Pages:
Author

Topic: SCAM Darkcoin instamine 2 millions DRKs (50% of darkcoin in circulation) - page 5. (Read 82637 times)

sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 255

I'll just write something and hope the syllogism disappears.



Yeah, that's the confusion  Roll Eyes

Re-read until your cognitive dissonance clears up.

www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fraud&allowed_in_frame=0


If 500k coins in an hour is an instamine
and Evan claims in the literature that it wasn't an instamine
then Evan is fraudulent if 500k coins were mined in the first hour.



Then again Evan may be really stupid and not know what words mean, either way I don't want him running a project I'm involved with or getting others to risk their money without knowing all the details.


apparently you are confused on logic as well, because with your definition 'the fraud' is a logical syllergy of course.  It's the definition (the axioms in your syllergistic logic) that are confused, because instamine just mean fast emission.  Saying that is a fraud is an additional step, you have to know who instamined them and then they have to have claimed not to have done that to acquire money..  Which seeing as it was launched on a public forum, and the dev gave a full account, you can't.

Maybe learn about cognitive dissonance too; presenting a tautology to prove an argument where you have confused the definitions means that your argument demonstrate cognitive dissonance, it doesn't mean that generically someone you disagree with is wrong?
legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1000

I'll just write something and hope the syllogism disappears.



Yeah, that's the confusion  Roll Eyes

Re-read until your cognitive dissonance clears up.

www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fraud&allowed_in_frame=0


If 500k coins in an hour is an instamine
and Evan claims in the literature that it wasn't an instamine
then Evan is fraudulent if 500k coins were mined in the first hour.



Then again Evan may be really stupid and not know what words mean, either way I don't want him running a project I'm involved with or getting others to risk their money without knowing all the details.

Where he say that it was not instamined???

Copy of the wiki :
"Was Darkcoin Instamined?
~2mn coins were issued in the first 48 hours due to problems with the difficulty readjustment. That represents approximately 10-15% of the total money supply that will ever be issued.

The majority of these coins were distributed through the market in the following weeks and months at very low price levels* (0.0000x BTC per DRK to 0.000x BTC per DRK) and a lot of them were also absorbed in the April/May 2014 price increase.

  • Examples of prices and selling action almost two weeks after launch:

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

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

  • Forum member coins101 did a blockchain analysis of Darkcoins distribution as of September 2014:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/analysis-of-darkcoins-distribution-as-at-sept-2014-778616"
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
Monero idealists are saying it doesn't matter that the hashrate is dominated by botnets.

Off topic for the thread but in point of fact there isn't really any evidence that Monero hashrate is "dominated" by botnets. I'm sure there are bots mining but the fact that I can mine at a profit on my own equipment (and have done so for months) while paying for electricity is very strong evidence that their involvement is limited.
legendary
Activity: 1750
Merit: 1036
Facts are more efficient than fud

I'll just write something and hope the syllogism disappears.



Yeah, that's the confusion  Roll Eyes

Re-read until your cognitive dissonance clears up.

www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fraud&allowed_in_frame=0


If 500k coins in an hour is an instamine
and Evan claims in the literature that it wasn't an instamine
then Evan is fraudulent if 500k coins were mined in the first hour.



Then again Evan may be really stupid and not know what words mean, either way I don't want him running a project I'm involved with or getting others to risk their money without knowing all the details.

legendary
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1004


If anyone is actually interested in taking all the instamined coins away, you can fork the code, start a new blockchain and eliminate those coins.

sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 255
www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fraud&allowed_in_frame=0


If 500k coins in an hour is an instamine
and Evan claims in the literature that it wasn't an instamine
then Evan is fraudulent if 500k coins were mined in the first hour.




Then again Evan may be really stupid and not know what words mean, either way I don't want him running a project I'm involved with or getting others to risk their money without knowing all the details.


you are confused on your definitions, dude.
legendary
Activity: 1750
Merit: 1036
Facts are more efficient than fud
www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fraud&allowed_in_frame=0


If 500k coins in an hour is an instamine
and Evan claims in the literature that it wasn't an instamine
then Evan is fraudulent if 500k coins were mined in the first hour.




Then again Evan may be really stupid and not know what words mean, either way I don't want him running a project I'm involved with or getting others to risk their money without knowing all the details.
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
Bitcoin wasn't instamined. 1 million bitcoins were mined after roughly 6 months.

The Evan Duffield scammer instamined 2+ million in 48 hours. See the difference?



get your facts straight

Those facts would be what exactly?

1,000,000 coins divided by 7200 coins / day (50 coins per block * 6 blocks per hour * 24 hours in a day) = 138 days.
sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 255
legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1000
Oh god!

And now making detailed text analysis (subject to subjectivity). LOL and you say that this is a prove of anything? Just lol and pathetic.

You're embarrassing yourself. Take a break, go watch a movie or something.

