Topic: [POLL] Does EVAN DUFFIELD regret instamining DRK/DASH at 100x emission? - page 3. (Read 31431 times)

Read that line again, "Yeah, my bad, I botched the layover of the makefile on the update". That comes after Evan says he just updated the code. If he didn't include update it would be clear what's going on, but he did, right after Evan updated the code.

K, so you're not going to post any proof of you mining/compiling at that time, even though you've said that you have, and you expect me/anyone to believe you? Without you giving any proof I can now confirm you're a liar.

You feel free to turn yourself into a bitcointalk Columbo and spend the rest of your days trying to build a case that challenges the viability of the project or the integrity of its dev. For the rest of us, the easier route is check to see if:

(a) - the dev remained anonymous, dumped all his coins at the first all time high and then sloped off to a caribean island leaving his investors in the lurch

or

(b) - placed his identity in the public domain, remained with the project and turned himself into the hardest working coin developer on the planet  while introducing a whole pile of successful innovations which were later priced in by the market to the tune of many hundreds of percent over the value after launch.

Notice those posts were done after the first launch, not after the relaunch, so the relevance is zero.

Perhaps he means that he didn't touch that part of the code since the previous version, so he doesn't understand why there would be error in that part. Then he proceeds saying he has uploaded a new version anyway and urges the guy to try again.

Why would the guy say "Yeah, my bad, I botched the layover of the makefile on the update" if it was Evan's fault?



If you want me to post proof of me mining 277 and 500 coin blocks you will just have to be disappointed as I won't be doing that, for obvious reasons.

These are the posts I have collected of you during that time:





You said you compiled and mined, I'm waiting for proof.

Notice how this was said by Evan Duffield: "Hmmm, I didn't update that part of the code. Although, I just updated again so try:" Furthermore he says "Oh well still no blocks", and "I botched the layover of the makefile on the update" comes after Evan's "I didn't update that part of the code. Although, I just updated again so try". That can be in direct response to Evan Duffield newly updating the code and having nothing to do on the user's part of not being able to compile and mine.

Also, I'm still waiting on you to show proof of you mining back then, it's convenient that you keep dodging providing any more information concerning that.

Don't try and bullshit me.

Conveniently you didn't quote the next post where the guy admits it was his own fault he couldn't get it to compile:

Right here:
Code wasn't updated, no one could compile besides mr Evan Duffield himself of course.

Also, can you show me evidence that you mined back then? Otherwise I'd have to assume that you're lying.

Yea I tried to look at the thread, and couldn't find the period of time you're talking about. Link plz.

For a period of time the public miner wasn't working, so the developer was the only one able to mine naturally. Look at the main thread. Also I'd have to take your statements with a grain of salt, until you provide any evidence to back them up.

You sure it wasn't working? Because I remember compiling it and mining just fine.

[ANN][DASH] Dash | Most Instamined Coin | Inventor of X11, DGW, Darksend and InstantX

I was hoping you'd type that. This is why Dash's instamine is so controversial. Because we know a few things:

1) Dash's developers were able to mine a portion of the coins unhindered as the linux wallet they posted on BCT wasn't working

2) We do not know who controlled 51% of the hashrate at the time. But, since we know that the coin was available on linux-only, and that the developers themselves obviously were able to mine during the entire time the instamine occured, we can assume that the developers controlled a significant portion of the hashrate.

Thus, the conclusion can be that it wouldn't have mattered what anyone said, as Evan Duffield changing the block reward by himself wouldn't have required any input from anyone else if he owned 51% or more of the hashrate, which is very likely that he did along with Internetape. This is what I'm talking about by saying Dash had many centralized decisions done. Even the namechange from Darkcoin to Dash was a centralized decision done solely by Evan Duffield, to which his co-dev Vertoe quit the core team because of it.

Such centralized actions simply can't or rather, shouldn't happen in Decentralized currencies. Having those things happened means the coin is not decentralized anymore, Dash simply is centralized.

I'm sure once they have all the facts, they'll use Monero if their main concern is privacy and decentralization. But why would you want to hide the instamine from the Dash front page? If your claim that it doesn't matter is correct, it would save you a lot of time and silence the instamine critics forever.

Your concern for "incoming investors interests" is touching. I'm sure exceeds your concern for your own.

Listen, you know very well it was only relaunced ONCE. You added "or twice" to muddy the water for anyone too lazy to check it out for themselves. This is the entire Dashtard strategy. Case in point, I was in the DASH thread for weeks critisizing your decision to reduce total supply from 40 million to 20 million. Not ONCE did any of you set the facts straight and confirm it was actually 80 million to 20 million. You're not interested in facts, all you do is muddy the water, sweep facts under the rug and hope eventually people will stop talking about the massive, deliberate instamine.

Great argument regarding the relaunch, it was easy for him to relaunch once, obviously it would have been incredibly difficult to relaunch a second time  

I think you've got enough on your plate apologizing for DASH, it's already a full time job for you. Keep it up with the personal insults though, your agenda is quite clear.

I doubt very much that that's the reason.

I think the reason is plain and simple - that many people feel it's unjustified that a coin with Dash's stumble into existence be favoured by markets. So their problem is with the market, not with the product, its developer or followers.

Coins who's valuation is on the deck don't get this kind of attention.

It might be justified if Dash was the only cryptocurrency in existence and one in which everyone therefore had an interest, but it isn't. It's one of hundreds which are all independent of each other. The early launch period may have been unfair to a tiny handful of miners who missed their chance to mine during a few hours (a valueless coin at the time), but it wasn't to anyone else - especially not those who bought it in markets and held an asset that had huge amounts of work done on it during subsequent months.

This is not a game with rules. As you are pains to point out, it's a decentralised free market in which developers are free to tweak whatever parameters they like subject to 2 conditions:

[1] - their revisions are accepted by a majority of miners

[2] - their actions expose them to the risk of market revaluation

Those are the only "referees" and Dash is just as subject to their appraisals as every other project in this space. Emission curves are not a question of ethics (at least not for the industry) they are a question of convention, otherwise cryptocurrencies could not properly be called decentralised.

The hypocrisy of the near-hysterical 'instamine' rants is that Dash did not have the current valuation when the instamine (low difficulty + slow retarget or whatever you want to call it) occurred. The current valuation has been achieved through the hard work and innovation of many, but significantly the same person who is under perpetual criticism for the bad launch.

So there is no "centralised tinkering" that was not subject to the conditions above.

Furthermore and contrary to bitcoin's convention, Dash has a stated policy of tinkering with "everything" at an early stage to attempt to "get it right". Whether you think that policy sensible, ethical, commercial, sustainable or not, the dev is perfectly at liberty to pursue it and discover the consequences be they favourable or adverse.

No if he regretted it he would do something about it other than give his buddys the coin. There are ways to redeem himself but he doesn't look interested. Oh vote no and no regrets

Look, the reason why there's a fuss about the instamine, particularly the core feature change, as a high coin ouput isn't nefarious(Look at bitcoin) is because it's the things like the block reward changing and such that's what everyone is getting on about, especially since those changes drastically benefitted the early instaminers.

These are decentralized, and may I put emphasis on it, DECENTRALIZED currencies. They cannot afford to have centralized screw-ups like what happened with Dash's instamine. There is no central authority that can just get rid of those instamined coins, so that makes it all the more worse. With a decentralized product, it needs to be somewhat "fair" and "credible" and such.