And maybe they learn that Bitcoin is a pain in the ass, is unreliable and complicated, and go elsewhere.
I'm not saying that the system has failed or that it will definitely fail. I'm saying that it is starting to fail right now, because there is a mismatch between the infrastructure and user-education requirements of the system and its ability to function effectively. That is absolutely the case. At best it is poor planning and deployment.
Bitcoin needs to just accept it can't grow fast enough to do everything for everyone in the entire ecosystem. Satoshi said it was suppose to be a type of Digital Gold, maybe we need to go back to that way of thinking. That's a great accomplishment... but, when you have gold, you don't move it around all of the time. Why can't Bitcoin handle the larger value transactions in the space and all of the alts can handle the smaller day-to-day transactions. The ecosystem is already setup to scale to infinity. Everyone wins. It could, but it is currently out of step with that vision. SPV wallets were built up (in part by Satoshi, by the way) as a way to make the system easily accessible to people making routine transactions including buying coffee and using vending machines (plus many others of course). So you have have many end users doing exactly that, having adopted Bitcoin as a transactional medium, not something limited to high powered bankers and cryptocurrency experts. Perhaps that was a bad idea, but it's too late to erase that from history. That worked just fine until very recently, and now you still have those users trying to transact but without the tools to do so effectively. Even if one fully buys in to your Evolution concept (as one example of several), and believes that Evolution is the way that the ecosystem will scale to infinity, Evolution isn't here. Even Bitcoin wallets with the ability to effectively set fees and increase fees if needed after the fact don't exist in any widely-deployed form. So the whole thing is quite a mess right now. In the future I have no doubt it will get better, but where we are today is not pretty. Either an earlier and more effective push should have been made to get the tools out there faster to manage block space scarcity and shift transactions off the Bitcoin main chain, or there should have been some sort of block size increase to buy the time that is needed. Having done neither is an objectively poor outcome, and therefore one must fairly rate the process of having reached this outcome as ineffective. EDIT: BTW, Satoshi never said that Bitcoin was supposed to be digital gold (that description was invented later by others). His only mention of gold in the white paper related to the steady release of new coins, and in an email he compared Bitcoin to "base metal as scarce as gold" that could be sent over the internet. It is very clear he intended it to be for end-user payments. Opinions differ over whether that vision has turned out to be impractical or Bitcoin has been hijacked by people who want to develop it in a different direction. I actually don't think there's anything wrong with SPV or the current state of the ecosystem (minus some centralization concerns, but that's for another time)! How many transactions could the current ecosystem handle if we utilized every blockchain at once. This is going to be much easier to explain if we start using daily throughput instead of MB per block, which is a terrible metric. Here's the currently limit and percentage full: Name Throughput per day Percentage Full Bitcoin 144MB 95-100% Etherium ? <% Litecoin 576MB <1% Dash 576MB <1% Dogecoin 576MB <1% Monero No Limit ~ I just looked at the last few blocks for each of these and we all basically have very low usage. How big can we scale, if the Bitcoin ecosystem were inclusive rather than trying to keep everything to itself? All they have to do is add the rest of the main alternative coins to all of the main sites like Bitstamp, Coinbase, Bitpay, etc. That would allow the free flow of money through the entire ecosystem then, we wouldn't be in this situation at all. The theoretical limitation of the current ecosystem is at least 100-1000x that of the Bitcoin blockchain at this point and it will expand much faster and deal with the exponential growth much better than they will because they're a million programmers out here just waiting for the opportunity. As for "Digital Gold", he didn't coin the phrase, but he set the expectation that it works like gold: "The steady addition of a constant of amount of new coins is analogous to gold miners expending resources to add gold to circulation". I think it's time we stop messing with Bitcoin and let it become the protocol for the entire space. We have a good foundation to grow on and the rest of the space just needs to take over development into the million directions we need to go in-order to bring products to users. One product per blockchain, this is the new type of entity the space created... it's a DAC! So each of these are DACS... right? Bitcoin, Etherium, Litcoin, Dash, Dogecoin, Monero, etc. They are