Quote from: BrainShutdown on April 11, 2016, 03:29:42 PM

Quote from: generalizethis on April 11, 2016, 03:11:03 PM

That's incorrect. What I'm saying is that due to the circumstances of the instamine, who can tell? Assuming that the dash numbers are all separate miners is absurd, but it's the only way you could assert that dash has an equal to, or greater than, distribution as Bitcoin in the first year--not that that in itself makes dash well distributed (many hate Satoshi's % and will point to that as to why BTC hasn't seen mass adoption).

That's correct, who can tell?

Distribution cannot be asserted with confidence in any cryptocurrency and so cannot be used as a negative when making "legitimacy" comparisons. It's really simple.

Edit: Except in the case of bitcoin, just a handfull of "known" people

Ah, but it can be used to make negative claims for legitimacy. It's really simple, let me dumb it down for you.

Coin A's distribution is 10% of total supply over a year's period.

Coin B's distribution is 10% of total supply over a day's period.

In all likelihood, given both coins are launched with similar mining interest, which coin has the better distribution?

Now, what's really funny is that the argument for dash's redistribution is that the coin was cheap and no one wanted it on the exchanges--making the likelihood that there were very few miners more likely.

Thanks, brainshutdown, I wouldn't have noticed that logic-fail without your help.