 1024
February 23, 2015, 02:35:33 AM
#34

Monero cons

Original authors are scam artists so other devs have taken it over (for XMR)



Who were the original authors and who are the devs today?


~BCX~
legendary
Activity: 2282
Merit: 1050
Monero Core Team
February 23, 2015, 01:44:22 AM
#33
One thing that I've noticed is that the instamine seems to actually have turned out to be a good thing for DRK(in the short term at least) as it clearly gives Evan Duffield a massive incentive to continue to develop and foster growth. Also it enables funding to further the project and it seems that DRK has been pretty consistent with development. Personally I completely dismissed DRK at some point last year and I'm surprised to see that it's continued to do fairly well. But it makes sense because the incentives are aligned with continued development. Long term though single individuals holding so much supply can be dangerous. Even Bitcoin has this same issue though with Satoshi.

Contrast this to XMR where developer funding is a big problem. The XMR devs have put a very large amount of their own money in to paying for research and code reviews and such. And from what I've read the entire team holds less than 80k XMR between them(7 people?). This has been used as a selling point by some people in the XMR community as evidence of a fair distribution, which it seems to be. But fair in the short term doesn't necessarily equate to a situation where those who have the ability to produce the most value actually have the resources to do so. So we get to see the trade offs here between two currencies with similar goals.

edit: that 80k XMR number is probably way out date and doesn't consider the likelyhood that they've all bought more since the price has come down quite a bit.
any coin that begs for money for the developer is a shitcoin.
Satoshi never did and I hold all developers to that standard.
Don't develop it than if you can't handle not getting handouts back from it.

I will take quality FLOSS funded by donations such a GNU/Linux over propriety software and its related scams and malware any day. Just try searching Bing news  Wink for "Lenovo" http://www.bing.com/news/search?q=lenovo&FORM=HDRSC6
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 500
February 22, 2015, 03:02:35 PM
#32
One thing that I've noticed is that the instamine seems to actually have turned out to be a good thing for DRK(in the short term at least) as it clearly gives Evan Duffield a massive incentive to continue to develop and foster growth. Also it enables funding to further the project and it seems that DRK has been pretty consistent with development. Personally I completely dismissed DRK at some point last year and I'm surprised to see that it's continued to do fairly well. But it makes sense because the incentives are aligned with continued development. Long term though single individuals holding so much supply can be dangerous. Even Bitcoin has this same issue though with Satoshi.

Contrast this to XMR where developer funding is a big problem. The XMR devs have put a very large amount of their own money in to paying for research and code reviews and such. And from what I've read the entire team holds less than 80k XMR between them(7 people?). This has been used as a selling point by some people in the XMR community as evidence of a fair distribution, which it seems to be. But fair in the short term doesn't necessarily equate to a situation where those who have the ability to produce the most value actually have the resources to do so. So we get to see the trade offs here between two currencies with similar goals.

edit: that 80k XMR number is probably way out date and doesn't consider the likelyhood that they've all bought more since the price has come down quite a bit.
any coin that begs for money for the developer is a shitcoin.
Satoshi never did and I hold all developers to that standard.
Don't develop it than if you can't handle not getting handouts back from it.
hero member
Activity: 742
Merit: 500
February 22, 2015, 12:24:43 PM
#31
when you really break it down and assume they are both not pnd shitcoins the winner will be the one who offers the best way to reach privacy, because this is the niche they are aiming for.

now you can start to think about which groups like privacy and start making assumptions about whether the utility of privacy is elastic or non-elastic.

after that you probably have the winner - or you conclude that this coin is not invented at all at this point of time.

Privacy is not the only niche DRK excels at. Real-time transaction confirmations is another feature that might be essential for some, and useful for everyone, and all of its applications are not yet discovered. Masternodes offer an investing opportunity for those who are not into mining, and the features and applications that could be built on top of the masternode network open up a lot of new possibilities.


exactly - drk is in my opinion the most innovative bitcoin fork which exists (and probably the best).

additionally it has some interesting incentive structures

nevertheless it is a fork of bitcoin and the basic architecture of bitcoin is a transparent blockchain.

I believe in two things at least mid-term. a) no coin will replace bitcoin b) there are small niches which can be filled, the biggest of the small niches is privacy.

XMR is by core private - privacy has a non-elastic utility, therefore at this point of time there is no real competitor to xmr for this niche. money is an institution and economic network effects matter in cryptocurrency, therefore the likelyhood of xmr (in case it can solve its technical merits) for being the dominant private ledger is a this point quite high.

last year there was this altcoin observer started bie rpietela and the first 50 pages are worth reading for every person being interested in cryptoeconomics, especially the posts by PeterR are nuggets

legendary
Activity: 826
Merit: 1002
amarha
February 22, 2015, 11:05:55 AM
#30
One thing that I've noticed is that the instamine seems to actually have turned out to be a good thing for DRK(in the short term at least) as it clearly gives Evan Duffield a massive incentive to continue to develop and foster growth. Also it enables funding to further the project and it seems that DRK has been pretty consistent with development. Personally I completely dismissed DRK at some point last year and I'm surprised to see that it's continued to do fairly well. But it makes sense because the incentives are aligned with continued development. Long term though single individuals holding so much supply can be dangerous. Even Bitcoin has this same issue though with Satoshi.

Contrast this to XMR where developer funding is a big problem. The XMR devs have put a very large amount of their own money in to paying for research and code reviews and such. And from what I've read the entire team holds less than 80k XMR between them(7 people?). This has been used as a selling point by some people in the XMR community as evidence of a fair distribution, which it seems to be. But fair in the short term doesn't necessarily equate to a situation where those who have the ability to produce the most value actually have the resources to do so. So we get to see the trade offs here between two currencies with similar goals.

edit: that 80k XMR number is probably way out date and doesn't consider the likelyhood that they've all bought more since the price has come down quite a bit.
hero member
Activity: 966
Merit: 1003
February 22, 2015, 09:15:04 AM
#29
when you really break it down and assume they are both not pnd shitcoins the winner will be the one who offers the best way to reach privacy, because this is the niche they are aiming for.

now you can start to think about which groups like privacy and start making assumptions about whether the utility of privacy is elastic or non-elastic.

after that you probably have the winner - or you conclude that this coin is not invented at all at this point of time.

Privacy is not the only niche DRK excels at. Real-time transaction confirmations is another feature that might be essential for some, and useful for everyone, and all of its applications are not yet discovered. Masternodes offer an investing opportunity for those who are not into mining, and the features and applications that could be built on top of the masternode network open up a lot of new possibilities.
hero member
Activity: 742
Merit: 500
February 22, 2015, 09:09:56 AM
#28
when you really break it down and assume they are both not pnd shitcoins the winner will be the one who offers the best way to reach privacy, because this is the niche they are aiming for.

now you can start to think about which groups like privacy and start making assumptions about whether the utility of privacy is elastic or non-elastic.

after that you probably have the winner - or you conclude that this coin is not invented at all at this point of time.



sr. member
Activity: 478
Merit: 250
February 22, 2015, 08:58:56 AM
#27
Monero already won, you can all stop pretending an instamined scam even matter at this point.

With great benefit to creator, Darkcoin can keep its creator continue to innovate. By the other hand Monero creators can easily drop Monero to follow their other dreams. They don't have enought benefit to stick with it.

With master nodes, Darkcoin can attract more talent tech gurus come and bring more value.
legendary
Activity: 3066
Merit: 1188
February 22, 2015, 05:25:33 AM
#26

Lets see:



Meanwhile......







PoS
full member
Activity: 223
Merit: 101
If you can be anything, be kind and fair
February 22, 2015, 03:44:08 AM
#25

[1] - stop with the instamined crap. It wasn't and everyone's bored with that year-old stale fud


I could have sworn I saw some pretty good evidence that there was in fact a large instamine. I remember seeing graphs and such. The number 2 million seems to ring a bell, but I'm not sure.
Unlike conventional instamines where devs stash diminishes over time in this scam the dev stash gets bigger with his masternode payments every passing day, together with early whales making it totally centralized.
It is a dead coin walking, the only good thing no execution date is set.
hero member
Activity: 725
Merit: 501
Boycott Qatar 2022
February 21, 2015, 10:02:56 PM
#24
Why even compare those two coins when Shadow (sdc) beats them all in privacy, distribution and usability.
legendary
Activity: 1036
Merit: 1000
February 21, 2015, 10:02:05 PM
#23
Monero already won, you can all stop pretending an instamined scam even matter at this point.

I guess you have never seen coinmarket cap....Monero #20....Darkcoin #5....

Darkcoin has 7x the value and 7x the volume.

Monero doesnt even have an official wallet GUI.....and zero adoption - have fun!

newbie
Activity: 17
Merit: 0
February 21, 2015, 09:32:51 PM
#22
Monero already won, you can all stop pretending an instamined scam even matter at this point.
Pages:
Jump to: