I think it is interesting to contrast of how Evan addressed the stated issue in this thread, which is about the coin he works on afterall, asked that the guy continue his work and contact him if he actually has any meaningful results.
By way of contrast, the XMR devs are distracted all day in a thread that is not even about their coin, sqauking like a bunch of jelly-jerkoffs.
I bought quite a pile of monero when its trading symbol was still MRO, was not on poloniex yet, and this was the only exchange: https://cryptonote.exchange.to/
I sold at quite a profit about 2 weeks after it hit poloniex and never bought more.
I noticed that its price was back to its pre-poloniex days recently and was considering buying back in. I stopped by the thread and noticed smooth was handling some FUD that day, was being patient with trolls and basically trying to keep the ship sailing, was pretty impressed at the time and remained open to buying back in, but don't like the emmission curve or liklihood of any significant adoption for years. Fluffypony always comes off bad but tacotime is usually alright and i had a decent impression of smooth.
But, you guys are ridiculous! Totally unprofessional and you wear your jealousy on your face! Get to work on your coin! Why are you still here???
Topic: This message was too old and has been purged - page 13. (Read 26100 times)
On the other hand, we know for a fact that monero was launched with a deliberately reduced miner for the general public and an optimized miner for the devs. The original devs cashed out their huge profits and left the community holding bags. Luckily a team stepped up to take it over.
There was no "huge profit" for the original devs even. They might have made a little but if you take the total coins mined, subtract those mined by dga, and subtract those mined by people using the public miner (who still did quite well on it), there isn't a whole lot left.
I'm pretty sure the original devs did not expect the community to shove them out and fix the miner within a couple of months the way it played out and were caught unprepared. They likely wanted to use their optimized miner in secret for a long time, or perhaps more likely the whole "bitmonero" project (as with quazarcoin, fantomcoin, etc. etc.) was just a sham to crowd out clones and prop up their real scam, bytecoin (which did have an 82% premine). In fact they intended to merge mine bitmonero with bytecoin.
Still off topic though. Nice job obfuscating DRK's problems by rehashing early cryptonote history guys.
There was no premise at all, and no lying about it. WTF, I have no idea where you got that from?
I thought monero was premined, i get all the shitcoins confused. Seems like i saw it was like 2+% premined. Maybe it was another anon shitcoin but pretty sure it was monero. I'll find it.
"Pretty sure" = "dead wrong" in this case.
Soooooo..
No proof.
Just FUD, and magic python deanonymizer.
Now just boring rehash of the last year.
To the grey list you go!
No proof.
Just FUD, and magic python deanonymizer.
Now just boring rehash of the last year.
To the grey list you go!
snip
The Monero insiders had nothing to do with the crippled miner, it came from bytecoin and it was Monero who fixed it, but more to the point it didn't affect the supply at all. Unless you were around during the first month or two it doesn't affect you in the slightest. Someone was going to mine those coins in a few months (roughly 5% percent of the total supply, just as planned) after all.
snip
The Monero insiders had nothing to do with the crippled miner, it came from bytecoin and it was Monero who fixed it, but more to the point it didn't affect the supply at all. Unless you were around during the first month or two it doesn't affect you in the slightest. Someone was going to mine those coins in a few months (roughly 5% percent of the total supply, just as planned) after all.
snip
OOH so monero had an unfair launch... miners with the optimized miner got a ton more coins than miners with the shitty one? hmmm so someone had an advantage and some one had a disadvantage.... Sounds unfair to me. Oh, where did all those coins go?
I bought them so its fairly distributed
kuriso is known xmr hater on polo trollbox, stealthcoin is a known xmr hater on this forum and the rest defending this scam are letting their bags talk.
please make it more obvious.
If you look closely you will notice that i don't like Darkcoin either.. but its not about that which matters is Bitcoiners are playing dirty tricks again.
fair enough, market manipulation will always exist, one thing we should not tolerate is emission manipulation.
"one thing we should not tolerate is emission manipulation" True, deliberate emission manipulation is a problem. Dark launched and had an issue. They fixed it. What has to be determined is if that issue was deliberate or a mistake. No code is ever perfect. There will always be issues and fixes for those issues. Was it deliberate? I honestly don't think so but who am I? I'm just a monero 'hater' lol (trolling the above label as a xmr hater).
