The Birth Of Darkcoin

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dunedoo

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Feb 25, 2015
568
600
263
Sydney Australia
Dash Address
XyoSz4xviVGfks1pLhaXw2Baqmhfw5k7MG
After reading this I understand how the trolls found something to chew on. Thanks for an honest account of the beginnings. Not a perfect beginning but mea culpa is a great response.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sub-Ether

splawik21

Moderator
Dash Core Team
Foundation Member
Dash Support Group
Apr 8, 2014
1,938
1,295
1,283
Most of alts had failed starts last year so Xcoin that time wasn't special ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dunedoo

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,871
1,863
1,283
There were a couple of posts on BCT that were very good. Since I think someday this thread will be referenced for research, I would like to include them here.

From Kaene: ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg12691335#msg12691335 )

"evidence"? I'll try to reply to a troll ;D

I was there during the "instamine", go check the first pages of this thread and you will see me complaining and discussing.

Evan updated the code many times during the first hours/days because various mistakes. I had some talks in IRC with him during the first days/weeks, and my conclusion was that the instamine happened because he just wasn't very familiarized with Bitcoin codebase and he didn't test his coin properly before launch, plus, at that time most coins were launched without a proper difficulty adjustment algorithm (Kimoto's Gravity Well was fresh new at that time and most coins didn't include it at launch).

I also saw his nickname mining in pools, he didn't even ranking top 10 of the miners (and pools had most of network's hashrate), at that time people didn't hide their nicknames in pools and you were used to see always the same names.

Moreover, if you spend some minutes analyzing the blockchain and you follow the first 1-10 mined blocks (those that are clearly mined by the dev) you will see that eventually they all go to the same addresses, with many other blocks and coins coming from pool-mining, and finally these after weeks don't account for more than 80k XCoins (about 2BTC at the time). I guess that's why he tried to buy some more, and he made it publicly (of course people like you would had thought he was hyping it to then dump his coins at higher price). https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg4961359#msg4961359

But the most important, the instamine didn't matter, if anything, it helped with the distribution, and the reason is because during the first weeks of life of XCoin you could buy 100k XCoin for just 2.5BTC - 5BTC, so everyone had his chance for weeks to decide to risk and buy or just sell (I myself sold more than 50k XCoin for less than 2BTC, and decided to buy some back later more expensive):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg4889177#msg4889177
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg4872871#msg4872871
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg4867363#msg4867363

Next time you talk about the instamine, understand that those of us who don't care about it is because we understand what happened (can't say the same about you or others just repeating the same over and over without proper knowledge or analysis). We judge XCoin-Darkcoin-DASH (and Evan) for 20 months of upgrades, delivering promises and innovation, and we invest in it because we know it will continue delivering.
 

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,871
1,863
1,283
And this one from Taylor05 in reply to troll: ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg12689175#msg12689175 )
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.


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.
Edited later by Taylor05
I made one meaningful error in this post that I'd like to correct, since I see that many other people are finding value in it and referencing it...

If you exclude the genesis block from the calculations on the first set of 100 blocks (since there is a time lag between the genesis block and actual mining), the hashrate average for my first set of 100 changes significantly (and the associated assumption that it was just one PC is no longer valid). Excluding block 1, the next 99 blocks averaged 395kh/s, NOT 12kh/s. So the first 100 blocks were clearly NOT mined on a single PC. This introduces further (though not much incremental) doubt that Evan was the only miner for the first 100 blocks. It was certainly more than one machine, though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

balaraja

New Member
Mar 19, 2017
7
0
1
41
3 years ago this coin have name DARKCOIN, but now change name with DASH = DARK COIN CASH.. :)
 

bodhigaya

New Member
Mar 17, 2017
7
1
3
Great cover, Evan. Love the story behind Dash. Look forward to working with your developers in the near future.
 

Tony

New Member
Sep 11, 2017
10
3
3
42
Nice to have this story up here Evan. Although we haven't officially met, I've known and supported the project really early on. Then unfortunately life and obligations were taking too much of my time and eventually I forgot about Darkcoin :-( So this story is a really nice reminder for me.

Congrats on everything! The idea, the passion, the work, everything that has brought us, all of us, here!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raptor73

Slake

New Member
Aug 16, 2017
36
1
8
77
Nice to have this story up here Evan. Although we haven't officially met, I've known and supported the project really early on. Then unfortunately life and obligations were taking too much of my time and eventually I forgot about Darkcoin :-( So this story is a really nice reminder for me.


Congrats on everything! The idea, the passion, the work, everything that has brought us, all of us, here!
This was great rebrand. DarkCoin just had shady connotations to it.
 
Last edited:

kripto

New Member
Oct 8, 2017
4
0
1
31
Wow! It's funny to see the thread where it all started 3 years ago... Even though DarkCoin perfectly explains Dash's most powerful feature (anonymization technology), Dash sounds more powerful - instant transaction DASH from one wallet to another ; )
 

Brandon Willey

New Member
Oct 6, 2017
6
5
3
40
It's exciting to see the improvements over the last 3 years, the shift in branding (good move imho) and to look forward into the Dash dev roadmap for the near future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.