 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 »
|
Yes, it's definitely harmful to let the community know that he's still alive, still monitoring the thread, and still making progress on the coin. I can definitely see how hearing from our dev from time-to-time is severely damaging.
If I am an optimist, I assume that he's doing all these things anyways. If I am a pessimist, I might as well say that this post was created by a bot, because it is entirely generic and does not reference anything recently discussed here. On a more fundamental level, the fact that he feels the need to make this kind of post at all is IMHO a workaround to the problems created by the decision to keep development secrect. If we could simply follow commits as they happen on github, there would be no need for vague statements of reassurance. And who knows, maybe somebody might even get intrigued by what they see and start contributing patches and so on. How the hell does that look like a pump to you? Did he tell anyone to buy? Did he tell anyone the value was going to the moon? Did he give anyone a price target?
I'm not saying that this is his intention, but we all know the hostile environment Dash is facing, so I just don't understand why someone would want to make the trolls' job even easier. Also, let's be honest: If this were some coin you've just discovered and you saw the dev posting vague "great things are coming" comments, wouldn't that be a red flag to you? If you don't like the "teaser-based marketing strategy" then stop reading the forums, and come back in late January after BTC Miami and read what Evan has to say then, when more information is on the table.
Yes, I was actually thinking of doing exactly that. It's not that I doubt the team's intentions or technical abilities, but it's just so painful to watch them shoot themselves in the foot communication-wise time and time again. |
|
|
|
Everyone is free to post here what they feel like, that includes trolls and it also includes posts from our lead developer.
Patience is a virtue which appearently not everyone has....
Sure, everyone is free to post what they want, what I'm saying is that posts like the one I quoted might do more harm than good, because, like you've said, people are impatient, and more importantly mistrustful of grandiose claims without anything to back them up |
|
|
|
Sometimes it's good to just start fresh, I've made four separate discoveries so far  . I'm sorry, but I've got to agree with the trolls here: Posts like this one contain no useful information and only create the impression that the dev is trying to pump their own coin. So if you're unwilling to share anything of substance, it might be better not to post on the development progress at all. Did I mention that I hate those teaser-based marketing strategies? |
|
|
|
taoOfsatoshi's tweet has been retweeted an incredible 11 times.. you guys sure are going viral  tell me again how the instamine fraud doesn't matter.. lol.. dash becoming more irrelevant by the day The better question is, will it ever become irrelevant enough for you to stop posting here :-) |
|
|
|
It is impossible to say what the final number of coins will be. Dash has a flexible reward system. If mining wanes because it's unprofitable, the rewards go up according the the formula posted on the OP. The Budget system could lower that, but a lot of the estimate is based on the lowest rewards possible and a possible "high maximum" which is a complete guess.
Still, those are the boundaries between which the actual number of coins will be. So if we know the minimum reward is 5 and the maximum is 25, the final number will be somewhere between 18.6 and 73.3 million. I think there's a limit of 20 million (or something in that region) defined somewhere in the code, so the upper boundary is actually lower, but the 14 million from the OP don't really work out. |
|
|
|
Well, at least you've counted the emission from launch until now twice. 13.6 is the total for the entire series, so the 6.6 (or at least the part of it that was created according to the current formula) is already included
No, I didn't. 13.6 is the total for the serie from the first decline (when reward become 5*13/14) till infinity (not till 2050 because we used to say "total supply"). I can't count the emission when there were bugs. That's why I counted total supply as current emission (6kk) + supply from the first decline till infinity. So only the part of this year from decline till now was counted twice and that's 0.7kk approx (min). P.S. "// yearly decline of production by 7.1% per year, projected 21.3M coins max by year 2050." - here goes "max"  Yeah, sorry, I corrected my post while you were replying, here's my adjusted version for readability: Instead of the current supply, you would have to add the supply at block height 210240 to the series, which is 5 million according to https://chainz.cryptoid.info/dash/block.dws?00000000000ae5b7e33558e0601f8f1c5cacc6dbc48ac5f90289d71609fa6355.htmSo that would bring the lower bound to approx. 18.6. Theoretically 10% of the future supply may not get issued since it it reserved for the bugeting system and if there are no proposals, those 10% would not get created. But even then, total supply would be above 14. |
|
|
|
main.cpp nSubsidy = (2222222.0 / (pow((dDiff+2600.0)/9.0,2.0)));
if (nSubsidy > 25) nSubsidy = 25;
if (nSubsidy < 5) nSubsidy = 5; // yearly decline of production by 7.1% per year, projected 21.3M coins max by year 2050.
