LOL !!! How do you know them !!! ...It seems that even "the grandmother of DASH" has learned before to recognize a centralized and speculative scam ... than to handle the famous wallet worldwide example of usability!

toxic quizzie, xkcd & the rest of the ass-licking parasites will have to tell Rtaylor to come up with another theory to troll a year ... that the bag sounds hollow!

I don't know ... what if the DAO finances their kidnappers the sweets of their nephews ... or the tampax of their girlfriends I think it could consolidate us as a store of value!

I don't know ... as long as there is imagination, there are options. Positive thinking to power !!!

LOL   Another Sherlock !!! ...I have never denied something like this, on the contrary, it is previously posted that my nicknames do not match ... but ... with my characteristic way of writing, have you noticed on your own ... or has your 6-year-old niece advised you?

By now, you know perfectly well that I don't hate this coin, troll, but I adore its initial approach to a high degree ... which is the one that corrupt like you are trying to destroy. The seriousness of the DASH issue is not really a corruption that tries to implant itself in almost the entire crypto world ... but that you exercise it with a project of enormous potential, nullifying its added value. That is the measure of your obscenity and dirt: The jewel that you have broken and that you have denied to others ... and that deserved to be used to build and create, not to sink it or turn it into filth that simply drips into your pockets.

But hey ... to clarify the position of corrupt people like you, necessary to destroy it, is another matter, little ass lick.

By the way ... your links are still waiting on Reddit to support your lies, that they placed you perfectly in your place. You still have medical leave for that itching ass ... or what is wrong with you? Your audience awaits you.  

... but hey, they will also wait here for you to expose the FUD with which you have wanted to disavow the talk from your first post ... and with which thunderbolt has painted your pretty troll face from minute 1.

Anyway ... I'm telling you out of pure altruism ... be practical: Or you're going to have to increase your parasitism in DASH to buy so much pomade. It's in the public domain for anyone that you prefer $ 5 DASH for your speculative shenanigans ... but hey ... it also has a bit of respect for those who see it as a possible solid long-term alternative, right?  

A greeting.

LOL   ... everything is much simpler, Sherlock, at least in my case. To begin with, these ellipses respond to the impossibility of eliminating messages - repeated in that case - imposed by btctalk until after 24 hours ... at least to users of my level and / or knowledge -)

(Although really, in yours it is also simple: as if someone appeared capable of arguing with criteria against your corrupt position of sucking asses towards the consolidation of a system that, from an already evident centralization, advances even more to an absolute concentration of the really influential supply of dash. Well, you paint five feet to the cat or you boast of ignoring it ... inviting other people to do the same and feed on toxic and interested information like yours and thus if they have ignored questions of enormous interest in DASH ... but above all you avoid countering any argument - also, with your arrogant troll ways, you would end up with broken teeth and you would have to throw away that nick to build the next one ... since it only serves to troll and confuse the newbies, see if you can continue the scam ... as soon as you confront someone with a critical and well-formed view of DASH, your carts fall apart like sugar, because the arguments that They show corruption in each of the extensions originally declared as fundamental in the project, they are ammunition to win a hundred battles ... but coincidentally and as I have already left It is clear in the first posts for a few days, my line of post and opinion will turn in around the optimization of decentralization, economic independence and resistance to censorship that DASH proclaims as the basis of its project ... and that, in practice, are absolutely manipulated and corrupted. points for particular benefits whose dynamics is also to centralize, concentrate and corrupt more, as in the game of chairs -).

In my case, and for general information, since I don't give a shit what an intoxicating troll thinks, as surely can suppose even a slow guy like you, I have a nick here, another in the forum ... and another in discord. ..and only the DASH forum I did ex-process for DASH, the three highs being very spaced in time. I don't have more than one nick IN ANY MEDIA. And, of course, I am not going to create any new ones because I do not have the slightest desire for prominence and less any personalistic intention: In crypto and blockchain, I am only interested in optimizing resources to create decentralized, independent and self-sufficient libertarian structures ... and that of DASH, and I am not surprised by the well-earned image of corruption that it has in the rest of the crypto sector, it is a case worthy of study (which, however, I take positively as something capable of being improved ... if not , my presence here would be useless and on the contrary, I like to enjoy my time, you see how capricious I am).

So. in search of some synergy in a project especially disappointing because of the enormous seduction that the Duffield principles activated in so many people - principles today totally corrupted by a parasitic structure that has created immense niches of particular interest that practically nullify the potential collective inertia of the project - and of any possibility of reorientation of a potential jewel like DASH - which unfortunately the corrupt ones sink in the mud -, I post here, smiling and happy (although I fully understand that intoxicants and manipulators like you do not like least).

A greeting, sweet heart. 

................

