Topic: rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 202. (Read 387552 times)

No cryptocurrency is in the "stood-the-test-of-time" bracket just yet... All of them have their challenges, not least of which is mass adoption.

Selling the concept of 'masternodes' as part of a decentralised currency, will be a hard sell and sounds like an oxymoron to me (as a lay person). A solution where masternode owners profiteer out of people's desire for an anonymous transaction vs. a solution that is inherently anonymous... I think I know which is likely to win out in the end.

Yep, that is the years of experience and development that has went to Bitcoin that Darkcoin stands on and improves upon.



Good for you, when I was trading Monero a bit I didn't have the balls to send it to my wallet nor another exchange, just bought and sold on the same exchange so actual coins never moved.

Dude, just give up on the Darkcoin bullshit. It's all about Monero when it comes to anonymous coins. If I had to move money from A to B for whatever reasons, I would use Monero and not DRK, and never Bitcoin.

You could have said the same of bitcoin at the beginning wrt something that was more established. Time will tell!
I personally believe darkcoin is going to demise much faster than many expect, once the supernodes (not sure of the name) owners begin selling it will be dominos effect.

Something built on true and tested cryptography and technology that is (or will be) as good as anyone might need for any practical purposes vs. something new that's not stood the test of time yet and with unsolved (and potentially unsolvable) issues.

I completely share the ninja mine view of darkcoin, and it puts it for me in the category of very dishonest coins, to be polite. But apparently it's hard to claim that without entering in arguments about numbers, dates, past posts, etc. with DRK holders.

I personally prefer to say that the technology behind DRK is limited. It is a pre-historic attempt at a privacy-enhanced cryptocurrency, where cryptonote is the 21th century. This is enough for me no to be interested in DRK regardless of the initial coin distribution, without entering in endless justifications of "why premined", "why not premined". Stick to the fundamentals of the coins. This already discredites DRK completely and these are facts that are much harder to arg on.

10% not huge for you ? It clearly huge when it's owned by one person and hidden to the market.


Your argument is invalid. In real PoW, there are miners, there is competition.
When you solo insta-mine, you take all the coins you insta-mined with zero-cost hardware and energy.


You cannot have a free market with insta-mine.


Yes, that's exactly why Darkcoin has no value.

Huge? It's only 10% of the total monetary supply - and it's already distributed through the market at prices of 0.0000x to 0.002 for months. But I don't expect you to know it because you weren't there watching it. I did though and therefore I'm better informed.

Compare that to PoW/PoS which have 100% of their monetary supply instamined in a week or so and no-one bitches about them "scam scam scam" or "problematic distribution". Nobody cares about "fairness" to future miners. If they did, they'd also say Bitcoin is a 1bn USD scam due to Satoshi mining >1mn coins on his own with a few desktops and laptops. And those who scream scam for DRK because it disadvantages future miners, are actively supporting PoW/PoS coins that give 0 chance of mining to future miners.

Besides, most of the accusations use a retroactive logic, in that the miners who mined at the launch somehow knew that the coin would be worth it 15-20$ each a few months later, when in reality miners were selling 100.000 DRK for 2 to 2.5 BTC to buyers. It was considered a very good profit back then. You can make a coin, you can instamine it as much as you like, but it will still be a worthless coin if you do not assign value to it. And DRK gradually added value in terms of features.

PS. The thread you link is not the most objective source of information. Poster there used an out of context quote of Evan when he proposed an airdrop to fix the distribution a few months ago. In the airdrop scenario, Evan would issue 2mn coins and then distribute it. Poster took the quote of "2mn coins that I own" and presented it out of context in big red letters to show that Evan actually has ...2mn coins - when this refers to an event that never took place because the community voted it down (the airdrop).

Risto (and others who understand crypto economy), may I ask your opinion on this:

What if all the money from the IPO was accounted for in spending on coin related costs? Why would that not be fair? In this case the money is not just going back in the devs pockets, and if any of it is going his pockets it's a specific known amount outlined in the IPO contract.

DRK has some serious problems that have already been mentioned here. The HUGE instamine being one of them but that is just the start. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scam-darkcoin-instamine-2-millions-drks-50-of-darkcoin-in-circulation-560138

Sure, the person who runs an IPO can do all that. But there are 2 issues with what you say.

#1. If that person doesn't innovate and develop anything, his scam will fail very quickly, as people will see there is no progress.
#2. If nobody but him invested in the IPO, it means other people don't provide bounties for development and take no part in the life of the community and the coin.

Both of which issues are not true for NXT, as the history of its development shows. So, yeah, 95%-99% of IPOs are probably scam, or if they are not outright scam, they will just fail, because the failure rate of startups is very high due to incompetence among other reasons.

I like the way Counterparty did their proof of burn IPO, I even burned half a bitcoin myself there But Counterparty cannot be extended indefinately as NXT can due to its architecture, and Counterparty runs on a slow network adding Bitcoin's flaws to its own. Hence, Counterparty can only compare to NXT in how it did the IPO.

I've been thinking about counterparty more often lately, not exactly as a coin for investment, but more just thinking about these user-created assets.

I've been thinking that these assets might be very interesting as a speculative tool. As I understand it, the protocol includes the means to trade any counterparty asset for any other.

This seems to allow for a complete abstraction of bitcoin into what could become the currencies that people actually end up using. Everything can be tied back, or tethered to bitcoin, similar to the way that government currencies were once tethered to gold.

I just haven't heard much discussion of xcp in here and if anyone has any strong ideas or feelings about it I'd like to hear them. Thanks.

No, it's not just an opinion.  The person that runs the IPO can create as many fake accounts as they want, send in 10 BTC with all of them, get 90% of the coin issued, then all the BTC money goes back to himself anyway.  So the coin issuer not only gets as much premine as he wants, but also profits from anyone else that sends him money.  You couldn't invest in a more idiotic scam no matter how hard you try.

The only valid form of IPO is maybe proof of burn like Counterparty did.

LTC does not represent store of value. DRK though, does. DRK issues 2880 coins per day instead of 28800 of LTC. With a similar price of 8-9$ per coin, LTC is a nightmare to preserve price as it sucks BTC at a rate that isn't really funny (250k usd per day).

DRK is scarcer + inflates slower.  Plus DRK also pays for itself (20% on masternodes) something that LTC doesn't. You need to buy ASIC miners for LTC while with DRK you can ...mine DRKs by simply running a node. So with a 30-50% ROI due to masternode payments alone for DRK + scarcer coin + much lower inflation, the LTC bag suddenly seems much less attractive.