Why the darkcoin/dash/dashpay instamine matters - page 19.

minersday

hero member

Activity: 1484

Merit: 535

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 05, 2015, 03:59:58 PM

Quote from: illodin on August 05, 2015, 02:47:08 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Privacy should be inherent at the protocol level, not attempted as an added feature

Why?

Because mathematically proven 'good crypto' is preferable to Dash's 'bad crypto.'

https://downloads.getmonero.org/whitepaper_review.pdf

You can't simply glue privacy onto a Bitcoin-like transparent protocol/blockchain. A house is only as strong as its foundation.

And why would this matter, Windows was built on top of DOS, and still it's the most widest used OS, and that's only one example.

illodin

hero member

Activity: 966

Merit: 1003

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 05, 2015, 03:59:58 PM

Quote from: illodin on August 05, 2015, 02:47:08 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Privacy should be inherent at the protocol level, not attempted as an added feature

Why?

Because mathematically proven 'good crypto' is preferable to Dash's 'bad crypto.'

https://downloads.getmonero.org/whitepaper_review.pdf

You can't simply glue privacy onto a Bitcoin-like transparent protocol/blockchain. A house is only as strong as its foundation.

Do you think you answered the question?

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: illodin on August 05, 2015, 02:47:08 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Privacy should be inherent at the protocol level, not attempted as an added feature

Why?

Because mathematically proven 'good crypto' is preferable to Dash's 'bad crypto.'

https://downloads.getmonero.org/whitepaper_review.pdf

You can't simply glue privacy onto a Bitcoin-like transparent protocol/blockchain. A house is only as strong as its foundation.

minersday

hero member

Activity: 1484

Merit: 535

Quote from: generalizethis on August 05, 2015, 03:05:15 PM

Quote from: minersday on August 05, 2015, 02:38:50 PM

Quote from: generalizethis on August 05, 2015, 02:06:21 PM

Quote from: minersday on August 05, 2015, 01:01:05 PM

Quote from: generalizethis on August 05, 2015, 02:03:44 AM

Quote from: minersday on August 04, 2015, 11:06:19 PM

Quote from: smooth on August 04, 2015, 10:58:37 PM

That's exactly the point.

Corporations and presidents have plenty of critics calling them out when what they do is seen as wrong, do they not?

Yes there are, but you know what, you can't satisfy every person out there, there are always critics and different thinkers, that's the way life is...
But that's the freedom of speech, which is great!

Quote from: smooth

I don't know exactly what Bill Gates told IBM, investors, etc. Let's stick with what we do know -- about Dash -- and that's referenced in the first post here and subsequent discussion.
We can leave digging into Microsoft to the dozens or hundreds of lawyers, writers and journalists who have investigated it over the decades. Why should Dash get a pass from the same scrutiny

This is exactly my point, we don't know the future of this yet.

We certainly know dash's past even though they keep changing the name on us. And if you think institutional investors (whom dash will need to get to their moon objective) are going to look past shadiness, you need to think more clearly on the subject.

"You want me to trust your assertion that you accidentally mined 2 million coins and didn't relaunch to validate your claim of a fair launch?" says Institutional Investor.

"But it was an accident!" says Evan.

"Get out of my office." says Institutional Investor.

That's one way of looking at it and there are several others, you certainly are entitled to that.
But there are also other ways of looking at it, for one there's the matter of inventors compensation (see law discussions on this). If you claim it's fraud, some other could claim it's inventors compensation and there's nothing wrong with that one. That's the thing that kickstarts projects keeps inventor happy and motivated to develop the product and so on...
There are several inventors of software products that are rich as hell. I'm not envy of them, they certainly earned it....

That's a faulty comparison because inventors and corporations don't accidentally give themselves a huge payoff and then claim that it was fairly launched--doing that sort of thing during an IPO would land you in hot water. There seems to be a cognitive dissonance when I say that the problem is that he gave himself a payoff (accidentally) , but also claims it was a fair launch. If Evan had just given himself a payoff, but never claimed that the coin wasn't insta or fast-mined there wouldn't be a problem. At least I wouldn't have a problem with it. But as it stands, it looks like he's bating people into one perception of the coin, and then when investors find out, they either get out or play a (conscious or unconscious) game of greater fool and hope that others on the outside will rationalize it the same way they have to because they are stuck with their own (conscious or unconscious) buyer's remorse. Smooth did a public service with this thread, sorry it ruins the gameplan.