On the other hand, we know for a fact that monero was launched with a deliberately reduced miner for the general public and an optimized miner for the devs. The original devs cashed out their huge profits and left the community holding bags. Luckily a team stepped up to take it over.
Prove DRK's error was a deliberate mistake aimed at ripping off the community and you'll have a case.
Ask yourself, why would a developer purposely release a coin with no future goals or intentions at the time, with 500 coins per block, on a linux only release, then drastically cut the block reward several times over after a few hours have passed, leaving over 2million coins mined by a few individuals in the span of a few hours? The instamine was intended. There is literally no other explanation.
I would assume that there is an enormous difference between a currency(Monero) that has had miners being able to make for themselves optimized mining code, which is bound to happen for any cryptocurrency(And has happened to Bitcoin), than a coin(Darkcoin) that has had it's initial block reward of 500 cut many times over to the benefit of a few individuals who happened to be mining within the first few hours of release on linux...
You could mine it as well 
I didn't mine but I bought in feb.
Darkcoin at the beginning was a shitcoin (as any other alt), but with not anonymous dev. There were coins flying around for nothing.
Where were you or where were trolls at that time?
I'm saying the difference is that Monero's emission rate has not been tampered with, so optimized miner or not, it doesn't matter since anyone with the knowledge can create their own "optimized" mining software(Just as the first people created mining GPU's/ ASIC's for Bitcoin). However, Darkcoin's emission rate has been cut many, many times over after over 10% of it's entire max coin supply was mined in a few hours on a very "restricted" linux-only release. That is borderline scamming what happened in Darkcoin as the few individuals that mined during the first hours on a Linux only release got more than 10% of Darkcoin's entire coin supply(2million+ coins), then the block reward was cut several times over, making those few individuals' darkcoins worth much more(Borderline scam).
Is the reason you didn't buy or mine Darkcoin early on that you expected the emission to remain certain way so it will be better for you to buy or mine later? If not, then how do you feel you were scammed? Because if you didn't base your decision a year ago on the emission of that time and got surprised later when it had changed, then the situation for you is exactly the same as if the emission would've been originally programmed to be exactly like it actually turned out to be.
snip
The Monero insiders had nothing to do with the crippled miner, it came from bytecoin and it was Monero who fixed it, but more to the point it didn't affect the supply at all. Unless you were around during the first month or two it doesn't affect you in the slightest. Someone was going to mine those coins in a few months (roughly 5% percent of the total supply, just as planned) after all.
snip
The Monero insiders had nothing to do with the crippled miner, it came from bytecoin and it was Monero who fixed it, but more to the point it didn't affect the supply at all. Unless you were around during the first month or two it doesn't affect you in the slightest. Someone was going to mine those coins in a few months (roughly 5% percent of the total supply, just as planned) after all.
snip
OOH so monero had an unfair launch... miners with the optimized miner got a ton more coins than miners with the shitty one? hmmm so someone had an advantage and some one had a disadvantage.... Sounds unfair to me. Oh, where did all those coins go?
I bought them so its fairly distributed
kuriso is known xmr hater on polo trollbox, stealthcoin is a known xmr hater on this forum and the rest defending this scam are letting their bags talk.
please make it more obvious.
If you look closely you will notice that i don't like Darkcoin either.. but its not about that which matters is Bitcoiners are playing dirty tricks again.
fair enough, market manipulation will always exist, one thing we should not tolerate is emission manipulation.
"one thing we should not tolerate is emission manipulation" True, deliberate emission manipulation is a problem. Dark launched and had an issue. They fixed it. What has to be determined is if that issue was deliberate or a mistake. No code is ever perfect. There will always be issues and fixes for those issues. Was it deliberate? I honestly don't think so but who am I? I'm just a monero 'hater' lol (trolling the above label as a xmr hater).
On the other hand, we know for a fact that monero was launched with a deliberately reduced miner for the general public and an optimized miner for the devs. The original devs cashed out their huge profits and left the community holding bags. Luckily a team stepped up to take it over.
