Not really, as I already went through this once and for all, so I don't have to deal with the same false assertions being made over and over and over.


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1443867.0

It matters because you (someone who is probably benefitting from it) doesn't get to tell me that it doesn't, nor assert without any verifiable proof that some or all of the instaminers aren't currently hodling their coins--and since dash is designed as a corruptible system, there is no way to assert whether it is or isn't corrupt, therefore BUYER FUCKING BEWARE!

Deal with it

And you can't prove that the instaminers aren't sitting on their pile of instamined coins and using them to manipulate votes or buying ads to trick greater fools into paying them node fees--that's what's corrupt about it. Do I need to make it simpler so you can understand?

If the instaminers combined for 1-2 million coins and sold over time half of them at an average price $4, then they pocket $2-4 million and have enough dash left over to control 500-1000 masternodes that accrue 10-50% of their collateral every year (using the low 10%), we can see that, using a low figure, they would aggregate to 605-1210 nodes in that time--and this doesn't even include selling nodes when coins are priced high to buy cheaper nodes when the coin price lowers, so unless you are very, very chimerical, you can see even normal market movement doesn't explain away the postulation that the instaminers are holding a large number of coins and nodes.

Awaits Tok to niggle over the statement  of node ownership to distract attention from the obvious concentration of power that the instaminer's potential coin and node control creates.

Not sure what you're talking about, even when CT is implemented, you can still validate the coin total.


"[–]fluffyponyzaXMR Core Team 3 points 2 months ago

So, having only the blockchain data, is it possible to mathematically prove that all blocks inside followed the rules?

Yes - read gmaxwell's write-up on CT and you'll see that amounts can still be verified.

To illustrate it as simply as I can: imagine if every transaction input was 1000 XMR. But, using ring signatures, you mix your real input of 55 XMR with a bunch of other ones that adds up to 1000 XMR. Analysing the blockchain we can still verify that it adds up to 1000 XMR, but we can't tell which value is yours."

I'd just sum it up as: The dash instamine matters because it leads to a corrupt and centralized governance.

While I don't disagree, I'd like to better follow the story as it's being written. 

That's not true. You can verify Monero's coinbase as you do in Bitcoin.

Are there any good threads, sites or books dedicated to this subject? I'm between chapbooks and my new obsession is learning how a trustelessly decentralized cryptosystem would look in theory and in practice.

I remember on Bill Maher's roundtable show that Marilyn Manson made one of the most astute observations about modern privacy I've encountered: that it isn't one Big Brother that is monitoring you, it's a whole bunch of Little Brothers.

Though, after the Snowden revelations, it's hard to argue that it isn't both working in conjunction to limit privacy at every turn. This may be motivated by the desire to control the desire that we deem abhorrent in ourselves through the control of others. What should frighten people most isn't that one person is capable of atrocities it's that when we give the state too much power over our lives that those atrocities are manifested through the state and carried out a million times over.

Every few days or so I read this as a reminder of what this is about. It's nice that it's short and there's no mention of price or investment opportunities or what coin is set to pump--just an idea developed in mind of the technology at hand. You can't kill ideas, but you can certainly corrupt them.

http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html

Tok you can't assert things into being true.

"Of the coin supply that forms that collateral, around a few hundred are thought to be in the hands of so called "early adopters" or "instaminers" to use your term"

That is pure chimerical speculation on your part--no one but the instaminers know for sure what happened to those coins. Some may have sold all of them, a bit of them, none of them, who knows?

And of course everything turns into "look decentralization" because you rolled an assertion snowball down a hill and let its momentum do all the work.

Also, another fact you continual ignore is that thanks to the collection nodes, whatever was instamined could be used to gain more coins, even if masternodes don't account for all voting, the coins they collect could very well be used to determine the vote from total coins.

And again, any market argument that hinges on what's best for the coin misses that good intentions, or the appearance of good intentions, doesn't mean bad things aren't being done behind the scenes, though I guess if Evan suddenly bought a Lear, no one in dash would complain, which is really, really strange, but whatever. My point is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions and claiming that somehow someway management will do the best thing represents one of those fallacies that sparked cryptocurrencies. Or are you missing that dash doesn't hire cryptographers with those votes, but finds more ways to advertise to noobs--so I guess a steady supply of fresh meat would be fine by you, not necessarily healthy for the actual functioning coin, but good for those holding the most nodes (my guess is you don't think people will notice this aspect in all your BS).

I think the argument against that would be serial numbers and cameras. You might want to pay in quarters from now on.

As concepts that we're aiming to achieve, I would say decentralized means that the power structure (whether it be mining in coins like Monero or Bitcoin, or in nodes like dash) is distributed enough that one party can't determine the outcome of votes without discussion and consensus--the mere appearance of discussion and consensus hardly counts, so let me dull that sword before you even get it out.

Trustlessly, I would define as the ability to review the functions of a coin (whether it be privacy, governance, speed, ect.) within a statistical tolerance level that accounts for risk in the form of time and level of risk.

While no current coin can claim either of these as a 100%, either or metric, the point I've been maintaining is that dash, due to the instamine and the masternode scheme will never be able to achieve these to any great degree without being able to identify each node and coin to a person and trace that history throughout time.

So here's a question for you, can you show me without the aid of trust that dash's nodes aren't in the hands of the instaminers or that those instaminers redistributed their coins?

I know someone in dashland will throw up a graphic that shows things in motion as they done over and over again, but getting in front of this so I don't have to make another post, that information can't show any more than that coins were exchanged, whether it is between the same people or new owners is a matter of pointless speculation.

Now Monero and Bitcoin and a few other coins are working to solve this, but will dashers be willing to give up their masternodes or identify themselves to show an honest redistribution? Those are the only ways in which to do it, but I'm sure someone will spout off about what we don't know about the future and some fairy dust statements, and my reply will be, "There is a way to do it today and you aren't doing it (just as you didn't do it two days after the relaunch and exasperated it with a reduction in coin emissions), so it isn't a matter of technology, like with POW mining issues, it's a matter of the community not having the will to do something about an obvious problem. At the end of the day I made my point. I think it's weird that a community that has such a shady past wants trust to be their biggest claim to the promise of decentralization.

Nice to see my sig got a second job.

Did I say every single last coin? You should work on your reading skills and learn to not be so literal, but nice try--but at least you got to make another infographic.

With the bolded above, you're assuming A. that the nodes and coins aren't just being traded between the same people, so people like yourself can say, "Look, verifiable evidence (if you trust us)" B. That people aren't lying to you when they say, "Hey, I just sold ten nodes!" C. that economic downturns that create selling pressure aren't manipulators looking to collect more cheap coins so they can expand their masternode fee collecting business and D. That price rise selling isn't recouped when the market invariably goes down. I know you aren't this naïve, do you believe others are?

Again, you are asking us to trust that the 2 million coins mined in the first two days were redistributed based on market information that can't conclusively conclude anything unless there is some sort of ID and payment verification system layered on top of an already layer heavy system.

Please come back when you've figured out that no one with any sense is just going to trust you because you have charts as I can just post the chart of how many coins were mined in the first 5 hours and say see, "Someone mined a whole bunch and no one will ever know if they still have them or sold them, and since they can buy nodes that collect fees, they can centralize the coin even more."

Honestly, you are going to require validation of personal ID, proof of purchase, ect. for all masternodes and coins? And people are going to want this from you why? Big Brother forces them to?

Again, Tok, there is no trustless way to verify that dash is decentralized, so prove me wrong instead of deciding that your definition of money makes dash lack of decentralization acceptable. I'm sure it is acceptable to you, but we aren't arguing about the properties of money as Tok would like them to be, we are arguing: can you verify trustlessly that dash is decentralized. I suggest you stop wasting everyone's time with infographics, that while cute, fail to stay on topic. If you keep going off topic, I will contact the Moderators to remove your posts. Sorry, but this doesn't have to be that difficult.

What the Bitcoin, Monero and other well designed coins do is allow you to see the centralization as verifiable data, that's the difference that matters. As I pointed out in my second post.


Now your claim that Risto can destroy the coin by dumping, ect, is conjecture on your part, conjecture I don't agree with, but if he could acquire coins by accruing them through nodes and having voting power through those nodes, I'd agree--in Monero and Bitcoin the governance is done by the miners and miners have a verifiable percentage of power through mining pools. Dash created a new and worse problem by their solution, so not exactly apples to apples. But if you want to argue about mining centralization, there are threads (populated by many members of the Monero and Bitcoin community) for that. This isn't a dash versus xmr or btc thread. It is a thread about dash's failure to make distribution of power a readily available data set that anyone can objectively observe and make fair and honest assessments.

*Also, if something like an algorithm that sells/buys chosen coins based on their centralization levels came into use, then there is no reliable data set I can use to determine a dash percentage, so this type of second tier way to combat mining centralization is useless with dash--though this a second level argument and really doesn't keep with what this thread is about.