Topic: [POLL] Does EVAN DUFFIELD regret instamining DRK/DASH at 100x emission? - page 18. (Read 31425 times)
May 02, 2015, 05:11:07 PM
May 02, 2015, 05:09:12 PM
May 02, 2015, 05:07:23 PM
there were few miners as the launch was linux-only.
Don't bring in Subjective opinions here. Thanks.
Unless you can define "few" and can prove how many miners there actually were.
May 02, 2015, 05:05:45 PM
Step 1: Go to your nearest 'reputable' dictionary, oxford should do well
Step 2: Open it up and search for "scam"
Step 3: Read the definition closely
Step 4: Apply it to the statement that "my contention is that a scam does not necessarily have to be illegal" and see the faults within your reasoning
May 02, 2015, 05:04:34 PM
We can agree to disagree. There are clearly situations where scam refers to "unfair", and not necessarily illegal. You still haven't shown me which of Evan's actions were illegal.
We'd have to prove without a doubt that the intent was to decieve. For this we have evidence such as the release of the coin before it's intended launch date, releasing it on linux only, slicing the max coin supply, and subsequent block reward. He'd probably play the defense that it was all accidental, but then why did he cut the max coin supply, and not relaunch the coin? After all it was only 2 days, and there were few miners as the launch was linux-only.
I'd say it'd be leaning on it being a scam, especially since Evan was the main developer at the time(still is), and he without a doubt recieved a large portion of Dash 'coins' from the instamine/premine.
Then we have the issue of if Dash was a decentralized currency at the time at all, as from what I see, Dash's developer Vertoe has come out and stated that Dash is centralized, if it is that'd put it into another ballpark altogether.
May 02, 2015, 05:00:48 PM
I'm not interested in doing your homework for you.
Homework for tonight: Search the definition of "scam" within your nearest oxford dictionary. From that search the definition of fraud(Which is likely to be included in the definition of scam), and apply it to your current reasoning here.
Homework for tonight: Search the definition of "scam" within your nearest oxford dictionary. From that search the definition of fraud(Which is likely to be included in the definition of scam), and apply it to your current reasoning here.
May 02, 2015, 05:00:41 PM
We can agree to disagree. There are clearly situations where scam refers to "unfair", and not necessarily illegal. And you still haven't shown me which of Evan's actions were illegal.
May 02, 2015, 04:56:31 PM
Step 1: Go to your nearest 'reputable' dictionary, oxford should do well
Step 2: Open it up and search for "scam"
Step 3: Read the definition closely
Step 4: Apply it to the statement that "my contention is that a scam does not necessarily have to be illegal" and see the faults within your reasoning
And a scam, to which you've stated you like as long as you get to benefit, is by definition: Illegal.
Scamnoun
1.
a confidence game or other fraudulent scheme, especially for making a quick profit; swindle.
verb (used with object), scammed, scamming.
2.
to cheat or defraud with a scam.
Fraudulent
adjective
1.
characterized by, involving, or proceeding from fraud, as actions, enterprise, methods, or gains:
a fraudulent scheme to evade taxes.
2.
given to or using fraud, as a person; cheating; dishonest.
Definition of scam in English:
noun
informal
A dishonest scheme; a fraud:
an insurance scam
fraud, swindle, fraudulent scheme, racket, trick, diddle
informal con, con trick, flimflam, gyp, kite
British informal ramp, twist
North American informal hustle, grift, shakedown, bunco, boondoggle
Australian informal rort
View synonyms
http://www.sfo.gov.uk/fraud/what-is-fraud.aspx
Fraud is a type of criminal activity, defined as:
'abuse of position, or false representation, or prejudicing someone's rights for personal gain'.
Put simply, fraud is an act of deception intended for personal gain or to cause a loss to another party.
The general criminal offence of fraud can include:
deception whereby someone knowingly makes false representation
or they fail to disclose information
or they abuse a position.
The internet can do wonders for people, try using it.
May 02, 2015, 04:52:05 PM
Step 1: Go to your nearest 'reputable' dictionary, oxford should do well
Step 2: Open it up and search for "scam"
Step 3: Read the definition closely
Step 4: Apply it to the statement that "my contention is that a scam does not necessarily have to be illegal" and see the faults within your reasoning
May 02, 2015, 04:51:19 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.
