Bitcoin Forum

some light reading for you on your new investment...............


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1740313.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1740313.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1740313.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1740313.0

I don't trust Adam Back, Nick Szabo, or Gregory Maxwell.

Those are some one else's legendary heroes, definitely not my heroes.

I trust more Roger Ver, Amanda Johnson, Mike Hearn, Vitalik Buterin and -- most importantly -- my own judgement.

And my brain tells me that Adam Back, Nick Szabo, Gregory Maxwell (and Peter Wuelle) are all WRONG. (just like all Ripple developers, that are trying to centralize the crypto space and take my liberty away; It won't fly here. Not with me and not with my fellow investor-friends).

So your solution to your fear of centralization is to invest in a coin that has one of the worst centralization schemes? Good luck with that.

Bitcoin has problems that are worse than anything else: namely the (lack of) scalability. 3 hour transactions.

Segwit will not fix any of that -- maybe it will delay the bottleneck for 6-to-12 months, at best.

Lightning Network has too many problems (both security and centralization), as described in this paper:
http://www.wallstreettechnologist.com/2016/10/03/lightning-network-will-it-save-bitcoin-or-break-it/

As far as I'm concerned getting huge blocks (1 gigabyte; 1000x times more than today) + SPV wallets is the reasonable path going forward.

144 blocks /day x 1 GB = 144 GB/day, or 52 TB/year in block size.
Only data centers or powerful rich-users work-stations will be able to hold that, but with SPV wallets it seems secure.

Also 52 TB's DB is doable using 10 TB hard disks, perhaps in disk array for advanced home users putting $10,000 workstations at home.
Much better than getting "central hubs".

And SPV wallets (Electrum) seem secure...

Dash, unlike Bitcoin, subsidize not only miners but also full-nodes. With a subsidy, buying several hard drives for big fat blocks is doable.

Dash, unlike Bitcoin, subsidize not only miners but also full-nodes. With a subsidy, buying several hard drives for big fat blocks is doable.

I think that partial pre-mine is fine (Vitalik from Ethereum also did it. After all he can't work for free. And I can't expect him to work for free).

Re: Stay away from ICO


Scammers take capital out of the ecosystem and spend it on crack, Yachts, booze, and prostitutes.

You personally may get richer (if you are a good speculator), while on average the ecosystem gets poorer, unless of course we are bringing more new fools (and their capital) into our ecosystem from outside of it.

So eventually there could be no ecosystem remaining for you to speculate in.

My opinion is we have a window of time (5 - 10 years?) within which to leverage this opportunity to produce something really significant that could help the world. And to produce a $trillion marketcap.

Any way, please continue what you are doing. Hopefully those who developers who are serious will find a way to operate within this ecosystem so we don't lose the potential.

I do not know how Evan Duffield can still get away with his secret premine. Now we have someone posting a thread about the inability of bitcoin to solve its scaling problems while he is also trying to say that Dash is the better cryptocoin. Amusing.

Evan goes to conferences and organizes some of them right? What do you the people say to him? Do they tell him what he is doing is wrong?

Monero tried that once, they sent dnaleor to a Bitcoin event in october 2015 where Dash held a presentation when the budget system just
became operational (Dash had a marketcap of 14 million back then).

For me that was the first time it became evident how fanatic some of these Monero trolls really are. And not just on this
forum but also in real life. We got a good laugh out of it though (i was there too).

Its kinda hard to tell someone what he is doing is wrong when it is crystal clear what he does is actually pretty darn good,
something the market is noticing and rewarding accordingly.

To OP : welcome to Dash, feel free to visit us in our Dash ANN thread or in our Dash.org/forum and also i think the problems that
you encountered with Bitcoin are exactly the same problems that made Amanda switch from Bitcoin to Dash (that and the digital cash
aspects in Dash and its governance system which Amanda seems to find intriguing).

Monero tried that once, they sent dnaleor to a Bitcoin event in october 2015 where Dash held a presentation when the budget system just
became operational (Dash had a marketcap of 14 million back then).

This means that in the long run, a PoW coin with tail emission doesn't really care about any "initial unfairness", while a "sound money" coin with PoS can only get worse that way.

With DASH, this poses the extra problem of the potential collusion of masternodes.  I have to say that I don't know how severe this problem is.  But the day that Evan is made "an offer he can't refuse" to hand over all masternodes under his control, directly or indirectly, to TPTB, I don't know how much of DASH's anon remains.

Here is an interesting comparison between Dash and Bitcoin, i must warn you all though its a bit .. uhm .. lengthy :

https://i.imgur.com/wFzUrES.jpg

You could have done us the favor of making it not more lengthy than it needs to be for legibility.

You could have done us the favor of making it not more lengthy than it needs to be for legibility.

Hi all !

ATTENTION !

Due to Bitcoin community stupidity, lack of progress, and on-going scalability problems of the Bitcoin Network, I have decided to sell a large chunk of my
Bitcoin holdings for a combination of cash, Dash and Ethereum. (--mostly Dash)

This came after few days ago several of my Bitcoin transactions took 3 hours to complete rather than 10 minutes normally (and one transaction
took as long as 26 (!!!) hours to complete due to an artificially limited block size in Bitcoin.

I see the problem as a very fundamental problem in the Bitcoin network, that might resolve itself, or it might not. In which case bitcoin Network will go the Way of The Nokia. There is a theoretical technical solution to this problem (just like Nokia could turn-around itself during 2011/2012 era, but didn't), but politics and dumbness of the Bitcoin community prevent solution from happening.

More info:
https://medium.com/@ViaBTC/why-we-must-increase-the-block-size-and-why-i-support-bitcoin-unlimited-90b114b3ef4a

Bitcoin’s Transaction Backlog Hits All-Time High
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoins-transaction-backlog-hits-all-time-high/

Former Bitcoin Developer Hearn Calls Bitcoin A Failure, Sells All Coins
http://allcoinsnews.com/2016/01/15/former-bitcoin-developer-hearn-calls-bitcoin-a-failure-sells-all-coins/
https://blog.plan99.net/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7#.pijdkhwd4

--
-"Technologov"

Additionally: I really like "Amanda Johnson" and her Dash school on YouTube. She convinced me to invest in Dash and give it a chance. (Without her I would go more into Litecoin, Ethereum and Fiat dollars)

Here is a Dash channel on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAzD2v9Yx4a4iS2_-unODkA

I was aware of Dash since 2014 (Darkcoin back then), but didn't pay too much attention, because it's only feature over Bitcoin at the time was coin-mixing, a feature I wasn't interested in, at the time.

