Quote from: ddink7 on June 06, 2016, 02:06:06 PM

For anybody that's concerned about the price of Dash at a given point in time, consider two very big factors outside our control: the correlation with Ethereum's price and the inverse correlation with Bitcoin's price.

Blaming external factors is a lame excuse for Dash's recent price crash, especially after using the BTC-E listing (hello, external factor) as an excuse to pump and shill.

How did the rosy predictions about BTC-E turn out?

Quote

#   Source   Pair   Volume (24h)   Price   Volume (%)   Updated
1    Poloniex   DASH/BTC    370 BTC   0.01327950 BTC    49.83 %    Recently
6    BTC-E   DASH/BTC    16 BTC   0.01330000 BTC    2.20 %    Recently

The real problem isn't "not enough listings" but rather the fact the market is now aware of the instamine and general lack of a fixed emission.

Everybody knows Dash has no fixed emission (nor brand, nor core mission other than to pay Duffield's bills).

There's no way to tell when the next wacky proposal (EG massive emission cut to amplify instamine, rebrand to soap name, etc.) will be arbitrarily imposed by the 100% centralized DARKCOIN FOUNDATION INC. governance structure.

Perfect example of my point right here:

Quote from: oblox on November 06, 2014, 08:07:31 PM

Quote from: eduffield on November 06, 2014, 08:02:51 PM

Quote from: eahmadov on November 06, 2014, 07:37:00 PM

Quote from: eduffield on November 06, 2014, 07:29:54 PM

ShadowCash Proposal Conditions

1.) Converted funds will be locked for a period of 90 days
2.) We're looking for some kind of commitment from the core team that they'd work on darkcoin for at least a year beyond this. They could work on whatever they like, at the pace they're working now.
3.) DRK Will be paid for in a 1:1 relationship, dollar wise from this moment forward. 494909 (SDC MarketCap) / 9833182 (DRK Market Cap), therefore 5.03% of the total number of DRK coins will be created on a future block, totaling 240277DRK. The exchange rate will be 31.33SDC for 1DRK.
4.) SDC users will be awarded DRK based on coins destroyed and signed (sign the private key proving you own the key). A user will send coins to a non-redeemable address, if those coins for example equal 1% (64435 SDC) of the total number of SDC ( that would amount to 2056DRK being awarded.

Evan, I had no idea you were considering "printing" more Darkcoins to bail out ShadowCash. There should be a better solution. This will create a bad precedent and what will stop you not 'print' more money in the future? Ok, I get it, we need new dev team but we don't have to bail out a failing coin. Let's think about an alternative plan.

I don't think "printing" is a good analogy to what we're doing. It's more like moving their marketcap in ours, remember they're destroying coins to create them in Darkcoin. Besides that, we've talked about reducing the eventual coin supply to compensate for the new coins, so there's actually no inflationary effect in the long term. I'll add this to the document.

Also, we're not acting unilaterally. There was an idea that has been proposed to their team and will only be done with the consent of the community.

Be that as it may, you are altering the reward structure by being able to print a superblock to increase the coin supply. It goes against what crypto stands for. The decision to change the reward in terms of balance between miners and masternodes didn't change the max coinage--it was still the same block reward, but split differently. What you're talking about is actually changing the amount of outstanding coins... please tell me you see that.

What happens 6 months from now when another opportunity arises, are we just going to print another superblock to merge with them? Where do you draw the line?

Quote from: ddink7 on November 06, 2014, 08:25:45 PM

This is beyond preposterous for two reasons:

a) You're going to dilute my DRK holdings to merge us with some shitcoin nobody has ever heard of?

b) You have the power to do so? Isn't crypto all about decentralization and math-based consensus to a (relatively) immutable basic protocol? I realize we are still in the development stages of DRK and consequently Evan has an unusual amount of power (e.g. enforcement), but this is a real reach. One person creating more coins in direct contravention of the basic protocol? If Evan can create more coins any time he wishes, how is he any different than the Federal Reserve?

c) This *WILL* fork DRK. Guaranteed. Look at the massive amount of opposition so far...I haven't counted but it looks about 2:1 against. Even if you reverse those numbers, you will have a significant number of DRK owners who *WILL* fork DRK into another coin. And then what do you have? The exact brain-drain you were hoping to avoid, plus market ambiguity, plus a massive loss of investor confidence.

P.S. Even with the reward structure of future blocks being altered to prevent inflation, the creation of a superblock by the DRK devs *after implementation* will rock our coin onto its heels. If one person (Evan) can create more DRK for a good reason, what's to prevent him from creating more DRK for a bad reason (at some point down the road)?

I have been one of DRK's biggest supporters, and everybody here knows this. But hearing that the dev team is even considering something like this makes me almost want to sell my coins. It's that bad of an idea.