Quote from: stan.distortion on April 12, 2016, 10:28:53 AM

Quote from: smooth on April 12, 2016, 09:53:29 AM

...
You are incorrect. Every single statement I made is factual and objective.

Anything conjectural about it, you are basing on your own interpretation of what I wrote.

With respect to #7 specifically, it is false to state that the Litecoin difficulty adjustment was responsible for the production of extra coins, because that was responsible only for a small portion of the extra coins. The vast majority of the coins came from block rewards that were stuck at the maximum value due to another bug, one that was not related to Litecoin, and which would have happened regardless of the rate of difficulty adjustments.

The Official Communication also states that Evan made a patch to the code to fix the difficulty adjustment within a few hours of launch. I can find no evidence of such a patch implementing any such hard fork prior to the one that ended the instamine after day two. Unless I'm mistaken, this is another factually incorrect statement.

They're also old news, practically pre-historic in the timeline of crypto and only a very small number of posters seem to give a damn

That does jive with the fact that the edits to the Dash OP in terms of how to characterize the launch are relatively recent and the "Official Communication" document is from three months ago.

The people running the Dash project damn well know that investors and other market participants do care about this stuff, or they wouldn't still be trying to spin it in 2016.

Calling it old news and pre-historic is a nice attempt to brush aside the issues, but the actions of your own project betray you.

Quote

Dashes launch is no secret and if anyone is genuinely concerned there have been many detailed articles

Unfortunately many of those detailed articles, when put out by Dash and/or Dash supporters, end up being grossly inaccurate and deceptive, and therefore represent an ongoing attempt to mislead and scam investors, as I documented above.