So then I would pose the question if the extra "DDOS prevention/blacklist/mapping" functionality wasn't coded into XT, would people be against a larger blocksize? How does one expect to scale with 7 tx's/sec?? Lightning network... ok... it's still a whitepaper concept. I'm so tired of hearing the "purity" of bitcoin is getting tarnished with a potential block change when Satoshi himself said it was a temporary measure to prevent spam and allow the network to grow in its infancy. It wasn't mean to be permanent. This all goes back to why I believe Dash is a better bitcoin: -Faster confirms (2.5m vs 10m) -Block reward's tied to difficulty to incentivize miners to mine when diff drops -Every block diff retarget to prevent arbitrary periods of hash lost (hello 2 week recalc) and prolonged time between blocks -Blockchain voting/funding to continue development and grow the project vs relying solely on donations -InstantX (tested at 100 tx's/sec) -Darksend (while still quirky, it's getting better and adds a level of obfuscation vs sending coins to tumblers) -Incentived full nodes (because masternodes get paid, there is incentive to run a full node) -Masternode income for proof of service I'd personally love to see an n-block size limit implemented into Dash where the size limit is determined by the average size of each block n blocks ago (n to be determined). So if blocksize needs to grow, it will grow over time. Good points. I think the biggest benefit with DASH is that we have a voting system and a way to provide income to developers/marketing/maintenance/etc. The block debate with Bitcoin would be solved by a DASH masternode vote in just a few days. Heck, maybe we should offer to host a vote for them since DASH is somewhat tied to the value of Bitcoin.  |
|
|
|
|
I was using a backup computer with a wallet copied prior to darksend mixing a few coins. I updated to .45 and then .46. Now it won't find 2 transactions. None of the backups will show the transactions either. I tried all the repair tools(thank you Crowning) and it seems that something happened to the wallet and backups at the same time. I put a good wallet on this computer and the transactions show up.
The main computer I use with the latest wallet shows the transactions, transactions are in the block chain, and the old backups on that computer work as expected. The only difference is the main computer mixed the coins after the wallet was transferred to the backup computer.
Coincidence that wallet and backups failed at the same time? Or is there a problem with backups after mixing and we should be backing up wallets anytime we mix coins?
|
|
|
|
Normalized network/blockchain efficiencies
Dash efficiency = 98.3%
Bitcoin efficiency = 70.9%
Monero efficiency = 0%
So with the XT and assuming all blocks are full would this be /8 as efficient? 8.8% |
|
|
|
Masternode Operators do not "buy" software to generate them revenue. They're rewarded for a service. It is expected they take proper measures to insure the network is maintained.
We have had testnet for months, where everything has been layed out. Numerous questions and answers are brought up daily.
There is no responsibility by the dev team, who are volunteers, to produce a step-by-step direction for MN Op. It is expected MN OPs keep up with changes. There is absolutely nothing new or radically different, just adaptation to bitcoin core v.10.
Fair enough. But in that case, I suggest everyone have very reasonable expectations about the speed with which the network will update. I don't recall ever seeing such a small percentage of masternodes updated after this many days. Usually enforcement goes on within 2-3 days, and we're still sitting on 25% updated. Some is probably due to the weekend, but some is due to the fact that many of us can't figure this thing out. I would like to thank qwizzie for his very helpful guide. I'm sorry you feel that way, but I really believe your reasoning is off. Most haven't updated because they are well aware of what's happening, and that inicial launch could have (and did) have little mainnet quirks, that the devs quick as always came to solve. Service providers seldom update on launch, as these situations are expected. Veteran MN OP's are already "tired" of updating 2, 3 4 times in one day. Most will wait for a final "ok, this is it, this one is gold". Plus it's August, when most people in the northern hemisphere are on holidays. The network is steadily udpating. .v45 really does seem like it is it, as far as I can tell, and I have no doubt the majority of the network will update shortly. Service providers are always last to udpate to avoid service disruption to their clients, in case of expected bugs and quirks. Testnet is a sterile environment while mainnet is a jungle. If "many of you" can't figure this out, the simple solution is to head over to www.dashpay.io and ask for help. Or just stroll through the last half dozen pages of testnet, or better still, the v.12 official release thread. ddlink, I really don't want to antagonize you or anything, but the way you write makes it seem like there is a responsibility by the dev team to push out simple to follow tutorial for noobs. That is certainly not the case! It is their responsibility to answer the end user any questions they have. And we did have many many questions over the past months. And nothing world changing has happened for MN Ops anyways. Everything is "exactly" as it has always been in terms of use and MN setup, except slight difference that now you should use the RPC client dash-cli, which behaves exactly as dashd. start the daemon with "./dashd", from there on use "./dash-cli" for RPC, for example, "./dash-clip help" Sure, all those things are factors. But I'm sure there are a lot of people whose update scripts are broken now, or who manually update and aren't exactly sure what to do or where everything goes. I know you aren't trying to antagonize me--no hurt feelings, no worries. It *does* seem like software is more likely to be used if you publish instructions on how to use it. Perhaps somebody in the community could write a quick guide, like qwizzie just did, and Evan could link it in the "Official Launch" post next time. It seems more efficient than trying to dig through multiple pages of multiple threads. It's not that it's anybody's JOB, it's just that it would be really useful to have =) It's been a LONG TIME since the MN updating process changed even slightly! (The last I recall was when the binaries started being hosted on the website rather than at github.) The last update changed some of the file locations(including adding the dash-cli functionality) and had to have update scripts changed too. We also had to reindex with this release, but again this isn't the first release that has required it. I don't consider this a big deal. Once you get one node going, it isn't hard to update your script to do the rest. A few changes to get some bleeding edge updates in a revolutionary release is A Ok by me. Masternode owners have had a nice break from the last release and it shouldn't be a big deal to spend a little time doing this update. This is the first time we have actually removed a feature (like donations, or removed IPs from "masternode list") but these should be minor and I would expect this type of thing will be called out on the next release. Think about how hard an update like this would be with Bitcoin. It would take 2-3 days and 30GB to just reindex the blockchain maybe longer on the smaller servers plus a few days for users to make changes. What if the release had a bug and they needed another release to hard fork? Then another 5 days until reindex and users change. Updating a masternode and fumbling around learning a few new commands for an hour once or twice isn't really that bad when you think about it. |
|
|
|
Wallets that mine, hmm that sounds interesting TanteStefana2. Maybe there could be an option to turn on mining inside the wallet. An On/Off button. The algorithm uses your computer's power to mine.
This would mean that everyone that downloads the "wallet" could be a miner, which would lead to more decentralization. Maybe you could even select a mining pool inside the wallet or a random pool.
Maybe you could even limit the size of the pool. It would be cool if there were "DASH POOLS". They have a limit in the number of participants. Each Dash pool get's rewarded a certain number of Dash. The more people in the pool the less Dash you earn, so it incentizes you to start a new pool or to join pools with a low number of Dash wallet miners.
problem with this idea is that CPU is not enough powerful to balance GPU miners... I think you can mine from a wallet already. Just put setgenerate=1 or something like that in your config file. The problem is you make about 0.1 Dash/month and spend about $3/month on electricity. |
|
|
|
Since the developers are a little modest, I will add some of the cool features they forgot to show off in the release notes.  - Masternode inputs are locked automatically.
- GUI Wallet repair tools.
- Specific Spork, Masternode, etc update bars to ensure instanTX and darksend capability.
- Selectable interface themes and customizable wallet title.
- Masternode.conf is created automatically (if existing, the donation columns are ignored).
|
|
|
|
- - - UPDATE - - - http://boltvm.com/I have been in 'talks' with the owners of BoltVM and it appears to be a pretty good deal. Still waiting to hear back if I can have two IP addresses with the Server. BoltVM does require IPJ [IP Justification (is what that means)] - and it does appear that running 2 MN's on their Server(s), under 2 IP addresses, is 'IP Justifiable ' At $32.00 a year, for 2 IP's, I've not seen a better pricing any where :-D Just say you need the extra IP for an additional SSL certificate. You will also need to forward the 2nd IP to new ports, change the port settings in your 2nd config, and run from different directories to get two DASH instances to run on the same server. It is a little more complicated to setup than having a dedicated server for each MN. |
|
|
|
One quote from that article:
"But there are reasons for limiting the size of a block. For one, it provides security for the system by constraining available space, and therefore making it costly to maliciously flood the network with spam."
Which doesn't seem to be true because that recent attack to fill up the available space, and cause a backup on the Bitcoin network was cheap. And it was cheap because they only had to fill 1megbyt - current use ~ 700k so 300k worth of transactions = very cheap. What was it? ~$4500 to give the network 2 days of constipation? If the limit were at least 8 meg, they'd have had to fill up way more space, costing a lot more money, no? So how is a smaller block size more secure?
You can always require a minimum service charge, if the problem is that they have the option of sending their transactions free. Basically, they already do.
