Re: [ANN][DASH] Dash | First Anonymous Coin | Inventor of X11, DGW, Darksend and InstantX
I'm impressed with Moneros PR tbh, (not with regards to competitors, that frankly disgusts me) you see it everywhere, sigs, articles, general exposure is very good and that's a key thing for alts, you could have the best coin out there but if no one knows about it then its unlikely to make any ground.
It's not really PR. It's just because XMR has a large vocal community. Sometimes people say the community can be arrogant and noisy. I get that. But it's not PR in the commercial sense because there are simply no funds for things like that. There was no premine or instamine so everything had to be built by the community. That's the beauty of Monero.
I don't mind Dash though - yeah so it's got a instamine - I'm not bothered about that. What bothers me is the lack of community that occured following the rebrand - it has annhiliated confidence in investors and everytime someone like Peter Todd speaks out about it, it's almost like the community declines even more.
But I'd like both coins to succeed ideally.
I pretty much feel the same in a better the devil you know kind of way, isn't that why Billyboy bailed out Apple? Competition improves the breed but too much of it and it's a rat race.
I'd raised my little voice against the rebrand too, I really didn't want to be swimming in the financial sectors waters and felt they'd distance themselves from a name like that but if that's where the folks that've got it this far wanted to go next then I'm behind it, the principles haven't changed, Dash picks up where Bitcoin dropped the ball and addresses all the problems that've cropped up with Bitcoins evolution.
Shame to have lost some folks with that though, I've no doubt the current development team is more than up to the job but it'd be great to have more folks with sound principles behind it. Maybe they'll get onboard again once the budgeting system gets established as it's pretty much infallible. Maybe the folks getting into Dash since the rebrand will want to go in a slightly different direction to the folks that left but I think everyone wants a fast and efficient means of transferring value without complications and having a solid budgeting system for advancement built into the core is a hell of a foundation to build on.
So, there's no need for an instamine that never happened
First issue... so you deleted your posts showing your "one-time" association with XMR, then claim that you aren't associated with XMR (conveniently fail to mention the fact that you were once), and then claim not to be a liar?
a) Why would you delete old posts?
b) Lying by omission is still lying... you are therefore a liar
Second issue... I've pointed out many times, that it doesn't matter to me whether the high emission rate was planned or not. My head is not "in the sand". I wouldn't invest in any stock that didn't have properly motivated management, and the same is true of cryptocurrencies, and I would recommend the same to anyone looking to invest in the space. I LIKE Dash precisely because Evan and the rest of the team is properly incentivized as significant "shareholders". Even if you assume the emission rate was planned, that fact remains true... Evan is highly financially motivated to deliver (as he should be). I wouldn't invest in any coin for which the core developer didn't have this motivation and neither should you. So your attempts to try to convince me that it was planned miss the point... I simply don't care and neither does anyone who's got serious money to invest in this space.
Your final point... PROOF that it was planned by showing me that after 5:55am, Evan had accumulated a whopping 5,000 Dash? That was 10 blocks by 8 hours into the life of the coin, or 10 of the 1750 that had been created by that time. Oh, yeah... clearly Evan had a giant mining rig ready to go to get less than 0.6% of the block rewards. Looks like you have your smoking gun! Haha!!!
Let's do some simple math, shall we? Let's assume that Evan was the ONLY miner for the first 500 blocks (that's the worst case scenario... you can't assume he mined more than 100%). If we simply determine the network hash rate for the first 100 blocks (using the networkhashps command in the Dash wallet), you can see that there was only 12.6kh/s... this is clearly one (very weak) CPU and the first 100 blocks were mined in a few minutes... it probably took some time to add the other machines he and his friends had at the ready. But from blocks 100-500 the average jumps to 711.2kh/s and appears pretty steady that whole time. Let's assume that this 711.2kh/s is Evan and his friends. They would have gotten about 245,000 of the first 250,000 coins mined (through block 500).
By block 500, things start to change. A few others are clearly joining them by this point, but assuming the 711 of the 895 kh/s were theirs from block 500-600, then they still got 79% of those blocks too (worth about 40,000 Dash). If you repeat this process to figure out the share of each block of 100 they got, you get something like the following:
EDIT: The coin start and coin finish are the beginning total coins in circulation and ending coins in circulation for each set of 100 blocks... so the difference is how many were created for each 100 block section... multiply that by the dev's share and you can see where I get the numbers from.
http://imgur.com/Se5USkw
Each row represents 100 blocks. As you can see, by about block 1,000, the hashrate was up dramatically... this is consistent with posts on BTC of many other miners saying they were up and running. There are a couple of points at which network hash drops, consistent with the fact that a couple of bug fixes went out which probably caused Evan and other miners to stop mining for a brief time to update. By block 2300, Evan and Co's share was probably less than 1% of the network hash rate, by which time these estimates would put them at about 511k coins. After that, there is little chance they got a decent share... maybe another 6,000 coins for the next 1,000 blocks, but basically the party was over by then, so to speak. So if you assume they got about 518k coins by the time they were consistently getting less than 1% of the coins, that represents less than 8.8% of the current number of coins in circulation... which is very consistent with the statements from Evan that "all of the founders" hold less than 10% of the current supply combined.
