Monero was released with an intentionally crippled hash function. Whether the Monero devs realized it or not, the crippled hash was included to give someone an unfair advantage.
Please quantify this advantage in terms of % of the eventual coin supply of 18.4 million.
Advantage after 20 yrs or so is not relevant to defining a fair launch. Fair launch is used to describe multiple factors during the first few days/week/months of a coins existence.
Please answer the question. I am not here to argue, but to quantify the unfairness against that of other coins.
Fluffy demonstrated already that none of the current dev team were even involved with the coin when it was already trading in an organized way in the OTC. So any unfairness in mining can be quantified by:
%reduction of cost * %of network * daily supply * #of days.
This works out to a meager percentage of total coins, with even more meager value. The value is important because the coin was trading when all (supposed) unfairness happened, so to gain an equal footing with the unfair person, you only needed to buy the coins at the then (low) price.
Is it also unfair that I have bought a large stash of coins with the money that I unfairly earned with BTC, and prior to that, silver, and prior to that, working hard in the fields?
I will answer your questions once we are done discussing fair launch.
To their credit, the Monero devs found and released the fix to crippled hash function early. But it was there at launch.
Even though the amount involved is small in the big picture, and the current devs were unaware, the crippled hash function does effect fari-launch status.
If we take a step back, you said your definition of fair launch is:
1. No premine, instamine or ninjamine.
2. Exchange as soon as possible.
3. Marketing as soon as possible.
Do we agree that intentionally crippled hash functions do not belong on your list?
