Quote from: illodin on April 20, 2015, 03:01:52 PM

Quote from: generalizethis on April 20, 2015, 01:28:54 PM

Quote from: illodin on April 20, 2015, 12:47:05 PM

Quote from: generalizethis on April 20, 2015, 11:48:19 AM

Quote from: illodin on April 20, 2015, 11:36:28 AM

I don't feel scammed. I managed to mine just fine, and bought more at rate 10k/0.25BTC. I'm sorry you missed the launch, and I'm sorry you didn't invest even 1 BTC when it was cheap. Don't be angry just because other people are more successful than you.

Again, who has been scammed?

You, dumb ass. You can rationalize it all you want, but the guy lied to you and preceded to benefit from that lie. He kept the coins he mined and now has you as a willing participant because you're A: a moron B: benefited just enough so you'll go along with it C: delusional.

You can decide which box applies.

*Also, I didn't say it was a scam. I'd call it fraud, but that's niggling over details.

How am I being scammed? I didn't lose anything. Quite contrary. If your definition of getting scammed is getting rich then I'm fine getting scammed every day and twice on Sundays.

How did he lie to me?

He just never answered you. =p Funny how that works.

Quote from: illodin on January 19, 2014, 05:58:00 AM

wut.. no premine but you have 5k to throw? Huh

I said fraud. Coin conveniently doesn't launch. Gives estimate and then proceeds to break that estimate conveniently at a time when most people would have regrouped and went to bed, then conveniently doesn't have it available in the most used format, and then conveniently doesn't relaunch in a fair manner to avoid the fraud label which you inconveniently have to answer for in posts such as this, but he conveniently never answers for himself. If it smells like a duck, looks like a duck, walks away like a duck it's probably Evan renaming his coin to conveniently distance his project from the instamine he pulled with xcoin. It was an instamine and it doesn't matter if there's a story to deflect attention that it was most likely intentional, it was an instamine. 500k in coins in the first hour is an instamine.

You can parse it in your mind any way you want, but don't tell me I've gotta be stupid too. It was an instamine and that you and Evan own for the life of the coin and there isn't anything you can do about it now. He could have relaunched fairly, he chose not to, and now you're gonna have to answer for it as long as the coin exist or for how ever long you chose to be one of Evan's lackey apologist.

I don't think there's anyone trying to say a lot of coins weren't mined fast in the beginning. I'm certainly not trying to.

There were (and probably still are) hundreds of people F5'ing the ANN forums trying to instamine every coin's launch. It's a risk and effort people are willing to accept and sometimes it pays off. Just because you're too lazy to do it yourself doesn't mean you're entitled to be angry at those who aren't and get lucky once in a while.

A lot of coins were mined in the beginning. Now we are here, and a lot of coins are still to be mined. More than many other coins have I might add.

And more than 4x less than were originally stated too:

But apparently it's totally okay to take the 30k and change it into 120k+ overnight to appease the same small group of users:

Quote from: eduffield on April 08, 2014, 07:09:03 PM

Quote from: ymer on April 08, 2014, 07:01:43 PM

Quote from: eduffield on April 08, 2014, 06:57:42 PM

Quote from: ymer on April 08, 2014, 06:54:59 PM

Quote from: eduffield on April 08, 2014, 06:52:58 PM

DarkSend Beta v6.1 is out:

https://www.darkcointalk.org/threads/darksend-beta-v6.226/

ps, we offered the community an airdrop to even things out, they voted no.

What airdrop?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg6105088#msg6105088

Whoa! only 110 votes with 5% difference between yes and no and you decide to abort the vote and lock the thread before 24 hours and conclude that everyone decided not to airdrop?

Roll Eyes

After I asked many investors that purchased $10-100k USD worth of Darkcoin came out of the woodwork and said that would rob them. You can't change the rules in the middle of the game. It's in the past and we're moving on.

Can you imagine buying $30000 worth of something and then the developers making it worth $15000 overnight to appease a small group of users?

Even better, let's decentralize darksent into much less than a few thousand hands, you know, a number less than there are banks in the world:

Quote from: eduffield on February 21, 2014, 09:10:24 PM

Yet another reason why DarkSend needs to be decentralized:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.msg3041677#msg3041677

What happened there? oops.

