Maybe you should take the time to look at our
Design and Development goals, which will likely take us several years to achieve, but which are based on solid cryptographic principles instead of imagining that you can shortcut consensus.
Well your not going to achieve them if your idea of "business acumen" is scurrying around bitcointalk with your nose out of joint that the "wrong coin" has got the most attention and maligning widely respected devs as being clueless about cryptography.
If implementing such a simple formula can't even be done correctly, then it would seem your trust in your "dev" is deeply misplaced.
Touche. You scored a point - unfortunately not the one made which is that most cryptocurrency technologies are based on some kind of established algorithms developed in academic research, Darkcoin included. Thats the easy bit. The hard bit is acquiring an $18m marketcap which takes more than having a few letters after your name and arriving at the stable after the horse has bolted. In case you hadn't noticed, the market is awash with sub-$3M cap cryptonote coins, all of them claiming technical supremacy - 14 at the last count no less. The entire coinmarketcap listing is also considerably more advanced technically than bitcoin but none of them ever made a dent in its valuation.
One of the reasons Monero never got off the ground is because it tried to base it's whole value offering on a piece of academic theory rather than trying to produce something of practical value
It's crazy how you misstate this. Let me ask you this: what has Darkcoin ever done for Bitcoin?…..Monero created the
OpenAlias standardAlthough that's a charming gesture, it wasn't quite my idea of "practical value".
I was alluding to legacy technical compliance with the retail insfrastucture as well as well as maximising the inheritance of Bitcoin's monetary valuation by way of 100% faithful cloning. In a financial context, bitcoin is starting to work in an opposite direction to the alts - i.e. it's drawing its value from the fact that it is an original, is trusted and static - as opposed to the alts which gain value from being technically advanced.
Darkcoin adds 1 missing (or deficient) monetary property to Bitcoin - that of fungibility by way of pre-emptively mixing the coin supply while still in the wallet. It remains to be seen whether the market thinks that 3rd party mixers can fulfil that role but one thing is for sure - they will never be an institutionalised solution and my own view is that the markets are fluid enough for another crypto to adopt that role (not a replacement but complimentary).
Monero and other cryptonotes, on the other hand, are in a completely different market. They are a clean sheet technology with an entirely different basis for their valuation - at the moment it's almost purely a hedging one. The technology is interesting and may, as you say, mature in years to come to acquire its own market but one thing we can agree on - they are not bitcoin clones and will therefore not inherit any of bitcoin's valuation. They need to do their own "rights of passage phase" which is one of the things that does get you marketcap in the end.
So I don't grudge you your "advanced tech" but I don't think you're doing yourself any favours going around slamming other devs for being technically incompetent when they're clearly not and when there is a valid, clearly documented basis for the design priorities they've made that are not the same priorities that you are attributing to them.