You are embarrassing yourself. Go work on your project and help Monero...
full member
Activity: 336
Merit: 102
Get Ready to Make money.
Bitcoin wasn't instamined. 1 million bitcoins were mined after roughly 6 months.



get your facts straight
legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1000

For instance: "we know Mary hated Sue, but did she hate Sue enough to kill her? We think so, because Mary wrote in her diary that she 'could ring Sue's neck' the day before Sue died from strangulation" from which the judge, or jury if you're in the USA, can convict Mary despite there being little to no "evidence" by your strict (and incorrect from a legal perspective) definition of "proof".


Lol, it's confirmed you are a clown!
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
Bitcoin wasn't instamined. 1 million bitcoins were mined after roughly 6 months.

The Evan Duffield scammer instamined 2+ million in 48 hours. See the difference?
full member
Activity: 336
Merit: 102
Get Ready to Make money.
Aah, another Darkcoin scam thread.
And if so -  he'd deserve it for all the amazing work he has done.

How many Bitcoins were instamined?
That sums up to how many US $?

So only because bitcoin was instamined it is ok for every other coin to be instamined too?
donator
Activity: 1274
Merit: 1060
GetMonero.org / MyMonero.com
Oh god!

And now making detailed text analysis (subject to subjectivity). LOL and you say that this is a prove of anything? Just lol and pathetic.

You're embarrassing yourself. Take a break, go watch a movie or something.
donator
Activity: 1274
Merit: 1060
GetMonero.org / MyMonero.com
Hi Fluffy

Sorry there seems to be some confusion.

You are making 2 claims here:

1. That Evan Duffield "mined 15% of the total currency with his buddies within a few hours of launch"

2. That Evan Duffield is "a scammer" (because that implies fraud)

It is public knowledge that the DRK launch was open to anyone with Linux and on a BCT thread.  This means anyone checking the ANN list (as a lot of people were at the time including me) could have mined them.

You are suggesting that you have evidence that Even and some associates mined 15% of the currency.

Incidentally, the 15% figure is what I took from here: http://en.wiki.dashninja.pl/wiki/FAQ#Was_Darkcoin_Instamined.3F - in actuality it's just over 9%.

In court you have to prove this, supposition doesn't matter, especially as it was an open launch on the most popular forum.

On the contrary, lawyers mostly argue precisely over supposition. For instance: "we know Mary hated Sue, but did she hate Sue enough to kill her? We think so, because Mary wrote in her diary that she 'could ring Sue's neck' the day before Sue died from strangulation" from which the judge, or jury if you're in the USA, can convict Mary despite there being little to no "evidence" by your strict (and incorrect from a legal perspective) definition of "proof".

Think about this: what evidence in the legal system *isn't* circumstantial evidence? If Mary's DNA was found at the scene is that not circumstantial evidence? Of course it is, she could've been there that day to resolve her issues with sue. Since all evidence is circumstantial, what really is "proof" from a legal point of view?

Well, in the criminal justice system prima facie evidence (even if it is what you call "supposition") is often considered on the basis of a ruling being beyond reasonable doubt. For civil cases (fraud being special in most countries, as it can be tried under criminal and/or civil law) it's a bit different, as the evidence is considered on a balance of probabilities.

Thus in this open discussion the burden of proof need not be even as exact as a balance of probabilities, but for the purpose of your argument I have provided prima facie evidence that demonstrates, on a balance of probabilities, the following:

1. Evan chose not to relaunch Darkcoin a second time after (by his own admission) he messed it up. He had reason to relaunch, and he had already established that it was not difficult to do. Thus the evidence speaks to him willingly choosing not to.

2. Evan lied about not knowing how many coins had been mined by the time he fixed the emission problem at block 4500.

3. Evan stalled the release of a Windows client to purposely cripple those who would have mined the currency at launch.

Now that I've presented my circumstantial evidence for a second time, why don't you present some counter-evidence of your own?
legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1000
Oh god!

And now making detailed text analysis (subject to subjectivity). LOL and you say that this is a prove of anything? Just lol and pathetic.
sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 255
donator
Activity: 1274
Merit: 1060
GetMonero.org / MyMonero.com
Hi Fluffy

This is quite a serious accusation you are making.  And because you are the lead dev of Monero I trust that you can back up such serious allegations.

Please can you provide the proof of your 2 claims here so that you can be on the record with the full extent of your allegations:

1. That Evan Duffield "mined 15% of the total currency with his buddies within a few hours of launch"

2. That Evan Duffield is "a scammer" (because that implies fraud)

Thanks

BF

Sure, just reason it through: no cryptocurrency creator launches without some hashing power ready to go. Whilst speculative miners appear quickly, a new PoW invariably delays their ability to rapidly starting mining. You can delay it further with things like not having a Windows miner available at launch. In Evan's case all he needed was 32 hours.

Knowing that it would appear we have two possible options: believing that Evan is a bumbling fool who and Darkcoin was beset by avid speculative miners, in which case Evan would only own a small portion of the blocks instamined in those 36 hours, or he is a manipulative scammer who owns a large portion of them. The evidence points to the latter.

According to Evan's post, "The Birth of Darkcoin", the following occurred on January 18th: "I announced the launch of Darkcoin (XCoin at the time) on BitcoinTalk. We launched later and immediately got stuck on block 42, I was new to the Bitcoin codebase and wasn’t sure what I missed so I announced we’d relaunch later."

So just so we're clear: he already flopped a launch and had just scrapped it and announced that he'd relaunch later. There was no problem with this, he was "new to the Bitcoin codebase" and introducing a brand new PoW, so nobody held it against him that it didn't work out the box.

He continues: "When we relaunched we had a rush of miners join causing a huge spike of coin production without it being able to adjust the difficulty quick enough, we just ended up spilling out coins. Retargeting happened every 576 blocks and could only increase the difficulty by four times, so it took about six retargets to get to a difficulty that was near 2.5 minutes per block. Later on, after the difficulty evened out we realized that there was a serious problem with the block reward calculation."

Why, at this point, did he not think to relaunch? By his own account coins were just "spilling out", which is clearly bad. Incidentally, he's talking nonsense (purposely or not) when he says that it was a "rush of miners" that caused a "huge spike of coin production". That would have happened even if there was just one miner (it would probably have been more efficient as there would have been no orphaned blocks), the issue was his low starting difficulty and high retargeting window.

He doubles-down with more deceptive talk: "I soon fixed this issue at block 4500, but none of us realized the amount of coins that had been issued at the time. At that point we didn’t even have a block explorer yet."

Just so we're on the same page, the first block was mined at 2014-01-19, 3:54am. Block 4500 was mined at 2014/01/20, 12:05pm, a mere 32 hours after launch.

If he'd already cancelled one messed up launch and relaunched the next day, why couldn't he do the same thing a second time?

Additionally, his attempt to deflect the source of the problem and make it appear to be naught-but-a-happy-accident is despicable and obviously false. Darkcoin is cloned from Bitcoin, and since Bitcoin 0.8.3 there has been a CLI and RPC command, gettxoutsetinfo, that tells you (among other things) the total coins emitted. It is a blatant and outright lie for him to claim that he didn't know the number of coins emitted. You don't need a block explorer for that at all.

To confirm that Darkcoin had gettxoutsetinfo at launch I grabbed the Windows binary from this early post on 2014-01-19, and checked it for the relevant function:



It's also nonsensical to reason that he didn't know of gettxoutsetinfo's existence. He'd been knee-deep in Bitcoin's code, and it's not exactly a secret command. If you can change the code that affects the block reward you can figure out how to run darkcoind gettxoutsetinfo and look for the "total_amount" bit.

In other words: we don't need to prove that Evan mined those coins directly to his wallet. The scam is easily proven by his attitude subsequent to them being mined, where either he only owns a few coins and is being purposely deceptive to enrich someone else, or he owns the bulk of them and is being purposely deceptive to enrich himself. The deception and failure to relaunch (when he'd been quite comfortable relaunching the first time round) are the nail in the proverbial coffin, who it most directly enriches is mere minutiae.
legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1000
I just wanted to piss off the regular trolls because I know that's just eating them up inside. I know, that was weak of me.

Bad boy.  Grin

The hard truth is that all of these Cryptonote and other "anon-altcoins" are not needed (and will never be needed) for 99% of users in a situation where DASH works as intended.
That is why their number one goal - to kill DASH, but do not develop their own coins. While Dash is still alive - all their "cryptographical fairy tales" have no practical meaning.
So resultative trolling and lies are the only hope for success for Monero and other "dreamers".

Obviously they will unite lots of very "best" people around this difficult and "intelligent" mission.
Good luck to their destructive community.  Cool

Disruptive technology is about destruction and the new world that rises from its ashes won't be built on the shoulders of a fraud.

Monero idealists are saying it doesn't matter that the hashrate is dominated by botnets.

Monero coins have been and are being minted by criminals using unaware people's computers and electricity without their consent, and the people buying those coins off the criminals are happily receiving stolen property while riding their high horse of crypto morality.

Coins being mined fast in the beginning is hardly a crime in comparison to a huge percentage of coins having been created through crime and now being stolen property.

Now that's some food for your "massive media assault".
+1 to alex-ru
+1 to illodin.

The only strategy of Trollero is to try to dash DASH.
Look all threads created by so-called Monero "Devs", they don't have any clue of what they are doing (developping I mean, in trolling yes they are quiet active).

Another dick pseudo dev came in Dash thread to say it's time to invested in Trollero (because 2 days ago we were on a downside trend) : Well hopefully nobody follow this shit advicce : look today : in the morning all top20 coin were green ALL, Oh execpt one : trollero  Roll Eyes ).

Did DASH dev created any thread to spit on Monero? : No because they are profesionals and have a minimum of ethics!

I even think that Bytecoin is better that Trollero, why? Because they know what they are doing, and it's the original CN coin not a fucking shit-clone.

Edit : I really think that smooth and fluffponny are making more damage to monero than anything.
I was a moment interested in this coin, but with the attitude of those pseudo-"dev", I can swear that I'll never ever invest a penny in this shit!
Pages:
Jump to: