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.

Quote from: Prosperityforall on May 02, 2015, 02:05:00 AM

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).

I'm a troll

Your blatant lying and trolling is getting irratating. In this case you cannot say it was deoptimized as Monero was a fork of Bytecoin, therefore the miner was transferred over. Thankful-for-Today did not deoptimize it, there is no proof of that. Everything you've said against Monero is pure speculative, none of it has any ground in fact. Everything said against Dash is shown the in blockchain, and is all Objective. Dash having a likely intended instamine/premine launch is Objective/Fact.

Evan Duffield explanation of what happened goes against what actually happened. His cutting of the max coin supply is obvious proof that his testimony of the events on those 2 days are not the truth.

Kind of sad that Dash supporters result to false information.

lol, sweeping Monero scam launch under the carpet...QED. take a break dude

I forgot what it's like to speak with children again. Let me type it for you more clearly. Everything said against Monero is Subjective/Personalized/Opionated. None of it has any ground at all in fact. Monero having a deoptimized miner is Subjective, as it's a fork from Bytecoin. You cannot say it was purposely deoptimized because of that. Then to make things even simpler, all the mining that was done during that period was negated as the miners at that time wrote a article and sold all the Moneros that they mined. That means that Monero's distribution is better than average for cryptocurrencies, since many of it's early coins were sold off after being mined.

With Dash, it's developer launched it before it's intended release date, so it's instamine can be counted as a premine as well. To make matters worse, 2million Dash were mined in just 2 days, then it had it's coin ouput sliced and diced over 3 fold, along with it's max coin supply which was sliced from 80million to 20million. To make things even worse however, there's still a Dash address that owns 11% of the entire current coin supply, and is linked to the instamine.

Everything said against Dash is Objective/Factual, as it's in the blockchain. Everything said against Monero is opinonated/Subjective, as none of it has any grounds in fact.

Just in case you didnt see earlier.

you're just avoiding my points and throwing word around like 'subjective' which I don't think you understand correctly without being rude.

Objective means provable - Monero launched a miner with ***proven scam code*** in. That is not subjective...I will repost what I said already:

------------

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? Huh

?

...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:

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.

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?