toknormal : confuses his personal assumptions about competitive mining (which he often accompany with decorative pictures), for facts. They are not. They are just assumptions that have big holes in them.
I consider his assumptions invalid and going directly against everything this Dash crypto project stands for. He made a number of negative comments about Dash, with the latest that Dash price is in a death spiral
and not in a bear market.
thunderjet : his posts consists of nothing more then baseless assumptions, missing any evidence that points to miners somehow also being involved with masternodes. His posts are unsubstantiated and contain little value.
He made a number of negative comments about Dash (Dash coin wealth distribution would somehow be centralized without providing any evidence, just personal opinions and assumptions).
He is not even invested in Dash (80 Dash in 2017 and sold) and stated that the Dash price is getting dumped to oblivion, due to centralization.
The market is directly contradicting what these two persons assume about the Dash market and the Dash price. Whenever the Dash market is showing signs of moving out of the bear market, then just think of these two persons and how very wrong they really were with their market assumptions and opinions.
With all due respect - you have been very kind to the doubts that I have raised in the thread and I do not want to you takes this post as an attempt at contempt, since it is not, nor would I want it to seem a lack of cordiality on my part -. It's a bit tedious and extra work to have to highlight this point ... but hopefully it helps digest the following without sterile "personal noise".
It is normal for any approach to have cracks and it is not presented as an absolute truth that holds the seven keys of wisdom. Totally disavowing approaches whose direction, partially, may be well oriented only indicates a flagrant imbalance: That the failures of these approaches are more suited to the interest of those who disavow than the successes of those same approaches (which, of course, those who try to disavow , does not give the same value because they are only "partially" correct).
The fallacy is the following: A partial error in an approach makes it useless ... but a partial success does not make it admirable (only if it supports own thesis, of course ). It is simply, essentially, unbalanced.
What indicates a failure in a reasoned and well-argued approach is that this specific extension on the original thesis is wrong (so it is necessary to return to the "mainstream path" of that credited approach and continue to evolve). If specific errors overruled a general approach, DASH - which by the way, fails in absolutely essential points at record levels - would be in the garbage can within two days of its launch. And these continuously repeated failures, and at enormous intensity in DASH ... do not serve you, however, to disavow "the whole". I repeat, it is not balanced.
On the other hand, you refer to the market (almost all of us often do) as the high priest of economic reason ... and that argument of authority is more than questionable in a global market deeply distorted by the infinite fiat (of whose scam BTC is starting to be one of the biggest catalysts).
The first thing that DASH must do is protect itself against the speculative agents that manipulate "Saint Market". As long as it does not, the clash of ideas at the level of community members ... and, worse, the sterility of the project, will be constant. The solution for DASH is structural ... and the debate, absolutely conceptual, essential and basic (return to the commented "mainstream path" - the correct central route of its own approach -). Any exhibition will fail, both to despise the project and to make it sacred, at the level of nuances ... simply because no non-structural approach will lead to a constant succession of correct results.
The market is simply infected and does not "bless" anything...is only a really fucking trash can. Without facing that infection, no project will progress with self-sufficiency in ownership of its own future and prosperity. The good news is that DASH, by design, is a good antidote to that infection. For my part, I will try to orient my interventions in that sense (which I believe is the most valid for a positive and self-sufficient course of the project - in fact, although i read diferent interesting nuances, i do not see any other determining factor for it ... perhaps the DIF, but not with stability, since it depends on its investor success and is therefore a speculative resource -. A scenario that DASH, with its current course, is far from reaching, despite having an ideal design for it, i insist -). As long as DASH does not confront its current position and straighten its course shielding its wealth in a DISTORTED market, nothing will change. Everything else will be a clash of opposing nuances doomed to the distraction and triumph of the global monetary scam (which, I am sorry to disappoint the idealists, is as present in crypto - indeed, exponentially amplified - as in any other sector).