for(int i = 210240; i <= nHeight; i += 210240) nSubsidy -= nSubsidy/14; The min reward is 5, annual decline is by 1/14 (mult. by 13/14) and we have 210240 blocks / year. The current supply is 6kk and we had one annual decline so the min reward is 5*13/14 atm. That gives 5*13/14 * 210240 = 976114 new coins per year. Annual decline yields infinite geometric serie and we got approx 976114 * 1/(1-13/14) = 13.6kk additional coins. Add the current supply = 6kk and that result in ~20kk total coins. That's about minimum possible supply that doesn't depend on hashrate (I believe the maximum is five times more). There are super blocks now but it was said that they fit in supply, right? What did I miss? How do the total supply can be less than 20kk? Well, at least you've counted the emission from launch until now twice. 13.6 is the total for the entire series, so the 6.6 (or at least the part of it that was created according to the current formula) is already included. EDIT: Took another look and saw that you're series starts after the first reduction, so what I wrote above does not really apply. But you still can't add current supply to the series without counting this year's emission twice. You would have to add the supply at block height 210240, which is 5 million according to https://chainz.cryptoid.info/dash/block.dws?00000000000ae5b7e33558e0601f8f1c5cacc6dbc48ac5f90289d71609fa6355.htmSo that would bring the lower bound to approx. 18.6. Theoretically 10% of the future supply may not get issued since it it reserved for the bugeting system and if there are no proposals, those 10% would not get created. But even then, total supply would be above 14. |
|
|
|
Has anything changed? First post says there will be 14-18 mil coins? I was sure there would be about 20 mil. And now 14?
On this page it still says ~22M: https://www.dashpay.io/specifications/ |
|
|
|
What's wrong with just putting the original specification and name at launch back like every other legitimate coin? That is factual, let people draw there own conclusions. If changes to the key specifications are made they should be added to the OP with an explanation of when those changes were made, not erased.
People will always draw their own conclusions. The amendment format you propose is only really suitable for programmers, who are used to reading changesets and revision logs all day. Besides, if it only lists spec changes, it wouldn't (explicitly) mention the instamine either. A dedicated page is much more useable IMO, and the exact contents and wording are a separate issue. |
|
|
|
Well, if it's going to die anyway, there's really no point in wasting your time posting here. Just saying...
Your error is assuming that I'm trying to accomplish something. It is the same sort of paranoid persecution delusion that leads people here to make false accusations of "paid" trolling, when it almost certainly isn't true. (I mean I damn well know I'm not being paid by anyone.) No, Dr. Freud, I'm not assuming you're trying to accomplish anything. In fact, I'm asking, what you are trying to accomplish by posting here. I'm not here to create a list, I'm just having a conversation. If things come up, I might discuss them, or I might not. The instamine seems quite relevant right now since I just noticed that all of the relevant early history has been recently (I don't know exactly when) removed from the OP, making disclosure much worse rather than better. It looks to me like a calculated effort to 'sanitize' Dash's image ahead of the ongoing Evolution sales pitch, which ultimately will backfire when people ask why the history is being hidden.
Ok, so then there is at least an actionable item: Would it help if there was a link in the OP to the history page (there is one on a wiki or the website AFAIR)? You have Dash out there spending money to fly around, etc. and promote itself which means a face of cryptocurrency being put in front of people that has a very questionable history and which is bound to inevitably raise questions of shadiness and potential same, and further reinforce the negative every negative impression of crypto that already exists (mostly with alts but with Bitcoin too). That's exactly the kind of ambassador we don't need.
Some might say the fact that they are able to do that indicates that they did something right (i.e. got those trips and presentations funded and organized). But we'll see how it plays out |
|
|
|
Just out of curiosity: Do you have any specific demands as to what should be changed in Dash so that you can make your peace with it, or is it more a situation where you won't rest until Evan publicly commits seppuku?
Talking about suicide is really hyperbolic. People need to keep things in perspective. We're talking about a tiny little toy coin compared to Bitcoin which is itself a tiny little toy coin compared to the fiat financial system. Let's not get some exaggerated sense of what is at stake here. Well the sarcasm tag was obviously implied :-) At this point I don't know that there is anything Dash can do. The cryptocoin community just needs to move on to coins that don't have it's baggage, which in time I'm confident will happen, just as the Bitcoin community moved on from most of the worst scams and frauds. If you have constructive suggestions though other than "the instamine happened, get over it", or "we'll just delete everything from the OP and make believe it never happened", both of which I truly do not believe is ever going to work, I'm open to hearing them.
