Infinite issuance when the universe is dead.  At any future moment in time, no matter how far, there is a finite amount of coins in circulation.  Like every other coin.

I won't say that I never had DASH.  I bought a few DASH 2 years ago (less than 10 coins) and I couldn't use darkmix, so I sold them.  Now, I'm not touching it with a stick. 

Not at all.  As the block chain is just a "big digital signature that costs a lot of PoW to be made", there are no alternatives around, so whether 500 data centers hold a copy, or 50 000 home computers, doesn't matter really.  The miner network provides ONE SINGLE valid block chain and there is not another one around, it doesn't exist, nobody spent the PoW to make it.  So there are no fake block chains around.

Big users have of course all reasons to hold a copy.  16 TB costs about $500 in disk space.  Add a good $2000 workstation, and your node is up and running.  32 MB per 10 minutes needs a link of 56 KB/s.  Most people torrent faster when downloading movies.

This means that you can set up a few nodes in every town if you want to.  More than good enough.

Want to get a kick start ?  Buy, say for $1000,-, a preloaded copy of the block chain on some 3TB disks from someone having the chain already.

Selling storage with pre-loaded chain can be a small business.

The true, and only, centralisation risk is mining.  And that's already the case.  Because in a PoW system, those providing PoW decisions are the deciders.  Take the 10 biggest pools and you have bitcoin's oligarchy.

And now, the question is: why should one pay miners ?  Answer: in a PoW system, you HAVE TO pay miners a HUGE AMOUNT of money, because the security of the system depends on that ; but also, in a PoW system, it are the miners that have the vote over the protocol.  THIS is why segwit will not be activated: miners don't want this lucrative market be crippled.  And why they give enough lip service to BU or whatever alternative: not because they want that activated, but to stop segwit from being activated. 

However, there's no way in which a "banking layer" can be avoided on top of a crypto.  The only thing is, a crypto with a banking layer on top (like LN) has absolutely no advantage over a fiat banking system.  So the problem is simply that: a crypto with a banking layer is useless.  LN or something else.

In a PoW system,if a fee market is in place, nothing is going to change that, because it is now immutably a part of the consensus.

Absolutely.  And only miners and big users and interested people need to have a full node holding that.  Because what matters, is the block chain that is made by miners, and they won't waste hash rate on faulty chains, so the chain you can get from them is of course the good chain.  No need to have proxy servers (sorry) nodes in every basement. 

]

Hey, I even live comfortably on his budget !


Mwahaha, I have to believe that !

If it works out for him, he's a genius.  Nobody's obliged to buy what so ever any DASH.  He didn't sign any contract with anybody.  The facts are out there.  If he can still obtain your money, that's what I call a genius.  He's not promising anything.  People just come and buy his coin.  He sells it. 

He's not crazy and crash the market.  I would very, very slowly dump small amounts of coins, but keep the price high enough for "young blood" to come in.  When he will be done, he can hire Bill Gates as butler.

... and shoved it down a lot of people who pay a lot of money for it with which he buys propaganda for even more.  That's what makes him a genius.  Not many people can pull that off.

The only reason BU exists, it to block off Segwit and its LN banking layer that would kill the lucrative miner fee market, on which the future crazy security of bitcoin's PoW has to rely.  BU proponents (miners) don't want it activated either ; they only use it to block off segwit.

The only remaining option is to keep things as they are, which is called "consensus immutability".

You are perfectly right that the "big blocks are going to centralize" is BS.  But the issue remains that block-chain-with-all-transactions-ever is not going to fly in the next coming decades.  But you're perfectly right that a 1MB limit is serving ANOTHER purpose: pumping the fee market, to keep the miners running with their crazy PoW security.  This is why bitcoin is designed as a GOLD VAULT, and not as a payment system.  The PoW security of bitcoin is mind-boggling.  No need to have that to secure $50 transactions.  Totally out of your mind to waste so much resources on so much PoW.  But to keep the rich man's gold secure, yes, that's better.  But that comes with a (large) price, and that can only be the case with high fees, and hence an artificial scarcity of transactions.

Too expensive HD, indeed, BS.

No, that was the story to get it going.  It IS going to be the rich man store of value settlement layer ; which is why its PRICE will probably still be increasing a lot.  


Me too.  But that's not what makes bitcoin's market cap today, so bitcoin won't care.  The libertarian stuff was for the kick off, the coffee buyers was to get it widely known and pump it.  Now, rich guys are keeping up the price amongst themselves.


Propaganda, or honest naivity (fell for it too).  Bitcoin's tech cannot handle it, or can handle it when there's a banking layer on top of it (like LN).   It would take 300 days if all Germans were to do one payment with bitcoin on chain today.  Even if you increase block size with a factor of 100 (!), all Germans could still do only one single transaction every 3 days.  They cannot buy their morning coffee with bitcoin with 100 MB blocks.  They can only do one single payment every 3 days.  The Germans only.  Don't talk about the Chinese.

Block-chain-I-have-to-know-all-transactions-in-the-world-ever systems are too precious concerning transactions for normal payments.  No competition with fiat possible.  So only niche applications are possible.  But the VERY strict condition on bitcoin makes that it can only sustain a VERY SMALL transaction rate.   But it has a high market cap, and is very secure.  So: reserve currency.  GOLD in VAULTS.

Sure.  But it can't be used as a currency there, too few transactions, too high fees.

No, he is a genius that knows perfectly well how to "mine the investors", and how central control is way way more efficient than decentralized consensus.


