If you're part of the cult that you appear to subscribe to. Then I suppose it is.

But it's a cult. Not a monetary property  

Ordinary cash, whether its gold, paper or whatever is not "private". The transacting platform can never be "private" because that requires it to be hidden. It's fungible. What you call "50-50" is actually a decoupling of 2 separate objective. One is to make the "cash" fungible and the other is to make the transacting platform (as distinct from the cash) transparent.

Both of you have lost the plot.

Mixing isn't about privacy (at least not primarily). It's about fungibility which is an acknowledged monetary property. A bi-product of hi fungiblity is greater anonymity (ability to decouple a unit of currency from its owner history). But that's just the bi-product. The primary reason is to maintain equivalence of value for each unit.

This is one aspect where Dash has got the cash archetype right and coins like Monero have got it wrong IMO. Monero actually went and encrypted the entire transacting platform itself which isn't the same thing as making the currency fungible directly. The transparency of the transacting platform is needed to maximise perceived integrity. ("Math" doesn't cut it because users have no idea whether their particular client is using "math" or not. I doubt bitcoin would have garnered the trust it has without a gazillion forensic trainspotters crawling all over its chain 24 hours a day).

Dash's mixing therefore works for high fungility whether a particular user uses it or not because they benefit from all the mixing of coins upstream of their addresses. The delistings if anything demonstrate that it's worked because the regulators are seeing Dash as "cash".....which is actually a design goal.

What Dash got wrong was allowing the chain to give up half its supply for nothing, thereby torpedoing its value-storing capacity !

Nobody outside of masternode holders has any difficulty with understanding this and it has therefore exposed a major flaw in the governance system. Turkeys & Christmas.


Indeed. Since there's no point in being a means of exchange without being a store of value first.

So who said that restoring the mining quota would result in a sell-off of masternodes  

There's now nearly 1 every 5 minutes being sold off on 1 exchange alone, going for under 3 BTC each - a 35th of their BTC price when we hit the equilibrium level of 5000 nodes. And it's not just exchange delistings that it can be blamed on because this has been continuous since we hit that level in late 2018.

Even the absolute nodecount itself is on the decline.

Maintaining a masternode network at 90% operating profit over cost paid for straight out of marketcap = try justifying that to anyone else except a group of conflicted masternode owners  

Do we have to re-rehearse the whole debate about ROI now to establish the definition of a security ?

People seem to feel free to make up their economic theories to suit their arguments in here. It can only occur in the Dash ANN thread. Outside of it people understand that ROI is measured as a fraction of what you invested, a security is an iliquid asset that's the subject of securitization and that paying dividends straight out of capital assets depletes their valuation.

Hey, great "promotion".

The correct answer was for the protocol to put my reward back to work to stabilise the currency, reduce my taxable gain, increase my (non-taxable) capital gain and restore Dash's competitiveness all at once.

But it's a security. Not a trustless crypto.

Because tax authorities don't accept unrealised gains as remittence unfortunately, so hodling is not an option for masternodes. By running one you are guaranteed a liability of around $2000 a year in my area (which is not one of the higher income tax zones) whether you cash out or not because the revenue is unearned, so it's 99% taxable. It is not compensation for the costs of supporting the Dash network (whereas mining revenue is and so is not similarly exposed to statutory selling pressure). The risk of capital loss comes on TOP of all this.


How long are you going to keep this mantra going ? Till 1 BTC per masternode and beyond ? Dash is in a ranking performance class all of its own with respect to the mined list and is plummeting down through it at a slow jogging pace. Your theory is that by reducing mining we're somehow ditching "ballast" that we didn't need and would be more economically buoyant without it.

Well be advised it's working the other way around.

Limited supply on its own is worthless and I think you know that. At least the hundreds of dead coins that have limited supply and no hashrate understand it.

I can paint you a picture that I guarantee will be a limited 1 unique unit, but it won't be as "limited" as a piece of fine art from a recognised artist who put a lifetime of effort into going to art school, practicing their technique and garnering increased market recognition. Their painting itself might take months to create whereas mine would have taken 20 minutes.

Both are still limited to a supply of 1. The difference was:

1. effort
2. competition to be the first to purchase the unit from source

In the fine art world, a purchase made straight from the artist is known as the "primary market". It sets the price for all subsequent purchases (which are thenceforth know as "secondary market" trades).

In mined crypto, the "primary market" price by definition is represented by the cost of the effort required to obtain the coin straight form the blockchain because the role of the protocol is to reflect the level of competing bids for that coin in the cost of mining it. Mining therefore performs the same market function as the gallery system does in the fine art market = attracts competition for the primary supply and sets the guide price.

To some Dash people, this seems an enigma. But only to "Dash" people. It's blindingly obvious to anyone else. They try to promote some conflicted and contorted explanation for mining being dispensable while at the same time accepting that their coin of choice inherits the core protocol of the most intensively mined digital asset on the planet.

Hypocrisy and denialism at its finest. Is it any wonder that we are continuously bypassed by our mined peers who do not similarly through their store-of-value engine under a bus to pay for a service that other networks get for free ? The latest is a joke coin at near its all time low against BTC. If that doesn't crack a few heads into waking up then I don't think anything will.

The protocol cannot give you you a 20% "return". Only the market can do that through capital appreciation (or at least stability) and it's already mauling us for our scarcity deficit as it is. In a mined coin, the primary supply is supposed to be used to fund mining which keeps it scarce and expensive to extract from the chain.

As long as we continue to deplete our mining quota, the market will continue to deplete our marketcap. Feel free to keep beleiving otherwise while the market keeps telling you you're wrong, but de-nial is not a river in Egypt.

I've just left my node down now because it's generating tax liabilities at a faster rate than I can practically mitigate risk of capital loss with without cashing out every week and now with fewer fiat offramps...

That's what happens when the reward is not put to work for the benefit of the network but paid out in pure dividends instead. Everything goes wrong.

Is Evonet functionality on testnet ?

Like can developers try out these JSON DAPI calls and the stuff described in "Start building with Dash Platform" ?

....ah, you mean Evonet IS a testnet. It's just not got the word "test" in its name. Whereas "Testnet" is a test upgrade of mainnet that we have at the moment.

Is that it ?

ok, TX !

So there are 3 networks, not 2 ? Testnet, Evonet and Mainnet ?

What's the difference ?

To me that stuff looks like what prospective devs would want to know. It's all beautifully laid out.

Why don't you link directly to the docs ? This seems like an enormous body of work.

It's buried away 2 layers deep in a download but seems to be the eye-opener on the panorama.

This is not a cryptocurrency. It's a blockchain hosted security which is the worst of all worlds. A signed paper contract is far more secure for this type of asset.

Dash is a bitcoin clone. It inherits the bitcoin protocol.

There are 2 fundamental types of monetary asset:

 • commodity money (sometimes called "hard money") that has a capped supply and which requires effort to create
 • contractural money (including currencies) that has an uncapped supply and requires no effort to create

Digital assets are all synthesised forms of these. Being synthesised they require a monetary archetype to inform their functional priorities. i.e. the rule-base that governs their issuance and subsequent use-cases.

With the commodity money archetype, the value comes from the limited supply and effort required to generate it. Both of these two need to be coupled for the intrinsic value to be present. Limited supply on its own isn't enough because without the accompanying effort factor there's nothing to distinguish it from anything else of limited supply (e.g. 4 matchsticks with my fingerprint on them). Nor is the "effort-factor" alone enough because without the associated limited supply it cannot reflect the value of competition for that supply and therefore will only ever be a low-fidelity version of the hard money archetype.

With the contractural money archetype the value is not instrinsic. Instead it comes from some contractual counterparty backing. No effort is needed and no limited supply as long as the contract is in place. For example a ticket for a Gold safe in Singapore draws its value from the contract of ownership, not from possession. Ownership is assigned.

So if you want to create coins backed by some other commodity, e.g. gold, silver, even securities like currencies or equities, then you need a type of blockchain who's design supports and adheres to the contractural money archetype and that's capable of issuing securities. This type of blockchain is also more suited to redistributive type protocols where there's some kind of equitable "allocation" planned other than simply those with most hashpower.

Dash is not such a blockchain. It's firmly of type-1 commodity money and no amount of bashing it around with "forks" or any other protocol modifications will change that.

Tezos.

No.

It's a mined digital asset, not a securitisation tool.

You're looking for a securitisation platform.

Why look for vague, subjective reasons which are shared with other coins when an unambiguous source of capital depletion is staring you right in the face that's unique to Dash amongst all its mined competitors ?

Dash isn't where it is for want of marketing IMO. It's had at least as much marketing as any of its competitors if not more, in fact it garnered a reputation throughout the whole sector for being one of the most marketed coins out there. And it wasn't just promotion, it had top 10 marketcap status, early listings on the biggest exchanges back in the day such as BTCe and Bitfinex, headlined at conferences, was widely reported in the press, had a massive revaluation upwards, listed on Coinbase etc etc.