I'm not sure if anyone is denying instamine/fastmine happened, and why would they, as the blockchain shows how many coins have been mined and when.
Topic: [POLL] Does EVAN DUFFIELD regret instamining DRK/DASH at 100x emission? - page 16. (Read 31425 times)
May 02, 2015, 07:03:24 PM
I was mining on almost every coin's launch at the time, and almost every time there were some sort of problems. Even the most optimistic person becomes cynical when the 50th launch in a row goes haywire.
I'm not sure if anyone is denying instamine/fastmine happened, and why would they, as the blockchain shows how many coins have been mined and when.
I'm not sure if anyone is denying instamine/fastmine happened, and why would they, as the blockchain shows how many coins have been mined and when.
May 02, 2015, 07:02:28 PM
No character change really. illodin knew back then what was up, he just didn't care as long as he got a piece of the pie.
I don't disagree, I don't see anything illodin did (or you have done) wrong here, aside from maybe denying the instamine which is misleading to other investors (who I don't really care about; caveat emptor, ya know) and noobs (who I do care about because if this community doesn't grow, it dies, and unfortunately there seems to be a bit of that going on now).
It's particularly disingenuous for illodin to deny the instamine being by design, since he correctly identified it for what it was right from the beginning.
May 02, 2015, 06:56:52 PM
No character change really. illodin knew back then what was up, he just didn't care as long as he got a piece of the pie.
May 02, 2015, 06:54:56 PM
I was previously unknown of the fact that you were around then. The character change is interesting, probably because you benefitted financially from it.
No character change really. illodin knew back then what was up, he just didn't (and doesn't) care as long as he got a piece of the pie.
Brother illodin, just make sure you have an exit strategy. You too Briliiantrocket. It would be a shame for all of your good work riding on a scammer's coattails to be destroyed by not getting out in time.
It would be so hard to realse a coin with compiled wallets? Oo
No but it would be hard for dev to instamine with them. May 02, 2015, 06:49:34 PM
Not really. There's still that address that owns 11% of all current Dash(es(?)). It's said to be claimed by otoh, but there's absolutely no link between him and that address, and there's inputs from that address to the instamine. You can go through my history to see the post betweem myself and him. He claimed that the address was known to be his, but subsequent searches show absolutely no links between the address and himself. So he either mistyped or is lying. That puts into debate whether the address and the coins contained in it was involved in the instamine. That also puts Dash's entire distribution after the instamine to debate, as someone owning 11% of all Dash is very bad for distribution regardless.
This is going from Objective to Subjective, but if that much amazon cloud services was thrown at Dash, then Xcoin at the time, when it was the same as any other clonecoin, it would probably give reason to suspect that some users might have known or guessed that Dash would propel in price in the future for whatever reason. The only people I can think of who would know this would be the developer(Evan Duffield) and friends of him(Anonymity focusing coins was almost unheard of previously excusing Zerocoin/cash).
[/i]This is going from Objective to Subjective, but if that much amazon cloud services was thrown at Dash, then Xcoin at the time, when it was the same as any other clonecoin, it would probably give reason to suspect that some users might have known or guessed that Dash would propel in price in the future for whatever reason. The only people I can think of who would know this would be the developer(Evan Duffield) and friends of him(Anonymity focusing coins was almost unheard of previously excusing Zerocoin/cash).
Not really what?
?
Not really in that everyone saw the coins as worthless which I elaborated on. There's hardly any reports of Evan Duffield selling his coins, his partner still kept coins, and the amazon and microsoft services thrown at the coin during the instamine pretty much show the opposite.
His partner was selling coins though and even talking about it.
There's no reports of me selling any coins either. Yet I have. Weird.
Again objective, we've seen no reports of him selling therefore we have no compelling reason to believe he has. If even a investor Otoh still has 11% of Dash's current coin supply, and hasn't sold much(If we are to believe his controversial statements), then I find no reason to believe Evan sold much either. His partner Internet Ape also kept coins, around 100k? I'll have to check his posts.
