Quote from: Minotaur26 on April 28, 2015, 12:24:10 PM

Quote from: Gliss on April 28, 2015, 11:28:14 AM

Given the debate here, it's probably best to take the significantly premined mark off of Dash until we can figure out a more appropriate solution. I agree that instamine is not the same as premine.

I see a few options here:
1) Change label to "Significantly mined around launch" or something among those lines
2) Make an instamine label
3) Not care about tracking instamine

I'm preferring #3 because "instamine" is not a well defined term and can be applied subjectively.

Thank you for being professional and impartial. We had some issues at launch that came from a bug on LTC, you would have to include them in the same new category, as several hundred thousand were mined in the first hour, Monero also had early mining issues with an intentionally de-optimized miner for 19 days. Where does it end? Your role is to be impartial and present the coin rankings, and specially not to get involved in the drama between coins that are direct competitors and have conflict of interests trying to use your site as a competitive advantage.

Good luck with the site.

That is false. If what you're saying was true, then Evan Duffield would not have sliced the block reward after the instamine happened or cut the coin supply, but he did both of those. He could have even relaunched the coin, but he chose not to. That means the instamine was very likely intentional, there is no other way to put it.

Leaving Dash where it had a 2million coin output in 2 days and where it's block reward and coin supply was changed in the same category as coins that never had such things done, is highly unfair.

Gliss should be impartial, and that means seperating the coins based on what actually happened and in this case, Dash had a premine or at the very least, **Significantly Fastmined**. You've mentioned Monero, but Monero has never had any of it's core parameters changed so Dash and Monero cannot be compared in the slightest.