• Forum has been upgraded, all links, images, etc are as they were. Please see Official Announcements for more information

Our friend has an insta....

Do you REALLY CARE about the InstaMine issue that continues.... on and on and on and on and on an...

  • YES - Shut down XCoin/Darkcoin/DASH - NOW!!!

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • NO - But it is a concern for me - kinda - maybe

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    55
M

MangledBlue

Guest
@Taylor05 - from BCT - why not? - good STUFF

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg12689175#msg12689175

run with it -

I like it :p


TAKE THE POLL @ UP TOP :p

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First issue... so you deleted your posts showing your "one-time" association with XMR, then claim that you aren't associated with XMR (conveniently fail to mention the fact that you were once), and then claim not to be a liar?
a) Why would you delete old posts?
b) Lying by omission is still lying... you are therefore a liar

Second issue... I've pointed out many times, that it doesn't matter to me whether the high emission rate was planned or not. My head is not "in the sand". I wouldn't invest in any stock that didn't have properly motivated management, and the same is true of cryptocurrencies, and I would recommend the same to anyone looking to invest in the space. I LIKE Dash precisely because Evan and the rest of the team is properly incentivized as significant "shareholders". Even if you assume the emission rate was planned, that fact remains true... Evan is highly financially motivated to deliver (as he should be). I wouldn't invest in any coin for which the core developer didn't have this motivation and neither should you. So your attempts to try to convince me that it was planned miss the point... I simply don't care and neither does anyone who's got serious money to invest in this space.

Your final point... PROOF that it was planned by showing me that after 5:55am, Evan had accumulated a whopping 5,000 Dash? That was 10 blocks by 8 hours into the life of the coin, or 10 of the 1750 that had been created by that time. Oh, yeah... clearly Evan had a giant mining rig ready to go to get less than 0.6% of the block rewards. Looks like you have your smoking gun! Haha!!!

Let's do some simple math, shall we? Let's assume that Evan was the ONLY miner for the first 500 blocks (that's the worst case scenario... you can't assume he mined more than 100%). If we simply determine the network hash rate for the first 100 blocks (using the networkhashps command in the Dash wallet), you can see that there was only 12.6kh/s... this is clearly one (very weak) CPU and the first 100 blocks were mined in a few minutes... it probably took some time to add the other machines he and his friends had at the ready. But from blocks 100-500 the average jumps to 711.2kh/s and appears pretty steady that whole time. Let's assume that this 711.2kh/s is Evan and his friends. They would have gotten about 245,000 of the first 250,000 coins mined (through block 500).

By block 500, things start to change. A few others are clearly joining them by this point, but assuming the 711 of the 895 kh/s were theirs from block 500-600, then they still got 79% of those blocks too (worth about 40,000 Dash). If you repeat this process to figure out the share of each block of 100 they got, you get something like the following:

EDIT: The coin start and coin finish are the beginning total coins in circulation and ending coins in circulation for each set of 100 blocks... so the difference is how many were created for each 100 block section... multiply that by the dev's share and you can see where I get the numbers from.


Se5USkw.png

http://imgur.com/Se5USkw





Each row represents 100 blocks. As you can see, by about block 1,000, the hashrate was up dramatically... this is consistent with posts on BTC of many other miners saying they were up and running. There are a couple of points at which network hash drops, consistent with the fact that a couple of bug fixes went out which probably caused Evan and other miners to stop mining for a brief time to update. By block 2300, Evan and Co's share was probably less than 1% of the network hash rate, by which time these estimates would put them at about 511k coins. After that, there is little chance they got a decent share... maybe another 6,000 coins for the next 1,000 blocks, but basically the party was over by then, so to speak. So if you assume they got about 518k coins by the time they were consistently getting less than 1% of the coins, that represents less than 8.8% of the current number of coins in circulation... which is very consistent with the statements from Evan that "all of the founders" hold less than 10% of the current supply combined.

These assumptions are generous to the "instamine" haters for several reasons:

1) It assumes that Evan was the ONLY miner for the first 500 blocks, which we know isn't true. There was at least one other developer at that time, I believe a friend of Evan's, but I'm not sure... so the "instamine" would have been split at least between two people
2) It assumes no one else was mining for the first 500 blocks (which may be the case... we'll never know, but I make this assumption in the interests of being conservative)
3) It assumes that Evan and Co had absolutely no down time for updating their miners, which is impossible... any downtime would reduce these assumptions
4) It assumes that once huge amounts of mining power joined beginning at block 500 that Evan didn't start experiencing an elevated level of rejects... this is unlikely as well since blocks were being created so rapidly at that time - literally seconds apart on average - that he and many others reported rejects, getting on wrong chains, having to reset, etc. Evan would have no way to be immune to these issues caused by the rapid creation of the blocks and network latency, so the true "networkhashps" is clearly understated during that period because many blocks were rejected and not counted.
5) It assumes that he never sold any Dash

Based on the data, I see no reason to disbelieve Evan and the stated amount of coin that he has. In fact, the data seems to support everything he's said.