Exact ... and not only that: Add the ridiculous impact on its investment (more than amortized) for the whales that carried that moment that has an assault on absolute control of the current and future DASH ecosystem, through the expansion of their positions (the intoxicating qwizzie He will tell you that "there is no evidence that the whales are centralizing the project ... but curiously, he uses the Mnodes record as an" unequivocal proof of decentralization "of DASH. For that interested correlation, it does work for him; D) ... and the minimization of the voting power of the modest Mnodes (of the micro-holders marginalized from the system by the blockade of the Shared Mnodes that Duffield saw fundamental for the real decentralization of DASH, we better not even talk).

They went for the microholders ... they go for the miners ... and they will go to the modest Mnodes. And these may resist to a greater or lesser extent to last in the ecosystem and maintain their returns, ok ... but the decentralization of DASH is / will already be doomed.

Whoever believes that the project, as a COLLECTIVE example of financial independence, decentralization and resistance to censorship, gains something from that ... lives in a cloud ... like that of DASH Plattform.

"The decentralization of DASH ... is ALSO a cloud. A smoke´s cloud." Excellent slogan.   (and a lot more realistic than Mason's poisonings ... although I don't think it will work among the most popular DAO hijackers marketing options, honestly)

Splendid demonstration, thanks.   And it is evident that it is not FUD, that is trolling and interested arguments from the parasitic and malicious hierarchy that is implanted in DASH ... which is the basis of the information corruption that floods the project. A couple of years ago, several modest Mnodes, possessing a device or little more, proclaimed their power, often exclusively and arrogantly on the DASH forums, with respect to members of the community who did not have them (a selfish attitude inappropriate for an exercise in decentralization against which they were acting unconsciously and irresponsibly because in thers of a decentralized colective estructure , a correct opinion  of any member of the community, even without Mnodes in property , should be a not just a real option, but a right and a healthy way to contribute to the project -) ... today, almost any modest Mnode is aware of the little REAL power it has in the decision-making process of this farce in the process of concentration of power (and that that, due to modesty or not revealing the manifest capacity for abuse beyond what is strictly necessary, votes by one hundred (s) are counted in the DASH voting processes).

The intoxicating quizzie has taken half a second to chorus and clap a nick with 4 messages whose main contribution is, of course, accusing the rest of the opinions of FUD. Curious reaction, when the intoxicating quizzie tried to disavow my opinion with fallacies for "having been on btctalk for two weeks". By the way, opinions that have done nothing more than expose their continuous and methodical attempt to corrupt the exchange of communication with the simple exposition of Graham's hierarchical pyramid - intoxicating practice that has directed EVERY opinion on the thread -. Now the intoxicant quizzie aligns himself with another intoxicant ... whose lies you expose with a single click of factual information. One and the other intoxicant will pass to another "collateral smoke", do not hesitate.

Of course, his next post admits the irrefutable of your argument (he has no choice, thanks to your suitable information) ... although that will not stop his trolling: They will only try to dump more confusion to the topic. They are here for what they are.

Now we will go on to a succession of irrelevant nuances so that finally, although it ends up discussing nonsense absolutely collateral to the topic ... but it is that Ryan Taylor's own approach to a hypothetical reinforcement of DASH as a store of value was ALSO a trolling executed in an open house that, at the time, highlighted another fundamental underlying issue that the corrupt hierarchy of DASH tried to hide: That Evolution - currently "DASH Plattform", another intoxicating attempt to make it look like something else, to justify added delays - entered in ANOTHER YEAR of parasitism without being delivered. Ryan Taylor, supported by these corrupt intoxicants, has capitalized on a debate that was going to revolve around an unacceptable five-year delay (January 1 enters the SIXTH year) ... but without addressing fundamentals for an improvement in DASH such as store of value. On the contrary, it tries to place this debate in mirages unrelated to it - as an unbalanced distribution of monetary issues that coincidentally benefits the group in which the corrupt are found, the Mnodes ... and with which they want to totally control the governance of the chain ... and of course, marginalizing the group of miners (whom, remember, he tried to bypass in a first exposition exposing the possibility of eliminating completely and turning DASH into a POS system -.

The official position of CORE and the corrupt parasites of the DAO like DASH NEWS (rightly marginalized by a community of Mnodes that still claims its governance power ... but that will be increasingly threatened as a "sum of decentralized perspectives" by the whales that concentrate control of DASH) has NEVER been to reinforce DASH as a store of value. On the contrary, his attempts at trolling before any implanting any stable resource to the DASH system, which was one of the few that does not contemplate them, have been dirty and totally constant and repeated ... with Joel Valenzuela as the main intoxicant laughing at the stable coins with which the rest of the chains have tried to preserve the wealth of their users and repeating in their midst of corrupt intoxication that they were "just a fad" - or inviting, with Mason, disguised in VaultOro clothes, to DRAIN wealth from a DASH for just over $ 40 and transfer it to VaulToro, which they claimed was stabilizing wealth in DASH - when it is the exact opposite -. Now, that by chance someone has accepted the "store of value" on the agenda - after ruining tens of thousands of holders for years of waste and parasitism -, Valenzuela opens his infumable videos claiming "stability" as an objective for DASH (by the way , with several stable coins topping DASH in the rankings and half a dozen more stalking him closely, as he was repeatedly warned against his trolling on DASH NEWS and automatically CENSORED with the worst resources).