But then he found the bug and it was a quick fix, and in all his excitement forgot he had said anything about the schedule and decided to re-launch asap. We all know how impulsive he can be, the test team of DRK/DASH can attest to that.
And how do I know this? Evan appeared in my dream and told me, that's how.
Don't bring in Subjective opinions here. The point is that he released the coin earlier than it's intended release date, so the instamine could also be counted as a premine. Saying "in his excitement" is your opinion, as anyone can easily say the opposite.
Bringing in subjectivity is only ok with you when it fits your agenda?
So you believe that my saying that Evan Duffield released Dash before it's intended release date, tampered it's core features, and more is subjective?
May 02, 2015, 04:49:42 PM
Show you the definition of a scam? Am I being purposely trolled here?
Are you debating that a scam isn't by definition illegal?
Step 1: Go to your nearest 'reputable' dictionary, oxford should do well
Step 2: Open it up and search for "scam"
Step 3: Read the definition closely
Step 4: Apply it to the statement that "my contention is that a scam does not necessarily have to be illegal" and see the faults within your reasoning
May 02, 2015, 04:47:01 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.
But then he found the bug and it was a quick fix, and in all his excitement forgot he had said anything about the schedule and decided to re-launch asap. We all know how impulsive he can be, the test team of DRK/DASH can attest to that.
And how do I know this? Evan appeared in my dream and told me, that's how.
Don't bring in Subjective opinions here. The point is that he released the coin earlier than it's intended release date, so the instamine could also be counted as a premine. Saying "in his excitement" is your opinion, as anyone can easily say the opposite.
Bringing in subjectivity is only ok with you when it fits your agenda?
May 02, 2015, 04:46:07 PM
It's my job "i.r.l" to investigate and report
A scam by definition is something that is not within the law/illegal.
Can you show us such a definition? From a credible source if possible, thanks.
Show you the definition of a scam? Am I being purposely trolled here?
Are you debating that a scam isn't by definition illegal?
Your job irl is to "investigate and report", you're proclaiming your authority, you're the expert here. You're the one claiming multiple times that scam is illegal by definition. I'm just asking you to show me this definition.
May 02, 2015, 04:44:25 PM
Show you the definition of a scam? Am I being purposely trolled here?
Are you debating that a scam isn't by definition illegal?
May 02, 2015, 04:42:03 PM
It's my job "i.r.l" to investigate and report
A scam by definition is something that is not within the law/illegal.
Can you show us such a definition? From a credible source if possible, thanks.
Show you the definition of a scam? Am I being purposely trolled here?
Are you debating that a scam isn't by definition illegal? Maybe I'm overestimating the vocabulary of users here...
EDIT: I'm sure your dictionary would do just fine or look up the laws concerning scams/fraud in your areazone.
May 02, 2015, 04:41:28 PM
My strong belief is that the skepticism was warranted: Here's the original slow-hash from bytecoin as it was copied into Bitmonero. It has some doozies. For example, on line 100, you might note that for every iteration through an inner loop repeated tens of thousands of times, the AES key is re-imported into the library. The later loop, starting on line 113, is repeated half a million times, and is so abstracted through lots of memcpys and pointer manipulation it's hard to tell that all it really does is one round of AES encryption, a pointer dereference into a random scratchpad, a 64 bit multiplication, and another pointer dereference. Phew. This original code was roughly 50x slower than my final optimized code, and could have easily been used to fake two years of blockchain data on a single computer or a small cluster. I'm pretty sure that's what happened.
http://da-data.blogspot.com.tr/2014/08/minting-money-with-monero-and-cpu.html
So where is the Monero core team's official explanation of releasing this?
?The very same blogger answered that in the comments, which you would have seen if you weren't so busy selectively quoting:
Quote from: dga
I'm pretty sure that the Bytecoin version of this was pure evil, and that it was used not just to get an advantage in mining, but to fake the entire blockchain. I wouldn't touch that one with a 10 foot bitcoin. But, while I don't own any more Monero than is in transit from my hardware to the exchange, I don't think that same thing applies to Monero (because, first of all, there was no premine, and second, I know quite accurately who made the profit from the crappy miner, and I know that none of us were Bytecoin developers.)
