Topic: [POLL] Does EVAN DUFFIELD regret instamining DRK/DASH at 100x emission? - page 4. (Read 31431 times)

I'm surprised you even need to ask.

He obviously learned from bitter experience that coins with "perfect" launches usually have nothing else to offer and end up going to zero nine times out of ten.

It just took him a bit longer with XMR since invisible blockchains sounded quite cool for a while until the words "emperor" and "clothes" sprung to mind  

You just made me blow coffee out of my nose.  You're funny.

"You and various XMR supporters."  I was careful to seperate you from XMR supporters in that statement.  Since I took you off ignore several weeks ago I have seen you state quite clearly that you are not an XMR supporter and I phrased my statement to reflect this.


EDIT:  It didn't take me much looking back at your message history to show that you used to either hold XMR or support the project.  What changed your mind about XMR if you don't mind me asking?

r.o.t.f.w.l. !

Better include the green grass just for good measure.

I do? Is that why I said "once or twice"? Usually a sane person would interpret that statement to mean that I'm not sure (I don't know or remember) which one is correct. For your sake, I hope that tells more about your agenda than your sanity.



How do you know how easily anything related to coin development could be done? All that seems to come easy to you is losing your monies on shitcoins.



I am very sorry you missed the launch. I am very sorry you didn't buy when the going rate was 10k for 0.25 BTC. I am very sorry you didn't buy when it was 0.0001 BTC. I am very sorry you didn't buy when it was 0.001. I am very sorry you got dropped on your head one time too many as a child. I am very sorry you're such a loser and a bitter broke ass troll with no life. Is there anything else you'd like me to apologize for?

You have zero credibility.



You already know it was only relaunched once. It could have easily been relaunched a second time, especially since Evan said he would "Definitely" wait until tomorrow.

Keep apologizing!

Good post.  I guess time will tell. 

He had already relaunched once or twice and kept impatient miners waiting, so perhaps he just wanted to get it over with.

Or maybe the first (and second) launch weren't instamineable enough and it took him a couple of tries to get the instamine parameters correct.

Who knows.

Still leaves you with two problems: PR and centralization.

The PR problem is simple. Many will not touch an investment that they think had shady beginnings or continues to have someone associated with those shady beginnings at the helm. Dash will always have the same sort of stigma attached to it as baseball players from the Black Sox or home run hitters who needed to juice to pump their numbers (Sosa, McGwire, ect.). The media will have a field day with this issue if Dash ever saw a tenth of Bitcoin's marketcap as will supporters of other coins as long as the coin exist.

The centralization problem centers on the fact that over 35% of the current emission was mined in the first two days. Many will claim that it was cheap and therefore redistributed, but anyone could also claim that these were instaminers moving funds in an attempt to sell the idea of a fair redistribution later--no one in fact can claim either is true, so it's a gut call--but what really hinders dash here is that many investors are not going to buy the story that the coin mistakenly mined 35% of the current value, didn't relaunch fairly when it seemed in their best interest to do so if they wanted to maintain a clean record, but later sold their coins on the cheap as so the coin could be fairly distributed. That's very far fetched when they could have had a provable fair launch and gotten rid of the instamine label in one shot--either Evan is stupid or he thinks there are enough stupid people out there to accept this story. My guess is that Evan isn't stupid.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4889177

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4861558

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4863385

The bottom line is that nobody knows if it was a scam launch or not.

IMO, knowing many of the people around at launch and seeing the volume of coins changing hands for pennies in the early days I personally do not believe that it was a scam launch.  It could have been a beneficial situation for lots of people, not just Evan whether the instamine was accidental or not.

It happened.  Its not going to go away.  The glimpses of evidence that I do have indicate that it was a poor launch that could have benefitted anybody who was around at the time imo. 

I stand to be corrected but didn't the person who mined the most coins in the first few days get dropped by the team and dump his coins on an exchange for a few satoshis (relatively)?  I forget his name...

@AdamWhite:  I have never said you were a Monero supporter.

The funny thing is that, instead of crying all bitcointalk, anyone can relaunch the coin NOW and do it better than Dash! The code is open source!

For some people is easier crying, fudding and trolling instead of doing some work for themselves.

I don't have enough details on how this instamine went because I was not attached to this coin at that moment. So it wouldn't be fair for me to call it a blatant scam.
But I wonder what stopped him from relaunching the coin fairly to make things right - and this was a very big reason to relaunch.

So i'm voting for 3rd option:

It was an accident, but it worked out well for him. No regrets.

It is a clear scam.believe that and you better be sorry for putting people onto this scamcoin piece of shitz trash

If I understand this correctly the current emission breakdown, once the transition period is over and it gets fully implemented is 60%  - Masternodes and 40% Miners. If the proposal passes, which it seems highly likely to, the emission breakdown becomes 50% Masternodes, 40% Miners and 10% for projects to be voted upon by the Masternodes.

This places DASH in a very interesting situation when it comes government regulation, in particular in the United States since both Even Duffield and the Darkcoin foundation are US persons. It is important to consider the recent events with Ripple, http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/05/05/settlement_agreement.pdf, where Ripple is being regulated as a Centralized Virtual Currency as opposed to currencies such as Bitcoin or Monero that fall into the De-Centralized Virtual Currency category, http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html. The key is this from the FinCEN guidance DASH could very easily lie in between the Centralized Virtual Currency and De-Centralized Virtual Currency categories. It is clear that the 40% miner portion of the emissions falls into the De-Centralized Virtual Currency category; however the 50% masternode and 10% project share could very likely fall into the Centralized Virtual Currency category. In addition to this we have also to consider the impact of spork. If on top of all of this we add the insta-mine the US government may have a very good case to regulate Even Duffield and the DASH masternode operators as MSBs.

The ramifications on how FinCEN chooses to regulate or not regulate DASH will have very significant ramifications throughout the crypto-currency space.

I make no comment here about whether that is a good or a bad ending point (although I agree with G2M on the separate issue that voting as a mechanism fails to be useful when an individual actor's vote share approaches 50%). My point is, it provides actual evidence that this "distributed among the community" statement is at best misleading with respect to approximately 1/3 of instamined coins. Of course on its face the statement is speculative or, if presented as fact, false, since it is unknowable how or where the coins were "distributed."

Those who will be affected the most by the vote should have the most weight imo. Or should every broke ass troll and sock puppet be allowed to vote against every proposal?



Actually it was originally going to go to 60% gradually, the proposition is to actually diminish the masternode reward.

Consider the userbase that the decentralized system is to be represented, then ask those people how they feel not all having the opportunity to vote.

Not very antifragile, IMO, if people that don't like it can't both participate in its every use, while simultaneously not being able to do a damn thing about breaking it.

Silencing potential defectors while asking them to use the system generally doesn't yield valid returns.

I did chuckle when the first thing on the table was whether or not they wanted more money, up to 60% from 45%. Nice.

Consider the things the votings will be about, and then consider whether someone who has no stake in it be able to have as many votes as someone who has a lot of stake in it to be a good or a bad thing.

Stamping off the system as a decentralized vote while having one person in control of 4xx votes out of 2xxx votes seems nefarious, yet it's still fact.

An "insider" sounds nefarious, what is an insider in this context?

Would it be better for the distribution if this large owner bought already distributed coins from late miners / adopters than if he bought from an early miner / instaminer? Or would it have been best if he didn't have bought at all? Or bought only little?