Is not a PoS coin, so this doesn't matter.  There is no centralized tumbler system in monero. There's no fake voting system in monero.  And yes, development is OPENLY centralized in monero: there's a hard fork every 6 months or so.  And there is tail emission.   And there wasn't such a huge premine. 

In monero, maybe devs have a big stash, but that's about it, and it will not come to proportions like Evan's at all.
They can dump once if they want to.  They don't keep on earning because of an initial monstruous premine. 


What keys ?  In monero there is no PoS, there is no voting, and coding IS centralized for the moment, but can be taken out of the dev's hands (as has happened in the past !), just like with Bitcoin Core.


So ?  What stops you from downloading the code from github, reading it, modifying it and compiling your own node software ?

But you are talking about monero here, while the thread is about DASH.  DASH is not a scam.  It is a private fiat currency, mimicking as a crypto, and under full control of central bank Evan Inc.  And it can work very well to do payments until it reaches high volumes of the order of bitcoin, which is not the case atm: all volume is essentially on Poloniex at this time.

Reducing the block size is a soft fork ; increasing it is a hard fork.

Soft fork = new blocks are still valid according to old protocol, but old protocol blocks are not necessarily valid under new.

Hard fork = new blocks aren't valid according to old protocol.  (there's still the choice whether old blocks are valid under new: backwards compatible hard fork, or unilateral hard fork, or not: full hard fork or bilateral hard fork).

Maybe Satoshi didn't realize the power of the immutability dynamics, and thought that one "simply had to agree over it".  Which is strange to think that, but as all this was new back then, and "a toy", he may have overlooked this.... or not at all and maybe he knew perfectly what he did, but didn't want to tell people yet that the goal was to make transactions scarce.  Or the "coffee buyer story" couldn't be told.

And without realizing, froze this soft fork in forever, with important consequences on its later dynamics.
Or, if he realized, he meant bitcoin to be a reserve currency, and not a means of payment.  Which is not impossible.  With a decreasing block reward, fees must take over.  But in order for fees to take over, there must be something scarce about them, because mining was supposed to be a highly competitive market.  If block size is unlimited, there's no reason NOT to include a transaction with a minuscule fee: it is always better than nothing.  It is only when the *resources used* to do so, become more expensive than the fee itself, that the fee will be excluded, but this suffers from a "tragedy of the commons" problem: ALL miner's resources suffer from big blocks, while the miner taking in the (small) fee gets a (small) reward.  As such, with unlimited blocks, fees would remain very small, nothing would be pushing them up.

If you have a currency without "tail emission", and you need to spend "proof of work", there must be something paying for that, so you NEED BIG FEES.  The only way to obtain big fees is to make a transaction something scarce: finite, small blocks.

But if you make transactions scarce, you hamper fluidity of the currency.  It cannot be used any more for small payments.  It can only be used for big payments at small rates and high fees: a reserve currency.  Moreover, a finite amount of coins without "inflation" invites "hodling" and speculation, driving the coin price high.

So the phase of "generous block rewards and limited adoption" allowed for a phase of currency usage, getting a lot of people interested into it, telling people about buying their coffee with bitcoin and so on.  Once this (scammy ?) phase is over, bitcoin will have a very high price through speculation, early adopters will be very rich, and one doesn't need the coffee buyer any more, one needed only his "pump" to get the price where it is now. 

We now enter the transition of bitcoin into its final phase: very expensive reserve currency for unregulated big finance.

My credit card directly.  
Google knows already too much about me.  At least my local bank is kept in line by regulations. Who needs Google Bank ?

If you just want to spend your money and be safe, why not use your normal credit card ?  What idiot is going to use, what, bitcoin, to have to convert it first on an exchange, withdraw it, see that it doesn't get through, then finally pay the merchant, add a big fee and wait 2 days for its confirmations, and the merchant, converting it back to fiat, but having to pay a big fee to get it there ?

Oh, and in what currency is "google coin" denominated ?  Hmm ?
This is nothing else but Google's paypal.

Indeed, the question is rather the opposite: as there is circumstantial evidence that at a certain point Evan Inc must have had a large fraction of the coins, and as this is amplified with the masternode PoS system, it would be rather natural that Evan Inc controls about half of the coins and an even larger percentage of masternodes (not all coins are in master nodes).  As such, he also has almost full certainty to have full control over the development voting system (and the 10% budget that it has).

In other words, simply accounting for the coins he must have, unless spent a lot, he must be in total control of the community, and of about half of the master nodes at least.

This is a bit like using a Tor-bis network of which all nodes are owned by the FBI.

Indeed, and I think this is the hidden power of DASH.  It is a private fiat currency, mimicking as a crypto currency.  Because if you hold the keys to the voting system, you can do ANYTHING if you want to, including inventing a block that assigns you an extra 5 million coins.  This is a central bank system.  And these systems work well, and make their owners also very rich.  But it is also a payment system that will work much better than one where there is true decentralization, with all the burden it brings.


Well, he is still limited by the credibility of his decisions, and has to keep up the monetary belief.  Just like the governor of a central bank cannot just start printing like crazy without harming the value of its currency.  But that's about it.  

I'm betting on the horse that bitcoin is what it is now, and will not change, because of the dynamics of immutability, which looks like idiots bickering on a forum and never agreeing if you look at it with a microscope, but which looks like "the only consensus is keeping the rules" when you look at the bigger picture.