May 02, 2015, 06:46:46 PM
Not really. There's still that address that owns 11% of all current Dash(es(?)). It's said to be claimed by otoh, but there's absolutely no link between him and that address, and there's inputs from that address to the instamine. You can go through my history to see the post betweem myself and him. He claimed that the address was known to be his, but subsequent searches show absolutely no links between the address and himself. So he either mistyped or is lying. That puts into debate whether the address and the coins contained in it was involved in the instamine. That also puts Dash's entire distribution after the instamine to debate, as someone owning 11% of all Dash is very bad for distribution regardless.
This is going from Objective to Subjective, but if that much amazon cloud services was thrown at Dash, then Xcoin at the time, when it was the same as any other clonecoin, it would probably give reason to suspect that some users might have known or guessed that Dash would propel in price in the future for whatever reason. The only people I can think of who would know this would be the developer(Evan Duffield) and friends of him(Anonymity focusing coins was almost unheard of previously excusing Zerocoin/cash).
[/i]This is going from Objective to Subjective, but if that much amazon cloud services was thrown at Dash, then Xcoin at the time, when it was the same as any other clonecoin, it would probably give reason to suspect that some users might have known or guessed that Dash would propel in price in the future for whatever reason. The only people I can think of who would know this would be the developer(Evan Duffield) and friends of him(Anonymity focusing coins was almost unheard of previously excusing Zerocoin/cash).
Not really what?
?
Not really in that everyone saw the coins as worthless which I elaborated on. There's hardly any reports of Evan Duffield selling his coins, his partner still kept coins, and the amazon and microsoft services thrown at the coin during the instamine pretty much show the opposite.
His partner was selling coins though and even talking about it.
There's no reports of me selling any coins either. Yet I have. Weird.
May 02, 2015, 06:42:51 PM
Not really. There's still that address that owns 11% of all current Dash(es(?)). It's said to be claimed by otoh, but there's absolutely no link between him and that address, and there's inputs from that address to the instamine. You can go through my history to see the post betweem myself and him. He claimed that the address was known to be his, but subsequent searches show absolutely no links between the address and himself. So he either mistyped or is lying. That puts into debate whether the address and the coins contained in it was involved in the instamine. That also puts Dash's entire distribution after the instamine to debate, as someone owning 11% of all Dash is very bad for distribution regardless.
This is going from Objective to Subjective, but if that much amazon cloud services was thrown at Dash, then Xcoin at the time, when it was the same as any other clonecoin, it would probably give reason to suspect that some users might have known or guessed that Dash would propel in price in the future for whatever reason. The only people I can think of who would know this would be the developer(Evan Duffield) and friends of him(Anonymity focusing coins was almost unheard of previously excusing Zerocoin/cash).
[/i]This is going from Objective to Subjective, but if that much amazon cloud services was thrown at Dash, then Xcoin at the time, when it was the same as any other clonecoin, it would probably give reason to suspect that some users might have known or guessed that Dash would propel in price in the future for whatever reason. The only people I can think of who would know this would be the developer(Evan Duffield) and friends of him(Anonymity focusing coins was almost unheard of previously excusing Zerocoin/cash).
Not really what?
?
Not really in that everyone saw the coins as worthless which I elaborated on. There's hardly any reports of Evan Duffield selling his coins, his partner still kept coins, and the amazon and microsoft services thrown at the coin during the instamine pretty much show the opposite(Which is odd because from what I see during that time, there were no plans to make it "anonymous".
May 02, 2015, 06:39:06 PM
May 02, 2015, 06:34:08 PM
That has nothing to do with regulating the initial distribution of a digital currency. Evan was fully within his rights to determine how Dash would be distributed, and furthermore, make changes in the future. He could have premined it 100% and sold the coins for $1000 a piece, and it still wouldn't be illegal. It's obvious that you're grasping at straws.
