Re: [POLL] Does EVAN DUFFIELD regret instamining DRK/DASH at 100x emission?
Below is exactly what happened. Anything other than that is speculation/trolling, which coins101 is doing. Comparing a coin(Monero) that had a "unoptimized miner" to a coin(Dash) that had all it's core features changed to benefit the 2million coin instaminers, is like comparing apples and oranges. Monero never had it's core features changed, the most it's had was a unoptimized miner to which an entire article was written about how the guys who optimized the miner sold all their coins, negating any of the effects of the miner.
Furthmore, none of that has anything to do with the topic of this thread, mods (?). The topic of this thread is whether Evan regets instamining Dash. Something interesting to note also, is that there's currently a Dash address claimed to be owned by Otoh(With no proof at all that it's his so it could all be deception) that has inputs linked to the Dash instamine scam. How do you Dash supporters feel about someone owning 11% of your coin supply wih inputs dating all the way back to the instamine? That confirms that Dash has horrible distribution.
So far, coins101 has pointed out that Thankful-for-Today released monero as a fork from Bytecoin, with Bytecoin having the unoptimized miner and that being transferred onto Monero. He also pointed out that the current monero dev team did not launch Monero and was unaware of any unoptimizations. Also that the unoptimized miner may have actually been an accident and almost irrelevant, as there's no evidence at all of the Thankful-for-Today character using it to any advantage via the hashrate performance seen at the time. Then he pointed out that the biggest miners at the time of this short unoptimized miner period, made a article and sold all the coins that they mined, negating the effects of the miner and solidiyfing excellent distribution in Monero. **Not to mention that all cryptocurrencies go through "unoptimized miner" periods, as users with the skill and knowhow will always be able to create optmized versions of public equipment for themselves, as shown in Bitcoin and everything else in life**
While Dash's/Darkcoin's past, current, and future developer had a 2million instamine where only he could mine for a period of time on a restricted linux-only release to likely make sure the amount of coins instamined were as high as possible(Since he also started mining Dash/Darkcoin before it's intended release date), where the block reward and max coin supply was sliced and diced to make the instamined coins worth more. And even then, a year after, there's still a wallet with inputs connected to the instamine, that owns 11% of all Dash/Darkcoins in existence.
Thanks coins101(Added in some of the parts you forgot to mention in all your previous posts).
While Dash's/Darkcoin's past, current, and future developer had a 2million instamine where only he could mine for a period of time on a restricted linux-only release to likely make sure the amount of coins instamined were as high as possible(Since he also started mining Dash/Darkcoin before it's intended release date), where the block reward and max coin supply was sliced and diced to make the instamined coins worth more. And even then, a year after, there's still a wallet with inputs connected to the instamine, that owns 11% of all Dash/Darkcoins in existence.
Thanks coins101(Added in some of the parts you forgot to mention in all your previous posts).
Just to correct some innacuracies here...
Monero didn't release an unoptimized miner, it was a de-optimized aka crippled-miner, for example:
My strong belief is that the skepticism was warranted: Here's the original slow-hash from bytecoin as it was copied into Bitmonero. It has some doozies. For example, on line 100, you might note that for every iteration through an inner loop repeated tens of thousands of times, the AES key is re-imported into the library. The later loop, starting on line 113, is repeated half a million times, and is so abstracted through lots of memcpys and pointer manipulation it's hard to tell that all it really does is one round of AES encryption, a pointer dereference into a random scratchpad, a 64 bit multiplication, and another pointer dereference. Phew. This original code was roughly 50x slower than my final optimized code, and could have easily been used to fake two years of blockchain data on a single computer or a small cluster. I'm pretty sure that's what happened.
http://da-data.blogspot.com.tr/2014/08/minting-money-with-monero-and-cpu.html
So where is the Monero core team's official explanation of releasing this?
?...adding useless iterations and useless code to slow it down that are easy to spot. Result is a clear intention to reduce coins produced by the community and lets the devs collect more. Very clear intention to scam, totally *implausible* that this was an accident - very different to Dash which was a public launch so there was no advantage to the dev when mining started, and he gave a *plausible* explanation: https://dashtalk.org/threads/the-birth-of-darkcoin.162/
You can keep repeating the same thing saying "it wasn't a scam anything else is false" but this ^ is a fact. So brushing it under the carpet just makes Monero look more dubious with the 1000s of posts attacking the Dash launch which has been dealt with 1000 times and priced-into the market after 14 months already.
If you want credibility before attacking the Dash dev, give your own full account of the above and explain to your community why this was released to the public - where is that explanation?
Here is what Monero core team said about their launch recently:
There was nothing wrong with the history of Monero. It's one of if not the cleanest coins and launches in history.
Doesn't fill you with a lot of confidence when they accuse rival Devs who work hard of being scammers, 100 times a day now, does it?