decentralized, organized and each offer some sort of service to users that you can't get in the Bitcoin space. So if someone needs to some completely anonymous transactions they would use Dash, Monero, etc (and who cares which, there's trillions of dollars out there to bring in). If someone wanted to make a contract they use Etherium, if you want to record something on the blockchain... use Factom. We should have competitors, offering the same services too, those are like two competing companies. I want to see products coming out for using all of this technology, like for example... you could make an amazon AWS by forking Dash and using the masternode system to host VPS sessions. Then you use a brand new token for paying for the service. If you have Dogecoins and want to buy six months VPS time on this network, you could use something like Shapeshift.io to pay from one to the other. I think we're see the birth of this new economic system and it doesn't support this idea of Bitcoin having to do everything. They already did what they were support to do, they created the crypto reserve currency. Also, we need to start realizing the economic implications of Bitcoin hegemony. There's only four possible outcomes of playing this game with the ecosystem and they are eventually going to lose. They can't do everything, might as well accept it. There's also only one way everyone wins, it's to be inclusive.  Also, how does each of these scale. Lets assume "Bitcoin Scaling" means 40x throughput and allowing the alt market to grow means 100x scaling ability. (Rough estimates)  We want the one where, there is no limitation to the amount of money that can come into the space and be used for all sorts of things. We don't want imaginary limitations, which is what we currently have. How do we fix this? |
|
|
|
And maybe they learn that Bitcoin is a pain in the ass, is unreliable and complicated, and go elsewhere.
I'm not saying that the system has failed or that it will definitely fail. I'm saying that it is starting to fail right now, because there is a mismatch between the infrastructure and user-education requirements of the system and its ability to function effectively. That is absolutely the case. At best it is poor planning and deployment.
Bitcoin needs to just accept it can't grow fast enough to do everything for everyone in the entire ecosystem. Satoshi said it was suppose to be a type of Digital Gold, maybe we need to go back to that way of thinking. That's a great accomplishment... but, when you have gold, you don't move it around all of the time. Why can't Bitcoin handle the larger value transactions in the space and all of the alts can handle the smaller day-to-day transactions. The ecosystem is already setup to scale to infinity. Everyone wins. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is not what it was if you can't move it. Time to move on. Cryptoworld gonna change.
Yep. It really looks like it's finally happening. We are going to start getting the overflow of crypto traffic. Here's why: - Blocks are already full (take into account the 700kb mempool limitation for some of the miners) - Block halving is coming, which will cause lower throughput in blocks, somewhere between 400kb and 760kb* - Segwit - 2x throughput - Compressed signature scheme - 2x-5x throughput (I forget the name of this ?) - 2MB blocksize - 2x throughput - 4MB blocksize - 2x throughput - 8MB blocksize - 2x throughput All combined we'll have 40x throughput onchain and infinite off-chain, however the tx volume historically has growth 2-3x per year. Can they keep up until lightning is online with wallets? At 2x growth we'll need 8MB throughput at the end of three years (2018). At 3x growth we'll need 27MB throughput... Also consider the fact that hardforks without a governance method take about 1 year to deploy. It's going to be a hard couple years for the Bitcoin project it looks like. Where's the rest going to go? Fiat?  We also have a governance and budgeting scheme. We're golden to build something much more scalable and decentralized than Bitcoin. I've never been so optimistic than now about our place in the ecosystem. There's only a small percentage that even understands that we've solved all of this already and the information is getting out. If you build it... they will come.. right? * If blocks are full and 10% of the miners turn off at the halving, it actually causes theoretical limitation of blocks to be about 10% less each. That creates a backlog, which will cause problems for the network, making it harder to transact on. Thus, that volume will leave the ecosystem. This is why it's so important to have a good difficulty algorithm backing your currency. We are immune to this. |
|
|
|
Anyone know the low and high price for 2014, 2015 and 2016?
This is the 1-Week Bitcoinwisdom dump from the old Cryptsy feed but it shows the maxes and mins on that exchange. (P.S. the range doesn't go back to early 2014 so that first low may not be right).  Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
Anyone know the low and high price for 2014, 2015 and 2016?