Prove DRK's error was a deliberate mistake aimed at ripping off the community and you'll have a case.
There was no premise at all, and no lying about it. WTF, I have no idea where you got that from?
I thought monero was premined, i get all the shitcoins confused. Seems like i saw it was like 2+% premined. Maybe it was another anon shitcoin but pretty sure it was monero. I'll find it.
Not sure if trolling or trying to make up lies, Monero was never premined.
So in the face of scrutiny, you prefer to invent lies to splatter? Hilarious.
There was no premise at all, and no lying about it. WTF, I have no idea where you got that from?
I thought monero was premined, i get all the shitcoins confused. Seems like i saw it was like 2+% premined. Maybe it was another anon shitcoin but pretty sure it was monero. I'll find it.
I would assume that there is an enormous difference between a currency(Monero) that has had miners being able to make for themselves optimized mining code, which is bound to happen for any cryptocurrency(And has happened to Bitcoin), than a coin(Darkcoin) that has had it's initial block reward of 500 cut many times over to the benefit of a few individuals who happened to be mining within the first few hours of release on linux...
You could mine it as well I didn't mine but I bought in feb.
Darkcoin at the beginning was a shitcoin (as any other alt), but with not anonymous dev. There were coins flying around for nothing.
Where were you or where were trolls at that time?
I'm saying the difference is that Monero's emission rate has not been tampered with, so optimized miner or not, it doesn't matter since anyone with the knowledge can create their own "optimized" mining software(Just as the first people created mining GPU's/ ASIC's for Bitcoin). However, Darkcoin's emission rate has been cut many, many times over after over 10% of it's entire max coin supply was mined in a few hours on a very "restricted" linux-only release. That is borderline scamming what happened in Darkcoin as the few individuals that mined during the first hours on a Linux only release got more than 10% of Darkcoin's entire coin supply(2million+ coins), then the block reward was cut several times over, making those few individuals' darkcoins worth much more.
Oh, where did all those coins go?
Well, it looks like they were fairly distributed...
Quote from: dga
I might write about BBR, but it wasn't nearly as fun a story (or profitable) as XMR. I obviously had an optimized miner for it, but decided to take a different strategy with BBR of mining a lot, holding it, and then contributing code back to the coin to try to improve its value, so I spent a lot of time taking those optimizations and putting them into the open source simpleminer. In contrast, with XMR, I just mined and sold instantly.
It wasn't as profitable as keeping the xmr miner completely private, but it's hard to compare given the market cap difference.
What I've found is that overall, "totally private miner" (XMR) >> "optimize, mine, release" (BBR) > "convince the developers to pay to open source" (PTS) > "open source miner with optional dev fee" (RIC) > "give code away and ask for donations" (scrypt).
Not economically surprising, but some good lessons in there for future coin developers who want good miners -- get someone to do it ahead of time.
I would assume that there is an enormous difference between a currency(Monero) that has had miners being able to make for themselves optimized mining code, which is bound to happen for any cryptocurrency(And has happened to Bitcoin), than a coin(Darkcoin) that has had it's initial block reward of 500 cut many times over to the benefit of a few individuals who happened to be mining within the first few hours of release on linux...
You could mine it as well I didn't mine but I bought in feb.
Darkcoin at the beginning was a shitcoin (as any other alt), but with not anonymous dev. There were coins flying around for nothing.
Where were you or where were trolls at that time?
snip
The Monero insiders had nothing to do with the crippled miner, it came from bytecoin and it was Monero who fixed it, but more to the point it didn't affect the supply at all. Unless you were around during the first month or two it doesn't affect you in the slightest. Someone was going to mine those coins in a few months (roughly 5% percent of the total supply, just as planned) after all.
snip
The Monero insiders had nothing to do with the crippled miner, it came from bytecoin and it was Monero who fixed it, but more to the point it didn't affect the supply at all. Unless you were around during the first month or two it doesn't affect you in the slightest. Someone was going to mine those coins in a few months (roughly 5% percent of the total supply, just as planned) after all.
snip
OOH so monero had an unfair launch... miners with the optimized miner got a ton more coins than miners with the shitty one? hmmm so someone had an advantage and some one had a disadvantage.... Sounds unfair to me. Oh, where did all those coins go?