On the other hand, and also curiously, Ryan Taylor himself dismissed any performance in the sense of strengthening DASH as a store of value FOR YEARS. His crazy theory was that the very use and adoption of DASH would stabilize its price ... something completely ridiculous in an OPEN currency continuously distorted by the large speculative capital of the sector. Just as it is ridiculous to expect that DASH will reaffirm itself as a store of value by reorganizing an internal distribution of issues - in + - 10% of costs of + - 7% of monetary issue, that is, in a rebalancing of less than 1% of the total cap. In a project that yields to speculative capital that manipulates it like a toy, volatility margins of ... 97% !!! (Although, well, we must not lose hope... NEVER !!! ... also, maybe the next Nobel Prize in medicine will be for curing cancer with an aspirin ... let's be positive!).

All those measures ... just like the irrelevant nuances with which the trolls of the group that parasitizes DASH and wants to have it in exclusive property intoxicate any reasonable discussion or perpetuate it to total saturation, they are pure smoke and fireworks. If RTaylor wanted to, DASH would long ago be strengthened as a store of value, since there are resources available much more elementary and egective than the fantastic story that has been taken from the hat. (In which, by criterion and capacity, it CANNOT, better nor do we go on to assess it).

I hang up the hierarchy of Graham's disagreement so that your message is valued in its own right. Repeated, in your case in just a few hours. Really enlightening.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_(programmer)#/media/File:Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement-en.svg



I do not know why you are surprised, with two minutes you can already release a wide sample of tricks designed to censor, disavow and troll the rest.

Anyway, you have a serious identification problem: You associate two weeks of a nick in this forum with a history in DASH. The same dyslexia of associating 5000 Mnodes with a decentralization at 5000 points. Who will consider after the nonsense consequences of that perspective and that DASH seems to you a model of decentralization ? All clear, man.

Finally, between not considering DCG indispensable for a fork to ignoring it completely, there is the same long distance as between the logical interpretation of a message and your tortuous deformation, generating another of your own harvest ... modus operandi that you make more than clear in a couple of messages, with whoever it is, pretty much everyone who has been through this thread in just a couple of days.. Because, coincidentally, I am only the last of those who have posted in recent days whose judgments you are trying to overrule. That's also very characteristic of the DASH hierarchy ... on its worst side, I mean.

Well ... that censorious attitude from privileged positions embedded in a centralized hierarchy is one of the causes that most limits, corrupts and projects a lousy image of a project that should be pure gold in the eyes of the sector ... so doubtfully Productive changes could be addressed with a friendly fork of those who increasingly concentrate the beneficiary population of the project (Today, the miners ... tomorrow, who knows?). Of course, looking after the reasons why "Saint Market" does not digest DASH Stock to Flow due to minor nuances, dismissing obvious structural defects is really "consequential". Of your "characteristic" logic, of course.

Anyway ... surely anyone who reads us will have an idea of ​​their own. They may even be able to think without the help of your "translations".

A greeting.

Agree. The role of fiat - and even substitutes - in crypto can be decisive, just look at BTC.

But if a higher economic performance in those terms can justify that the percentage for Mnodes does not skyrocket and their returns are satisfactory ... it is also for the miners. And what I don't see is that a higher return to miners implies conferring a higher and more stable value, which, basically, is the basis of your approach.

I do accept that adequate fiat growth is a good point on which to organize a deal. And also, without accepting that it is the POW's heritage, a soil of real wealth, the capacity to retain that wealth. Although there, the role of the miners may remain questionable ... and according to some positions, even expendable.

Regarding the final approach, in the BTC forks there are also holders on both sides ... for that part, there is nothing "pioneer". And at the level of "instruction", I am more attracted to optimizing a marked declaration of DASH principles such as that of "financial independence, decentralization and resistance to censorship" which are really susceptible to being improved and affects de facto the WHOLE real community (which the mining "added value" to do so is a merely theoretical possibility that you play with - imo, you oversize - so that your approach is "of general interest", because if it were not, it would simply not have any option to impose itself ... and I understand that a Fork is a measure of such forcefulness that it needs much more palpable and concrete scenarios than "probable theories" to be executed, which I find disproportionate - In addition to not seeing any possibility of arousing sufficient consensus for a "voluntary" Fork, I don't think your thesis triggers enough interest to have "two versions of DASH dancing in the ranking " ... for a measure of such importance,sincerely, it sounds frivolous, imo (Although I would be willing to contemplate a satisfactory FIAT performance for both Mnodes and miners, both, as an important premise ... through a fiat revaluation strategy that with RTaylor's measures to improve DASH as a store of value, I don't see...understanding therefore the logic disenchantment of the miners ) -).