When did other features appeared ?

paying to full nodes ?

voting by Master-nodes ?

paying to employees ?

instantSend ?

Additionally, I'm willing to invest in Dash-Electrum development. (Since I'm a Bitcoin Electrum user right now, and like SPV light wallets in general) How is that proceeding, and what it's status ? Would a donation help to develop it faster ?
For me, the Bitcoin slow transaction debacle is a catastrophe, but perhaps also a new beginning...

Plus I'm calling a large blocks solution for Bitcoin -- be it classic, XT, Unlimited or whatever else. Bigger blocks is a must !

I think their is need know the amount of Dash tokens that are being held in their so called master node for me it is a POS coin, the amount of Dash available for trading is very low, so it is very easy to pump a very low volume coin. Dash ponzi scheme might last for more time and even hit $100 before the ponzi burst.

* Dash has a decentralized budget system that is funded directly from the blockchain. Budget proposals are voted on by masternodes. Independance of budget and governance enables Dash
to create its own ecosystem and expand drastically from there.  

You can't prove it is decentralized, because you can't prove there isn't a Sybil attack on the ownership of masternodes. Given the skewed distribution of tokens at the start due to the sneaky "bug" instamine, it is sensible to expect that most (let's guessestimate a majority or supermajority) of the masternodes are owned by "Evan Inc.". Why would the insiders give up control of such a marvelous alleged "scam" (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1804521.msg17983070#msg17983070), especially given that speculators apparently keep feeding Evan Inc. more money (unless the market liquidity is Evan, Inc buying tokens from himself to fake the liquidity and manipulate the price upwards)?

Decentralized is not the same as distributed or replicated. Please consult the dictionary if you disagree.

I've been thinking more about what Evan Inc. could in theory do to the market place if the float was only a tiny fraction of the insider controlled money supply. It means that any selloff by any person who owns Dash will only cause a short-term drop in the price, because the insiders can buy tokens from themselves and raise the price back up again. This gives the illusion that there is liquidity for those Dash holders who want to sell. If anyone with large holdings (e.g. $100,000 of it) wanted to sell Dash, they would crash the price. If 10 guys with $10,000 each of Dash tried to sell, they would probably crash the price. I VERY MUCH DOUBT YOU CAN SELL DASH WHEN YOU NEED TO.

It is possible the Evan Inc. might try to absorb your selling if he felt it was just a test. But sustained selling of only very tiny amounts of the marketcap would I bet crash the price.

And this is why I think you are crazy to sell Bitcoin and buy Dash. Bitcoin has liquidity. Dash I bet doesn't (but I can't prove it without doing a test).

If there is a way to short Dash, someone may want to do this test and make a lot of money if the hypothesis is correct.   8)  You could force the insiders to buy at lower prices to stop you from covering your shorts, which they might do so that you lose and they lose also. So you might need very deep pockets to win this war. You'd probably also want to make sure you are anonymous, because it is not beyond the realm of plausibility to ponder if this group could possibly have ties to mafia and retaliate bodily.

You could talk to iCEBREAKER, he is known to have shorted Dash in the past .. this could totally be his thing.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the liquidity is real, with sufficient speculators being enamored with Dash's marketing to provide an aggregate market.

Maybe ICEBREAKER needs to wait and short when the Dash "reality distortion field" has been busted by a project that is actually gaining the real world adoption that Dash only talks about.

wait wait wait, you are not talking about Zcash here.. are you ?  ::)

Neither Zcash nor Monero. I'll let this be my last reply unless some new issue of discussion is raised.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the liquidity is real, with sufficient speculators being enamored with Dash's marketing to provide an aggregate market.

Re: Stay away from ICO


That was a good attitude before when there were only a few ICOs. Now we have a new ICO every week or day.

Instead of there being any money to make prices go up in the future, all our BTC will be in the pockets of ICO developers. An ICO graveyard is coming where 100s of ICOs are buried. You are destroying Dash's speculator market. Soon there won't be any more dumb speculators.

There is no way all these 100s of ICOs are all going to go up in price.

Yeah you do that. Please put all your BTC into ICOs because we need smart people like you to lose all your BTC, so our ecosystem can get dumber.

Regarding the upthread post wherein I alleged that Ethereum can't scale (and tangentially I also alleged smart contracts on a Turing-complete blockchain are another DAO attack waiting to happen (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O5fdMFKEC0)), I was asked to provide some more details (https://medium.com/@shelby_78386/for-one-thing-byzantine-agreement-systems-cant-get-unstuck-without-a-hard-fork-if-there-are-c6530d7fd72b).

(Additionally I have recently explained that the 10s (coming to 100s?) of ICOs being launched every year now because of this Ethereum smart contract nonsense which enables rapid prototyping of 1000s of hair-brained ideas that will probably never achieve any serious adoption, because again Ethereum can't scale and another smart contract attack means all smart contracts become untrustable, means we likely have a coming ICO graveyard where our ecosystem has died (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1804521.msg17990874#msg17990874). Thanks to greedy developers who want to cash out after making a fancy presentation and thus don't develop first and launch without an ICO and really don't have much incentive to develop anything at all after they raise $millions to party with, especially young guys who have a lot of energy for conferences, dinners, parties, fancy hotels, etc.. What happened to my generation of startups where we developed them from our bedroom while living at our parents' hose (https://www.google.com/search?q=Neocept+WordUp).

The low marginal cost of preparing the snazzy website, whitepaper and perhaps even a barely functional smart contract demo is minimal, perhaps < $5000 or even less. Yet these ICOs can easily raise 100s or 1000s of BTC. So the supply of ICOs rises to meet the demand from gullible speculators who all "want to buy earlier than each other" so they all end up buying ICOs, thus none of them buy earlier than each other and the ICO developers walk away with the Bitcoins and the speculators will be left penniless in the coming ICO oversupply graveyard because all the demand will have been transferred to ICO developers who don't buy in the aftermarket.)

