Topic: [POLL] Does EVAN DUFFIELD regret instamining DRK/DASH at 100x emission? - page 24. (Read 31431 times)

You are still missing the point:


In fact the coins were created at the rate specified in the original design but not what some people (myself included) thought was being discussed on the original thread. But in fact the coins did (and do) match the formula:


Ellipsis removed, we can now see that we were proposing to take the original 150k coins that were mined at the original rate, turn them into 75k using a reverse stock split, and then reduce the rate going forward. Later this was changed to a crowdfunding approach where the early miners would have donated half their coins to a bounty fund, but either way, they were not going to get to keep them (unlike Dash).


The whole point of this proposal was to avoid being an instamine by not giving any advantage to the earliest miners (who would have had their faster-mined coin holdings cut in half).  This is exactly what was not done in Dash when the coin supply was cut by 75% but the original miners (including instaminers) got to keep all of their coins, which made the whole thing into a huge rip off (early holdings were arbitrarily multiplied by 4x)

In the end, however, no change was made. The Monero community decided to honor the original social contract and not reduce the emission rate. Exactly the opposite of Dash, which was not only instamined but had its emission rate cut (with no adjustment) and its supply cut after the fact by 75%.


It is quite clear what went on if you actually read the posts and don't quote selectively from them. There was no "scam launch" as you are calling it. Coins were created at a normal smooth rate according to the published formula right from the start (unlike Dash, which matched none of the several published formulas), when there was a proposal to change the curve going forward, an adjustment was going to be included to keep any early miners from having an advantage (again unlike Dash), and the coin supply was never drastically cut (again unlike Dash).

Monero is exactly the opposite of everything that happened in Dash.

Unlike Dash, Monero had:

1. No instamine due to bad difficulty adjustment
2. No instamine due to bugs creating extra coins that shouldn't exist at all (but were allowed to be kept anyway, unlike Bitcoin)
3. No proposal to change parameters without early miners forfeiting any advantage that would give them.
4. No cut to total supply target, multiplying the share of early-mined coins by 4x.
5. No reduction in the rate of emission, creating/increasing a retroactive instamine.

Case closed.

For the avoidance of doubt.

I asked very politely in the Monero thread a few days ago and again yesterday here for all of us to agree to disagree, and move on.

Smooth continued to wage a smear campaign. That is what this thread is, and he is leading the campaign.

So the facts needed to be explored to give some balance.  

He is the lead dev of a big and important crypto project. He should lead by good example because there are many people that look up to him as one of the lead devs.

Yet he maintains a white knight attitude that scams need to be uncovered. 'Ignoring a scam is in fact to be part of that scam'.

So now we find our White Knight who patrols the threads calling every project a scam, is actually up to his neck in it.

If you think I have a personal hatred of Smooth, then you are wrong. A few weeks ago I was defending him, until I was pointed to his smear campaign.


But who really knows what went on at Bitmonero / Monero during its first few months. All we know is that there was a Proven Monero Scam Launch.

I have no truck with anyone else from Monero or the project. Good luck to you all.

That Dash snakeoil is a hard sale maybe he and his fellow Dashers should consider selling vacuum cleaners in future at least there is a chance of seeing a hot blond instead of a dark cave.

No. Let's look at what the younger Smooth said at the time:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6364320

And here:


https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6364494

You decided not to stop, fix, fork and relaunch. You have to own the Proven Monero Scam Launch.

@coins101

I suggest you look at a block explorer, or better yet the blockchain itself. The rate is exactly what was intended and published (unlike the coin that is the topic if this thread).  Tacotime misunderstood, but you are making a fool of yourself.

Poor coins101, he's trying so hard.

His underlying message: stop talking about Evan's massive instamine fraud and criminal deception because...... Monero. The 4 choices in the OP seem fairly unbiased. Vote and stop trying to derail the thread.

Seems to me like there are several people here taking things out of context. I'm just presenting facts.

But, let's keep going with the Proven Monero Scam Launch.

The Proven Monero Scam Launch, has its first bug introduced to skew the mining even more (was there any real need, the de-optimized code wasn't enough?)


What was the bug?



Thanks Mr. Botnet? Possibly, you mean thanks Santa Claus for bringing some early gifts to those few who knew what was really going on.

So, dear reader. The pot is calling the kettle black. Lead devs using bully boy tactics and smears can work great if you have an agenda.  But make sure when you throw stones, that your house is not made of glass.

No, unless you mean the bullshit of you taking quotes out of context and interpreting them deceptively (2nd time at least).

I never said Darkcoin was fair, I said that using Bitcoins cryptography was, by itself, an advantage in risk reduction over something new. Of course masternodes are new code too, so there's risk introduced relative to Bitcoin in both coins.

At that point I didn't know anything about how unfair and shady darkcoin was. I wasn't following it at all really, didn't know about the instamine, and never did until Evan took his instamined wealth and used it to piss over the (real) Dashcoin community.

Once upon a time Darkcoin was fair, but now probably because it is way ahead, its not fair:


Are you, dear reader, beginning to smell the bullshit now?

Interesting quote. Let's look at what inconvenient truth is hiding behind that odd looking ellipsis you put there:


Would that user have been able to mine Dash during the instamine?

Incorrect. There was nothing wrong with the Windows build, the user was just being impatient. The Linux version gives the same error if you try to start mining before syncing to the network, as explained by a helpful user right away:


Followed by:


I understand there were some bugs having to do with mining during the Dash launch, and weren't so easy to fix by syncing before mining. Is that correct?

I'm wondering coins101, did Dash have Windows binaries at launch? Did Evan delay the launch 12 hours to have Windows binaries ready, the way TFT did (one of the few things he ever did right), or did he instead launch an instamine of a million or so coins in a few hours with no Windows binaries released? Which is it?