And, ANYONE can make any changes to the code (including emission adjustments), it's up to the miners and peers to download and agree to the code change.
You realize that Dash at that time, was closed-source. The only one who could have made changes to the code was the developer(Evan Duffield). Couple that with the fact that he was able to mine so many Dash(We can also infer that his hashpower would have been high during that time), and he should have been more than able to implement any changes in the code and get it accepted by himself alone.
No, I don't realize that. Is that the accuracy you do your "investigations" irl as well?
Are you trying to dispute the fact that Dash was closed-source? If you have no idea what happened, then do not continue to post here as you're wasting my time. I also added more.
Darksend (when released) was closed source. The original base coin, including mining, was open source.
That brings up another important point which was that Evan withheld his development plans until after the instamine. No one without access to that withheld information would have had any plausible reason to mine the coin, other than wanting to mine every single generic coin at at launch (and even then, was also not mislead by his statements about launch time). Those with access to that information (only Evan and a few insiders) would have known its value was likely to up once some credible plan was released.
In fact, not only didn't he release his plans, he didn't even release the fact the he had plans and was planning to release them until after the instamine.
I don't know if there is word in the coin community to describe the kind of scam where a developer withholds development plans, instamines a lot of coins while discouraging others from doing so, then releases development plans. Presto, the exact effect of a premine without the premine. Maybe we should call it a Duffmine.
Regardless of the name, it's shady as fuck.
May 02, 2015, 06:33:45 PM
That has nothing to do with regulating the initial distribution of a digital currency. Evan was fully within his rights to determine how Dash would be distributed, and furthermore, make changes in the future. He could have premined it 100% and sold the coins for $1000 a piece, and it still wouldn't be illegal. It's obvious that you're grasping at straws.
And, ANYONE can make any changes to the code (including emission adjustments), it's up to the miners and peers to download and agree to the code change.
You realize that Dash at that time, was closed-source. The only one who could have made changes to the code was the developer(Evan Duffield). Couple that with the fact that he was able to mine so many Dash(We can also infer that his hashpower would have been high during that time), and he should have been more than able to implement any changes in the code and get it accepted by himself alone.
No, I don't realize that. Is that the accuracy you do your "investigations" irl as well?
Are you trying to dispute the fact that Dash was closed-source? If you have no idea what happened, then do not continue to post here as you're wasting my time. I also added more.
Yes? The source was available, people were compiling their wallets from the source on their own computers.
See this post for example: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4607289
I see, closed source in the sense that the darksend was closed. Ok the source was available on github, yet the page isn't there.
There was no Darksend at the launch. It came to be months later. Yes, the source was there, people could download and compile it. The old link is dead probably because the name changed from XCOIN to Darkcoin. Or maybe for some other reason. Doesn't change the fact that the source was there.
EDIT: I see you there wow. Quite a character change:
It would be so hard to realse a coin with compiled wallets? Oo
No but it would be hard for dev to instamine with them.wut.. no premine but you have 5k to throw? 
And that has to do with the facts I've stated, what exactly?
I was previously unknown of the fact that you were around then. The character change is interesting, probably because you benefitted financially from it.
So me debunking your "proofs" is a "character change"? If it helps you sleep better at night then so be it.
I know the launch sucked, a lot of coins were mined fast in the beginning. I was one of the people mining it. What I (and probably everyone else) thought at the time, was that I had mined a whole bunch of worthless coins. And the price the following weeks further proved that sentiment. The ongoing rate for OTC trades was 10k for 0.25 BTC. So yea, cool if someone managed to mine 100k, the value of that amount was 2.5 BTC, boohoo. Those who mined and didn't sell, and those who bought cheaply, profited the most. Isn't that the case everywhere?
Not really. There's still that address that owns 11% of all current Dash(es(?)). It's said to be claimed by otoh, but there's absolutely no link between him and that address, and there's inputs from that address to the instamine. You can go through my history to see the post betweem myself and him. He claimed that the address was known to be his, but subsequent searches show absolutely no links between the address and himself. So he either mistyped or is lying. That puts into debate whether the address and the coins contained in it was involved in the instamine. That also puts Dash's entire distribution after the instamine to debate, as someone owning 11% of all Dash is very bad for distribution regardless.
This is going from Objective to Subjective, but if that much amazon cloud services was thrown at Dash, then Xcoin at the time, when it was the same as any other clonecoin, it would probably give reason to suspect that some users might have known or guessed that Dash would propel in price in the future for whatever reason. The only people I can think of who would know this would be the developer(Evan Duffield) and friends of him(Anonymity focusing coins was almost unheard of previously excusing Zerocoin/cash).
May 02, 2015, 06:33:13 PM
Ok now it insta crashes when I type "setgenerate true".
Time to go to bed and try again next week?
Yeah, let's do that. I obviously need to do some more testing. Thanks everyone!
Best thing to do I guess. Please, confirm you won't be launching after some minutes/hours even if you fix it, and the sooner would be tomorrow, thanks.
Definitely not. I'll also follow up with this post when I do set a time.
Evan thought that finding and fixing the bug would take a long time, and would be ready for a new launch the next day the earliest.
No, he said "testing", which inherently takes time and can't be a "quick fix":
I obviously need to do some more testing
Well, he was a one man developer "team" so his perception of "testing" back then was probably different than what it is now. For him, back then, it could've just simply meant that he verifies that it complies ok, and when started up stays up at least 2 minutes.
That perception of the meaning of "do more testing" isn't consistent with the idea of trying again "next week", or "not within days/hours" both of which he clearly endorsed. He obviously viewed testing as being more than 2 minutes. A reply consistent with that would have been "let me take a look and I'll report back shortly" not telling people to go to sleep and come back next week.
Either he wasn't sincere about those time periods, or something or someone changed his mind between that last post and the decision to launch.
My guess is that he didn't quite know what he was doing back then and he found something in the code that he thought fixes the problem and no further testing was necessary. He probably should've practiced by launching a couple of shitcoins before the real thing.
May 02, 2015, 06:29:58 PM
So I take it you can't define "few" and can't prove how many miners there actually were.
I take it that you can't read. The information shown shows that Evan instamined roughly half of the Dash that was emitted during that time, and there were at most 100 other 'miners' using services such as amazon and microsoft. That's comparable to NXT's distribution of just avg '70' people. So yes, very few people mined during that time and I highly doubt each ec2 was a different person(I'm betting many of them were owned by Evan and co).
I didn't read the whole wall of text, just randomly clicked a link that said "nobody could compile". The proof of the claim was a link to a post, but the very next post was the guy admitting it was his own fault he couldn't compile, not Evan's:
Yeah, my bad, I botched the layover of the makefile on the update.
If the rest of the "proof" is as solid, it's not worth it to read further.
Ok, so you didn't read the whole text yet you have the audacity to continue cluelessly arguing here? Please, get lost troll.
Read this:
"https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4595573
From this list of nodes, at 8h34 am (4h40 after launch) there were 50 Amazon AWS node and 50 microsoft cloud computing instamining DRK (checked using IP whois service). This is 100/124 nodes using cloud computing to instamine DRK. We are at block 2870 and block reward is 500. From block 1153-1729 block reward is 277. After that it is 500 again hence 2294 block at 500 + 576 at 277 = 1306552 DRK (worth about 13M$ now) were instamined in less than 5 hour by Edufield and coworkers using about 100 cloud mining instances. Edufield himself instamined in not even 5 h from 600K to 1169K DRK ((1306K-600K)*100/124 + 600K) depending how many of the 100 cloud mining instance were its own. All this while having purposefully set the difficult ridiculously low and block reward 100 times what it is now.
From 6M$ - 13M$ in 5 h, Edufield did some lucrative work here!
Edufield is nominee for the Master Scammer 2014 award!"
How do you know those nodes were the only nodes at the time the user "turtle83" had made the list?
How do you know those nodes were the only nodes that had mined before the user "turtle83" had made the list?
How do you know those nodes were the only nodes that mined after (but still during the "instamine period") the user "turtle83" had made the list?
We can only use the information we have, since there's no information of other nodes then asking those questions are irrelevant. Stop being Subjective and Stop trolling.
The information we have, is that at least those nodes were up at the time when "turtle83" made the list. It's possible those nodes weren't even the only ones his node was seeing, maybe he cut the list short and just copy-pasted "enough" nodes for people to get connected to.
What we can't infer from that information, is that those nodes were the only nodes that mined during the "instamine period". I hope for your clients' / employer's sake you're not doing such errors in your irl "investigations".
Until you can find proof of their having been more nodes, then those questions are irrelevant. The only documentation we have is his list, so again, be objective.
I don't need to find any proof, what I just told you is that your "proof" is no proof at all.
May 02, 2015, 06:28:13 PM
Ok now it insta crashes when I type "setgenerate true".
Time to go to bed and try again next week?
Yeah, let's do that. I obviously need to do some more testing. Thanks everyone!
Best thing to do I guess. Please, confirm you won't be launching after some minutes/hours even if you fix it, and the sooner would be tomorrow, thanks.
Definitely not. I'll also follow up with this post when I do set a time.
Evan thought that finding and fixing the bug would take a long time, and would be ready for a new launch the next day the earliest.
No, he said "testing", which inherently takes time and can't be a "quick fix":
I obviously need to do some more testing
Well, he was a one man developer "team" so his perception of "testing" back then was probably different than what it is now. For him, back then, it could've just simply meant that he verifies that it complies ok, and when started up stays up at least 2 minutes.
That perception of the meaning of "do more testing" isn't consistent with the idea of trying again "next week", or "not within days/hours" both of which he clearly endorsed. He obviously viewed testing as being more than 2 minutes. A reply consistent with that would have been "let me take a look and I'll report back shortly" not telling people to go to sleep and come back next week.
Either he wasn't sincere about those time periods, or something or someone changed his mind between that last post and the decision to launch.
May 02, 2015, 06:27:09 PM
That has nothing to do with regulating the initial distribution of a digital currency. Evan was fully within his rights to determine how Dash would be distributed, and furthermore, make changes in the future. He could have premined it 100% and sold the coins for $1000 a piece, and it still wouldn't be illegal. It's obvious that you're grasping at straws.
And, ANYONE can make any changes to the code (including emission adjustments), it's up to the miners and peers to download and agree to the code change.
You realize that Dash at that time, was closed-source. The only one who could have made changes to the code was the developer(Evan Duffield). Couple that with the fact that he was able to mine so many Dash(We can also infer that his hashpower would have been high during that time), and he should have been more than able to implement any changes in the code and get it accepted by himself alone.
No, I don't realize that. Is that the accuracy you do your "investigations" irl as well?
Are you trying to dispute the fact that Dash was closed-source? If you have no idea what happened, then do not continue to post here as you're wasting my time. I also added more.
Yes? The source was available, people were compiling their wallets from the source on their own computers.
See this post for example: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4607289
I see, closed source in the sense that the darksend was closed. Ok the source was available on github, yet the page isn't there.
There was no Darksend at the launch. It came to be months later. Yes, the source was there, people could download and compile it. The old link is dead probably because the name changed from XCOIN to Darkcoin. Or maybe for some other reason. Doesn't change the fact that the source was there.
EDIT: I see you there wow. Quite a character change:
It would be so hard to realse a coin with compiled wallets? Oo
No but it would be hard for dev to instamine with them.wut.. no premine but you have 5k to throw?
And that has to do with the facts I've stated, what exactly?
I was previously unknown of the fact that you were around then. The character change is interesting, probably because you benefitted financially from it.