Re: HumanIQ has a technically flawed design?


You are thinking of WeTrust, as HumanIQ has nothing to do with loans.

There are too many ICOs. Nobody can keep track of them in their mind. That is why these ICOs are all going to fail and end up in an ICO oversupply graveyard with no buyers in the aftermarket. We are being saturated with too many ICOs. None of them can get enough mindshare. Our minds are overloaded.

Besides The Founder, What is Wrong With Qtum?

Qtum does a few things right. The developers designed a competent website and wrote two interesting whitepapers. Digging a bit deeper, reveals some troubling issues.

With legit ICOs like Chronobank dumping, what more with an ICO that's shrouded with shady players.

Speculators are attempting to know what is impossible to know too early. And thus they are being taken in by 100s of ICOs and going to end up in an ICO graveyard (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1806043.msg18002861#msg18002861).

It used to be that speculators could perhaps gauge which ICOs had a superior level of hype and marketing, so they could speculate not on actuated creative technological achievement, but on the ICO being the actual launch of the manipulation of the minds of speculators (aka "mining the speculators"). But now we are entering a new phase where there will be an an oversupply (market saturation) of ICOs which have copied that "the ICO is the launch of the reality distortion field" paradigm. Ethereum is spawning offspring (i.e. smart contract) copycats of its own reality distortion field business model, which may cannabalize ETH itself (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1807652.msg18004323#msg18004323).

....

I hope he reads all this thread and done a good research since he already sold a big chunks of his bitcoin,he will be another dash shill and a bitcoin fud in the coming days,just to hype his coin and his new investment but I doubt if there are many people like you who will sold all his bitcoin for a shitcoin..

premine no, instamine yes.

I don't trust Adam Back, Nick Szabo, or Gregory Maxwell.

Those are some one else's legendary heroes, definitely not my heroes.

I trust more Roger Ver, Amanda Johnson, Mike Hearn, Vitalik Buterin and -- most importantly -- my own judgement.

And my brain tells me that Adam Back, Nick Szabo, Gregory Maxwell (and Peter Wuelle) are all WRONG.

I don't trust Adam Back, Nick Szabo, or Gregory Maxwell.

Those are some one else's legendary heroes, definitely not my heroes.

I trust more Roger Ver, Amanda Johnson, Mike Hearn, Vitalik Buterin and -- most importantly -- my own judgement.

And my brain tells me that Adam Back, Nick Szabo, Gregory Maxwell (and Peter Wuelle) are all WRONG. (just like all Ripple developers, that are trying to centralize the crypto space and take my liberty away; It won't fly here. Not with me and not with my fellow investor-friends).

====

Fundamental problem with Bitcoin: Lightning Network leads to centralization and less security
http://www.wallstreettechnologist.com/2016/10/03/lightning-network-will-it-save-bitcoin-or-break-it/

I've been thinking more about what Evan Inc. could in theory do to the market place if the float was only a tiny fraction of the insider controlled money supply. It means that any selloff by any person who owns Dash will only cause a short-term drop in the price, because the insiders can buy tokens from themselves and raise the price back up again. This gives the illusion that there is liquidity for those Dash holders who want to sell. If anyone with large holdings (e.g. $100,000 of it) wanted to sell Dash, they would crash the price. If 10 guys with $10,000 each of Dash tried to sell, they would probably crash the price. I VERY MUCH DOUBT YOU CAN SELL DASH WHEN YOU NEED TO.

It is possible the Evan Inc. might try to absorb your selling if he felt it was just a test. But sustained selling of only very tiny amounts of the marketcap would I bet crash the price.

I also think I need to divest into other alts but the question is which one? Dash, Monero, Ethereum, ETC?  ???

I also think I need to divest into other alts but the question is which one? Dash, Monero, Ethereum, ETC?  ???

Dash is shit you fools.  Stop getting scammed in the old car salesman trickery of Amanda B Johnson.

https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@thedashguy/warning-why-i-don-t-trust-the-price-of-dash-nor-the-community-be-careful-folks-invest-wisely-diversify

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrKU0Ymta-U&t=2387s

Oh look, Amanda does seem to know what sybil attacks are... hell, she spent a whole episode about it  ;D

Why Dash is the Most Sybil Attack-Resistant Cryptocurrency -- By Far
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bz6rFZQywOE&t=36s&list=PLiFMZOlhgsYJPIiG0bjT1_SuT5h7NqPCC&index=30

specially for you smoothie, enjoy.

SyGamler and others: Do you realize, that next year amount of demand will double? Meaning that many transactions will stuck not for 3 hours, but for 3 days, on average.

Either that, or users will run to alt coins.

Network scalability must be planned in advance, or at least having a road map, that is agreed by the majority consensus. Bitcoin network lacks even agreed upon road map.

SyGamler and others: Do you realize, that next year amount of demand will double? Meaning that many transactions will stuck not for 3 hours, but for 3 days, on average.

It is this very issue that got me involved with Monero back in 2014 and why I moved the vast majority of my Bitcoin holdings into a combination of Monero...

...Moving from Bitcoin to DashMonero over this issue may literally be jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

Yes that is what I have been meaning to ask the supporters of Dash and the community behind it. You know that there was an instamine done by Evan. We all know that the way it was done is very controversial. Do you yourselves think it is ok? Please explain how you think so. What do you see that everyone else cannot?

...

ftfy

As if large blocks in Monero won't also cause mining centralization.

It depends on the technology used.

...
And the demand or lack thereof if txn fees skyrocket due to centralized control.

... and what is supposed to cause centralized control? Punched cards? Telegraph lines? Tabulating machines?

...

The implication above was demand that outstrips the current technology, which is plausible if you want to support microtransactions to billions of people.

But even that isn't necessary. Centralization is a natural outcome of economies-of-scale in all PoW systems (including Monero) and we already had this debate before you and you lost:

https://gist.github.com/shelby3/c0d6e0ed132be7e4577df3663c81ee09
https://gist.github.com/shelby3/67111f328822a36beb4cad1a5220eb33
https://gist.github.com/shelby3/e90a45604969f1ed64395b0b72a56487

My whitepaper goes into much greater detail and improves and expounds upon those earlier draft sections above. In particular, I totally annihilate your nonsense about mining as space heaters.

Please don't force me to embarrass you again. Because you are wasting my time by repeating the same nonsense over and over again.

Monero's days are numbered. My white paper is coming...

I suggest we just agree to continue this debate AFTER I release my white paper. I don't have time to argue with you back and forth right now.

But please stop that holier than thou crap again. Monero will have centralization problems same as Bitcoin when it scales up.

As if large blocks in Monero won't also cause mining centralization.

The idea is maybe not that Monero grows a lot.  It already has a more than large enough market cap to sustain a sensible underground economy.  If it wants to serve the anonymous economy and stay sufficiently under the radar, maybe it shouldn't grow much more.  It can then be used by those (few) people who want to do underground economics, and that's good enough, no ?

And if more demand for anonymous coins is needed, more coins can be invented, so that there is no "runaway" in value, and high concentrations of wealth from this, no ?  The idea is not to have monopolies, is there ?

In my opinion, this is true decentralization: myriads of coins, new ones regularly created, with (slightly) different technologies, different chains etc...  all of them small-scale and not worth being centralized, because the investment is too risky and not worth it.

Yeah thanks, let's discuss about monetary theory.

The seigniorage is the price we-the-society pay for there being confidence in the currency. For without confidence, money has no value (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1665943.msg16749910#msg16749910). This is a critical point that most people under appreciate, so it is very important that readers click that link and understand more deeply the linked thread in all its detail.

The ability to get a large community to rally around one thing as money, is essential for money can't exist without confidence that it is a liquid and fairly universal unit-of-exchange.

So he who can create that confidence, gets the seigniorage.

Actually it is you who has been repeatedly embarrassed by insisting on using the same model for Monero as for Bitcoin when the situation is fundamentally different. Monero has 1) A tail emission and 2) An adaptive blocksize limit, which Bitcoin...

Edit: When it comes to the economics of electricity generation and consumption, and whether it favours de-centralization or centralization  this is a field that is currently changing very fast. So I will wait for your paper and then discuss it. The goalposts may well have moved by the time your paper is out.

Furthermore who said Monero is suitable for micro transactions on the main chain. We went over this already.

Hey please husshhh. Keep this a secret please. Don't tell Blockstream et al, that side-chains are a fundamentally and insolubly broken design concept:

https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos/issues/46

despite my hate for asic coin

i admit that dash is doing great

Ohh the nostalgic feeling I got from reading this thread, same ppl hating on DASH for the past 2 years are still here, Yet nothing to make their own Monero better.

I haven't determined when and why that Minsky Moment will come. I am still working on that...

fud, another Fud and More FUD... but its good,  FUD

Price is stable, volume is stable.
Litecoin is a second most accepted coin in the Universe.
No other coin, especially centralised coins like ETH, can compete with litecoin real adoption.
Even wikileaks accepts litecoin (proof: https://shop.wikileaks.org/donate#dlitecoin)
Call me when ethereum premine will have some real adoption besides pockets of manipulators and crooks.

Which of the stated allegations is FUD specifically? Could you be specific?

1.
Let's hope most of the masternodes are still on cloud providers and some hacker (or ISP insider sells out) does a widescale hack on Dash via Amazon AWS, Microsoft Azure, etc., which proves how antifragile the masternode concept is. Was Dash impacted by the AWS outage yesterday?

2.
That might be enough to REKT Dash and cause that stampede which the tiny (true) float can't accommodate.
But I assume they are not that stupid and have diversified their masternode hosting.

3.
Specifically I think the anonymity would be easier to break than stalling the entire blockchain. In theory (last time I checked), you'd only need access to the specific masternodes involved in a DarkSend (or what ever they name it now), to deanonymize.

(empty response)

And depends on the demand or lack thereof if txn fees skyrocket due to centralized control.

If the block size is increased, the transaction fee will reduce.

As expected, @noobtrader has refused to respond the specific allegations of the instamine and the compounding that would have "Evan Inc." controlling a majority of the masternodes.

He refuses to provide cogent rebuttals to all the facts provided by @smooth.

Because he can't.


Technologov, are you still adamant about supporting and promoting this alleged scam?

nice work on moving the goalpost...  >:(

btw instamine is known fact, the difference is that i dont think of it as ill intent while you do.

No you moved the goalposts and didn't answer the question. I'll repeat the original question for you:

---

I didn't ask about your opinion of the intent. I asked you about facts about compounding math. But I guess you are too retarded to understand the implication of what and why I am asking you that. Does bold, red highlighting help you see?

Btw, I have never owned XMR (nor Dash) and you can see from my postings that (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1804740.msg18009280#msg18009280) I am not a Monero shill.

I am writing objectively (even I use the word 'alleged' instead of 'proven') about the Dash situation.

are you saying that dev shouldnt make any money ? dont you remember that even smooth makes money from steem ?
honestly i dont care how much Evan earn. as long as the product work as advertised, i buy it.

eh yeah, about that objectivity of yours .. it could use a bit more objectivity.

https://i.imgur.com/LqHSXjp.png

Already at all time highs when we last reported on the rally just two days ago, Dash has jumped about 30% since. One possible reason for the new jump in price,
from $28 to $37, is a recent show of confidence in Dash by cryptocurrency advocate and investor Roger Ver, aka “Bitcoin Jesus”.
He reportedly bought Dash in protest of the censorship of major Bitcoin community forums.

i post off topic spam if i have nothing relevant to say....and oh, i post stuff that advertises DASH too.

A Natural Market for the War on Cash

Your financial privacy is under assault by the War on Cash.

Every day, we get closer to a world where the government can peer on every single one of your purchases.

Fortunately, Roger told me about a new cryptocurrency that can protect your privacy more effectively than bitcoin.

It’s called Dash. We recommend you look into it.

eh yeah, about that objectivity of yours .. it could use a bit more objectivity : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg17988556#msg17988556

https://i.imgur.com/KQRJEdI.png

Lol, you have hacked one of my old accounts which I had randomly scrambled the password. I used numbers, symbols, and letters in the scrambled password, so this means there is some breach of BCT security. @mprep has been notified.

