Topic: rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 41. (Read 387552 times)

Why are you defending a monster instamine like dark ?

Well, I do know this: A large list of coins that wanted to "save humanity" from the "scam" that DRK is, used it as an excuse to actually scam their investors of their BTCs. From large and known coins down to ...Honorcoin.

The planet is now in a better shape than before

At least investors -after several months of scams- now know who can develop anonymity and who can't.

You know all those things. What you don't know is the effect of the instamine because the counterfactual is unknowable.

We are talking about DRK here so I'm not assuming anything. I know DRK's price / volume and ascent from when it was 0.000025 (jan-early feb), to 0.00008, to 0.00018, to 0.0005, to 0.002, to 0.001 (after the 300 btc ccex hack that was turned to DRK then dumped to poloniex etc), to 0.0011-0.0016 for months, to 0.028 with the pump.


If there's such an imbalance that renders a coin DOA, like Bytecoin for example, the market simply reflects the price and marketcap accordingly.

You are mostly talking hypothetically now. It doesn't add anything.

The number one Darkcoin wallet has a significant proportion of the entire coins in circulation. He purchased every single coin on the open market.  The huge amount of money that was being transacted has distributed the coins.  Quite a few of the top wallets show reasonably recent purchases.

Those that are long-term holders, well a great deal of them are working on the project for free - I suspect many have had to sell coins to pay for living expenses and the like.

As was pointed out, this is all with the backdrop of Satoshi and his pile of coins.

No it is still a problem when markets aren't liquid, people aren't rational, or people don't pay attention. You are assuming markets are infinitely liquid and everyone (or most) participates rationally. But if those aren't true and you end up with a bad distribution, you still have it.

If someone starts with 80% of the coins when they aren't worth much, puts them away somewhere and they go up in value, then one day you have someone owning 80% of the coins later when it does matter (and when it is probably even harder to trade in such volume). This may also be an issue in coin markets which can move very fast before anyone even realizes what they're worth or thinks much about it.

I think that is where I came into this discussion....

Initial distribution would only be a problem in a world where markets do not exist. When the markets take over, distribution is sorted out according to demand.

The assumption made is that initial distribution is somehow frozen into eternity when it is not. People buy, people sell, coins change hands. Miners also sell because that's what they do. They mine and sell for profit. Again, coins change hands. And when pumps happen (let alone with multi-million USD volumes per day), that's even more coins that change hands. This has a tremendous effect on distribution.

Crikey, popped out for a glass or two of Amarone and come back to a little tussle about which coin has the least problems.

Holding a bag or BitMonero and Darkcoin means that I've tried to keep up with both, but mostly involved with DRK because I could see the value of its Bitcoin codebase - which Peter Todd is recommending for BitMonero.

The three things they have in common are dedicated devs that know what they are doing, their communities and a focus on privacy.

Darkcoin will without doubt come under attack, just as BitMonero is currently under attack. How you deal with those attacks is probably just as important as trying to prevent them happening. Both camps seem up to the job.

Honestly - the common target should be Litecoin and being number two to Bitcoin, not who is going to be the 10th place contender.

I haven't seen anything about venture capital going into Ethereum. As far as I know they got free money. Who needs VC's and their headaches when you can do that?

I'm talking about amount of coins, which is what matters to the distribution of a coin. If you convert them to BTC then you have a BTC potential distribution issue and also a potential coin distribution issue with whoever you sold them to (or not, it depends).

Don't conflate the two.

There is no such thing as fair distribution. The world is imbalanced (wealth-wise) and this affects every distribution scheme.

The situation can only get worse by things like instamines, 100x miners*, accelerated reduction curves, barriers to entry / barriers to trade, etc.


* As the poster above said, BBR was crucified as unfair for having someone with a faster/GPU miner. Now the truth has come out that XMR has been mined for a lengthy period with heavily accelerated miners. You can't have double standards about these issues.


If you "guarantie" it, then it must be true.

DRK is based on coinjoin. Which means you throw your 10 DRKs in a bucket, I throw my 10 DRKs in the same bucket and they go out 10 + 10 to different destinations but nobody can tell which is which. It can't be "dangerous to the network".

Masternode consensus on who gets paid, that's another issue altogether because it introduces a second layer of consensus on top of who gets paid the block, and yes that one can be dangerous to the network and it has forked the network on prior implementation attempts. (Masternode protocol is open source btw).

Right, I don't know about other CN coins, but only one seems to be the focus and a testnet for exploits. I am not sure why they have so much hate.


Quite the extrapolation. Most fund managers are risk averse, especially when dealing with other people's money.

After few weeks just reading here i am putting some of my opinion about all this discussion about drk vs xmr
I started mine XMR around block 40000, so, pretty soon after the coin been released, the only regret that i have is not buying XMR at that point...
XMR was been with problems yesterday, but the fast work of the devs proof that me that we are on good hands, also i am an IRC guy, so i keep watching the progress and the dev team is very open to critics and know how to make the work
I was watching DRK since april (few weeks before know the XMR) and never crossed my mind mine it or even invest in it... i could make a good money on it, but beeing instamined and closed source for me is a bomb "tick-tacking"... instamine is a huge problem, the coins are not proper distributed, and after all of that i think darkcoin guys should worry alot about darksend beeing closed source, i guarantie you that if any day it become opensource someone will explore the code at max, and probably find some bugs that can be dangerous for the network, if it still closed source still bad and someone can find bugs on it too, just take more time... XMR beeing opensource for me is a relief, i know alot of people had reviewed..

Dont want to sound like a XMR lover, i am realy looking positive to this....

But as the wise people say... dont put all your eggs on same basket

Don't forget that during the BBR rise, these same XMR shills were the ones ridiculing BBR miner who was dumping at whatever the prices were. Apparently that didn't help with the distribution. Same set of lies being used even on trollbox on a daily basis by Pietila and others.



Perhaps the focus should be on maligning and slandering anonymous devs.

The entire DRK instamine cost less than 50 BTC for two weeks after the launch.

dga & partner (and who knows who else) made hundreds of BTCs with the 30-50-100x Monero miner.

And DRK is the "scam".

Ok.

There was likely never a 100x advantage. The 100x was the maximum advantage dga reported from start to finish, but the public miner got faster as well over the same period of time.

Nevertheless you can actually compute the potential value of it by looking at the total number of coins produced during that period. That is a maximum, and not a very good estimate because there were certainly non-advantaged miners during that period. It still isn't much.

Price matters because cheap price = coin spreads.

Don't seriously tell me that XMR, a coin that has a very serious technological barrier to entry for non-computer geeks, running on frickin' command line, is better distributed. People couldn't even compile a wallet or move money between themselves or exchanges. Even now they can't.

A technological barrier to entry ensures problematic distribution for all except those with way-above-average technical knowledge.


Except for the part that 100x gains were possible for the miner and some people were mining that way... that's the "concept" / initial XMR conception.


Since you are in drawing curves, also draw one for the profitability of a normal XMR miner and a 100x XMR miner... yes, very fair and unsuspicious for everyone involved.


If you say so.

We shall see soon.   

Very well put.

Not to mention that as far as I am still aware DarkSend is not open source yet which is a huge problem.