Well, if it's going to die anyway, there's really no point in wasting your time posting here. Just saying... If I understand you correctly, it's only the instamine you're concerned about? Because I've seen quite a few posters who will jump from one issue to the next in different comments, and I'm trying to to compile a complete "What's wrong with Dash" list, so is there's anything else, please make yourself heard. WRT to suggestions I think the problem is that most people here are not overly bothered by it in the first place. I mean, it looks to me as if the biggest issue it creates is daily troll postings on the subject, and the ignore button pretty much fixes that. In your opinion, how exactly does it hurt the cryptocoin community? |
|
|
|
I likewise believe that as long as coins like Dash exist and don't uphold the highest standard of transparency, fairness, and ethics, that will be used to attack crypto generally, setting back the movement overall, rather than helping it. If people even know about coins other than Bitcoin (and possibly Litecoin, maybe Ethereum now), most of what they've heard is that they are a bunch of pump-and-dump premine, instamine, etc. scams and they want nothing to do with it. Dash does not help that cause at all
Hiding behind a bunch of renames and then editing the original parameters and renames out of the OP are not going to fix this problem.
Just out of curiosity: Do you have any specific demands as to what should be changed in Dash so that you can make your peace with it, or is it more a situation where you won't rest until Evan publicly commits seppuku? I'm asking because your post is actually quite vague. I there were any concrete demands, we could at least have a useful conversation |
|
|
|
I don't know how you guys can complain about Monero "trolls" being active in this thread when you post bait like this.
Yeah, I've noticed that, too, a couple of times. I'm still unsure if it's withdrawal symptoms or simply some delayed revenge thing, but in either case, it'll just create more noise later on. That being said, the trolls are an important source of entertainment in this thread :-) |
|
|
|
If this is true, is there anything that can be done structurally to mitigate the possibility or the perception of the possibility of hegemonic MN control? I realize that growth over time can take care of the issue, but it seems to be a vulnerability now.
I don't think so, because mn owners are more or less anonymous, i.e. there is no way to automatically determine that mn A and mn B belong to the same owner. So how would you even identify how many mns a particular entity controls? P.S.: One interesting scenario would be if there ever was a Silk Road-type bust involving Dash, i.e. some law enforcement agency confiscating a large number of coins from a Darknet operator. That would theoretically give them quite a bit of voting power, if they decide to go through the trouble of setting up masternodes |
|
|
|
Well...for currencies besides Dash the risk is somewhat reduced by the fact that the effects of such a backdoor can immediately be observed, whereas with Dash the "spork" model means that an exploit can be hidden away and only activated at a later stage, or the network can be remotely forked by anyone who holds the spork key.
BTW: the effects of the backdoor can be observed in both cases when it is used, and not any earlier. So there is really no difference in that regard. The forking is of course possible, but that is easily observable, too, or am I missing something? |
|
|
|
The long and the short of it is that it is not unheard of, or particularly difficult, for an obfuscated back door to be slipped into open-source code. But hey - this is a risk in Bitcoin and Monero and other cryptocurrencies, so Dash is fine, right??? Well...for currencies besides Dash the risk is somewhat reduced by the fact that the effects of such a backdoor can immediately be observed, whereas with Dash the "spork" model means that an exploit can be hidden away and only activated at a later stage, or the network can be remotely forked by anyone who holds the spork key.
Well, obviously the spork feature increases the attack surface. It also allows for more agile development. Like always, it's a trade-off. But I'm fairly sure most people here are aware of that. |
|
|
|
What if I told you there are a few currencies that are taking the serious approach of testing it first, trying to write a decent paper about it and then implementing it?
I just had a fun idea: Why don't you demonstrate the awesome power a decent paper can have by writing one about the flaws in Dash's design and submit it to Ledger for publication? That would give you some serious street cred, and might actually impress quite a few people in this thread. At the very least, it would give us something concrete to talk about |
|
|
|
1) idea
2) write & code
3) peer review & test
4) implement
5) tell people about it
Out of curiosity: What is the difference between 2 and 4 in your list? 2 would be a reference implementation, in Python for example, and 4 would be the actual implementation. OK, but then strictly speaking, you would need another test phase after 4 :-) |
|
|
|
No, I saw it. But it didn't really add much to the photo we had already seen. There were a couple of hints in the QA video, if you had the patience to sit through it, but nothing I'd call substantial |
|
|
|
1) idea
2) write & code
3) peer review & test
4) implement
5) tell people about it
Out of curiosity: What is the difference between 2 and 4 in your list? |
|
|
|
|