So yes, you are a liar and Evan is truthful.


----------------------------------
edit:1: fix error
 
Last edited:
guys
love the enthusiasm but honestly
why are we falling for this s h . t from 2 guys on BCT ?
2 guys are driving this community crazy (good and bad) since long enough and I think it is really time to put this to rest and get back to work !

just my 2 duffs as usual
:rolleyes:
 
guys
love the enthusiasm but honestly
why are we falling for this s h . t from 2 guys on BCT ?
2 guys are driving this community crazy (good and bad) since long enough and I think it is really time to put this to rest and get back to work !

just my 2 duffs as usual
:rolleyes:

We are trying to put it to rest - just vote :p
 
I don't see a reason not to discuss any issues on dashtalk. For me the amount of coins Evan can possibly have is the reason I'm not buying any more coins. I do have some but it's not what I would have if there was no instamine. Big holders will always be a potential risk to a price manipulation and have too much voting power.
On the other hand let's face it, Otoh and other big holders with 100+ nodes can be the same threat.
 
@Taylor05 - from BCT - why not? - good STUFF

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg12689175#msg12689175

run with it -

I like it :p


TAKE THE POLL @ UP TOP :p

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First issue... so you deleted your posts showing your "one-time" association with XMR, then claim that you aren't associated with XMR (conveniently fail to mention the fact that you were once), and then claim not to be a liar?
a) Why would you delete old posts?
b) Lying by omission is still lying... you are therefore a liar

Second issue... I've pointed out many times, that it doesn't matter to me whether the high emission rate was planned or not. My head is not "in the sand". I wouldn't invest in any stock that didn't have properly motivated management, and the same is true of cryptocurrencies, and I would recommend the same to anyone looking to invest in the space. I LIKE Dash precisely because Evan and the rest of the team is properly incentivized as significant "shareholders". Even if you assume the emission rate was planned, that fact remains true... Evan is highly financially motivated to deliver (as he should be). I wouldn't invest in any coin for which the core developer didn't have this motivation and neither should you. So your attempts to try to convince me that it was planned miss the point... I simply don't care and neither does anyone who's got serious money to invest in this space.

Your final point... PROOF that it was planned by showing me that after 5:55am, Evan had accumulated a whopping 5,000 Dash? That was 10 blocks by 8 hours into the life of the coin, or 10 of the 1750 that had been created by that time. Oh, yeah... clearly Evan had a giant mining rig ready to go to get less than 0.6% of the block rewards. Looks like you have your smoking gun! Haha!!!

Let's do some simple math, shall we? Let's assume that Evan was the ONLY miner for the first 500 blocks (that's the worst case scenario... you can't assume he mined more than 100%). If we simply determine the network hash rate for the first 100 blocks (using the networkhashps command in the Dash wallet), you can see that there was only 12.6kh/s... this is clearly one (very weak) CPU and the first 100 blocks were mined in a few minutes... it probably took some time to add the other machines he and his friends had at the ready. But from blocks 100-500 the average jumps to 711.2kh/s and appears pretty steady that whole time. Let's assume that this 711.2kh/s is Evan and his friends. They would have gotten about 245,000 of the first 250,000 coins mined (through block 500).

By block 500, things start to change. A few others are clearly joining them by this point, but assuming the 711 of the 895 kh/s were theirs from block 500-600, then they still got 79% of those blocks too (worth about 40,000 Dash). If you repeat this process to figure out the share of each block of 100 they got, you get something like the following:

EDIT: The coin start and coin finish are the beginning total coins in circulation and ending coins in circulation for each set of 100 blocks... so the difference is how many were created for each 100 block section... multiply that by the dev's share and you can see where I get the numbers from.


Se5USkw.png

http://imgur.com/Se5USkw
....
----------------------------------
edit:1: fix error

Dash is less and less polarised in the hands of a few individuals and this is great.
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/top100cap-btc-ltc-dash-doge.html#1y
 
I actually found one of those infamous 500 Darkcoin blocks with a slow computer using a combination of 4 machines(10 cores at 25khash each)= 250 kilohash in total, this the only profitable mining I have ever really done, tbh, so if anyone says there was an unfair release, it is a load of baloney.
We were part of the main darkcoin pool, the total hash rate was only 40 megahash, Mr Eduffield was at number 2, and Mr Anon was at number 1. I was about 16th down the list of hashers in the pool. The hash rate was split between a fair number of users, there were many on 50-100 khash during weeks 1 and week 2.

It should be pointed out that the original darkcoin pool was hacked, and an unknown amount was stolen over a period of months, and this kept the price down on the initial exchange (C-Cex), ironically it probably resulted in a better distribution of the darkcoin in the long run.
 
Thanks for your details.
Those guy will always try to repeat it again in another forum. I don't really mind
 
Back
Top