Topic: This message was too old and has been purged - page 12. (Read 26100 times)

Yeah i could not find it searching for "monero premine". I think what they were talking about was the crippled miner and they added it all up to like 2.6% of the coin that was "unfair mined". Most coins including bitcoin have issues with premine, instamine or unfair mining in the beginning. I can't think of any coins that don't have some kind of mining issue so 2+% is not a big deal imo.
Are you saying you never heard that and don't know the statistic i'm talking about? You might as well come clean because i will find it. It was in one of the main monero threads.

Some do, some don't, and in a sense they may be right. Bitcoin doesn't have exactly the best distribution. The first two year were a sort of slow motion instamine, though largely without the questions of integrity or incompetence. The game changed once cryptocurrencies matured to the point that coins trade and have value almost immediately.


Disagree. Some criticize the two year "instamine" on exactly that basis. More would and do criticize a two day instamine even more harshly.

Well designed coins that are not in fact intended as ponzi schemes should take care not to mine out too far ahead of adoption, and should not do so in a shady and/or incompetent way. That includes Bitcoin. I certainly don't see anything that was incompetent about Bitcoin's early years and very little that was shady about it. At the time, four years seemed like a reasonable adoption window to distribute 50% of the coins. This may have turned out to be wrong, but it was not unreasonable. Two days is unreasonable.

As I explained earlier the (essentially fake imo) market cap is easily explainable by most of the supply being controlled by insiders. With enough control of existing supply, reduction of new supply, redirecting new supply from mining to existing holders via PoS masternodes, etc., you can make the price and therefore "reported" market cap anything they want.

Unless there are outsiders willing to buy your holdings at the current price, the reported cap is meaningless, and I don't believe there are. I will acknowledge I can't prove that, but will will see how it plays out. You can't play supply games forever, though historically such schemes have gone on for a very long time on occasion.

I disagree. Normal people outside of crypto think even Bitcoin is a ponzi scam and don't want to buy it because the Bitcoiners just want to sell their coins to the new idiots. And they don't want to be that new idiot. For them it doesn't make any difference whether the coins were mined in a day or a year.

And what perception should we be getting ? That you guys are prepared to let your project stand on its merits without getting stuck into tribal flamewars or maligning the technical competence of other devs, or "recommending that competing coins be ditched" ?


Really ? That remark's a bit difficult to square with the propaganda factory of the last few pages such as:


Wrong. There's practically zero concern about the so called "DRK instamine" otherwise it would never have sustained its success and reached a number 5 marketcap more than a year after it was launched. Nor would it have consistently widened its gap over Monero from a factor of 3 a few months ago to nearly 6 now.


So are we all and believe it or not many of us actually appreciate diversity and the fact that the anonymous 'bandwagon' has several strings to its bow. But the tactics you guys use much of the time don't remotely do justice to that sentiment or the positions your hold within your own project. There doesn't seem to be any other reason for that other than the fact that you've got chips on your shoulders the size of houses over your market recognition deficit.

Like g4q34g4qg47ww, I suggest you try getting on with the job, let the market take care of itself and find some footsoldiers to do your mud-slinging at the competition for you.

Good question harold. I am interested in further analysis from the OP, if he chooses to do it (or others do)

It does make a difference.

There is such a thing as integrity and reputation, and to normal people outside of the sociopaths who are all too common around cryptocurrencies, those do matter, plus as I mentioned before the practical fact that outsiders can't tell the difference between incompetence and fraud, and rationally dislike both. Perhaps the practical consideration might not matter if the original development team were no longer involved at all, but even then the reputation and integrity of the brand would be permanently damaged compared to similar but undamaged ones, which is going to be very hard to overcome in a competitive market.

DRK is indelibly tarnished, and there is no good reason to pick such a coin among a universe of many, unless you are one of the insiders who are benefitting from this. That's not FUD, it is fact.

They had, at most, slightly over 50% of the hash rate for various periods (not the entire time). I can tell you that I mined without the optimized miner and had a good fraction of the hash rate for a while, as did a number of others, so it is clear their share of the 5% was certainly well under 5%, perhaps at most 2.5%, which comes to around 450 000 coins. They spent hundreds of thousands of dollars doing this, over a period of months, which even if you don't believe they sold (in large part to pay for the mining) which certainly I do believe, amounts to a major investment, quite possibly higher than the price of the coin even today. They did not mine millions of coins over a couple of days for very little cost.

You're also confusing two totally different issues entirely. No one claims that mining is totally "fair" at all times for everyone. People have ASICs with different efficiencies, different electricity costs, and all manner of optimized GPU miners. That's totally separate issue from the rate of coin distribution and whether or not millions of coins were distributed to a few people in a couple of days.

FUD is a symptom of instamine, which won't cause any concrete problems, only FUD. People in the future will find out many coins were mined fast early on, for them it won't make any difference whether they were mined in 2 seconds or in 2 years.

I agree most of went down here should've been in the DRk vs XMR thread https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/drk-vs-xmr-warez-962235
Whilst i enjoyed the popcorn I am none the wiser about the attack vector described in the OP.

I haven't learned much new but have rather been reminded of the (arguable) shortcomings of DRK and XMR respectively.

If building a python script is all it might theoretically take to prove this or not then lots of people here are qualified to do just that.

Do we know if this is a problem for DRK or not? Things r still unclear.

Dgar, the guy who built his own optimized miner, wrote an entire article on it as well as how he sold all of his coins right after he mined them, feel free to look it up(P.S, the same optimized miner thing happened with Bitcoin, as I said earlier, anyone with the know how can create their own optimized miners, look at Bitcoins first GPU's/ASICs).

Also, these coins are supposed to be "currencies", are they not? They are supposed to be "decentralized", are they not? So then why would a developer purposely change their coin's emission rate on their own accord, as well as the total coin supply?(Which is what Darkcoin's developer did several times). The very "social contract" has been violated, since the coin's parameters have been severely changed after conception. That means Darkcoin is not a decentralized cryptocurrency, but a centralized pennystock. Furthermore, Darkcoin's instamine was over 10%, not 2%.

FUD is a problem yes, but in this case it is the symptom and not the cause. The cause can only be addressed by moving to a different coin that wasn't instamined. It will forever be the case that people researching dark will hit google and find

this: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scam-darkcoin-instamine-2-millions-drks-50-of-darkcoin-in-circulation-560138
or this: http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=a_massive_investigation_of_instamines_and_fastmines_for_the_top_alt_coins#darkcoin

You can't put humpty dumpty back together, sorry.

Please post a link where you have reported this "bricking" issue because I'm not familiar with it.

Shouldn't you turds be building a release that doesn't brick my laptop every time i try to open it? You spend a lot of time bitching and not working.

So the concrete and actual problem is FUD. Agreed pretty much.

Interestingly, our development team includes seven core team members and several other developers and important contributors.


So you probably shouldn't judge a team or the work on the basis of your opinion of some of our posts. In fact if you are basing your opinion of the team on the relative few of us who do post on bitcointalk at all you are probably getting a very misleading perception (for better or worse) since most do not.

But as I said you should make up your own mind about which coin(s) to support if any. I can't say that your own criteria are incorrect.

I submit that the developement team of a coin is quite an important factor to consider when deciding whether to make an investment.

I am fully aware of your tech, which is why i bought in the past and had considered buying again. I don't think it makes economic sense for anyone to purchase monero at this time because of the reasons i stated, emission curve and no hope of adoption. In addition to those reasons, I now have quite a negative opinion of the dev team and their ability to control themselves. Kudos

So monero had a optimized miner out while roughly 5% of the supply was mined.  Who really knows for sure how much monero was mined with these miners and if any of it is still held.  You believe the words of a scammer and a crook?  Did they end up with more than 2%?   DRK's so called instamine was like 2% i think based on some of the claims I seen.

Monero's community has had many talks about changing the emission.  Unofficial votes have been for it but the devs have been against it (not sure if there were official votes).  They want to sit back on their high horse and be able to say they never messed with their emissions even though they know it needs to be changed.  I believe that some of the monero whales have let the markets plummet in an attempt to build support for the change.  Now they look down on DRK for fixing its issues and think its honorable to do nothing to fix theirs.

Ok, you guys have fun.  I'm done stirring the pot for now.  I'm going out.

Look, criticism goes both ways and we get more than our fair share of it.

When I post on these things I do so as a long-term cryptocurrency enthusiast whose interests go beyond just Monero.

Also, we actively discourage the cultish sort of dev worship that drives a lot of other coins. Whether you like or dislike the Monero devs is not why we want you to support the coin. Evaluate the technology, the work being done, the economics, etc. If you dislike the emission curve (at least for now), for example, then you probably shouldn't buy, regardless of how much you might like, say, tacotime or perhaps (sometimes?) me. Let the substance speak for itself and leave personalities out of it. Cryptocurrency is not your favorite sports team or singer.

Sure go ahead, I don't discourage this at all. It was tried with Quazarcoin and that seems to have died, but it may not have been a sincere effort in the first place.

In reality I talk to a lot of people who are considering getting involved with Monero and a few who are evaluating both Monero and DRK, and in practice there is a lot more concern about the DRK instamine, etc. then about some miners who got a portion of the first few percent of coins on the cheap. But if you think this is a big deal and hurts the coin today, go for it!