It's possible that the initial fork-er of Monero, TFT, was complicit. But he's also out of the picture, and while he might have had a week of fun mining, he wouldn't have gotten much more than that.
It's possible that the initial fork-er of Monero, TFT, was complicit. But he's also out of the picture, and while he might have had a week of fun mining, he wouldn't have gotten much more than that.
and
Quote from: dga
In fact, to the best of my knowledge, none of the people who profited from early optimized Monero mining had anything to do with crippling the code in the first place.
Think of it this way: You step in and inherit a legacy codebase for a promising and interesting new cryptocurrency. You're immediately beset with demands -- fix bugs, release binaries, answer help questions, etc. In retrospect, it turns out that the code you took over had been de-optimized by its original creators. Is that your fault? Of course not. What's the standard that we should hold the Monero developers to? To fix any bugs or deliberate weaknesses as fast as they can after they become aware of it. To get up to speed and review and understand the codebase they inherited as quickly as a reasonable developer can do.
Think of it this way: You step in and inherit a legacy codebase for a promising and interesting new cryptocurrency. You're immediately beset with demands -- fix bugs, release binaries, answer help questions, etc. In retrospect, it turns out that the code you took over had been de-optimized by its original creators. Is that your fault? Of course not. What's the standard that we should hold the Monero developers to? To fix any bugs or deliberate weaknesses as fast as they can after they become aware of it. To get up to speed and review and understand the codebase they inherited as quickly as a reasonable developer can do.
Here's someone who is:
a) way smarter than you
b) way more involved with Monero during the relevant period of time
c) the exact source you are quoting, so obviously you think he's credible (which he is)
He says Monero is alright. You and everyone else should listen to him.
Let's consider by contrast: Where are the credible, knowledgable, and reputable people (such as computer science professors at world-class institutions) who think that Dash is alright, either in terms of is launch and early mining, or in terms of its technology? < Chirp...Chirp...Chirp >
May 02, 2015, 04:39:30 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.
But then he found the bug and it was a quick fix, and in all his excitement forgot he had said anything about the schedule and decided to re-launch asap. We all know how impulsive he can be, the test team of DRK/DASH can attest to that.
And how do I know this? Evan appeared in my dream and told me, that's how.
Don't bring in Subjective opinions here. The point is that he released the coin earlier than it's intended release date, so the instamine could also be counted as a premine. Saying "in his excitement" is your opinion, as anyone can easily say the opposite.
May 02, 2015, 04:39:14 PM
It's my job "i.r.l" to investigate and report
A scam by definition is something that is not within the law/illegal.
Can you show us such a definition? From a credible source if possible, thanks.
May 02, 2015, 04:38:43 PM
Do you know what fraud is? Here's a quick wikipedia for you: In law, fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain. Fraud is both a civil wrong (i.e., a fraud victim may sue the fraud perpetrator to avoid the fraud and/or recover monetary compensation) and a criminal wrong (i.e., a fraud perpetrator may be prosecuted and imprisoned by governmental authorities). The purpose of fraud may be monetary gain or other benefits, such as obtaining a drivers license by way of false statements.[1]
It is Illegal...
Ever heard of a thing called nuance? Words often have multiple definitions. There are clearly things that people would consider to be a scam, and yet are perfectly legal. Cryptocurrency is a great example. Many people outside of crypto consider digital currency to be a scam, and yet here we are. It is Illegal...
May 02, 2015, 04:38:30 PM
Are you slow or trolling like everyone else? The Monero dev team did not release Monero. Thankful-for-Today did. Even then, saying it was a "scam" is Subjective and a stretch, as the only thing that was controversial was the deoptimized miner, to which Thankful-for-Today did not take advtange of.
I also bet that Satoshi was a NSA agent and shill account, who conviently left right after Gavin Anderson went to have that meeting with the CIA. Stop trolling.
Are you asserting they are equally likely scenarios? Or are you pulling a strawman?
Jump to: