I think you just did. And what status code should they use for the redirect for maximum SEO friendliness - 301 permanent ? Then make sure that all promoted home page links contain a consistent protocol: http or https ?

Why use https for just regular stuff ? It's slower.

That is way cool.

I now just type straight into my url bar and I'm there.

Sure beats dash-pay-dot-io  

SEO bullseye.

To a normal person, the idea of being caught in an exhibition of jaundiced turkeys would be enough of a deterrent.

...correction. Other than these notifications coming flying onto my destop periodically:

Remember to bring your spurs to Miami - you'll carry more authority that way 

There's nothing wrong with 'vapourware' as long as the vapour has a record of precipitating   

Keep the rain dance going and it will soon bear fruit (except maybe not the kind of fruit you're apparently hoping for    )

As far as I can see, about 700 BTC (net) found its way into Dash's reserve market last month and shows no sign of abating.

Mind the traffic  

Tante elevated to "splanation" grade.

Congratulations  

Thread was in danger of turning into a pleasant exchange of views there.

Looks like it's been rescued from such a perilous fate.

Most solid release yet here too. Not a hiccup since launch.

I got "attacker-economist-theoried" at the newsagent's this morning.

Paid with cash and somebody spotted me getting change of my €10 note - even though it wasn't in their economic interests to do so.

Rumbled

Better ditch the cash and pay with credit next time  

The thing is, bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are *base money*. You can't run a financial system on base money alone - at least not a developed one. It would be like trying to ride the tour-de-france in bottom gear the whole way round, including the mountain stages.

Layers evolve on top of it which disperse the wealth.

For example, lets take a hypothetical scenario where Bitcoin captures 0.1% (one tenth of one percent) or world asset marketcap. Meanwhile, Dash captures one percent (1%) of Bitcoin's marketcap. (It's currently at a quarter of one percent BTC marketcap).

That would put the value of masternode collateral at around half a million dollars ($500,000).

Lets say that's enough of a cap for a certain institutional - such as trade union, pension fund, corporate trust, whatever, to at least hedge into 10 masternodes which would represent a capital sum of $5 million fiat equivalent.

The annualised return on that element of their portfolio (at today's payout levels) would be around $350,000 (350 thousand dollars) if realised, just from blockchain revenue alone.  Remember that masternode revenue as mining revenue is not fiat gain until you cash into dollars and coming against that is a constant increase in coin supply through mining, so it's possibly not as great a return as that but still measurable.

However, the corporate fund has that money invested on behalf of its subscribers who may number in the 100's of thousands. Moreover, although there is "counterparty risk" for the fund subscribers, there is none for the fund (necessarily) since they are at liberty to manage the base asset - the blockchain keys - themselves if they so choose.

* Working

Not every wallet is - or needs to be - owned by a single person. As I often point out, blockchains are not analogues of bank accounts, they are analogous of units of base value.

Right now, these economies are tiny. If they ever develop to anything like significant sizes then the correspondence between blockchain addresses and ownership will be even more ambigious. For example, there is gold stashed in vaults all over the world where the entire vault is not owned by a single person just because it happens to be at the same address.

The network requirement to collateralise a masternode is 1000 Dash. That requirement says nothing about it having to be funded by a single person. Unlike the fiat credit network, crypto and owners are decoupled - thats the whole point of it (in the same way that gold and owners are de-coupled).

Yes.

This is money:



This is a safe:



Learn to tell the difference because they don't share the same priorities 

The art of trying to pretend that they do is known as the construction of "straw men". Something that many critics of Dash are far more accomplished at than doing monetary analysis.

fluffypony's not building the money. He's only building the safe.

Don't judge us by his standards.

Actually you'd be hard pushed to find a single cryptocurrency project that "didn't care" what so called whale investors invest their "lunch money" in.

As for the choice of illustrations to support your adolescent grating - be advised that it's clear to any sane observer which one of you is the baby.

Just keeping the bears happy during recent visit  

You mean that they're forced to divulge the names and addresses of account holders who run nodes in order to prosecute them ? (In the event that blockchains are made illegal)

Well, first I'd say we have to note that decentralised logic and decentralised hosting are two concepts which have nothing to do with each other.

I agree that - from a network redundancy point of view - a greater level of hosting redundancy is achieved if there are fewer co-hosted clusters. For example if half the nodes in the world are hosted on Amazon and the Amazon's entire service goes down across the board, then that will take out half the nodes until such time as their holders get them back up somewhere else.

But remember the masternode's existence is not particularly dependent on the host, it is dependent on the collateral address. A 'downed' host cannot knock out a masternode for any significant length of time because it only hosts an "instance" of the masternode and it can be "re-instanciated" anywhere, anytime.

Apart from that, it's just a consequence of decentralisation and something that affects all nodes in all currencies. There's also an ongoing debate about mining centralisation to boot. I'd say that the fact that this project has managed to meet the challenge of decentralising an articulated protocol logic in the first place far outweighs any host clustering issues which we would have had anyway with so called 'full nodes'.


I'm not saying it's "ok" or "not ok", it's just a fact of life that most assets can be bought and the more money a purchaser has the more they can buy of it. It's not a democracy.

I always speculated that if I had limitless funds and wanted to destroy bitcoin, I would do this:

[1] - periodically start massive bull runs that push the price up to kingdom come over a period of a few weeks

[2] - start dumping and scare the hell out of the traders, collecting everything that gets dumped on the way down

[3] - allow the asset to continue to loose value on very low volume until it had 'washed out' all the sellers

[4] - start selling on larger volume to cause another 'scare' at the bottom

[5] - repeat from [1]

Various questions arise from that scenario which I haven't really answered like can you destroy the market when only a tiny portion of the entire coin supply is ever on exchanges, can you acquire a majority of the coin supply by doing this, what would be the use of doing that, etc etc.