You know that investors/corporations only talk money. As long as they make the money they don't care if somebody else has some funds or any other stuff for that matter and that's the cold fact.

It's a cold rationalization. Good luck finding greater fools. Wink

I would add, that if you knew or had a hunch that putting 1 dollar into stocks would grow in a few days to 10 dollars, wouldn't you take it? As long as it's legal of course.
I know I would and would be tempting to invest more, for example 100 dollars that would be 1000 dollars..
but that's only my opinion, if this makes a person a fool then so be it, but he/she would be a rich fool =)

generalizethis

legendary

Activity: 1750

Merit: 1036

Facts are more efficient than fud

Quote from: minersday on August 05, 2015, 02:38:50 PM

Quote from: generalizethis on August 05, 2015, 02:06:21 PM

Quote from: minersday on August 05, 2015, 01:01:05 PM

Quote from: generalizethis on August 05, 2015, 02:03:44 AM

Quote from: minersday on August 04, 2015, 11:06:19 PM

Quote from: smooth on August 04, 2015, 10:58:37 PM

That's exactly the point.

Corporations and presidents have plenty of critics calling them out when what they do is seen as wrong, do they not?

Yes there are, but you know what, you can't satisfy every person out there, there are always critics and different thinkers, that's the way life is...
But that's the freedom of speech, which is great!

Quote from: smooth

I don't know exactly what Bill Gates told IBM, investors, etc. Let's stick with what we do know -- about Dash -- and that's referenced in the first post here and subsequent discussion.
We can leave digging into Microsoft to the dozens or hundreds of lawyers, writers and journalists who have investigated it over the decades. Why should Dash get a pass from the same scrutiny

This is exactly my point, we don't know the future of this yet.

We certainly know dash's past even though they keep changing the name on us. And if you think institutional investors (whom dash will need to get to their moon objective) are going to look past shadiness, you need to think more clearly on the subject.

"You want me to trust your assertion that you accidentally mined 2 million coins and didn't relaunch to validate your claim of a fair launch?" says Institutional Investor.

"But it was an accident!" says Evan.

"Get out of my office." says Institutional Investor.

That's one way of looking at it and there are several others, you certainly are entitled to that.
But there are also other ways of looking at it, for one there's the matter of inventors compensation (see law discussions on this). If you claim it's fraud, some other could claim it's inventors compensation and there's nothing wrong with that one. That's the thing that kickstarts projects keeps inventor happy and motivated to develop the product and so on...
There are several inventors of software products that are rich as hell. I'm not envy of them, they certainly earned it....

That's a faulty comparison because inventors and corporations don't accidentally give themselves a huge payoff and then claim that it was fairly launched--doing that sort of thing during an IPO would land you in hot water. There seems to be a cognitive dissonance when I say that the problem is that he gave himself a payoff (accidentally) , but also claims it was a fair launch. If Evan had just given himself a payoff, but never claimed that the coin wasn't insta or fast-mined there wouldn't be a problem. At least I wouldn't have a problem with it. But as it stands, it looks like he's bating people into one perception of the coin, and then when investors find out, they either get out or play a (conscious or unconscious) game of greater fool and hope that others on the outside will rationalize it the same way they have to because they are stuck with their own (conscious or unconscious) buyer's remorse. Smooth did a public service with this thread, sorry it ruins the gameplan.

You know that investors/corporations only talk money. As long as they make the money they don't care if somebody else has some funds or any other stuff for that matter and that's the cold fact.

It's a cold rationalization. Good luck finding greater fools. Wink

illodin

hero member

Activity: 966

Merit: 1003

Quote from: ?? on ??

Privacy should be inherent at the protocol level, not attempted as an added feature

Why?

Quote from: ?? on ??

It is not a matter of if the masternode system will fail, it is a matter of when

Whether they are taken down with subpoenas or hackers the system is not designed to last. The system was designed to maximize income for the beneficiaries of the instamine at the expense of everyone else.

If masternodes start getting taken down by the authorities of some country, they get moved elsewhere, the incentive to run them is there and getting larger the less there are nodes / the more are taken down. But why would they have a problem with masternodes btw? Hackers however, hmm, how?

minersday

hero member

Activity: 1484

Merit: 535

Quote from: generalizethis on August 05, 2015, 02:06:21 PM

Quote from: minersday on August 05, 2015, 01:01:05 PM

Quote from: generalizethis on August 05, 2015, 02:03:44 AM

Quote from: minersday on August 04, 2015, 11:06:19 PM

Quote from: smooth on August 04, 2015, 10:58:37 PM

That's exactly the point.

Corporations and presidents have plenty of critics calling them out when what they do is seen as wrong, do they not?

Yes there are, but you know what, you can't satisfy every person out there, there are always critics and different thinkers, that's the way life is...
But that's the freedom of speech, which is great!

Quote from: smooth

I don't know exactly what Bill Gates told IBM, investors, etc. Let's stick with what we do know -- about Dash -- and that's referenced in the first post here and subsequent discussion.
We can leave digging into Microsoft to the dozens or hundreds of lawyers, writers and journalists who have investigated it over the decades. Why should Dash get a pass from the same scrutiny

This is exactly my point, we don't know the future of this yet.

We certainly know dash's past even though they keep changing the name on us. And if you think institutional investors (whom dash will need to get to their moon objective) are going to look past shadiness, you need to think more clearly on the subject.

"You want me to trust your assertion that you accidentally mined 2 million coins and didn't relaunch to validate your claim of a fair launch?" says Institutional Investor.

"But it was an accident!" says Evan.

"Get out of my office." says Institutional Investor.

That's one way of looking at it and there are several others, you certainly are entitled to that.
But there are also other ways of looking at it, for one there's the matter of inventors compensation (see law discussions on this). If you claim it's fraud, some other could claim it's inventors compensation and there's nothing wrong with that one. That's the thing that kickstarts projects keeps inventor happy and motivated to develop the product and so on...
There are several inventors of software products that are rich as hell. I'm not envy of them, they certainly earned it....

That's a faulty comparison because inventors and corporations don't accidentally give themselves a huge payoff and then claim that it was fairly launched--doing that sort of thing during an IPO would land you in hot water. There seems to be a cognitive dissonance when I say that the problem is that he gave himself a payoff (accidentally) , but also claims it was a fair launch. If Evan had just given himself a payoff, but never claimed that the coin wasn't insta or fast-mined there wouldn't be a problem. At least I wouldn't have a problem with it. But as it stands, it looks like he's bating people into one perception of the coin, and then when investors find out, they either get out or play a (conscious or unconscious) game of greater fool and hope that others on the outside will rationalize it the same way they have to because they are stuck with their own (conscious or unconscious) buyer's remorse. Smooth did a public service with this thread, sorry it ruins the gameplan.

You know that investors/corporations only talk money. As long as they make the money they don't care if somebody else has some funds or any other stuff for that matter and that's the cold fact.

generalizethis

legendary

Activity: 1750

Merit: 1036

Facts are more efficient than fud

Quote from: minersday on August 05, 2015, 01:01:05 PM

Quote from: generalizethis on August 05, 2015, 02:03:44 AM

Quote from: minersday on August 04, 2015, 11:06:19 PM

Quote from: smooth on August 04, 2015, 10:58:37 PM

That's exactly the point.

Corporations and presidents have plenty of critics calling them out when what they do is seen as wrong, do they not?

Yes there are, but you know what, you can't satisfy every person out there, there are always critics and different thinkers, that's the way life is...
But that's the freedom of speech, which is great!

Quote from: smooth

I don't know exactly what Bill Gates told IBM, investors, etc. Let's stick with what we do know -- about Dash -- and that's referenced in the first post here and subsequent discussion.
We can leave digging into Microsoft to the dozens or hundreds of lawyers, writers and journalists who have investigated it over the decades. Why should Dash get a pass from the same scrutiny

This is exactly my point, we don't know the future of this yet.

We certainly know dash's past even though they keep changing the name on us. And if you think institutional investors (whom dash will need to get to their moon objective) are going to look past shadiness, you need to think more clearly on the subject.

"You want me to trust your assertion that you accidentally mined 2 million coins and didn't relaunch to validate your claim of a fair launch?" says Institutional Investor.

"But it was an accident!" says Evan.

"Get out of my office." says Institutional Investor.