These assumptions are generous to the "instamine" haters for several reasons:
1) It assumes that Evan was the ONLY miner for the first 500 blocks, which we know isn't true. There was at least one other developer at that time, I believe a friend of Evan's, but I'm not sure... so the "instamine" would have been split at least between two people
2) It assumes no one else was mining for the first 500 blocks (which may be the case... we'll never know, but I make this assumption in the interests of being conservative)
3) It assumes that Evan and Co had absolutely no down time for updating their miners, which is impossible... any downtime would reduce these assumptions
4) It assumes that once huge amounts of mining power joined beginning at block 500 that Evan didn't start experiencing an elevated level of rejects... this is unlikely as well since blocks were being created so rapidly at that time - literally seconds apart on average - that he and many others reported rejects, getting on wrong chains, having to reset, etc. Evan would have no way to be immune to these issues caused by the rapid creation of the blocks and network latency, so the true "networkhashps" is clearly understated during that period because many blocks were rejected and not counted.
5) It assumes that he never sold any Dash
Based on the data, I see no reason to disbelieve Evan and the stated amount of coin that he has. In fact, the data seems to support everything he's said.
So yes, you are a liar and Evan is truthful.
a) Why would you delete old posts?
b) Lying by omission is still lying... you are therefore a liar
Second issue... I've pointed out many times, that it doesn't matter to me whether the high emission rate was planned or not. My head is not "in the sand". I wouldn't invest in any stock that didn't have properly motivated management, and the same is true of cryptocurrencies, and I would recommend the same to anyone looking to invest in the space. I LIKE Dash precisely because Evan and the rest of the team is properly incentivized as significant "shareholders". Even if you assume the emission rate was planned, that fact remains true... Evan is highly financially motivated to deliver (as he should be). I wouldn't invest in any coin for which the core developer didn't have this motivation and neither should you. So your attempts to try to convince me that it was planned miss the point... I simply don't care and neither does anyone who's got serious money to invest in this space.
Your final point... PROOF that it was planned by showing me that after 5:55am, Evan had accumulated a whopping 5,000 Dash? That was 10 blocks by 8 hours into the life of the coin, or 10 of the 1750 that had been created by that time. Oh, yeah... clearly Evan had a giant mining rig ready to go to get less than 0.6% of the block rewards. Looks like you have your smoking gun! Haha!!!
Let's do some simple math, shall we? Let's assume that Evan was the ONLY miner for the first 500 blocks (that's the worst case scenario... you can't assume he mined more than 100%). If we simply determine the network hash rate for the first 100 blocks (using the networkhashps command in the Dash wallet), you can see that there was only 12.6kh/s... this is clearly one (very weak) CPU and the first 100 blocks were mined in a few minutes... it probably took some time to add the other machines he and his friends had at the ready. But from blocks 100-500 the average jumps to 711.2kh/s and appears pretty steady that whole time. Let's assume that this 711.2kh/s is Evan and his friends. They would have gotten about 245,000 of the first 250,000 coins mined (through block 500).
By block 500, things start to change. A few others are clearly joining them by this point, but assuming the 711 of the 895 kh/s were theirs from block 500-600, then they still got 79% of those blocks too (worth about 40,000 Dash). If you repeat this process to figure out the share of each block of 100 they got, you get something like the following:
EDIT: The coin start and coin finish are the beginning total coins in circulation and ending coins in circulation for each set of 100 blocks... so the difference is how many were created for each 100 block section... multiply that by the dev's share and you can see where I get the numbers from.
http://imgur.com/Se5USkw
Each row represents 100 blocks. As you can see, by about block 1,000, the hashrate was up dramatically... this is consistent with posts on BTC of many other miners saying they were up and running. There are a couple of points at which network hash drops, consistent with the fact that a couple of bug fixes went out which probably caused Evan and other miners to stop mining for a brief time to update. By block 2300, Evan and Co's share was probably less than 1% of the network hash rate, by which time these estimates would put them at about 511k coins. After that, there is little chance they got a decent share... maybe another 6,000 coins for the next 1,000 blocks, but basically the party was over by then, so to speak. So if you assume they got about 518k coins by the time they were consistently getting less than 1% of the coins, that represents less than 8.8% of the current number of coins in circulation... which is very consistent with the statements from Evan that "all of the founders" hold less than 10% of the current supply combined.
These assumptions are generous to the "instamine" haters for several reasons:
1) It assumes that Evan was the ONLY miner for the first 500 blocks, which we know isn't true. There was at least one other developer at that time, I believe a friend of Evan's, but I'm not sure... so the "instamine" would have been split at least between two people
2) It assumes no one else was mining for the first 500 blocks (which may be the case... we'll never know, but I make this assumption in the interests of being conservative)
3) It assumes that Evan and Co had absolutely no down time for updating their miners, which is impossible... any downtime would reduce these assumptions
4) It assumes that once huge amounts of mining power joined beginning at block 500 that Evan didn't start experiencing an elevated level of rejects... this is unlikely as well since blocks were being created so rapidly at that time - literally seconds apart on average - that he and many others reported rejects, getting on wrong chains, having to reset, etc. Evan would have no way to be immune to these issues caused by the rapid creation of the blocks and network latency, so the true "networkhashps" is clearly understated during that period because many blocks were rejected and not counted.
5) It assumes that he never sold any Dash
Based on the data, I see no reason to disbelieve Evan and the stated amount of coin that he has. In fact, the data seems to support everything he's said.
So yes, you are a liar and Evan is truthful.
Seems you guys know absolutely nothing about mining,
It was instamined with AWS and Azure Cloudhosting mashines you can spin up within a few minutes after you cloned the first machine; Also you have no idea how the difficulty calculation (read -> ESTIMATION) works or you woulnd´t make such dumb arguments.