Or another gem about how we're gonna get so close to that 84 million max coins:

Quote from: eduffield on February 26, 2014, 03:16:40 PM

There has been some debate lately about the reward structure vs the early adopter advantage. To be clear, Darkcoin was pre-announced so all of the miners shared in the early mining. There were some issues with the block reward in the beginning, but it was still fair. We dont have a huge percentage of the coins in existence like some users have purposed. In fact, we gave away nearly 80,000 coins in the first week.

Originally we thought scarce was good, but the halving was added to the code later and was an obvious mistake, it doesnt work well with the formulas were using to implement the mining reward structure.

Ive been doing the math this morning and Darkcoin doesnt need a halving structure at all. So Im removing it:

https://github.com/evan82/darkcoin/commit/819ccd71cab84c3728d457b16d2679486f917394

The formula 2222222/(((Difficulty+2600)/9)^2) is actually well defined to handle lowering the reward steadily over a long period of time. It caps out about 5000 difficulty, if this isnt high enough or slow enough we can revisit this later.

This change will put us way closer to the 84,000,000 coin maximum that we originally wanted. The maximum rewards per year will be 5.2M per year (25 every 2.5 minutes) and eventually only release 1.0M per year (5 every 2.5 minutes).

Thanks for the input and support

Oh look, turns out the darkcoin blockchain is indeed a private one, and not necessarily an entirely 'public' one like in the hands-down-your-pants marketing propaganda that's being pushed lately:

Quote from: eduffield on March 14, 2014, 06:50:32 PM

While we understand Darkcoin can be used for things that are illegal/unlawful purposes, we (the Darkcoin Devs) would prefer not to be associated with that in any way. What DarkSend offers is just a more private blockchain, which is useful for all legitimate business also. However, we can't really control what is done with the technology or how it is used.

Oh, look, my favorite post about how early investors just aren't being rewarded enough, so let's vote:

Quote from: eduffield on March 21, 2014, 04:04:49 PM

Hello everyone and happy Friday!

Anyone who's been around long enough knows nothing in Darkcoin is ever set in stone and we listen to the community. Last time we removed the block halving we received a lot of crap, here's the problems with yearly halving.

- It's too fast and could destroy the coin
- It's way too much (50% per year)
- We already have formula for controlling the supply

Problems with not having a fixed supply:

- We'll have a constant amount of inflation forever. Most of us are in the austrian camp of economics, so I'd like to fix this.

In true Darkcoin fashion, I'd like to propose a solution that no other crypto has and fixes all of the issues. A yearly reduction of supply of 20%. With this we'll hit the cap of coins near 2056. I'm guessing we'll have somewhere near 25M coins (12M minimum, 49M maximum. Depends on how many miners we attract).

Let's have a vote!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=525093.0

Even better, the proposal states that the current number of around 22m is actually an average estimate between 12 and 49 million.

And here's one more, you know because 1000 might just be too much for a masternode for real:

Quote from: eduffield on April 02, 2014, 07:38:18 PM

Quote from: AlexGR on April 02, 2014, 07:29:56 PM

Random thoughts that spring up:

1) If DRK goes to, say, 10 bucks a coin in the mid-term, we are talking about 10.000 usd for running a node. It could be too much.

2) 10% of the mining for last node sounds too much. It also may open up a window of exploitation and give incentive to DDOS in master nodes so that one node takes the fee instead of the other... Other types of exploitation for getting the mining reward could spring up as we go along.

1000DRK is probably too much, it was just an example number. So was 10%. I was just vetting the idea itself.

Quote from: AlexGR on April 02, 2014, 07:29:56 PM

Something else: The other day someone mentioned about the DRK allocation to various wallets and that Cryptsy has something like 400-500k DRK (?)... so, in this scenario, an exchange of that size can create 400 master nodes as a way to gain "interest" on their money despite the hot-wallet risk. Even if they only used 50% of their DRKs, it could be 200 nodes - which would be a sizeable part of the network under control of only 1 party. That would require quite a lot of laundering depth to avoid the chance of hitting a cryptsy node every single time.

That's a good point, the exchanges will definitely want to take part in those profits. I imagine they wouldn't want to run 100% of their coins as master nodes, that excessively dangerous. They must keep 80%+ in cold wallets.

Note that last point about exchanges - because those coins you think are in cold storage .. well they're really being used as masternodes for the exchanges! Why do you think there's so little push for <1000 coin holders to come together and make masternodes? forget that, if you just ignore them they'll just put those coins on the exchanges so we can take that money from them!