Ah, this comment was referring to an anti-DoS measure (monster blocks) not necessarily just spam transactions. See link below. In reality, if we are very close to the block limit, transaction fees will go up making a spam attack more expensive. http://bitcoin-development.narkive.com/jsfcbpPz/why-satoshi-s-temporary-anti-spam-measure-isn-t-temporary#post22Also in this discussion, some are discussing the cost of transactions and don't seem to be concerned about how much a bitcoin transaction will cost because it has advantages over paypal or other methods. If this is what they are thinking and the block size stays the same, it will be too expensive to use Bitcoin, except for large value transactions. There are also comments about lower fee, lower friction blockchains taking bitcoin's market share...and that's why I am here. Sub-Ether, thanks for the charts. If you zoom out, it looks like all the block filling increased on the 28th. |
|
|
|
Does he need only 51%?
Define 51% 51% of the MN system would cost you MILLIONS - if that's what you mean :-P No haha Im thinking about % if they are important, some projects should require more than 51% (yes) For Voting on a Proposal? I've not seen the 'Voting' requirements yet Anybody??? Evan?? Minimum requirement to get into a budget if there is literally nothing else in there to stop you is 5% of the network in votes, so currently that's 145 votes. But say, you get 100 "no" votes, that means you will need 245 yes votes to have 5%. So if I understand this system... a proposal is scored by summing the votes from all Masternodes where a "yes" vote is +1, an "abstain" is 0, and a "no" is -1. Proposals will be paid starting at the highest score proceeding to the lowest score until the allotted funds are exhausted. Finally, to qualify for any payment at all a proposal must at least score greater than 0.05*Total Masternodes. If not enough qualifying proposals exist then the coins are not generated. For example, if 10% of the coin supply is dedicated to funding and on average qualifying proposals only need 7% of that supply then 3% of the coins will never be created. Is that correct? Yes - That's what would happen - if the funds don't get used - they are never born @Evan - correct me if I'm wrong here but..... also - with a 5% approval you can only have 20 Proposals getting paid, at any one time - at the most - in a perfect world SO - when 50% of the votes go towards 1 Proposal you can only have 10 Proposals getting paid at a time 50% + 5% + 5% + 5% + 5% + 5% + 5% + 5% + 5% + 5% + 5% = 100% SO - over voting can keep people from getting their Proposals approved when everybody gets all excited 33% + 33% + 33% + 1% Abstain = 100% 3 get paid [all these numbers represent voting yes unless otherwise stated] if MN = 3000 and 2880 MN vote = YEA only 1 Proposal can be paid There's not not enough votes for anybody else to get paid to = 5% 2880 / 3000 = 96% Not sure if the system is looking at decimals and if they are, how many significant digits?? @Evan - correct me if I'm wrong here My Question is: Can we only Vote once on each Proposal OR can we only Vote once on one Proposal hummmmmmm....... edited to clarify my question Your comment above is not what the masternodes voted in. The reason for the voting is to focus attention on a few projects and get them fully funded. It was not to run a donation portal that funds too many of projects that never get finished. You can look at more details on the latest revision to the voting proposal on Dashtalk here: https://dashtalk.org/threads/vote-self-sustainable-decentralized-governance-by-blockchain.4825/page-4#post-53665This is the basic concept: Proposals get voted on. A majority vote(or some minimum %) gets a proposal in the queue. The highest %(of yes) proposals get first place in the queue. So for a 60% yes for A, 70% yes for B, and 30% yes for C votes we would have: B has priority, then A. C gets thrown out because it doesn't meet the minimum 50%+ yes. Also, a suggestion to weed out spam proposals was to charge a fee of 1-10? DASH. The fee would go to the website host that enters, lists project details, and submits the projects. |
|
|
|
That thread depressed me so much yesterday, I really shouldn't have gone back to look, LOL. But that Satoshi quote was hilarious, I assume it was faked, LOL But seriously, throwing mud in all directions is stupid and achieves nothing. Good thing, though, is a nice person has PM'd me and is helping me to understand. That's all I wanted. I'm not there yet, but I'm working on it It's so depressing to see how ugly and mindless people are. I mean, I don't know Peter Todd, I don't follow him, so I don't know how often he slings mud like that, but it's immature, especially when this core team works so hard. It's fine to disagree with the direction, but to call names as if there were no validity to their approach is not responsible nor mature. I guess every public figure has been there, done that. But I can barely take what gets slung on this thread, that this recent excursion to the "outside" has definitely made me go back into hiding in this thread, LOL. I'd be that ostrich with it's head in the sand, only I don't hang out here in BCT very much anyway, and do a lot of reading out in the general internet to gather my information. BCT isn't a good place to learn anything in general, it's more of a place to gather rumors and see which way the wind is currently blowing. I wonder, do all forums eventually degrade like this? I belong to hobby forums where people are so nice, helpful and encouraging. What a difference this is. Tante, maybe this will cheer you up. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - Gandhi The good news is we are no longer getting ignored. One step closer. I have pretty much given up on using Bitcoin. It takes 10 minutes - 5hrs+ for a transaction to confirm depending if you spend 20 cents or 1 cent. I store my crypto in Dash and just use shapeshift.io to instantly convert and pay with Bitcoin when needed. My Bitcoin mining payouts convert to DASH through shapeshift.io too so I no longer even touch my Bitcoin wallet. I don't have to store a 40GB Bitcoin blockchain that takes an hour to update if I don't load it every day. It will keep getting more and more attractive to move to Dash. |
|
|
|
Status of the vote so far (15h48 UTC):
YEA 799
NAY 16
ABSTAIN 1724
MN owners don't forget to vote!
