Re: POLL - Which crypto do you feel is the biggest "scam"? - - REVISED 4 ACCURACY -
Whenever you guys are done hand waving and attacking me, this will be here waiting. TaoOfSatoshi at least tried 
This is my criticism (still waiting for someone from dash to explain this away).
Dash has some pretty horrendous flaws: namely X11 and Darksend.
X11: If one chain can be attacked then the whole thing is vulnerable--you essentially load a bunch of people on a bus and hope one doesn't have a virus. I've pointed this out to Evan, as have others, but he has yet to address it. He has stated incorrectly that you just roll the chain back and get rid of the broken one--this is patently false as the broken chain can exist for some time and go unnoticed and do so much damage in that time that no roll-back can save the coin--he's essentially saying, "We can just kick the sick person off the bus and that gets rid of the contagion," meanwhile everyone on the bus is already infected.
Darksend, besides its twenty hour mix times, is flawed because of centralization and the fact that TPTB can subpoena control (or use other methods such as coercion) to gain enough nodes to break anonymity. I would suggest that Evan owns enough to break most anonymity and a fincen investigation hanging over his head would be enough to coerce him into helping the US government break dash's weak anonymity--that is if dash ever gained enough market to garner governmental interest (and that's a huge if). Cryptosystems are meant to be anti-fragile, especially against governmental pressures, and this is why well-built cryptosystems avoid centralized solutions.
These two flaws lead me to believe Evan has a very weak understanding of cryptosystems (I have just a casual interest and I understand these things, so for a developer to not know them is pretty unforgivable).
Criticisms are either true, false, or opinions. It doesn't matter in what frame of mind they were made if they are correct. It is the liar, the fraud, the charlatan who wants to sidestep truth with accusations of motive when motive cannot determine if an argument is true or false, but only the attitude in which it was delivered. Scientist can hate, criticize and ridicule one another, but when day is done, only the facts are given weight. But then again, I'm just a hater, so nothing I say can have any weight or truth.
This is my criticism (still waiting for someone from dash to explain this away).
Dash has some pretty horrendous flaws: namely X11 and Darksend.
X11: If one chain can be attacked then the whole thing is vulnerable--you essentially load a bunch of people on a bus and hope one doesn't have a virus. I've pointed this out to Evan, as have others, but he has yet to address it. He has stated incorrectly that you just roll the chain back and get rid of the broken one--this is patently false as the broken chain can exist for some time and go unnoticed and do so much damage in that time that no roll-back can save the coin--he's essentially saying, "We can just kick the sick person off the bus and that gets rid of the contagion," meanwhile everyone on the bus is already infected.
Darksend, besides its twenty hour mix times, is flawed because of centralization and the fact that TPTB can subpoena control (or use other methods such as coercion) to gain enough nodes to break anonymity. I would suggest that Evan owns enough to break most anonymity and a fincen investigation hanging over his head would be enough to coerce him into helping the US government break dash's weak anonymity--that is if dash ever gained enough market to garner governmental interest (and that's a huge if). Cryptosystems are meant to be anti-fragile, especially against governmental pressures, and this is why well-built cryptosystems avoid centralized solutions.
These two flaws lead me to believe Evan has a very weak understanding of cryptosystems (I have just a casual interest and I understand these things, so for a developer to not know them is pretty unforgivable).
Criticisms are either true, false, or opinions. It doesn't matter in what frame of mind they were made if they are correct. It is the liar, the fraud, the charlatan who wants to sidestep truth with accusations of motive when motive cannot determine if an argument is true or false, but only the attitude in which it was delivered. Scientist can hate, criticize and ridicule one another, but when day is done, only the facts are given weight. But then again, I'm just a hater, so nothing I say can have any weight or truth.