That's one way of looking at it and there are several others, you certainly are entitled to that.
But there are also other ways of looking at it, for one there's the matter of inventors compensation (see law discussions on this). If you claim it's fraud, some other could claim it's inventors compensation and there's nothing wrong with that one. That's the thing that kickstarts projects keeps inventor happy and motivated to develop the product and so on...
There are several inventors of software products that are rich as hell. I'm not envy of them, they certainly earned it....

That's a faulty comparison because inventors and corporations don't accidentally give themselves a huge payoff and then claim that it was fairly launched--doing that sort of thing during an IPO would land you in hot water. There seems to be a cognitive dissonance when I say that the problem is that he gave himself a payoff (accidentally) , but also claims it was a fair launch. If Evan had just given himself a payoff, but never claimed that the coin wasn't insta or fast-mined there wouldn't be a problem. At least I wouldn't have a problem with it. But as it stands, it looks like he's bating people into one perception of the coin, and then when investors find out, they either get out or play a (conscious or unconscious) game of greater fool and hope that others on the outside will rationalize it the same way they have to because they are stuck with their own (conscious or unconscious) buyer's remorse. Smooth did a public service with this thread, sorry it ruins the gameplan.

minersday

hero member

Activity: 1484

Merit: 535

Quote from: generalizethis on August 05, 2015, 02:03:44 AM

Quote from: minersday on August 04, 2015, 11:06:19 PM

Quote from: smooth on August 04, 2015, 10:58:37 PM

That's exactly the point.

Corporations and presidents have plenty of critics calling them out when what they do is seen as wrong, do they not?

Yes there are, but you know what, you can't satisfy every person out there, there are always critics and different thinkers, that's the way life is...
But that's the freedom of speech, which is great!

Quote from: smooth

I don't know exactly what Bill Gates told IBM, investors, etc. Let's stick with what we do know -- about Dash -- and that's referenced in the first post here and subsequent discussion.
We can leave digging into Microsoft to the dozens or hundreds of lawyers, writers and journalists who have investigated it over the decades. Why should Dash get a pass from the same scrutiny

This is exactly my point, we don't know the future of this yet.

We certainly know dash's past even though they keep changing the name on us. And if you think institutional investors (whom dash will need to get to their moon objective) are going to look past shadiness, you need to think more clearly on the subject.

"You want me to trust your assertion that you accidentally mined 2 million coins and didn't relaunch to validate your claim of a fair launch?" says Institutional Investor.

"But it was an accident!" says Evan.

"Get out of my office." says Institutional Investor.

That's one way of looking at it and there are several others, you certainly are entitled to that.
But there are also other ways of looking at it, for one there's the matter of inventors compensation (see law discussions on this). If you claim it's fraud, some other could claim it's inventors compensation and there's nothing wrong with that one. That's the thing that kickstarts projects keeps inventor happy and motivated to develop the product and so on...
There are several inventors of software products that are rich as hell. I'm not envy of them, they certainly earned it....

generalizethis

legendary

Activity: 1750

Merit: 1036

Facts are more efficient than fud

Quote from: minersday on August 04, 2015, 11:06:19 PM

Quote from: smooth on August 04, 2015, 10:58:37 PM

That's exactly the point.

Corporations and presidents have plenty of critics calling them out when what they do is seen as wrong, do they not?

Yes there are, but you know what, you can't satisfy every person out there, there are always critics and different thinkers, that's the way life is...
But that's the freedom of speech, which is great!

Quote from: smooth

I don't know exactly what Bill Gates told IBM, investors, etc. Let's stick with what we do know -- about Dash -- and that's referenced in the first post here and subsequent discussion.
We can leave digging into Microsoft to the dozens or hundreds of lawyers, writers and journalists who have investigated it over the decades. Why should Dash get a pass from the same scrutiny

This is exactly my point, we don't know the future of this yet.

We certainly know dash's past even though they keep changing the name on us. And if you think institutional investors (whom dash will need to get to their moon objective) are going to look past shadiness, you need to think more clearly on the subject.

"You want me to trust your assertion that you accidentally mined 2 million coins and didn't relaunch to validate your claim of a fair launch?" says Institutional Investor.

"But it was an accident!" says Evan.

"Get out of my office." says Institutional Investor.

minersday

hero member

Activity: 1484

Merit: 535

Quote from: smooth on August 04, 2015, 10:58:37 PM

That's exactly the point.

Corporations and presidents have plenty of critics calling them out when what they do is seen as wrong, do they not?

Yes there are, but you know what, you can't satisfy every person out there, there are always critics and different thinkers, that's the way life is...
But that's the freedom of speech, which is great!

Quote from: smooth

I don't know exactly what Bill Gates told IBM, investors, etc. Let's stick with what we do know -- about Dash -- and that's referenced in the first post here and subsequent discussion.
We can leave digging into Microsoft to the dozens or hundreds of lawyers, writers and journalists who have investigated it over the decades. Why should Dash get a pass from the same scrutiny

This is exactly my point, we don't know the future of this yet.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: minersday on August 04, 2015, 10:31:33 PM

Quote from: smooth on August 04, 2015, 10:08:33 PM

Quote from: minersday on August 04, 2015, 10:05:40 PM

I don't know much, but I would say that the inventor/implementor of a NEW technology is entitled to his/her share of the profits/winnings, wouldn't you agree?

Sure, just be honest and transparent about it.

[ANN] [DASH] Dash | First anonymous coin | 50% mined first day by insiders

And don't claim the coins have been "redistributed by the market" when there is no possible way you can prove that, or that it was an "accident" when actions on that day, and contemporaneous statements by those involved such as illodin suggest otherwise.

Given clear and honest disclosure, if people want in, they want in. Fair enough.

Of course, given that there hasn't been that kind of disclosure for over a year, with many people getting involved based on false, misleading, or hidden information, I'm not sure you can erase the fraud after the fact. What's done is done.

Corporates do this behind our backs and so do startups and the US president? =D, I'm not saying it's right

That's exactly the point.

Corporations and presidents have plenty of critics calling them out when what they do is seen as wrong, do they not?

Quote

If I remember correctly Bill Gates didn't even have the OS ready when he sold it to investors

I don't know exactly what Bill Gates told IBM, investors, etc. Let's stick with what we do know -- about Dash -- and that's referenced in the first post here and subsequent discussion.

We can leave digging into Microsoft to the dozens or hundreds of lawyers, writers and journalists who have investigated it over the decades. Why should Dash get a pass from the same scrutiny?

minersday

hero member

Activity: 1484

Merit: 535

Quote from: smooth on August 04, 2015, 10:08:33 PM

Quote from: minersday on August 04, 2015, 10:05:40 PM

I don't know much, but I would say that the inventor/implementor of a NEW technology is entitled to his/her share of the profits/winnings, wouldn't you agree?

Sure, just be honest and transparent about it.

[ANN] [DASH] Dash | First anonymous coin | 50% mined first day by insiders

And don't claim the coins have been "redistributed by the market" when there is no possible way you can prove that, or that it was an "accident" when actions on that day, and contemporaneous statements by those involved such as illodin suggest otherwise.

Given clear and honest disclosure, if people want in, they want in. Fair enough.

Of course, given that there hasn't been that kind of disclosure for over a year, with many people getting involved based on false, misleading, or hidden information, I'm not sure you can erase the fraud after the fact. What's done is done.

Corporates do this behind our backs and so do startups and the US president? =D, I'm not saying it's right, but we do have to live in the real world thou..
If I remember correctly Bill Gates didn't even have the OS ready when he sold it to investors, was this false, misleading or hidden information, or just good business?
And so in in time everything comes into the light and there truth has to be told what ever it is...

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: minersday on August 04, 2015, 10:05:40 PM

I don't know much, but I would say that the inventor/implementor of a NEW technology is entitled to his/her share of the profits/winnings, wouldn't you agree?

Sure, just be honest and transparent about it.

[ANN] [DASH] Dash | First anonymous coin | 50% mined first day by insiders

And don't claim the coins have been "redistributed by the market" when there is no possible way you can prove that, or that it was an "accident" when actions on that day, and contemporaneous statements by those involved such as illodin suggest otherwise.

Given clear and honest disclosure, if people want in, they want in. Fair enough.

Of course, given that there hasn't been that kind of disclosure for over a year, with many people getting involved based on false, misleading, or hidden information, I'm not sure you can erase the fraud after the fact. What's done is done.

minersday

hero member

Activity: 1484

Merit: 535

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 03, 2015, 03:53:52 AM

Update:

The latest cargo cult dogma declares the Dash insta-mine to be OK, because

1) it's all been re-distributed
2) Bytecoin did it too

Nevermind that

Quote from: smooth on August 02, 2015, 05:22:08 PM

It is impossible to know -- in both cases -- how the coins were or weren't redistributed, especially if we believe the anonymity works, so this is a baseless claim.