I bought them so its fairly distributed
kuriso is known xmr hater on polo trollbox, stealthcoin is a known xmr hater on this forum and the rest defending this scam are letting their bags talk.
please make it more obvious.
You, kazuki49 are really a special case.
Someone who don't understand darksend created this thread to undermine darkcoin. In response to that we, who understand darksend, are trying to defend this tech.
You used the opportunity to, once again, say about beginning of drk and plug monero
I would assume that there is an enormous difference between a currency(Monero) that has had miners being able to make for themselves optimized mining code, which is bound to happen for any cryptocurrency(And has happened to Bitcoin), than a coin(Darkcoin) that has had it's initial block reward of 500 cut many times over to the benefit of a few individuals who happened to be mining within the first few hours of release on linux...
snip
The Monero insiders had nothing to do with the crippled miner, it came from bytecoin and it was Monero who fixed it, but more to the point it didn't affect the supply at all. Unless you were around during the first month or two it doesn't affect you in the slightest. Someone was going to mine those coins in a few months (roughly 5% percent of the total supply, just as planned) after all.
snip
The Monero insiders had nothing to do with the crippled miner, it came from bytecoin and it was Monero who fixed it, but more to the point it didn't affect the supply at all. Unless you were around during the first month or two it doesn't affect you in the slightest. Someone was going to mine those coins in a few months (roughly 5% percent of the total supply, just as planned) after all.
snip
OOH so monero had an unfair launch... miners with the optimized miner got a ton more coins than miners with the shitty one? hmmm so someone had an advantage and some one had a disadvantage.... Sounds unfair to me.
Oh, were you a miner? If not then you weren't affected. Somewhat surprisingly though, even unoptimized miners still made very good money.
Quote
Oh, where did all those coins go?
They were sold, as stated by dga and others who were involved in it. They were just in it for the money and had no real interest in Monero. dba went on to work on BBR, a competing cryptonote, although he seems to have lost interest in that too.
snip
The Monero insiders had nothing to do with the crippled miner, it came from bytecoin and it was Monero who fixed it, but more to the point it didn't affect the supply at all. Unless you were around during the first month or two it doesn't affect you in the slightest. Someone was going to mine those coins in a few months (roughly 5% percent of the total supply, just as planned) after all.
snip
The Monero insiders had nothing to do with the crippled miner, it came from bytecoin and it was Monero who fixed it, but more to the point it didn't affect the supply at all. Unless you were around during the first month or two it doesn't affect you in the slightest. Someone was going to mine those coins in a few months (roughly 5% percent of the total supply, just as planned) after all.
snip
OOH so monero had an unfair launch... miners with the optimized miner got a ton more coins than miners with the shitty one? hmmm so someone had an advantage and some one had a disadvantage.... Sounds unfair to me. Oh, where did all those coins go?
I bought them so its fairly distributed
kuriso is known xmr hater on polo trollbox, stealthcoin is a known xmr hater on this forum and the rest defending this scam are letting their bags talk.
please make it more obvious.
Hater? naw not really. More of a realist. I would rather attempt to warn people they are getting suckered than sit back and watch them loose their money.
Correct, I'd recommend moving on to another coin that doesn't have the baggage, and I do recommend that when people ask me.
I'm not a fan of the whole idea of masternodes, nor a fan of PoS coins, so the tech has nothing to interest me, but if I were I would clone DRK and relaunch it clean the way we did with Monero.
I wasn't gonna post in this thread until I saw this, as I like both DRK and XMR. The CPU miner that you all released on launch was de-optimized to 100x less than its optimized speed. Either maliciousness, incompetence, or negligence from being in a hurry to get launched. In any way, XMR was NOT a fair launch by any means.
I disagree, and I'll quote the expert on the topic who has nothing whatsoever to do with Monero:
Quote from: dga
This would be a very reasonable thing to assert if I had anything to do with Monero. I don't. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, none of the people who profited from early optimized Monero mining had anything to do with crippling the code in the first place.