This goes to show what sleazy scammers the Dash mafia is.

I'm really curious why there is such a strong Dash is a scam sentiment among some in the BTC community. Is it because you disagree with the distribution, conduction of the leaders or believe the technology is in some way flawed? We actually did a very comprehensive study of Dash's treasury (https://iohk.io/research/papers/dash-governance-system-analysis-and-suggestions-for-improvement/) and while significant issues were found, they at least appear to be trying to create a decentralized funding mechanism.

I cannot comment on initial distribution nor if any of the founders have a past history of bad actions. I will point out however that despite initial distribution if coins flow to a larger group over time from the founders that the project does become fairly decentralized. For example, Nxt has one of the worst distributions ever and now I suspect coins are fairly well distributed. Of course, Nxt isn't doing so well so maybe its a moot point  ;D

some light reading for you on your new investment...............


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1740313.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1740313.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1740313.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1740313.0

I'm really curious why there is such a strong Dash is a scam sentiment among some in the BTC community. Is it because you disagree with the distribution, conduction of the leaders or believe the technology is in some way flawed? We actually did a very comprehensive study of Dash's treasury (https://iohk.io/research/papers/dash-governance-system-analysis-and-suggestions-for-improvement/) and while significant issues were found, they at least appear to be trying to create a decentralized funding mechanism.

I cannot comment on initial distribution nor if any of the founders have a past history of bad actions. I will point out however that despite initial distribution if coins flow to a larger group over time from the founders that the project does become fairly decentralized. For example, Nxt has one of the worst distributions ever and now I suspect coins are fairly well distributed. Of course, Nxt isn't doing so well so maybe its a moot point  ;D

Dash latest rise looks so great and attract people to traced it history, how and why. But your statement seems denounce Dash and (Every dasher on here trying to scam others into supporting your scam = scammers.)  it is a scam project?
I'm curious too, why you disagree with this coin, however, any kind of perspective is a good point for consider it.

 it is a scam project?

This is my stance on it:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1808840.msg18033162#msg18033162

tl;dr: it is not a scam because the notion of scam cannot exist in a trustless environment.

It is a crypto system, mainly centralized in the hands of a "central banker", and all this is documented, so if you use that system in a trustless environment, it means that you did your homework and agreed, or it means that you don't care, or it means that you are careless.  

Good philosophical argument but those that get lied to and deceived and subsequently lose greatly financially may wish to disagree with you.

I don't think we should seek to create a place where if a deception/trick with negative impact is conducted we can't say its a bad thing and try to prevent it happening again.

Someone lies and deceives you and the result is negative to you. 99% or great of people will agree its a bad thing. There will be exceptions but if you live life based on the exceptions then you will find it hard to be part of society really.

I think the only place the word scam is not applicable is a place where lies,deception and trickery are not able to have any impact on the outcome of events.

I know you've been working towards decentralized governance as one of themes of interest at your IOHK, but decentralized governance is impossible. The absence of governance is what we want for a blockchain.

steal my marketing concept ("Bitcoin Killer"),

This is exactly why I dislike DASH.  Although I understand that the technology used by DASH needs governance in order to have trusted mixers.  DASH is the best one could do for anon without advanced crypto tech like ring signatures or zero knowledge proofs, but it meant the end of decentralisation.  As such, DASH did what it had to do: build a fiat-like system.

It should change its name to DIAT: digital fiat.

I'm really curious why there is such a strong Dash is a scam sentiment among some in the BTC community. Is it because you disagree with the distribution, conduction of the leaders or believe the technology is in some way flawed? We actually did a very comprehensive study of Dash's treasury (https://iohk.io/research/papers/dash-governance-system-analysis-and-suggestions-for-improvement/) and while significant issues were found, they at least appear to be trying to create a decentralized funding mechanism.

I cannot comment on initial distribution nor if any of the founders have a past history of bad actions. I will point out however that despite initial distribution if coins flow to a larger group over time from the founders that the project does become fairly decentralized. For example, Nxt has one of the worst distributions ever and now I suspect coins are fairly well distributed. Of course, Nxt isn't doing so well so maybe its a moot point  ;D

http://daia.group/2017/03/02/review-dash/

Potential risk-factors

Before re-branding to Digital Cash, DASH was launched as XCoin and then shortly later re-branded to DarkCoin (DRK) due to its focus on anonymity.

During the initial launch, the XCoin blockchain got stuck and a relaunch was scheduled. Although DarkCoin was launched with no premine, there was a massive instamine of nearly 2 million DRK within the first day. With a current supply of ~ 7,100,000, this means that 28% of all DASH currently in existance was mined in a single day.

This presents obvious concerns:

   - High possibility that DASH supply is heavily centralized due to instamine
   - Due to MNs earning 40% of block rewards, centralization of supply is only more likely to have increased
   - If MNs are heavily centralized, DASH’s alleged privacy features are at the mercy of whoever is operating majority of MNs

There is no way to verify or guarantee that each masternode is operated by a unique individual making DASH masternode system highly susceptible to forms of sybil attack.

After the instamine, DRK block emission was lowered from 500 DRK to 5 DRK and maximum supply was reduced from 80m to 20m.

