Quote from: farfiman on April 29, 2015, 01:53:39 PM

Quote from: BlockaFett on April 29, 2015, 01:41:52 PM

....
I think the scariest thing reading these comments, is that evidently your community *approves* of the tactics / ethics / behaviour of your 2 core devs who are destroying your own reputation and price....but hey...you do what you want with your $.

There is nothing to approve- it's a free world.
I'm more amazed at the answers to the instamine accusation (summed up in two short statements)

1) We know there was- the community doesnt care.
2) Monero also has a scammy launch.

hilarious

lol - "instamine" is a generalization that implies a "fast" emission with fast being whatever the individual believes is fast for whatever their value judgement is on what emission *should be*. And is a subjective term...the accusation that "instamine" = "scam" is an extension of that and also a subjective opinion, such as when applied to the Dash launch. I.e. it is an unproved opinion that the Dash *developer* intentionally created the instamine and benefited from it.

However it is not an opinion apparently that Monero launch was rigged by the developers to *intentionally* give a higher % of coins to the developers than the miners:

Quote from: Lebubar on April 28, 2015, 03:38:54 PM

Quote from: Taylor05 on April 28, 2015, 12:56:28 PM

Quote from: Prosperityforall on April 28, 2015, 12:28:23 PM

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.

You are correct. Dash and Monero cannot be compared in the slightest. Dash, as a fork of Litecoin at the time, suffered some issues that were related to the Litecoin code by a programmer new to the code base. It took a day or two to diagnose and fix and much longer to get a working explorer to figure out that so many blocks were created before the difficulty adjusted. There is no proof about the intentions of the developer. Monero on the other hand had code intentionally inserted with no other purpose than to make the built in miner inefficient at launch so that the developer could take advantage. Monero is the only coin being discussed here that was provably and intentionally manipulated by the developer to give themselves an advantage.

Personally, I think this is a very slippery slope. If we start trying to define new categories like "launch issues", "fast-mined" (which most PoS coins would fall into), "insta-mined", or other categories like "dishonest developer" - all categories with very subjective definitions - you'll end up in a slug-fest between competing coins trying to get their competition labeled. Thank you coinmarketcap for deciding to stay above the fray.

So much this...

Here the important word is : INTENTIONALLY, which make no doubt about Monero SCAM. Something intentional was made to give benefice of few over the others.
You got it... while other people are denying:

Quote from: smooth on April 27, 2015, 08:09:50 PM

There was nothing wrong with the history of Monero. It's one of if not the cleanest coins and launches in history.

Just lol..

I have not researched this myself, so other people here will know if this is true or not (I assume it is because of other experience of Smooth lying daily). But I do know that it is a fact that saying that you can prove that Dash was *intentionally* "instamined", is patently false. And in criminal law, intention is key.