So me debunking your "proofs" is a "character change"? If it helps you sleep better at night then so be it.
I know the launch sucked, a lot of coins were mined fast in the beginning. I was one of the people mining it. What I (and probably everyone else) thought at the time, was that I had mined a whole bunch of worthless coins. And the price the following weeks further proved that sentiment. The ongoing rate for OTC trades was 10k for 0.25 BTC. So yea, cool if someone managed to mine 100k, the value of that amount was 2.5 BTC, boohoo. Those who mined and didn't sell, and those who bought cheaply, profited the most. Isn't that the case everywhere?
May 02, 2015, 06:19:01 PM
So I take it you can't define "few" and can't prove how many miners there actually were.
I take it that you can't read. The information shown shows that Evan instamined roughly half of the Dash that was emitted during that time, and there were at most 100 other 'miners' using services such as amazon and microsoft. That's comparable to NXT's distribution of just avg '70' people. So yes, very few people mined during that time and I highly doubt each ec2 was a different person(I'm betting many of them were owned by Evan and co).
I didn't read the whole wall of text, just randomly clicked a link that said "nobody could compile". The proof of the claim was a link to a post, but the very next post was the guy admitting it was his own fault he couldn't compile, not Evan's:
Yeah, my bad, I botched the layover of the makefile on the update.
If the rest of the "proof" is as solid, it's not worth it to read further.
Ok, so you didn't read the whole text yet you have the audacity to continue cluelessly arguing here? Please, get lost troll.
Read this:
"https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4595573
From this list of nodes, at 8h34 am (4h40 after launch) there were 50 Amazon AWS node and 50 microsoft cloud computing instamining DRK (checked using IP whois service). This is 100/124 nodes using cloud computing to instamine DRK. We are at block 2870 and block reward is 500. From block 1153-1729 block reward is 277. After that it is 500 again hence 2294 block at 500 + 576 at 277 = 1306552 DRK (worth about 13M$ now) were instamined in less than 5 hour by Edufield and coworkers using about 100 cloud mining instances. Edufield himself instamined in not even 5 h from 600K to 1169K DRK ((1306K-600K)*100/124 + 600K) depending how many of the 100 cloud mining instance were its own. All this while having purposefully set the difficult ridiculously low and block reward 100 times what it is now.
From 6M$ - 13M$ in 5 h, Edufield did some lucrative work here!
Edufield is nominee for the Master Scammer 2014 award!"
How do you know those nodes were the only nodes at the time the user "turtle83" had made the list?
How do you know those nodes were the only nodes that had mined before the user "turtle83" had made the list?
How do you know those nodes were the only nodes that mined after (but still during the "instamine period") the user "turtle83" had made the list?
We can only use the information we have, since there's no information of other nodes then asking those questions are irrelevant. Stop being Subjective and Stop trolling.
The information we have, is that at least those nodes were up at the time when "turtle83" made the list. It's possible those nodes weren't even the only ones his node was seeing, maybe he cut the list short and just copy-pasted "enough" nodes for people to get connected to.
What we can't infer from that information, is that those nodes were the only nodes that mined during the "instamine period". I hope for your clients' / employer's sake you're not doing such errors in your irl "investigations".
Until you can find proof of their having been more nodes, then those questions are irrelevant. The only documentation we have is his list, so again, be objective.
May 02, 2015, 06:17:47 PM
That has nothing to do with regulating the initial distribution of a digital currency. Evan was fully within his rights to determine how Dash would be distributed, and furthermore, make changes in the future. He could have premined it 100% and sold the coins for $1000 a piece, and it still wouldn't be illegal. It's obvious that you're grasping at straws.
And, ANYONE can make any changes to the code (including emission adjustments), it's up to the miners and peers to download and agree to the code change.