Think of it this way: You step in and inherit a legacy codebase for a promising and interesting new cryptocurrency. You're immediately beset with demands -- fix bugs, release binaries, answer help questions, etc. In retrospect, it turns out that the code you took over had been de-optimized by its original creators. Is that your fault? Of course not. What's the standard that we should hold the Monero developers to? To fix any bugs or deliberate weaknesses as fast as they can after they become aware of it. To get up to speed and review and understand the codebase they inherited as quickly as a reasonable developer can do.
Think of it this way: You step in and inherit a legacy codebase for a promising and interesting new cryptocurrency. You're immediately beset with demands -- fix bugs, release binaries, answer help questions, etc. In retrospect, it turns out that the code you took over had been de-optimized by its original creators. Is that your fault? Of course not. What's the standard that we should hold the Monero developers to? To fix any bugs or deliberate weaknesses as fast as they can after they become aware of it. To get up to speed and review and understand the codebase they inherited as quickly as a reasonable developer can do.
Pretty clear, and like I said, it still didn't affect the total supply at all, and is off topic. It says a lot that the best response DRK supporters have of their own flaws is to aim criticism at another. It's ineffective and pathetic.
Ineffective and pathetic are your monero plugs
snip
The Monero insiders had nothing to do with the crippled miner, it came from bytecoin and it was Monero who fixed it, but more to the point it didn't affect the supply at all. Unless you were around during the first month or two it doesn't affect you in the slightest. Someone was going to mine those coins in a few months (roughly 5% percent of the total supply, just as planned) after all.
snip
The Monero insiders had nothing to do with the crippled miner, it came from bytecoin and it was Monero who fixed it, but more to the point it didn't affect the supply at all. Unless you were around during the first month or two it doesn't affect you in the slightest. Someone was going to mine those coins in a few months (roughly 5% percent of the total supply, just as planned) after all.
snip
OOH so monero had an unfair launch... miners with the optimized miner got a ton more coins than miners with the shitty one? hmmm so someone had an advantage and some one had a disadvantage.... Sounds unfair to me. Oh, where did all those coins go?
What happened to the original devs? Why did they leave?
The original "bitmonero" dev (almost certainly the same as the byte coin devs, although using a pseudonym to try to appear independent) were given the boot by the community exactly because of stuff like this.
Correct, I'd recommend moving on to another coin that doesn't have the baggage, and I do recommend that when people ask me.
I'm not a fan of the whole idea of masternodes, nor a fan of PoS coins, so the tech has nothing to interest me, but if I were I would clone DRK and relaunch it clean the way we did with Monero.
I wasn't gonna post in this thread until I saw this, as I like both DRK and XMR. The CPU miner that you all released on launch was de-optimized to 100x less than its optimized speed. Either maliciousness, incompetence, or negligence from being in a hurry to get launched. In any way, XMR was NOT a fair launch by any means.
I disagree, and I'll quote the expert on the topic who has nothing whatsoever to do with Monero:
Quote from: dga
This would be a very reasonable thing to assert if I had anything to do with Monero. I don't. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, none of the people who profited from early optimized Monero mining had anything to do with crippling the code in the first place.
Think of it this way: You step in and inherit a legacy codebase for a promising and interesting new cryptocurrency. You're immediately beset with demands -- fix bugs, release binaries, answer help questions, etc. In retrospect, it turns out that the code you took over had been de-optimized by its original creators. Is that your fault? Of course not. What's the standard that we should hold the Monero developers to? To fix any bugs or deliberate weaknesses as fast as they can after they become aware of it. To get up to speed and review and understand the codebase they inherited as quickly as a reasonable developer can do.
Think of it this way: You step in and inherit a legacy codebase for a promising and interesting new cryptocurrency. You're immediately beset with demands -- fix bugs, release binaries, answer help questions, etc. In retrospect, it turns out that the code you took over had been de-optimized by its original creators. Is that your fault? Of course not. What's the standard that we should hold the Monero developers to? To fix any bugs or deliberate weaknesses as fast as they can after they become aware of it. To get up to speed and review and understand the codebase they inherited as quickly as a reasonable developer can do.
Pretty clear, and like I said, it still didn't affect the total supply at all, and is off topic. It says a lot that the best response DRK supporters have of their own flaws is to aim criticism at another. It's ineffective and pathetic.
Jump to: