Quote from: MasterMined710 on April 27, 2015, 06:23:36 PM

also, thanks for admitting monero had a 12.5% unfair mine. is that 12.5% from the "current coin supply" or the "total coin supply"? your blatant metric deception is confusing everyone.

We're not afraid of discussing Monero's launch because:

1. We didn't launch it, so we had no control over any of those factors.
2. We have not, at all, broken our social contract.

To be specific:

Quote from: fluffypony on April 21, 2015, 02:24:17 PM

The "glitch" in the obfuscated miner was fixed extremely fast (by NoodleDoodle, one of the core team members), a lot faster than most people remember. At the time it was a pretty big deal.

Specifically, the change was commited May 7th, so ~19 days from launch = 2.58% of initial emission mined up to that point (we have infinite tail emission, but still use the 18.4 million initial emission as a reference point). This was roughly a 2.5x speed improvement over the original (sorry smooth, I was misremembering yesterday). There was an additional speed bump, once AES-NI support was added on May 18th, and that was an additional ~5x speed improvement, so by the time the first month had passed we'd improved the miner efficiency by more than 12x and made those changes publicly available.

A good exercise is to look at a logarithmic hashrate chart for the period:

You can see the initial spike as speculative miners start CPU mining, and then a continual ramp-up, with spikes on May 4th-8th and again on May 19th-20th, but neither of those spikes are orders of magnitude greater than the initial spike.

Remember, too, that at the time the core team that you know and love today didn't know each other. I knew othe a bit (online), but I'd never even had a passing pm with any of the others. Plus the community as a whole, largely spearheaded by those who would become the core team, were in the process of taking it over after things with thankful_for_today were...not working out;) So collusion on any level would have been unlikely, and if we did collude with the intent to scam you can bet we would have run with an improved miner for a lot longer than a couple of days. We would have mined for many months with only small improvements to the hashing function, and added lots of whiz-bang features to build the price up whilst we built up our stash.

Quote from: fluffypony on April 21, 2015, 02:44:07 PM

Also to add, here's a log chart for all time:

You can see the onboarding of speculative miners and the improvements in hashing efficiency up till 2014-05-20, after which all changes were largely inconsequential. At that point 826k XMR had been mined, so we're talking about dga and others competing with our public improvements to the hash function that everyone used for a piece of 4.49% of the initial emission. It was a bit of an arms race, although the miners that were just pulling the changes that were committed to the repo were not at much of a disadvantage (in fact they were probably at an advantage, as they were able to expend more energy spinning up AWS instances since they weren't trying to optimise code:-P )

Indeed, from the moment Monero launched it had binaries for Windows 64-bit *and* Windows 32-bit, plus the other bits and pieces. The logarithmic chart clearly shows that there was nobody pressing any dominant advantage.

But, frankly, this has absolutely nothing to do with Dash being correctly marked as a significantly premined cryptocurrency. Your desperate attempts to deflect that betray your own struggle with acknowledging this, and I completely understand that. But this is not something raised by myself or smooth or any members of the Monero core team (or even a contributor. It's raised by someone who has nothing to do with Monero, and who was provoked by BlockaFett. That's not something we have had any control over.

Stop trying to deflect.