You realize that Dash at that time, was closed-source. The only one who could have made changes to the code was the developer(Evan Duffield). Couple that with the fact that he was able to mine so many Dash(We can also infer that his hashpower would have been high during that time), and he should have been more than able to implement any changes in the code and get it accepted by himself alone.
No, I don't realize that. Is that the accuracy you do your "investigations" irl as well?
Are you trying to dispute the fact that Dash was closed-source? If you have no idea what happened, then do not continue to post here as you're wasting my time. I also added more.
Yes? The source was available, people were compiling their wallets from the source on their own computers.
See this post for example: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4607289
I see, closed source in the sense that the darksend was closed. Ok the source was available on github, yet the page isn't there.
There was no Darksend at the launch. It came to be months later. Yes, the source was there, people could download and compile it. The old link is dead probably because the name changed from XCOIN to Darkcoin. Or maybe for some other reason. Doesn't change the fact that the source was there.
EDIT: I see you there wow. Quite a character change:
It would be so hard to realse a coin with compiled wallets? Oo
No but it would be hard for dev to instamine with them.wut.. no premine but you have 5k to throw?
And that has to do with the facts I've stated, what exactly?
I was previously unknown of the fact that you were around then. The character change is interesting, probably because you benefitted financially from it.
Even then, Dash being open sourced doesn't change anything.
May 02, 2015, 06:16:29 PM
That has nothing to do with regulating the initial distribution of a digital currency. Evan was fully within his rights to determine how Dash would be distributed, and furthermore, make changes in the future. He could have premined it 100% and sold the coins for $1000 a piece, and it still wouldn't be illegal. It's obvious that you're grasping at straws.
And, ANYONE can make any changes to the code (including emission adjustments), it's up to the miners and peers to download and agree to the code change.
You realize that Dash at that time, was closed-source. The only one who could have made changes to the code was the developer(Evan Duffield). Couple that with the fact that he was able to mine so many Dash(We can also infer that his hashpower would have been high during that time), and he should have been more than able to implement any changes in the code and get it accepted by himself alone.
No, I don't realize that. Is that the accuracy you do your "investigations" irl as well?
Are you trying to dispute the fact that Dash was closed-source? If you have no idea what happened, then do not continue to post here as you're wasting my time. I also added more.
Yes? The source was available, people were compiling their wallets from the source on their own computers.
See this post for example: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4607289
I see, closed source in the sense that the darksend was closed. Ok the source was available on github, yet the page isn't there.
There was no Darksend at the launch. It came to be months later. Yes, the source was there, people could download and compile it. The old link is dead probably because the name changed from XCOIN to Darkcoin. Or maybe for some other reason. Doesn't change the fact that the source was there.
EDIT: I see you there wow. Quite a character change:
It would be so hard to realse a coin with compiled wallets? Oo
No but it would be hard for dev to instamine with them.wut.. no premine but you have 5k to throw?
And that has to do with the facts I've stated, what exactly?
May 02, 2015, 06:09:47 PM
So I take it you can't define "few" and can't prove how many miners there actually were.
I take it that you can't read. The information shown shows that Evan instamined roughly half of the Dash that was emitted during that time, and there were at most 100 other 'miners' using services such as amazon and microsoft. That's comparable to NXT's distribution of just avg '70' people. So yes, very few people mined during that time and I highly doubt each ec2 was a different person(I'm betting many of them were owned by Evan and co).
I didn't read the whole wall of text, just randomly clicked a link that said "nobody could compile". The proof of the claim was a link to a post, but the very next post was the guy admitting it was his own fault he couldn't compile, not Evan's:
Yeah, my bad, I botched the layover of the makefile on the update.
If the rest of the "proof" is as solid, it's not worth it to read further.
Ok, so you didn't read the whole text yet you have the audacity to continue cluelessly arguing here? Please, get lost troll.
Read this:
"https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4595573
From this list of nodes, at 8h34 am (4h40 after launch) there were 50 Amazon AWS node and 50 microsoft cloud computing instamining DRK (checked using IP whois service). This is 100/124 nodes using cloud computing to instamine DRK. We are at block 2870 and block reward is 500. From block 1153-1729 block reward is 277. After that it is 500 again hence 2294 block at 500 + 576 at 277 = 1306552 DRK (worth about 13M$ now) were instamined in less than 5 hour by Edufield and coworkers using about 100 cloud mining instances. Edufield himself instamined in not even 5 h from 600K to 1169K DRK ((1306K-600K)*100/124 + 600K) depending how many of the 100 cloud mining instance were its own. All this while having purposefully set the difficult ridiculously low and block reward 100 times what it is now.
From 6M$ - 13M$ in 5 h, Edufield did some lucrative work here!
Edufield is nominee for the Master Scammer 2014 award!"
How do you know those nodes were the only nodes at the time the user "turtle83" had made the list?
How do you know those nodes were the only nodes that had mined before the user "turtle83" had made the list?
How do you know those nodes were the only nodes that mined after (but still during the "instamine period") the user "turtle83" had made the list?
We can only use the information we have, since there's no information of other nodes then asking those questions are irrelevant. Stop being Subjective and Stop trolling.
The information we have, is that at least those nodes were up at the time when "turtle83" made the list. It's possible those nodes weren't even the only ones his node was seeing, maybe he cut the list short and just copy-pasted "enough" nodes for people to get connected to.
What we can't infer from that information, is that those nodes were the only nodes that mined during the "instamine period". I hope for your clients' / employer's sake you're not doing such errors in your irl "investigations".
May 02, 2015, 06:04:18 PM
That has nothing to do with regulating the initial distribution of a digital currency. Evan was fully within his rights to determine how Dash would be distributed, and furthermore, make changes in the future. He could have premined it 100% and sold the coins for $1000 a piece, and it still wouldn't be illegal. It's obvious that you're grasping at straws.
And, ANYONE can make any changes to the code (including emission adjustments), it's up to the miners and peers to download and agree to the code change.
You realize that Dash at that time, was closed-source. The only one who could have made changes to the code was the developer(Evan Duffield). Couple that with the fact that he was able to mine so many Dash(We can also infer that his hashpower would have been high during that time), and he should have been more than able to implement any changes in the code and get it accepted by himself alone.
No, I don't realize that. Is that the accuracy you do your "investigations" irl as well?
Are you trying to dispute the fact that Dash was closed-source? If you have no idea what happened, then do not continue to post here as you're wasting my time. I also added more.
Yes? The source was available, people were compiling their wallets from the source on their own computers.
See this post for example: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4607289
I see, closed source in the sense that the darksend was closed. Ok the source was available on github, yet the page isn't there.
EDIT: I see you there wow. Quite a character change:
It would be so hard to realse a coin with compiled wallets? Oo
No but it would be hard for dev to instamine with them.wut.. no premine but you have 5k to throw?
May 02, 2015, 05:56:25 PM
That has nothing to do with regulating the initial distribution of a digital currency. Evan was fully within his rights to determine how Dash would be distributed, and furthermore, make changes in the future. He could have premined it 100% and sold the coins for $1000 a piece, and it still wouldn't be illegal. It's obvious that you're grasping at straws.
And, ANYONE can make any changes to the code (including emission adjustments), it's up to the miners and peers to download and agree to the code change.
You realize that Dash at that time, was closed-source. The only one who could have made changes to the code was the developer(Evan Duffield). Couple that with the fact that he was able to mine so many Dash(We can also infer that his hashpower would have been high during that time), and he should have been more than able to implement any changes in the code and get it accepted by himself alone.
No, I don't realize that. Is that the accuracy you do your "investigations" irl as well?
Are you trying to dispute the fact that Dash was closed-source? If you have no idea what happened, then do not continue to post here as you're wasting my time. I also added more.
Yes? The source was available, people were compiling their wallets from the source on their own computers.
See this post for example: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4607289
Jump to: