Topic: Honestly, which is better? Monero or Dash? - page 12. (Read 35954 times)

Satoshi having >1mn coins isn't going away either. BTC price has it factored.


Pre-summer 2014 the narrative was: Evan will opensource darksend and the "fair launch" dark clone will get higher value. Darksend was opensourced but this never happened - and it wasn't because of lack of attempts.

In any case the instamine is an excellent motivator for Evan to keep working hard if he wants DASH to be a top altcoin. The sort of motivation where trolls say you are a scammer and you are proving your worth to the market by delivering good software solutions. Ok anonymint will cringe reading this because nothing is up to his standards (and it's good to have high standards - even ideals), but anyway.

Yes I said that. Whatever the number, there will likely be competitors with similar features that will not suffer from customer rejection based on perceived unfairness and a tarnished brand. They will outgrow Dash and Dash will fail.


Many of the things you pointed out are fixable and will likely be fixed long before any massive surge of adoption comes, if it ever does (though not all certainly). The instamine is not.

If you had to pick something about Monero that is in the same category (not really fixable) it would be infinite supply. You can take your pick I suppose, but I do not expect that to act as an impairment of a similar magnitude (as in allowing an otherwise-similar competitor without that attribute to outgrow Monero and cause Monero to fail). Anything is possible though.

It's still an order of magnitude bigger than Dash in market cap.

I think you are reaching.



Well it has given massive losses to many people who bought in after the first few months for one thing. It's been largely stagnant or in a declining phase for most of the two years for another. I don't really think pointing out that a few extreme early adopters made a bunch of money while almost no one else has helps your case here at all regarding fairness or anything else.

The story for Monero is much the same, keeping this on topic for the thread, with the exception that the mining is much more spread out over the 1.5 year history so there are more new owners as opposed to people who bought from early adopter/instaminers enriching them at the buyer's expense.

I guess the real point is that both coins have things that are holding them back in terms of the markets though.


Okay I agree with you that if that does happen, and there is a scramble for anonymous coins, then all the reasonably credible anonymous or sort-of-anonymous coins will pump. I'm not sure whether that will favor Dash relative to Monero or not.


They can't entirely, nor perfectly in every case, but in the case of Dash it is completely obvious, and widely known. That isn't going away.


You did not. To borrow your term, anything that you expect to happen in the future based on public information is already "priced in". There is no reason to expect the valuation impairment of the instamine to lessen over time.

The numbers are just an example.

For every coin there is out there, there are reasons why one would adopt it or not adopt it and initial launch could be one factor among many. It doesn't really matter because all coins suffer from something, so... the field is balanced in a way.

For example

"Monero cli? No thanks"
"Monero infinite supply? No thanks"
"Monero bloat? No thanks"
"Bytecoin stealthmine? No thanks"
"SDC - where is the promised code review? No thanks"
"Doge infinite supply - jokecoin supply? No thanks"
"LTC dinosaur coin / no evolution? No thanks"
"Ripple centralized bullshit? No thanks"
"Dash instamine? No thanks"
"NXT distribution? No thanks"
"BTC Satoshi bag? No thanks"
"BTC at 1200 or 450 fuckin dollars? No thanks"

...everyone has reasons to turn down coins.

He is running a competitive altcoin. And Evan has a stated goal (since the launch of XCO / DRK) of displacing Charlie's coin from #2. So...


A lot of LTC supporters were butthurt as DASH rose and they felt that their coin was stagnant versus the competition. LTC was good... for ...2013 Now it's old news.


So, everyone knows about the instamine, it's #5 in marketcap, it has given gains of 7x to 280x to everyone who got in in the first three-four months of 0.001 price (when it was already a top20 marketcap coin), it's #2 in some crypto-gold and crypto-betting sites after BTC in terms of volume, and that's a problem? Ok, I can live with that.


If there is a crackdown on BTC tomorrow in some country and people start scrambling for anonymous coins to buy, the least of their problems will be who mined what, 2 or 3 or 5 years ago. Same goes for investors who will be seeing good returns.


ok...


The adoption curve is the same (or better, as the instamine's effect is lessened with time). So if DASH is improving positions year-on-year, despite the instamine => that's ok.

You can't change the past, you can only work for the future. So... you are doing the best, the market sees what you are doing and it will either reward you or not.


You could make a perfect launch of a cpu coin and you could be mining it with GPUs.
You could make a perfect launch of a cpu coin and mining it with your 10x CPU miner.
You could make a perfect launch of a gpu coin and you could be mining it with a specially designed client that blows the competition away.

These things are not even visible. People would never know what happened thus they can never properly value "fairness" in the altcoin jungle. You could have a dev acting like a pumper. He has inside knowledge of events to come, so even if he says something he can pump price. He can buy before pumping, dump on the excited buyers, rinse, repeat, become rich. No need to premine or ICO if you play the pumper of your own "fair" coin. We've also seen pump groups be in cooperation with altcoin devs to pump and dump coins. DASH is an oasis compared to what's happening out there.


I explained the mechanism.

I'll address this point separately because it is so important.

It is really hard and usually expensive to acquire customers. If you are losing 50% of the customers you would otherwise get because they say "it's instamined crap" then you are, to put it simply, fucked. There will certainly be some competitor (which need not be Monero, might just be Bitcoin, or it might be DOGE or some new system or who knows what) that does not suffer from that 50% handicap and will grow faster with less resources devoted to customer acquisition.

Now it doesn't even really matter if the percentage of rejection due to dislike of (actual or appearance of) unfairness is 50% or 20% or some other number. The point is that the difficulty of acquiring new customers will persist and remain a sustainable competitive disadvantage that isn't borne by competing solutions.

Charlie Lee is not a competitor really, butthurt or otherwise.

Smoothie has never been a big time Monero supporter. He's not involved in the project at all and wasn't an earlier supporter. He's been much more into Litecoin and Bitcoin for a long time, although he certainly does prefer Monero to Dash.

When I have talked to people outside bitcointalk and they have heard about Dash (Darkcoin previously) absolutely the #1 thing they know about it and associate with it is the massive instamine. Generally expressed in a very dismissive manner. If you don't experience this, you really need to get out and talk to people, because the perception is there, it is very real, and it has nothing to do with "butthurt competitors".


No, he's absolutely right about how the market works.

The correct interpretation of the efficient market hypothesis here is that the worth of Dash right now -- about 1/350 of Bitcoin -- incorporates its known properties, which includes the instamine.

Charlie Lee's argument is that the reason Dash is still quite unsuccessful (and indeed priced currently at the aforementioned low value despite "trying to be innovative" in his words, and I'd add despite building on top of the somewhat mature Bitcoin code base with additional features too) includes in large part the instamine. That impairment won't go away.

His advice is to other people wanting to do coins is not to make this mistake, because you won't be able to shake it off for a long time if ever. People value fairness and find it hard to support something that doesn't look fair (again his worlds). Even if that, to you, seems unfair.

There is no valid logical or economic reason to assume "the only way is up from that point". You just completely made that up. The effect is priced in, yes, but there is no expectation that it will be "unpriced in". Rather it will continue to hurt the value forever.


The magnitude is vastly, vastly different. The Dash instamine (roughly 30%) won't be anywhere near proportionate with the LTC instamine (low single digits; I don't remember the exact number) for decades if ever. That's really a farfetched and stupid comparison. If LTC had a vastly larger instamine and then cut its supply multiple times, it might be in a similar situation. But it didn't and isn't.

It was settled officially I mean, between community & dev. Those who have a problem with it let them have the "problem". Who cares? They are usually butthurt altcoin competitors...

The fact that they try to grasp anything to attack DASH is to be expected - and to a certain degree, welcomed.


Charlie Lee apparently doesn't understand the market very well.

If he said so he is taking the speculative aspect of the coin, talking about investment. Once something happens and it's relatively well known to the degree of "tarnishing your reputation", that means the market has priced-in this event. Which means you are buying with a price discount precisely because that event has allowed you to buy cheaper. But it is priced-in. It can't be ...re-priced in. Thus there is no uncertainty in this regard. When a bad event is priced-in the only way is up from that point.

But speculative aspect aside, if one wants instant tx or anonymity, LTC will be useless for a potential user. The user who actually wants to transact will not care about what coins got mined 3 years ago - as BTC users don't care who mined what 7 years ago. He'll juts get on with the job.

So

- from a user perspective, it doesn't matter as long as it fits the user requirements of conducting anonymously, instantly etc.

- from an investor perspective it's already priced-in and thus does not represent a risk due to the market discount by suppressed demand of all those who avoided DASH "due to the instamine". If 10.000 people know about DASH and 5000 avoided it due to the instamine / 5000 adopted it despite, that's a 50% conversion rate. It's a given. Now if say I speak to 100 people about DASH and 50 say "it's instamined crap" and another 50 say "I'll adopt it because I see potential or because I have a use for it", the adoption curve will remain at 50% conversion rate. But that curve is likely to weigh better in the long run in favor of the "adoption", as the instamine becomes less and less relevant. So, for the investor who buys, it doesn't matter because the adoption curve factors were the same yesterday and will be the same tomorrow - if not slightly better. For the investor it's not much different than if the instamine never existed and DASH was now trading at 0.07 BTC instead of 0.007. The adoption curve would have different numbers in favor of adoption (let's say 90% in favor) but the BTCs would buy 10 time less DASH due to ratio of supply/demand which is heavier on the demand side. So the upside would be the same, if not problematic due to getting to 'overpriced' status. Plus there is no "departure" from the historic point of the instamine, which smooths out as you go forward.

