Exactly. People vote when it matters to them which is why it's reasonable that the ones who ARE voting deserve to be heard over those that aren't IMO.

In the Scottish referendum on independence, people came out of the woodwork from all over the place to vote - people who had never even registered to vote before. There was such strength of feeling on both sides that nearly the entire population voted. On the other hand, in European elections - which actually do matter regarding certain areas of policy - you're lucky if 30% turnout.

The thing about Dash's voting system is that - unlike democracy - you can buy yourself votes.

Earlier today, emitkirby made this remark:


Although I think this is a reasonable view with regard to democracy, I don't really think it's reasonable with regard to governance of a capital asset. The whole point of commercially traded assets is that you weild more influence over their governance the more you acquire. So the fact that Dash is doing justice to this principle should attract investors, not inhibit them. This principle applies universally in commerce. The fact that Steve Jobs held a huge number of shares in Pixar didn't inhibit people from investing in Pixar. Dash is a private currency - not a public one created by a central bank and backed by public debt.

Clarity is required. I don't see any other way that allowing large holders to wield more influence than small ones. In fact I think it's essential - it just gives them more responsibility thats all because the merits of their decision making (or in Dash's case, the decentralised will of the holders) will determine the propensity for others to invest.

If the governance process (however many participate) makes crap decisions then the asset will go down the tubes. If it is seen to take sensible, well thought out and generally 'safe' decisions then  the asset will grow and attract more users.

In conclusion I don't think it makes a damn bit of difference whether 1 person votes or 1000. It's not the number of votes but the quality of the decision making that's important. If only 20 people care passionately whether Dashwhale gets a blockchain sponsorship and only those 20 people vote, then thats better than 200 people voting where the other 180 don't have a particular view IMO.

However, the fact that many people can "jam their foot in the door" in a crisis over a critical issue if so required is a hugely powerful backstop against corruption.

I like Dash's governance model. Everytime I try to "think my way out of it" I keep coming back to the way it is - an uneasy but ultimately very powerful and well secured blend of capital & popular democracy. It also puts a lot of trust in the holders to make good decisions so it's an open book which makes it "alive" and appealing.

I never understood the point of private, in-house, corporate blockchains.

If it's proprietary why bother with a blockchain at all ? If you have to come up with your own hashing power isn't it just a very expensive VPN ? Why not just use regular accounts and databases instead ?

Perplexed.  

Get help.

LoL - yeah. Some serious resistance being encountered at these levels.

Might be this huge dip from a year and a half ago. The biggest volume candle of that lot by far was the 3560 -> 3000. Seems to be not giving up though - coming round now for a fourth shot at it after bouncing three times off those levels with a sore head.

3000 BTC Huobi wall....Munched.

$1.4 Million dollars worth of bitcoin bought in around 90 seconds.

Factom's doing ok 

Huobi continuing to paint a 45 degree slope, apart from the odd overcooked spur.

Ok. I think I'll delete my post as it looks a bit stupid in that case.

I misinterpreted tungfa's post - the endorsement with the anonymised identities next to the 'instagram' link.

No your not your just posting misleading B.S.

A "breakout" is something that people buy into and where there's both time and liquidity to make a profitable manoeuvre, not a spike caused by the exact opposite of those market conditions: low liquidity and a tiny number of trades. Anyone can "predict" such a spike any minute of the day just by looking at momentum indicators because they know that there are always a certain number of traders who will buy or sell into indicator crossovers.

Predicting a breakout is a whole different kettle of fish and involves some depth in combining both T/A, market sentiment, asset fundamentals and so on. You did not predict any "breakout", nor did you correctly identify an established "overbought" condition by any common definition of the term, nor did you even specify what chart range you were talking about. So it's bluster.

It was more of a fart than a breakout - but hey, some folks can be pretty good at predicting market farts  

Also it never went "overbought" (70 RSI) on any of the chart ranges except marginally on the 1 hour where the overbought condition lasted all of 2 bars.

Bitcoin goes "overbought" every other hour at times on the 5 minute chart during a long rise and can stay overbought for a day or two on the 1-hour range prior to corrections so if you're quoting stuff like this you should say which range you're talking about.

Also, that spike (what you call a 'breakout') was on a paltry 2k of volume. That tells you something about liquidity which kind of renders phrases like "breakout" and "overbought" about as meaningful as concluding the tide's coming in when a boat sails past while your floating airbed while you're sipping your Campari.


Well don't overwork yourself sifting through that Inbox. Take regular breaks  

Indeed - take a good look at it because it demonstrates how the passage of time has proven Evan right and Fluffypony wrong. None of the idle scaremongering nonsense in that list has come to pass 

More great discussion on the philosophy of where the industry is going. Essential "radar" material (even if it were wrong).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5vo0dTl8ZE#t=736

A great 10 second summary of my own thoughts. Canned by David Seaman.

(But then David Seaman said that he thought "Vertcoin" wold be "the one". Still good discussion though     )

Deutche bank have just produced this document which is chock full of meaty stuff for Dash people including major vindication that this project being driven smack squarely on target from the point of view of monetary priorities. Instant payments, payment clearing systems, the potential for an electronic form of cash (which doesn't yet exist according to most of their definitions) grabbing large parts of the paper & coin cash economy - you name it, it's all here.

It's vindication for Dash's approach because it further crystallises the divergence and consolidation of the cash vs credit paradigms for electronic platforms as I've been alluding to here, here and here for example.

The meatiness of this document knows no bounds in the context of Dash's current roadmap IMO - I've tried to highlight a few of the best bits but I could have just lifted any chunk out at random. I urge people to read it through from start to finish. In particular it drives a wedge between Dash and bitcoin in monetary definition terms.

I've often thought that the people developing bitcoin's "scaffolding" (sidechains, payment channels), while being very clever programmers, are almost clueless as to what they're doing to bitcoin financially (for better or worse). They're wandering unconsciously into territory of which they appear to have very little understanding but which at the same time is becoming increasingly well defined by others that do, in a way that's going to leave bitcoin "boxed out" of the dominion that satoshi originally targeted: realtime, peer-to-peer payments.

As Coindesk puts it:



For example, note:

"instant” (also “immediate”, real-time”) means less than one minute, ideally only a few seconds"

and

"The ECB explicitly defines a real-time payment as a fund transfer whereby the funds are
immediately credited to the payee’s account."

Although this isn't necessarily an attack on bitcoin's potential for dominance, it's clear that it will not qualify as a realtime, instant payments network under the ECB's definition - in particular if it starts using payment channels as the predominant merchant facing technology layer because then bitcoin has just re-invented the wheel that already drives the current merchant clearing system.

If we translate the specifications in this document onto a cryptocurrency then what's needed is a natively instant blockchain confirmation mechanism that is also as natively scaleable as possible without recourse to payment channel meta layers. Add to that a fungible, fully transparent blockchain and you've got an incredibly tight compliance with both historical definitions of cash as well as emerging formulations for defining it on an electronic platform such as the ECB are busy producing now.

Here's the whole doc: http://www.scribd.com/doc/292980742/Instant-Revolution-of-Payments

Enjoy ! (and don't be put off by the fact that they cite Ripple as 'instant' - it's a bank remember   )

Highlights:

Check this:

Rob Kirby- End Game Machinations Happening Now

Background: check out what an interest rate swap spread is. Basically he's saying that the fact that the US treasury interest rate swap spread went negative was an insight into the impending confidence collapse in the dollar. He says that that was further confirmed by the downgrading of the bank's credit ratings to bring the spreads positive again.

(i.e. it looks ridiculous if a bank is a better credit risk than the US treasury but that was the reality. The only way it could be 'covered up' was to downgrade the banks credit ratings to force the swap spread back to normal by making the banks look worse risks).

Sez that that is just one example of all the various tricks in play to cover up the rot that is about to blow up (another one being the paper gold manipulations).

Sez we've got 4-6 months if we're lucky.

Other takes on the negative spread phenomenon.

Yeah, so it seems. Zerohedge keeps highlighting that fact to its slightly irked readership. (Tyler seems to have had his bitcoin 'road to damascus' moment at some point in the last couple of years).

Interesting stock markets yesterday. Looks like they're starting to price in a rate rise but the sink rate must be a bit worrying for central banks.

What is going to happen next ?

Who knows ? David Stockman sez central banks are backed into a corner. His critics say they're not and that they can do anything they want and get away with it.

The (buy) force is strong with Huobi.

It's back to where it was 24 hours ago.

Indeed - and I think thats great, totally agree with the merits of promoting Dash for payments on social networks.

I'm just saying that the things to be avoided are (a) turning the currency into something that looks like a social networking tool (b) sinking developer time into technology thats nothing to do with currency and more the domain of 3rd party development.

Cheers ! I raise you a glass of single malt 

Customers in a supermarket can be trading sheep for all they care and it would still clear in a millisecond.

It doesn't matter what asset your payment is denominated in, it will clear in an instant.

EDIT: Look at this, bitcoin on a complete tear.

You can't pay supermarkets in 'cash'.

What we commonly recognise as cash is actually credit denominated paper notes as opposed to cash denominated credit notes.

In other words things are so turned on their head that there is no cash-credit distinction anymore in the fiat economy. If there was you would definitely not be able to pay in 'cash' at a supermarket because it would involve carting lumps of gold, coal, barrels of oil or some such and there'd be a currency translation requirement for each sale.

Cryptocurrency improves things by virtue of making itself transferrable through wires but it doesn't change the fact that it's a limited supply commodity as opposed to a flexibly supply currency.

You can't use commodities as currencies without constantly repricing everything. Thats why currencies (as distinct from commodity assets) were invented because they support a high growth economy where people are coming up with new ideas all the time.

That principle isn't the problem, the problem is corruption. e.g. that liquidity is confused with value. A bank lends a mortgage holder the liquidity to buy a house but the mortgate holder has to BOTH underwrite that liquidity with 25 years of economic input AND pay the interest on the loan. Only one should prevail - i.e. you either pay the interest or you underwrite the value of the new liquidity.