FYI, the NAYs have fallen a little. Some of us must have liked the revised proposal.  YEA 924 NAY 3 ABSTAIN 1615 |
|
|
|
A central escrow/wallet for projects will cause problems with theft/loss/confiscation/tax.
Multisig in general is VERY secure and is proven in Bitcoin. Thus the temp implementation of having 7~10/15 multisig will not suffer from this problem. As for future implementations... well we have testnet. I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill on this theft/loss issue. Multisig means jack shit when the psychopaths who run the asylum decide to ruin or end you. If they want your multisig key you are going to give it to them. They're slightly less likely to ask for it torture it out of you if it doesn't exist in the first place. Or do you think bad things only happen to those nasty brown people, on TV, in the land of Far Away?  No. I simply don't have an unhealthy paranoia about gov't. The gov't doesn't care about Dash. And they certainly aren't going to torture the 15 people with the multisig keys for the brief period of time that this temporary solution is in place. That is nothing but a red herring and I hope voters will not be fooled by it. No need to worry, the revised proposal looks like it addresses the big concerns. |
|
|
|
-snip-
This is the decentralized vision that I see.
Each project owner controls his/her own wallet with the funds. Each project is directly paid similar to masternodes getting payments over time from block rewards, only the project owner receives and controls the funds. Quick, simple, no 'central fund' at risk, no fund manager/s. Each project would get paid their specific % of the block rewards they request so there isn't any funds sitting in a queue waiting accumulate before they can be sent out each month. The funding mechanism would also be the voting mechanism. 51% yes votes gets a project in the queue, and highest yes% gets priority until the 10% cap is reached. Projects get voted in every 3 months and each project has a set limit for 3 months of block rewards.
unless i'm missing something this seems like a much better/easier way to at least start this new system. the new/latest proposal seems very complicated but is probably the best for a long term plan as it allows more precision but at the cost of (temporary?) centralization. i guess the main complaint about evans original plan was that a project could be over funded. i see that as a small sacrifice to preserve a more decentralized system. seems like the dev could just return extra funds to a advertising wallet or something like that. if they did not they would be cut off. it's all pretty complicated so i could be wrong. My 2 Main concerns. A mandatory 10% tax will eventually turn into pork barrel projects along with an incentive for those getting the funding to increase that tax. A central escrow/wallet for projects will cause problems with theft/loss/confiscation/tax. These will be bigger problems as time goes on and it makes a lot more sense to get around these issues now. The blockchain is forever so any mistakes that happen now could be traced back in the future. Switching to the voting system today....This masternode voting system is bulletproof. I moved a masternode to a different IP address to see if it was possible to manipulate extra votes. It turns out as soon as the old node stops, that vote gets deleted. Even trying to use the same masternode key on 2 nodes didn't fool it. I am totally impressed! |
|
|
|
Does this mean that Dash version 0.11.2.23 will include the automatic backup function and will also include all fixes & additions incorporated into the Master branche on github after 11th of april 2015 (when Dash version 0.11.2.22 was released) ? If so we need perhaps a bit more documentation about this update.