Nor do I see DCG as essential at this crossroads, perhaps it can assume a certain continuity or conservatism based on its current role in the DASH hierarchy ... and that, although in a group and clearly notorious, are particular interests. If technically possible, I prefer a "non-friendly" fork that prioritizes the maximum possible optimization of the potential of DASH, of the collective project as a whole.

- Personally, and beyond that evidence ... I believe that miners have been presented almost as "expendable" due to the existence of ChainLocks in DASH - initially and although RTaylor later denied it, its elimination and the adoption of a POS system As an option, it was one of the scenarios he broadcast in the surprise talk at the open house a year ago -.

Whether this is based on a sufficient technical criterion or not - I lack the technical criteria to pronounce on it -, i think that the impression that miners are not strictly necessary or not to the extent that they were previously considered, is quite widely implanted. The proof is that, rightly or wrongly, a scenario has been approved that prioritizes the benefit of Mnodes over them.


- In the second point, I see the opposite: Yes there is a VERY EVIDENT generalized perception that the incentives of the network are centralized in the Mnodes. In fact, the marginalization of community members without 1000 tokens, and their almost testimonial existence in the project, until recently was common discourse that many Mnodes arrogantly exposed in other DASH communication channels.

Besides being obvious, of course. And that point I do see manifestly improvable in a "not friendly" fork - and extending that improvement to the interest of a supposedly decentralized network -.

A greeting.

With all due respect, my personal impression is that the mining approach - so much for the detriment of this group and the added value that it could bring to the network - does not spark any relevant debate in the community. And I understand that many other factors do.

I am left with a "not friendly" fork. Personally, very interested in any such OPEN approach. If anyone considers themselves technically gifted and wants to improve the overall interest of DASH, I am at their entire disposal at my humble level of input.

A greeting.

This supposed balance of reason is a frequent conception error, since it only works between two parts of an internal debate and leads to endless circled that only waste time.

Faced with third parties, such as the agents of "SaintMarket" that is highly valued in other cases, they do not need proof of their reasonable doubts: Simply having them retracts them in their capital movements. You just have to see the laps against DASH that the famous Instamine has given, despite being explained a thousand times, for example. False or not ... they are perfect bullets for a troll ... and detriment to the project. Distrust is enough as a purchase trigger ... or not.

It is the SELLER who must support their thesis and define an attractive investment scenario ... even with respect to real fallacies (and this is a general example, not specific on the point).

A greeting.

Thank you. Interesting.

Do you see how stripping it of noise around it makes it efficient?  

Sorry, I insist: Any link to any point where a fork has been valued?
I'm interested in the topic

thank you.

I have never used him as an example,that is your business ... nor do I believe that, in fact, he is in that sense - and neither will I be - ... but that does not authorize what you - or the rest of us - do along that line.

I just come here tired of going around in circles ... so I will try to present information that helps to objectively analyze a problem, or several, that must be faced, imo. Without a change in that sense, DASH does not interest me at all, because imo, its potential, which is what seduced me, will never be optimized.

Anything that does not go out there is useless and is wasting time. And I will not give mine away, that is worthless.

P.S. and to escape noise and personalities I tell you that I will be the target of this same filtering ... and sometimes with good reason. Better for everyone if so, NP.

I consider this specific point settled, which I think has already been made clear, more laps will only be noise.

A greeting.

@qwizzie


I do not deny that there are affirmations supported (with greater or lesser success) ... but many others that are pure negative rhetoric to which - I will try - not to contribute. For me personally, it's like they don't exist ... as simple as that.

a greeting

..............

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_(programmer)#/media/File:Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement-en.svg

Too many ad hominems and attempts to ridicule and too many inaccuracies and fallacies presented as truth in your economic valuations of the measures that will presumably consolidate DASH as a store of value - and they will not, to get started because they do not even point to it ... but we will get into it that when the debate focuses on contributing and not disavowing, because that way we are not going anywhere ... positive, of course, that the rest is wasting time -. So many, that it would be more profitable to write a book than to answer them for free ... and also, it would be wasting energy and time in trolls, so I will not dedicate a second, sorry. Information intoxication in DASH is one of the first measures for the lousy imposed model to consolidate itself.

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


@Toknormal: Among your solutions, do you contemplate making a Fork of DASH as an option? ... Have you proposed it before something in this line? (I have not seen anything, sorry). I would appreciate a link to any info about it. Thanks.

................................

 
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).

Is it possible any estimate of how much members who disapprove of this change?

thanks