Although centralization of supply does present risks, there are some resulting benefits in regards to price. Nearly 4000 MNs are active which means majority of the current DASH supply is ‘locked up’ resulting in lower amounts of DASH being available for exchange. This would allow DASH to have a more ‘inflated’ valuation per coin.

i left because i disagree darkcoin or however it will be called next year is not a decentralized entity.

it never was but i ignored it as long as darkcoin was following the same path i was following. the path to total financial privacy. and thats why i am so upset about how this currency is lead by a single person. darkcoin is like an old conservative company with strong hierarchical comamnd structures and a single person on the top of the pyramid. evan duffield.

the rebranding using a detergent name was just a step forward in creating something like apple or paypal. fuck this i tell you.

what we need is a trustless, decentralized and anonymous currency. darkcoin is not decentralized as it still relies on a single person. and this reaches deep into the code base.

the core devs were just a bunch of volunteers exploited for the big thing. the extended darkcoin team was the same with even a lower place to sit on that pyramid. and what was the darkcoin foundation again? right, something to reserve some rights on some names and collect money. who nominated and voted for the foundation board? who does even know who are these guys? how did we learn about the foundation? from local news papers! the team listings kept counting names of people nobody ever noticed before. and they never committed anything visible to the community or the repository. and i was spending 25 hours a day monitory everything that happened in the darkcoin community for more than a year.

the things going on here are fishy, intransparent and rely on a single entity.

i will get out and and will contribute to something decentralized and anonymous. i always hoped darkcoin could fill that void. i cant blame anyone to stay with this project. you are probably investors trying to win a gold donkey. or you are simply trying to exploit every possible vector of profit in the coins space. whatever. you are not here because darkcoin is something it claims to be.

if you disagree with my statement above, i dont care, but answer that simple question: what if evan duffield suddenly announces he quits the project tomorrow morning?

good luck

I'm sorry, but that is similar to going in the arena where one "fights without rules" and then complain that the fight wasn't fair, because you got seriously hurt by the guy with a sledge hammer.

I'm sorry, but that is similar to going in the arena where one "fights without rules" and then complain that the fight wasn't fair, because you got seriously hurt by the guy with a sledge hammer.

I don't see it is like that. Nobody agrees the entire enviroment has no rules at this point or is trustless at this point. That is the eventual game plan but as yet we are not at that point. A better analogy would be we are trying to all build together a tank. This tank will be immune to any other weapon upon completion. Whilst sitting inside you offer me an apple which turns out to be a grenade that blows up taking off both my arms . I say that was a bad thing to do and you tell me " well you should not be trusting this tank will protect you against all weapons should you,". I mean you took this risk to believe this tank is impervious to all weapons now deal with it.

Or if you use your no rules fighting example. When the fighters are ready there will be a no rules fight. Whilst gearing up for the fight at the gym one fighter pulls out this sledgehammer and kills the other guy and says why agree to have a no rules fight if you want rules. Crypto will be assumed trustless at a later date. Then if the code that ensures us we need no rules works or is assumed to work for a long period your point i think will become valid. However saying people should research before they assure themselves of the trustless nature is probably unreasonable due to the fact you need to be phd math and conceptual design expert to gain this self assurance.



who says the entire arena at this point is trustless? who else says the exchanges and the devs are meant to be trustless at this point. To me they are still accountable and can be called out for deception,lies and wrong doing that cause loss to the individual. The only part of crypto that is trustless right now is the code of the actual tokens right?

Trustlessness is the principle where one tries to set up systems that avoid being broken in an environment where all players try to break the system.  Don't cry if you used a system that turned out to be broken and don't accuse people of having broken the system, right ?

this point is therefore invalid if you try to apply to the entire crypto system as it is? this could apply perhaps to an attack like you mention on the code of a coin I don't think it can apply to the actions of a person upon whom we are forced to trust if we want to participate in crypto at the sections that are not yet trustless. I mean if there was no accountability at all at these junctions (exchanges,escrows,devs birthing these coind and deciding distributional methods... then nobody would dare enter crypto at all and there would be no progress.


Of course you can "try to prevent it" by building systems that, well, make it impossible to do so.  But you cannot "try to prevent it" by complaining about it.  Because if you do so, then you leave the notion of trustlessness.  And from that point on, you don't NEED a lot of cryptography, and you don't need "consensus algorithms resistant to 51% attack", and you don't need distributed ledgers.   But then you need "points of trust", those who can intervene in order to prevent it.  And these points of trust accumulate power, and accumulate wealth.  And at some point, maybe they cannot be trusted, after all.  And we have a fiat system ; or something in between, like DASH, with its more or less centralized "points of trust" and the wealth that flows to the centralized controllers.  And if that is what one wanted, after all, DASH is finally not a scam.  It is a kind of fiat system, with "points of trust" that will look after the functioning of the system, and get (take) a lot of power and wealth in return.

dash is without doubt a scam. we are working to the point of a trustless system but it is nowhere near there yet. You seem to be saying dash the code is not a scam...fair enough. I am saying that evans the person who said fair pow launch protocol (this is not  yet trustless) scammed everyone at launch.


I agree it is a bad thing, but that was the game: make systems that are *resistant* to bad things.

I'm glad you agree dash did a bad thing. Yes that is the end game we have not reached that stage as yet, when we reach that stage your argument becomes more valid


Well, that is exactly what is the goal of a trustless system: where lies, deception and trickery are not able to have any impact on the outcome of events.  In as much as it works, the system as a trustless system, failed.  If you invested in a system of which you convinced yourself that it was trustless, and it failed, then there's nothing wrong with you losing your entire investment: you made a big mistake.

You can say: yes, but they ASSURED ME that it was a correct trustless system.  But that is exactly part of what you should verify, because this deceiving is what the system should be resistant against.  If this deception works out, it means that the system didn't resist, and hence was a bad trustless system.  So again, it means you invested in a broken concept, which means that it is perfectly normal that you lose your input.

And if we need to form a governance system to stop the "scam", then we've just created another "scam" because all governance systems are Tragedy of the Commons power vacuums which will always end up controlled by a strongman.

So we must win by finding a decentralized model which trumps the centralized models in the free market.

One of the reasons (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1808840.msg18029971#msg18029971) I don't join Monero is that a significant part of that community thinks you don't need to make blockchains popular (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1808840.msg18019432#msg18019432) and you can hide out in tiny community of illegal anonymity (hoping to stay under the radar of collapsing governments) orthogonal to the NWO. Sigh.

I don't know how you quote little bits of text so i just put mine in red.

You point will be valid when end to end the entire system is assumed trustless until it is not.

I'm sorry if i'm not understanding you fully. That could be my limited understanding of so many things. However I can only see it from my perspective here and have replied obviously from that pov.

I see potentially a web of gazillions of currencies, connected by gazillions of distributed exchanges.

I think that many in the monero community think it will be THE coin everyone is using, but I have no illusions.