i do not think that is in there this is only for the voting system , as not mandatory update i just downloaded version 0.11.2.23 and automatic backups are definetely in there, therefore we should have more information about this new update as it implements more than only the voting revision. I will wait for more details before I update everything incuding my MN's. That will be a great feature. Looks like it adds that backups folder inside the data directory and stores the files with a walletname.date-time. Extension isn't obvious (no .dat) either. A+  |
|
|
|
Great, great and great!!! I have some vote and I'll vote tonight, ready to begin with the decentralized governance.  Carefully read this proposal. It utilizes a commingled project wallet/blockchain store/escrow. I don't see this as a true decentralized system. Other alternatives may work better with less risk. Yes, on my first post I din't had read all the proposal and the remarks yet... So patience we'll see what they will answer to the doubt on dashtalk. Actually, I see no reason why funding the development of the project needs to be purely decentralized. We have very decentralized voting (albeit only Masternode owners), why do we have to have a "decentralized wallet" to deposit coins into. It makes no sense. It isn't functional any other way, and it is still secured by the same decentralized network that secures everyone's wallet. This proposal will force funds into an escrow account exposed to theft/confiscation/loss/tax. The risk is higher with the more account holders, along with additional delays with more signers to get the funds out. Any account holder can be accused of something "illegal" in the eyes of a government entity and it will be traced back to this account. I believe there are also additional tax consequences with block rewards going into a fund and then separated to project owners. Plus a lot will need to be implement to even make this work - multisig masternode controls, budget software, budget voting, masternode approval for funds each month. This proposal also has no mechanism to not fund this account(or return funds), so over time when the best projects are completed and the funds will be spent on poor projects or wasted. A much bigger deal in a few years when DASH is 10x or 100x it's value and 10% of the block rewards is not the $290k/year like it is today.(although the other post of Evan's suggested a way to return funds, it isn't in this proposal) This is the decentralized vision that I see. Each project owner controls his/her own wallet with the funds. Each project is directly paid similar to masternodes getting payments over time from block rewards, only the project owner receives and controls the funds. Quick, simple, no 'central fund' at risk, no fund manager/s. Each project would get paid their specific % of the block rewards they request so there isn't any funds sitting in a queue waiting accumulate before they can be sent out each month. The funding mechanism would also be the voting mechanism. 51% yes votes gets a project in the queue, and highest yes% gets priority until the 10% cap is reached. Projects get voted in every 3 months and each project has a set limit for 3 months of block rewards. |
|
|
|
Great, great and great!!! I have some vote and I'll vote tonight, ready to begin with the decentralized governance. Carefully read this proposal. It utilizes a commingled project wallet/blockchain store/escrow. I don't see this as a true decentralized system. Other alternatives may work better with less risk. |
|
|
|
I still see 2 problems with this, and one good thing. They look like a great way to turn your fiat into coins, that's the good thing The bad things is that it looks like it will still be centralized. If it's not centralized, then how will they encourage people to run the nodes for it? And if they pay people to run nodes, how will they ensure against Sybil attacks? Another masternode system? I can't find any technical information on it, do they have a thread here? (haven't looked yet) Anyway, it could be great, but I see deep problems that I don't know how they'll fix. I downloaded Coinffeine on the first release day, but there was nobody to trade with. Now my trades are going and it is working. A little CPU intensive, but works. The site says there are fees with the payment processor. So that would be Okpay on the test software. The entire idea is pointless if we still need to go through Okpay with a 7% fee or something. Like TanteStafana2 is saying it looks centralized, and if it still goes through a single payment processor it is no different that what is already available. Maybe Paypal, Dwolla, and Okpay will compete as payment processors and get the fees under 1%. I see the payment processor as the potential problem here. |
|
|
|
Cool, Banksters and private interest groups have taken over Bitcoin Hopefully, if there are any independent node runners left, they'll stop running them in protest and now miners can't afford to keep mining on low BTC prices, so hopefully they'll give up on sha-256, or go with another coin. Result? Banksters, regulators and private interests will have handicapped BTC to the point where they won't be able to call it decentralized by any definition, and certainly not private. Here comes DASH to the rescue! This is not about banksters. This software by Reggie Middleton is about trading and hedging commodities. Reggie is a really smart guy, forecasting the best performing stock for the last few years. Bitcoin is ideal for this purpose, it can trade between countries and settle in a few hours. Really, a big benefit to traders. Of course, DASH would be quicker. This software isn't adding regulation, it is about a decentralized way to trade or hedge commodities or currencies by anyone. The example given is like buying an insurance policy that would limit the loss of a mining operation if bitcoin fell 7%. It doesn't have anything to do with taking profits from miners or handing control to bankers. This type of thing can already be done if you have a big investment broker, but using this software enables much smaller investments and lower fees. |
|
|
|
I knew that was it when oblox posted it. Congrats oblox. I thought for sure Instantmine to InstantX would come up on the first round. |
|
|
|
|
Fungible Privacy would make sense but no L at the end.
Fundamental Privacy?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
