Quote from: smooth on June 16, 2016, 08:28:06 AM

Quote from: illodin on June 16, 2016, 08:11:58 AM

Quote from: smooth on June 15, 2016, 11:45:38 PM

main question seems to be whether I endorse their launch strategy or anything else about it.

Main question is the contrast to when Dash is launched with better distribution than Steem you make it your multi-year mission mission to label it a scam and people selling with profit scammers.

First off that statement is obviously nonsense because no one knows the distribution of Dash, nor can we can really compare on a apples-to-apples basis between Steem at a few months old and Dash at a few months old.

But let's compare Dash with Steem.

Dash was launched with misleading statements by the developer about the launch time. Steem did not do this and in fact relaunched with a day advance notice of a specific launch time after there were some problems with the first launch. By that time some community members had already posted guides for how to compile and mine and even some lesser-skilled miners had started attempting it, making it somewhat less of a stealthy launch.

The Steem code was essentially feature-complete at launch so everyone could look through the source code as I did in order to determine what the coin was intended to do (and everyone had extra time to do this given the relaunch). Dash, on the other hand, did not release any feature or development plan information whatsoever until after the conclusion of the instamine, and in fact deliberately withheld it.

The Steem developer told people at launch that he was mining a lot and released the names of the accounts he was using for mining, making it all transparent, disclosed to all participants, and verifiable on the blockchain (there are no relevant privacy features and the blockchain uses transparent named accounts for all operations).

Steem mining proceeded at a constant rate for one month. Dash's instamine was front-loaded primarily onto literally one hour (and remember that is one hour following a misleading launch time), then front-loaded to a lesser extent over the first 8 hours and finally concluded after two days. At some point during the month the Steem developer stated he had mined "enough", cut back on his mining so others could mine more (and again, it was verifiable on the blockchain that he actually did this).

At the conclusion of the pure-PoW mining phase, all of the coins from the developer mining accounts were merged into the transparent 'steemit' account, with a stated plan to sell them off to pay for development and distribute them for free to new users (each new account requires 10 STEEM funding). These actions have occurred and are transparent on the blockchain. Where did the Dash instamine coins go? How much was mined by the developers or others? Is there similar transparency? Are there or have there ever been explicit, transparent and verifiable plans to distribute it?

Unlike Dash, there have been no supply or emissions cuts in Steem that have the effect of amplifying the early mining. There have been no new schemes introduced to pay more of the supply to the instaminers, and indeed some of the tweaks and proposals that have been made have the effect of diluting early holdings even faster.

And finally, on top of all this, Steem isn't even trying to by a cryptocurrency, it is a social media site. The Steem token is totally unsuitable for use as a cryptocurrency, and no one (including the devs) suggests otherwise. So again, comparing it and its distribution with Dash (even if Dash's distribution were likewise transparent which it mostly is not) makes no sense.

So while I will repeat that I don't think their stealth mine strategy is a good idea, nor do I personally support it, nor do I think it has worked out particularly as they had planned, nor do I suggest that anyone invest in it, comparing it to Dash or suggesting that it is somehow more of a fraudulent launch than Dash ignores all or nearly all facts about what actually happened with each coin.

I support that this is a free market and you have every right to point out those differences.

I hope the distinction is clear, that what I think it is futile is trying to maintain awareness of your stance, by basically advertising by brute force the above information.

Fact is that the altcoin market ends up ignoring and forgetting that information. And who are you (and your Monero group) to force it down everyone's throat over and over and over and over.

I realize you didn't repeat that every day, but the underlings (myself included) maintained the barrage.

How about accepting the fact that the market doesn't really care. (We should) Move on. Find a new vocation and hopefully one that is more creative and produces something great for altcoins. If the market doesn't think Monero is great, that is not Dash's fault. Dash has nothing to do with why the market is not going bonkers for Monero.

The real problem for Monero is that speculators are not investing for some 20 year Manhattan project. They want to invest in near-term 10 - 100X gain potential. They also don't see that level of potential excitement about anonymity.

Speculators are shooting for the next Bitcoin investment. Ethereum already fulfilled that goal, rising by 100X from the IPO price.

Perhaps you and some other Monero long-term HODLers wanted the altcoin market to be about something which it isn't.

You may remember back when rpietila used to proclaim that Monero would be the next best thing to Bitcoin and I was really pissed off for him lording over the future like a God. And this was someone who I was cordial with and had done business with in silver. There was always this air of snobbishness and condescending attitude from the Monero supporters (not all, but a lot).

I often said this altcoin market is not for heirlooms. New ideas and goals are popping up every 3 - 6 months. Innovate or die.

The long-term Linux approach appears to be inapplicable to altcoins.