Topic: Why the darkcoin/dash/dashpay instamine matters - page 20. (Read 47796 times)

Do you consider Bitcoin trustless? Do you consider Monero trustless?

If you can't explain it, just say so.

Nope, you thought wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_metaphor

Meditate on that, you're an "INTJ", you should be able to figure it out.

I think you got strawman and metaphor mixed up there.

And throwing Bitcoin under the bus refutes what Fluffy is saying how?

Not anymore than (and not even as much as) having to trust the 2-3 largest Bitcoin pools aren't colluding. Yea, I'm bizarre that way.

It's called metaphor--you should learn about it; it is very useful for illustrating a point. Some of the best at it were Shakespeare, Dickinson, Keats had a few good ones, Frost almost always wrote in metaphors for death (though it was subconscious on his part), almost any writer worth talking about used/uses metaphor, even Jesus used them in the form of parables.

Start with help telling the difference between a purveyor of fake cancer cures who ends up killing people and a coin dev who potentially ended up with too many worthless (at the time) coins.

It was in response to Jeff8247 who asked why there was so much "hate". I used an example to illustrate how those emotions could develop.

I have never claimed Duffield is a "newbie coin dev", I just think that he has demonstrated an incredibly poor grasp of very fundamental cryptography (eg. chaining hash functions leads to preimage attacks, which is why the winner of the sha3 standard wasn't "all of the hashes combined!!") and his actions subsequent to the instamine demonstrate either incredible ineptitude or outright deviousness.

What help do you suggest I seek in this matter?

You really don't want to be quoting gmaxwell to support your point, and you really have missed his.


So you don't have to trust that the MasterNodes that vote aren't colluding? You have a bizarre definition of trustless. You also haven't taken the time to understand where GreenAddress instant transactions have gone to subsequently, which is especially ironic as you accuse me of the same shortcoming. "I just read the description and thumbsucked everything else, but I can do that because I'm a DASH supporter and thus not a troll"


I stated the risk as I understood it, it was pointed out to me that it has been dealt with, and I acknowledged my error and dropped it from my very brief overview of fail points. That's literally the end of it, constantly bringing it up doesn't make me look bad, it makes you look like you're desperate to criticise me rather than acknowledge the clear evidence of a scam.

Sure your being dramatic enough there ?

First he's a newb coindev who gets his retargeting wrong and spills out too many coins for 2 days.

Then he's a scheming coindev who planned it all along - including the massive demand and marketcap rise presumably.

Now he's a treacherous rogue masquerading as a cancer curer who causes the untimely deaths of his unsuspecting faithful. (e.g. me presumably)

U need help.

Did you read what your hero gmaxwell said what actually is cryptography?



Regarding your story, the difference is that you know what a carrot, a potato, full moon, and a chicken are. Whereas you have been very keen to point out shortcomings of DRK/DASH without actually understanding what it is.

For example, you have claimed InstantX is just Bitcoin's Green Addresses, which it isn't. From reading the description it is clear they are very different, as a Green Address recipient has to trust the previously published sending address not to double spend whereas InstantX is trustless.

Another example, you were criticizing DarkSend thinking you'll get tainted coins back as a change after a transaction. That would severely weaken the anonymity, which is why DarkSend doesn't work like that. 

All this baffles me, as you seem to be familiar with cryptography, at least enough so to understand DRK/DASH if you bothered to find out about it.

Imagine, if you will, that you have a good friend who has been diagnosed with cancer. It's malignant, but operable, as it has been caught early enough.

Your friend tells you that he's decided to forego the operation, as he's heard about this Austrian guy, Dr. D Uffield, who has developed a cure for cancer. Plus it won't interfere with his lifestyle, all he has to do is eat 2 carrots a day, 1 African potato, and every month at full moon he must slaughter a chicken and dance around it. Surely you would be shocked to your very core that he's foregoing conventional treatment for what is clearly garbage with no basis in medical science?

To make matters worse, a cursory check reveals that Dr. D Uffield has no medical degree, and instead has a doctorate in theology. He isn't even licensed to practice any form of medicine, much less practice modern medicine as a medical doctor. You tell your friend, in the hopes of helping him avoid catastrophe, but he insists that this is going to cure him. In the face of all reason he ignores your advice and barrels ahead with this crazy treatment.

Months go by, and every time you try and remind your friend that there is no scientific basis for this treatment he screams at you, insulting you and telling you that you're just jealous that he has found this treatment and you haven't (you don't even have cancer!) To make matters worse he starts roping in all of the cancer patients at his support group, convincing them to quit their medical treatment and move to this alternate care regimen. Eventually you catch a break: Dr. Uffield moves his practice to America in an attempt to find legitimacy on the Dr. Oz show. In the mess of the move his chief aide, Nurse V. Ertoe, promptly resigns, and publicly calls out the sham.

This is it, you think, you finally have the piece of evidence to convince your friend! You print out all of the medical research you've collected over the months, and present it to him at his support group along with this clincher of a statement from the nurse. Instead of being convinced, he doubles down on his beliefs, and the cancer patients alongside him shout you out the room with cries of "FUD!" and "TROLL!" One of the more prominent members of the group has even left a pamphlet on your car explaining why Dr. Uffield's carrot/potato/chicken/dance regimen is "fit for purpose", and that modern medicine is just "weighed down with mountains of medical science" when all you really need is a visionary, regardless of where he got his doctorate and what field it's in.

At this point how would you feel about Dr. Uffield and his regimen? Irrational hate? Disgust at his abuse of power?

And would you just shut up indefinitely, or would you try and help newcomers that join the support group not get tricked into using medical care that has virtually no basis in medical science?

So it is for us when we observe snake oil and an obvious scam being punted by means of a cryptocurrency that has virtually no basis in cryptography.

And I don't hate dash (it's an inanimate code) I just hate that I'm told by Dash shills that the instamine doesn't matter (ethically and strategically it does) and that Evan won't own up to his leadership failure in that pivotal moment, but insists on maintaining that Dash is replacement worthy of BTC--I don't know if he drinks his own koolaid or is too stupid to realize it was impossible from day one.

I really don't understand the hate in the crypto world? If you don't like the project and think its a scam, call it a scam and leave it at that. Yes i know you say your here to save the noobies but remember people have to choice to invest or not and ultimately it should fail if your right.

I actually own both DASH & XMR and find it hilarious...

Yes, in a way, we are being motivated by spending, but it seems to be Dash's side as it unites people who aren't obsessed with greed and care more about real functionality than they do about rainbow dreams of instawealth.

Very quick diagnosis. The dash instamine matters because: even though BTC by all accounts had a fair launch, it still enjoys the label of ponzi by some in the media and still has yet to jump any mass adoption hurdles. What do you think this same media will do if dash were to make a play as BTC's replacement? Do you think a coin that looks, smells, and most importantly reads in Evan's own quotation marks as a fraud is going to be ushered to the throne without a massive media assault?  Because billionaires and governments like having their money replaced by a top heavy band of pseudo-cypherpunks with the moral compass of a fraternity next to a rohypnol factory. So yes, dash supporter, everyone is paid to get you, but ironically by your own hand. And if you think it is bad now, you have no idea of the shit storm that would be leveled at you if you even got a whiff of BTC's market cap.

If Evan had really wanted to replace BTC, he would have foreseen every thing I just outlined and realized there were only two options: 1. a fair relaunch or 2. admit it was an instamine and said "a dev has got to get paid how a dev has got to get paid". He didn't--he wanted the benefit of an instamine without the perception of greed, but didn't think far enough ahead to see his creation as a replacement for BTC and what the consequences of his actions would be if he ever truly got on the same playing field as BTC. The fact that his coin made it to the top five with this hanging over its head should be congratulations enough--the market rewarding his misplayed strategy with being the heir to Satoshi's kingdom is a pipe-dream wrapped in rainbows flecked with fairy dust.

yes evan intentionally launched the coin with a "bug" to get rid of every early miner
yes evan misled people....
yes evan withheld information...
yes evan instamint premined
yes evan had a gpu miner long before anyone else
yes evan is a fraudster
yes evan lied, ASIC Resistant, the max coin amount is 84,000,000......
yes evan was an active buyer in the "redistribution" phase
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5007248


XCoin->Darkcoin->Dasher