Topic: Monero (XMR) Speculation thread - page 16. (Read 50218 times)

Are we arguing semantics or what? Someone said that he got his economics right. I said he has a finance background, you know as an explanation to why he might not be a moron when it comes to economics?

Except that many miners even weeks afterwards could mine using average CPU's, this points towards no hidden miner. I have a very old CPU and could mine a decent amount a month afterwards.

I guess you could analyse the Monero difficulty throughout its history, but I doubt you'll find evidence of a super private miner.

For example even now I can't mine a lot of XCN because of some private miner behind the scenes, normally you can tell if there is a scam going on by how much the average miner can make in the first month, if you can't mine anything then it shows that something is up, I never felt that happen with Monero, hence why we do not consider it a scam and have invested.

Yeah atleast it isn't such a longwinded theory compared to what the Monero shills say about their little baby amirite

You mention that his background in finance informed parts of the code, and I guess you're bring that up because it's a good thing, my argument is that it isn't a good thing, it's a null thing, why bring it up in your argument at all?

Of course if you bring it up just because, for no reason to back up the brilliance of DRK, then why say it at all?

In regards to your second point, there is a world of difference:

Darkcoin: The developer makes it so that 10%~ of the entire supply is instamined via the use of a blockreward far far higher than it should be.

Monero: The code is so bad at the start that a possible better miner was mining the coin, however the crappy code was fixed quite quickly and at no point was the blockreward any different. The blockreward was not artificially pumped for an instamine.

If monero had started where the first week gave a blockreward of 5,000 Monero per block, then that is easily an instamine even if it was a mistake.

The difference is that Darkcoin spilt 10% of it's entire supply in a very short time, Monero took months to mine it's first 10%.

Now that I think about it, whoever created Bytecoin likely had optimized miners for their crippled hash function. Using a direct copy of their code would have enabled anyone with access to this miner to have a great advantage in mining Monero, as well. Bytecoin was tainted, they knew that. But what if we did a "fair" relaunch? Just conveniently fail to mention that the exact same fucking method used to make Bytecoin unfair could be applied to Monero! And no one would be the wiser! Now that's what I call a smart scam.

Aww that's cute.

What are you even talking about? His background in finance informed certain aspects of the coin's development, that's all. What you said might have made sense, if I had said " He has a background in finance, that is why Darkcoin will succeed". But that's not what I said. Reply to what I post, not what you wish I had posted.


How is that any sort of argument? We didn't write the code, so we can't be blamed for any potential abuse as a result of our choice to use it? In what fantasy world of yours does that make any sense whatsoever?

It was exactly right if you wanted to maximize the effect of the instamine.

Don't think that scammers are stupid. The best scammers are very, very smart.

Argument from authority, learn why this logical fallacy holds.

I know several people in finance, some smart and some very not so smart. A background in finance can mean very little, a background in anything can mean nothing.

Look at the finance people that caused their banks to fail, look at the experts that told us crypto-currency would fail, look at all people that are experts and yet have been wrong time and time again.

Your arguments are getting worse and worse.

All I see is developer worship and the beginnings of a cult.


Except that DRK was instamined, and the only evidence against this fact is that the developer said it wasn't intentional, now you have to believe in the word of the person that benefits most from the instamine. The right thing to do would have been restart the coin.

Also Monero was released in the form it was given to the world by the Bytecoin development team, this is verifiable, Monero was almost an exact clone at birth. It was afterwards that the code was cleaned up.

An instamine is an intentional fast release of coins to benefit the developer. Remember with DRK the instamine was so bad because he made the initial block reward far higher than it should have been, in Monero nothing like this happened, the block reward was always correct, the initial code just not being optimized because of its bytecoin origins.

Well sure, if you blatantly lie or creatively misrepresent, many interesting things can be accomplished. Monero was created with a crippled hash so that the devs could have a massive advantage in obtaining coins. They made secret, optimized miners that allowed them to divert a large % of the supply to themselves. Botnets mined a massive portion of the coin's supply. See how easy that is?

It was preannounced and there were many people mining. Coins were distributed through trading in the weeks following launch. So I doubt that the distribution is significantly different than XMR.

He has a background in finance.

I hope you're trolling and not being serious. Explaining the concept of a premine/instamine to a layman is far easier than explaining almost anything else in crypto.

"Hey, this weird crypto thing, do you want to invest? But before you do I'll let you know, the guy that created it made it so he could collect 10% of the entire supply in a matter of days, it's that guy who will crash the price at the peak by selling the lot, happy investing!"

The concept of unfair distribution is one of the easier concepts to get your head around when explaining crypto.

Investors aren't stupid, if they thing someone has enough coins to crash the whole market then they will simply stay away as the reward isn´t worth the immense risk.
The Instamine is currently ~40-50% and due to Darkcoins cheating of:
1) Capping the MAX coins after launch
2) Basing their reward on Nethash *

it will stay 40-50% for a long time...

But talk it good were you can, for sure real investors will read your posts and put millions in.


* Fun fact: Every faster miner for drk effectly caused the miners to mine LESS as everyone upgraded, the nethash gone higher and reached the 5 coins/reward limit; Damn that dude really got his economics right...

I just bought 0.25 worth of Monero, I don't know if it will be a nice investment, probably I'm gambling it but I wanted to try.

As with everyone else, they'll buy what works. An instamine of roughly 10% of total eventual supply is a far less of an issue than the trolls make it out to be. I remember when Darkcoin was under ten cents, and people said it won't go anywhere because of the instamine. They were wrong. In due time, you'll be proven wrong as well.

That money is minuscule compared to institutional money, and institutional investors / speculators won't touch it because of the instamine.

You guys are funny. I couldn't care less about the instamine. Try explaining the difference to someone who is not familiar with crypto. They won't care either. This is relevant, as that's where a good deal of new money will come from.

Ok, here goes. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=darkcoin+instamine%3F

If there's two things that you can bet on, it's human stupidity and laziness. Build your model with these things kept in mind if you want to succeed.

It will not change much this year.