...
I know that dismissing a coin's past would eliminate future issues, but it doesn't work like that. The OP made a statement that I'm disagreeing with, and unless you are willing to argue the merits of that specific criticism, you're the one who is distracting from the topic. I maintain that Satoshi's vision was a decentralized coin (it would have to be antifragile enough to disrupt fiat and legacy systems). If you feel my assertion is false, feel free to argue the point.
Though I do feel it's ironic that you are attempting to dismiss my current statements by using my past as a barometer.
Yeah, and anyone that wants to check that can check your post history, plenty of answers to it but you seem to have a blind spot to then. Get on and make your assertion if you want an answer to it, you claim Dash isn't decentralised for some strange reason, the network Satoshi created has about 5000 full nodes at the mo, Dashes masternode network has 3600, your point?
I didn't mention node count, but given 2 million coins were mined in the first days of dash's existence, and dash's nodes cost 1000 dash a piece, it is very easy to believe those nodes are controlled by those who were mining in those early times.
The main problem is that dash didn't adequately prepare for a decentralized launch--many months, or years, to slowly allow people to accumulate coins to assure the distribution is as fairly distributed as possible. Add to dash's fastmine an emissions cut and dash (intentionally or not) makes the worst case for a large distribution pool.