Could you please edit your post and use blue color instead? Red is for shouting. Blue also annoying but less so. Just retype the 'red' with 'blue' manually (you can can even use copy+paste and double-click the word 'red', then Ctrl+V for paste)

Here is how to do the quoting:

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+quote+portions+with+PHPBB

I used to think that. I even offered an idea and discussed (in the Bitcoin Technical discussion forum) with @TierNolan and @jl777 how to deal with the jamming (Sybil attack) problem of his atomic cross-chain exchange protocol.

Distributed exchanges (plural as a form of decentralized exchange singular) won't ever be adopted because speculators want the highest liquidity, the lowest spreads, the fastest trades, and the most accurate aggregate trading statistics.

Gazillions of currencies won't work because there are huge losses for businesses and individuals when not having the same unit-of-exchange as the unit-of-account.

We don't want speculators, do we ?  Nothing stops them from trading IOU on centralized exchanges.

That's nevertheless what is currently the case in the fiat world.  How many national currencies exist ?

What is important to me, is that the protocols, the technology, the emission schemes, and all that are all different and change all the time.

Q: Why are there so many alternative cryptocurrencies?

A: Because all crypto-currencies to-date are speculative "investments" (gambles), not currencies.

The demographics of crypto-currencies are currently speculative gamblers, not currency users. Thus there is always a demand for a new speculation which can be purchased earlier and cheaper. If someone ever creates a currency, then the users will demand there only be one, because having one unit-of-account (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=786201.msg8879789#msg8879789) means currency users aren't stressed with exchange volatility. Exchange volatility actually decreases currency use, because users have an incentive to not spend when the price is lower than their entry price, and not sell when the price is going higher.

Btw, the reason we are moving to a global currency is because currency users are beginning to transact globally more often, e.g. ordering online from Alibaba or DHgate, migrant workers remittances, etc..

pics of amanda?

IMO the "my way or the highway" attitude is why you are not Mark Zuckerberg.

I understand that you think that, and this must also be what people think when they ask for "crypto regulation" and crypto law and so on.  But I think there's a fundamental problem when you do that.

And if we need to form a governance system to stop the "scam", then we've just created another "scam" because all governance systems are Tragedy of the Commons power vacuums which will always end up controlled by a strongman.

So we must win by finding a decentralized model which trumps the centralized models in the free market.

Operation ShitCODE Cleanout.

Enough of these C++ coins.

All coins not coded in Brainfuck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck#Examples) are hereby on notice of their imminent demise.

Yeah by creating dark markets.  ::)

This thread is fake news.

So why do you indulge in the fallacious conflation of privacy provision (ie 100% fungibility) with "creating dark markets?"

That reeks of the .gov goon squads well worn parade of terrist/childpron/druglord hobgoblins.

That has nothing to do with "creating dark markets."

Since you know better yet do it anyway, the simplest explanation does not (to say the least) paint you in a flattering light.

I didn't.

Yeah by creating dark markets.  ::)

Yes, you did.  Right here:

You only mentioned DNMs; you failed to mention all the other XMR use cases, such as off-chain BTC linkability breaking for better privacy.

I was planning to reply to you again, because I realized that I hadn't entirely addressed your original point. You beat me to it while I was eating.

When analyzing things we have to be very careful not to overgeneralize and conflate orthogonal details.

First of all, the masses aren't sharing their financial privacy on Facebook. The "lolcats" aren't their monetary transactions. Their financial history is still protected by their bank. If you suddenly asked them to put this financial history on public Facebook feeds, I think many (if not most) would balk.

Secondly, as the coming war between liberals and conservatives intensifies, I don't think people will want their financial life to be publicly scrutinized, because as we know almost everyone is a hypocrite and does some of the same things in their private life that they criticize in public.

Thirdly, people put up a public persona on these social networks, but it doesn't mean they share everything there. Not all of them would announce online that they just cheated on their wife.

Privacy isn't going away. It is fundamental to human nature. Without some privacy them social networking (in general, not just the online fad) is in a Prisoner's Dilemma which is a suboptimal game theoretical quagmire.

If we posit that people will suddenly stop being sneaky, then I don't think we understand human nature. People game their circumstances in which ever way they estimate will optimize their outcomes. Opportunity cost of not doing so.

I do agree with you that financial privacy may be ignored by many until they get burned a few times. And it may also not be (almost certainly isn't) the #1 USP of decentralized technology.

My plan isn't to use privacy as a USP to the masses, rather make it automated for them, so they don't even know they are using it. It is a USP to our speculator markets herein though.

And when called out for it, you go right back into your usual bipolar schizo schtick, whining about your victimization while simultaneously posturing like a thug.

Poor little internet tough guy

Thinking about this some more, I think @cryptohunter is correct.

The "scam" of regulation can only destroy the "scam" of faux decentralization, because real decentralization can't be regulated.

So bring on the SEC! Then we will find out what is truly decentralized.

Tada.  :P

@qwizzie, I can't keep my side of the truce, if Dash doesn't keep its side. The lies which attempt to steal my market concept force me to respond as follows:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1739268.msg18048987#msg18048987

@charleshoskinson, you of all people should be aware of the EXTENSIVE research which shows that all fungible resources become power-law or exponentially distributed. Why on God's earth would it be different in the case of Dash, especially starting from the admitted instamine "bug" (and using their control over the money supply to vote not to restart the launch without the bug). Surely you understand the power of ROI compounding w.r.t. to insider control over voting and masternode revenue (and also there were I heard instances where only a minority of vote was necessary to form a quorum on budget proposals). Also you should know that democracy is a Tragedy of the Commons power vacuum which is always filled by a strongman:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=984

Are you naive? Oh come on now, are you trying to pretend also? Your statement is incredulous as if you are naive 5 year old, which you obviously are not.

I know you've been working towards decentralized governance as one of themes of interest at your IOHK, but decentralized governance is impossible. The absence of governance is what we want for a blockchain.

I think you can't really win against a violence monopolist that is after you.  However, you can do your thing with a violence monopolist that doesn't know you really exist.