As far as rationalization skills go, Tash and illodim get a D minus. Cheesy

Quote from: Tash on August 02, 2015, 03:50:46 PM

Quote from: illodin on August 02, 2015, 12:51:58 PM

Just in case there's someone who doesn't already know - Bytecoin was mined 82% before it was publicly announced. When the insiders hold 82% of the coin there's ever gonna be it's pretty easy to pump it.

And about Bytecoin being anonymous:

Quote from: fluffypony on August 02, 2015, 11:19:01 AM

Doesn't count as anonymous because 80%+ of the utxoset is owned by entities who mined them before it became public and global, which means that those entities can deanonymise pretty much all future transactions.

Marketcap is irrelevant as it's easily inflated (doubly so when all you have to do is slightly bump the price due to the massive amount that's already emitted).

Those coins mined early have all been sold and redistributed already (coin is 3 years old and dumped heavy early on) it's the same as the 2 million Dash, no worries at all, clear sailing.

I don't know much, but I would say that the inventor/implementor of a NEW technology is entitled to his/her share of the profits/winnings, wouldn't you agree?
Isn't that how it works in the real corporate world? You build a new startup in the hopes of a profit and investors investing in your technology and your inventions get out there...
But what do I know..

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Update:

The latest cargo cult dogma declares the Dash insta-mine to be OK, because

1) it's all been re-distributed
2) Bytecoin did it too

Nevermind that

Quote from: smooth on August 02, 2015, 05:22:08 PM

It is impossible to know -- in both cases -- how the coins were or weren't redistributed, especially if we believe the anonymity works, so this is a baseless claim.

As far as rationalization skills go, Tash and illodim get a D minus. Cheesy

Quote from: Tash on August 02, 2015, 03:50:46 PM

Quote from: illodin on August 02, 2015, 12:51:58 PM

Just in case there's someone who doesn't already know - Bytecoin was mined 82% before it was publicly announced. When the insiders hold 82% of the coin there's ever gonna be it's pretty easy to pump it.

And about Bytecoin being anonymous:

Quote from: fluffypony on August 02, 2015, 11:19:01 AM

Doesn't count as anonymous because 80%+ of the utxoset is owned by entities who mined them before it became public and global, which means that those entities can deanonymise pretty much all future transactions.

Marketcap is irrelevant as it's easily inflated (doubly so when all you have to do is slightly bump the price due to the massive amount that's already emitted).

Those coins mined early have all been sold and redistributed already (coin is 3 years old and dumped heavy early on) it's the same as the 2 million Dash, no worries at all, clear sailing.

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

toknormal

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1188

I like this quote...

Quote from: hodlmybtc on April 21, 2015, 09:48:53 AM

Quote from: cryptohunter on April 26, 2014, 07:49:06 AM

Once zero coin, or bytecoin with a decent wallet it released or another darkcoin clone is released.... dark coin will sink like a stone.[/b]

...that was a year ago when Darkcoin's price was 0.0038.

Well it "sank" up the way by 326% after a year of "instamine" reminders culminating in them going desperate full throttle recently.

A "perfectly launched" clone did appear and it did this:

generalizethis

legendary

Activity: 1750

Merit: 1036

Facts are more efficient than fud

Quote from: illodin on April 21, 2015, 03:58:24 PM

I think I just tried to explain it to you. If you don't want to understand it, I can't help you.

Where is your explanation of how throwing Bitcoin under the bus refutes what Fluffy said? Did I miss it? Where is it? I'm looking above but all I see is a question and an implication but not an explanation. Why don't you explain to us why Dash is more or less trustless than Bitcoin or more or less trustless than Monero and in what way? Do I need to fear a double spend or a masternode attacking my masternode? Are those an even-swap of risks. Seems like Dash has too many working parts for it to be an even-swap, so I asked for an explanation. I'm going to bed, but I'm looking forward to this like Christmas, so please don't disappoint.

illodin

hero member

Activity: 966

Merit: 1003

I think I just tried to explain it to you. If you don't want to understand it, I can't help you.

Topic: Why the darkcoin/dash/dashpay instamine matters - page 19. (Read 47796 times)