Quote from: TanteStefana2 on November 01, 2015, 12:25:45 AM

Quote from: jwinterm on October 31, 2015, 11:20:11 PM

Quote from: TanteStefana2 on October 31, 2015, 11:09:36 PM

Quote from: jwinterm on October 31, 2015, 10:54:30 PM

Quote from: MasterMined710 on October 31, 2015, 10:35:47 PM

...

lastly, monero was launched about 3 months after DASH yet it already has almost twice the amount of coins mined. seems like a highly inflationary ongoing instamine that gives an unfair advantage to those early miners.

my conclusion, there has never been a coin with a perfect launch including bitcoin.

There's perfect, there's scam, and everything in between. Monero is a helluva lot closer to perfect than DASH/Darkcoin/Xcoin could every hope to be.

You can look on the block explorer and see the amount of coins emitted at any block. For instance, by block 20000 ( http://moneroblocks.eu/search/20000 ), mined on May 1st, the total number of emitted coins was about 350k or about 3.5% of the total coins that exist today. So, 3.5% of the coins that exist were mined during the period of the crippled miner when a few folks (such as DGA, who is not a member of the development team) were mining with optimized miners. Around May 1st the optimized miner was made public by NoodleDoodle and other members of the actual dev-team that took over the coin from TFT.

Compare that with DASH, where around 1/3 of the coins that exist today were mined in the first 48 hours or so, and I think it's pretty plain to see which coin had the more fair launch. (This is not to mention the fact that there was zero windows clients and a promise to relaunch made by the Xcoin developer, while hundreds of AWS and DO nodes mined away). 33% of available coins mined in 2 days, or 3% of available coins mined in a few weeks - I don't think it's much of a comparison.

(This is also not to mention the fact that DASH/Darkcoin/Xcoin switched to a quasi-PoS system after their botched launch, allowing large holders to just sit on their coins and grow them, which is obviously not the case for Monero, which is pure PoW, where owning a chunk of coin doesn't allow one to do anything but dump it on an exchange.)

Is Monero instant?
Does monero have 4X smaller blockchain size despite being 1 1/2 times the age of Dash?
Is morano 100% compatible to Bitcoin technology so that it can be used inside current inroads that Bitcoin has made?
Does morano have an amazing developer team that constantly rolls out new improvements to the ecosystem?

No? Oh no, that's Dash isn't it? Does morono have anything? Oh, a completely obfuscated and bloated blockchain, eh? Sounds useful and completely trustworthy to me! Good for Morono!

I didn't even touch the GUI, or lack thereof.

Nice job completely avoiding the topic under discussion. Monero does have ring signatures and built in stealth addressing, neither of which DASH possesses. The blockchain is obfuscated, which is the point of ring signatures, however anyone can unveil their transactions by way of their view key if they choose to. IMO, privacy by default with the option to unveil transactions is a better architecture than attempting to tack on a convoluted coinjoin scheme (that oh by the way just happens to enrich large holders, i.e., instaminers) onto the bitcoin client, but to each their own.

Monero's privacy comes at a steep cost, block chain bloat. And it's the only thing it offers. It will never be able to keep full nodes running, for lack of incentive and it will always be super slow to load. I don't see any competition myself for Dash in Monero, and after the year+ of trolling from those people, I no longer feel obligated to be nice either.

TanteStefana2, it is pretty well explained in many places that isn't true. Any coin that employs mixing wlll have essentially the same bloat (linear factor expansion of transaction count and/or size), except that the base transaction size in Monero is much smaller than in Bitcoin, so even after applying the relevant multiple, the size may still be smaller. DarkSend specifically suffers from the same bloat as Monero, or worse, in terms of using standardized output denomination sizes (some other coinjoin-based systems don't do this and have other problems).

Dash has fewer/smaller transactions (by smaller I mean making paying fewer payees) on its chain, and many, many fewer using DarkSend (the latter is probably the bigger factor). That is the only reason it's chain is smaller. There is no fundamental technological difference at work.