LTC itself benefited from this "departure" of its own instamine, as the increasing supply makes it less and less relevant. Sure, in the first weeks it was a big deal, now not anymore. The initial LTC price had to price in the extra quantities and the lack of difficulty in mining them but over time price got better and better. Would the price be higher without the extra instamined LTCs? Probably yes. It would also create a sense of a more valuable coin at launch rather than an abundant shitcoin - which probably followed it for years. But all these supply issues were priced in so, the buyers bought with discount. As they did with XCO/DRK.

This is the problem that you face. People aren't going to "Get over it" no matter how many times you tell them to (in fact doing so probably makes it less likely). If it isn't smoothie or Charlie Lee, it will be someone else.

Charlie Lee is a really great example because I'm quite confident he really doesn't give one millionth of a shit about Dash. He has a good job as the leading Bitcoin startup and is the lead developer of Litecoin, both of which are vastly more significant than Dash. Yet he recognizes the reality that the instamine is a fatal flaw that will always hold Dash back, tarnishing the brand (no matter how many times it is renamed), and can't be fixed.

He's being honest with you. Try to listen to what he says. Nothing is perfectly fair, but that degree of (at a minimum, potential) manipulation and fraud is just too much to bear. Nothing you write about airdrops and redistribution and the rest of the spin makes the slightest difference.

Every crypto can be pruned. That's not going to make them scale to actual adoption levels.


Yeah, trolling forums is a selfless "let's spread the truth" agenda.





Scaling


Yeah, I mean monero people prefer actual real life threats, like those against businesses who adopt dash.

Look, dash is a 2 y. old project. The instamine issue was addressed in the first months. Evan proposed an airdrop to fix distribution, people voted it down, that's the end of the story. The community considered that with all which had occurred up to that point (turbulent first months), the distribution was pretty good and didn't require "fixing" with extraordinary means. That was early-mid April 14 IIRC and price was still 0.001. Then it went to 0.027, twice, with major coin reshuffling, again, and again. Mintpal also "reshuffled" the coin supply, as I suspect happened with the hack in the official pool run by Evan which Evan paid out himself. Now Cryptsy, again a lot of DRKs might be reshuffled.


The instamine was addressed in early 2014. People voted down the airdrop proposal. Get over it. But then again, if you do, how will you troll about "instamine", "instamine", "instamine".

As for running away from the truth, I asked, who got scammed by the instamine, I never got an answer.

The instamine coins were valued at 2.5 BTC for 100k coins. That's how much you could get back then, and many threw a couple of BTCs on it, becoming DRK whales later. The entire instamine was worth 50 BTC. For almost three weeks after the coin launch. So we could say if someone mined the ENTIRE early supply at most he got 50 BTC. But unlike altcoin scammers who hit & run, Evan stayed and developed the coin and gave it value, being a responsible dev, in a sea of scamcoins. And that was appreciated by the market.

Price started to rise from 0.000025 to 0.000080, to 0.000180, to 0.000500, to 0.02, dropping to 0.008-0.0016 (ccex hack), stabilizing at 0.0011-0.0014 for quite a while after the ccex fiasco, settling through voting the supply issue and the instamine issue, releasing darksend, going to 0.027, failing to deliver the dual consensus system with the forking issue, price dropping, rebounding, etc.

Whether one came one day later or 3 months later, their btc value now is from 7x to 280x. If that is "scamming" then, as somebody said, "Evan scam us some more". This value increase is directly related to Evan working on the coin and delivering. Anyone can make a shitcoin but few can give their shitcoin value. Evan did that, and everyone is gaining as a result. You say scam, others like the concept of an invested dev that has overlapping interests in the success of the coin - as he will be motivated to preserve and increase the value of his stash, and, by extension, the value of investors stash.

At the time point the instamine was done it was worth 50 BTC. If Evan got ~700k coins, as is circulating, that's approx one third of that, near 17 BTC. If you apply later valuation, you must also say that Satoshi too is a billion dollar "scammer" for ...solomining BTC. But you can't do that because at the time he was mining worthless coins.

Now... At current valuation, and if Evan has ~300-400k, he is at 900k / 1.2mn USD in holdings. For working 2 years straight, for more than full time (days and nights), that's 37 to 50k USD per month. Is that some kind of serious money for a crypto dev? There are normal day jobs that pay more. He would actually get paid more if he worked at market rates. IIRC Peter Todd was charging Viacoin with 60k USD per month and probably not for that kind of dedication and/or health risks that arise from anxiety, 16-18hr work, etc.

Agree. That's the reality...Bitcoin is worth 350 times more than Dash, and Monero is even smaller. Most Bitcoin users just don't see the need, though there are a few who do. And frankly Bitcoin is tiny too. Most people in the world don't use it and don't even see a reason why they should start.

These coins all have to prove themselves in a big way to be anything more than playthings for speculators.

The reality is DASH is doomed.

Another reality is Evan is a horrible developer and person for misleading and lying to the community over and over.

The dash supporters...good luck to you and your golden donkey dreams.