You see, my hope for crypto is actually much more down-to-earth.  I think that we are moving towards a from of global communism, with tax rates close to 95% or even 99%.  Right now effective tax levels are of the order of 70%, which means that on every economical interaction, both parties need to produce 3 times more than what they obtain in the trade.  If I want to trade my apple for your orange, I need to produce 3 apples, and you need to produce 3 oranges, so that I can obtain 1 orange, and you can obtain one apple.  I think this factor will go up to 20, or even to 100 in the near future when global communism diverges.  Which means that if I officially want to trade one apple against one orange, I need to produce 20 apples or even 100 apples, and you will need to produce 20 oranges, or even 100 oranges, so that I obtain 1 orange, and you obtain 1 apple.

Under such taxation, no economic freedom can exist, but we will all get a lot of very low quality state service and have to do a lot of very useless work, to obtain very large bruto wages, which are then pruned off, to only have a few percent of it as genuine buying power outside of state support which is abundant, but of extremely low quality, except for an elite which will live in relatively large luxury.  Of course, under such severe taxation levels, the slightest bit of non-taxed economic activity will be actively repressed.
It is to fight those circumstances that I see "small, local crypto" as useful, where small underground local economic relationships can make life a lot better.  Joe grows some real vegetables (almost impossible to obtain through state support), and trades them for some quality education for his children, given by a neighbour that is knowledgeable of mathematics (quality education will be totally absent in state educational systems, which are just brainwashing institutions where the bare minimum to do your Amazon job is thought with totally inadequate teaching methods), and another neighbour that is knowledgeable of english.  Someone else is a medical doctor, and is helping people secretly getting better - public health services are of extremely bad quality and no-one ever gets cured there.  Local networks of people help each other underground, and for that they need a local kind of currency.  It allows you to get one-another some quality food, quality education, quality medical help, quality personal assistance, .... all things that are done in small local economies.  The small amount of economic needs outside of these local communities, like some electronic devices that work, that are not entirely compromised by state hackers and so on, will need more global currencies ; but this is much more dangerous to do - so one can use the little economic power-after-tax to buy these few "global" things that can hardly be locally produced.  But most of the "dark market economy" is simply locally grown quality food, local personal services to one-another (education, medical help, personal help like keeping children, helping older people.,...), and such things.  It is too dangerous to set up any material production.  And yes, some people will  get caught, but if the networks are sufficiently local, small, distributed and changing, the system can not be brought down as a whole.
It is this kind of "dark market" that I hope things like monero (clones ?) can help when global communism will set in.

I try to be a realist, even though philosophically I am aligned as a minanarchist. You don't go fostering destruction of society with drugs and expect to not have a backlash.

I am an optimist and if ever comes time to fight global absolute totalitarianism, then let's go ahead on guns blazing and not this hiding like slithery worms under a rock shitlife.

I admire warriors. I am very physical, not just cerebral.

As iamnotback has already pointed out in his link Dash does not solve any of Bitcoin's problems related to blocksize scaling. In fact one can argue that Dash actually makes these problems worse since not only the miners, but the masternodes and budget proposals also have to be funded from the diminishing block reward. The only thing Dash has provided here is a temporary kick the can down the road since the Dash network unlike the Bitcoin network does not have full blocks and Dash has an effective 4MB, over 10 min, blocksize as opposed to the 1 MB blocksize limit in Bitcoin.

A simple way to understand the Dash masternode network is to compare it to the United States Banking system:
The number of Banks is around 6700 add to this another 6100 Credit Unions and we are at over 12,000 deposit taking institutions in the United States, vs ~4000 Dash masternodes. Even worse and a more apt comparison needs to be bank and credit union branches since multiple Dash masternodes can be owned by one person. The capital needed to start a bank in the United states ~40,000,000 USD is way less as a proportion of the USD M0 money supply, ~3.500,000,000,000 USD than 1000 Dash for a Dash masternode is of the Dash M0 money supply ~7,100,000 Dash. Do the math please.

The above becomes relevant when one looks at the following:
Instant X. In instant X, 15 masternodes are selected at random to approve or disapprove transactions, by a simple majority. The comparison in the US banking systems would to have 15 bank branches selected at random to approve or disapprove a transaction instead of having a single bank approve or disapprove a transaction. Does that make the ledger decentralized? I do not think so.
The "decentralized" masternode voting process. Here we have the Banks voting in proportion to market capitalization on how to spend 10% of the USD "printed" by the US Federal Reserve. These funds are to be spent on hair brained marketing schemes for example.

Instant X is nothing else but a kind of certified mem pool confirmation.

In fact, one should push the logic to the extreme, and not write transactions on the chain any more, but just balances.  If you trust that 15 random master nodes validate a transaction, one could just as well have them validate the new account states.  And then, there's not really a need for a block chain with transactions any more !  Only a shared ledger between masternodes.  You might still maintain a small block chain BETWEEN master nodes, where regular "states of accounts" get their hash registered (and only their hash).  But the master nodes maintain the balances (which are distributed on demand to the normal nodes, as well as the masternode block chain and the active mem pool, to verify that the latest balance has its hash on that chain, and that the current balance is the right "latest hash stamped balance" on which the mem pool transactions have been applied.  Say that every 12 hours, a "current balance" hash is produced by the master nodes, and written to the block chain.  So there are 2 entries A DAY on the current block chain.  That makes for a tiny chain, doesn't it !  There's the day's mempool worth of transactions which is shared by all nodes, and updated by the instant-X scheme of master nodes, and there's the masternodes' shared "current state of balances" (the delta wrt to the last stamped state of balances), which is the net result of all the mempool transactions.  

And that's it.

Maybe that's what they'll end up doing?

you aren't a man.

And you won't even show up, because you are chickenshit.

My advice to men is don't create war where you aren't prepared for extreme violence. I personally don't condone unnecessary violence and I avoid violent confrontation where it can be avoided. But I do condone warriors and some native american warriors for example know how to extract your heart with their bare hands so fast that they can eat it in front of you before you die. Really it is not wise to pick unnecessary fights with men you don't know. If you've got some mental problem, it behooves you to get some help before you mess with the guy who ends your miserable life.

IMO you are already a slave. You've defeated yourself and accepted it by being willing cower and cope with a dysfunctional State.

I admire warriors. I am very physical, not just cerebral.

on the recent rise in price: https://twitter.com/ARKblockchain/status/834841078234767360