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone know where I could get historical price data for our market? I'm looking for an export of "open,close,high,low,price,volume", preferably in CSV
|
|
|
|
Looking good Evan, 12.1 will bring a bag of neat tricks to the voting table  The DASH <-> USD option would probably be welcomed by many voters. Great work! That's in the pipeline as well. That feature is pretty difficult, we need some kind of decentralized oracle implementation, so you could ask the masternode network "What is the price of Dash right now?" or "What was the price of Dash on Dec 12, 2015?". It would have to be quorum based to be secure as well... sounds like fun.  |
|
|
|
Hello! The budget system was finalized and at the time these three proposals were not established (All three were submitted too late). Budgets must be submitted at least 24 hours before the budget system in finalized. This means they must be submitted 3 days before the budgets are paid out. v12.1 Improvements: - I am going to add some warnings to v12.1 when you add a proposal to let the proposer know they should move the budget proposal to the next month if they're within that finalization period. - We also need to vote on if we want to support contracts in the new system, I'll put a proposal up before I begin work on that next week Sorry for the confusion, but it's not a bug, everything is working great Thank you for the explanation. One more question. The Wifi Portal seems to have received 200 DASH. http://explorer.dashninja.pl/address/XmTZLAEJYWBbrKRxfosSzacVPpoaHaBNsU Does that mean it was funded then? I guess the lesson I learned here is not to trust all these websites that post this budget information. Yep, the WifiPortal was established at finalization. /dash-cli mnfinalbudget show "main" : {
"FeeTX" : "8db1f4ae92e0bbc86cf91b6407aad4141aa738917efd1186a2b5cd11bbcf3767",
"Hash" : "9b7682a1a4ef8c6d0803f33e643ae911f4e1bd47c98f94f0f01e9815050fb644",
"BlockStart" : 415400,
"BlockEnd" : 415408,
"Proposals" : "2mb-blocksize,lamassu-integration,core-team,dash-org,soda-reimbursement,public-awareness,satoshi-roundtable,Wifi-Portal,ds-liquidity",
"VoteCount" : 2899,
"Status" : "OK",
"IsValid" : false,
"IsValidReason" : "Older than current blockHeight"
}, |
|
|
|
Hello! The budget system was finalized and at the time these three proposals were not established (All three were submitted too late). Budgets must be submitted at least 24 hours before the budget system in finalized. This means they must be submitted 3 days before the budgets are paid out. v12.1 Improvements: - I am going to add some warnings to v12.1 when you add a proposal to let the proposer know they should move the budget proposal to the next month if they're within that finalization period. - We also need to vote on if we want to support contracts in the new system, I'll put a proposal up before I begin work on that next week Sorry for the confusion, but it's not a bug, everything is working great |
|
|
|
Zerocash.
The amazing new private coin in which you have to trust the creators will NOT collude to have a power to print any amount of 'cash' in an undetectable way.
From what I remember, they were planning on getting about 10 people together, buying a brand new computer, then recording the entire process of creating the pubkey that the privacy is based on. As long as they document destroying the computer afterward and never connect it to the internet, how could the pubkey be compromised? |
|
|
|
What is this? https://z.cash/team.htmlFirst time seeing or hearing of it. This all seems so very new only done on 1st February. Zero discussion on their side about darksend vs. them or anywhere else for that matter. Is this some as a holder of dash one should be concerned about? What I am wondering what excites these guys and their investors when you already have something like darksend, or are these two things totally different? This is their big idea: https://forum.bitcoin.com/ama-ask-me-anything/i-m-zooko-wilcox-ceo-of-the-zcash-company-ask-me-anything-t5413.htmlTo my question, can you explain at a high level or in laymen terms what makes zcash more anonymous or untraceable than bitcoin? What properties does it have and how is it able to achieve anonymity? The high-level answer is like this:
Bitcoin is a global, shared, append-only ledger, right? And so is Zcash. The entries that get appended to that ledger — the transactions — basically say "From Address", "To Address", and "Amount Transferred". The difference between Bitcoin and Zcash is that in Zcash those three values are encrypted, so that they aren't publicly readable by default.
(The person who made a transaction could still make it be publicly readable, by publishing the decryption key, or could share the decryption key with selected parties to make it readable to them without making it readable to the world. That's what we call "selective transparency".)
So far so good.
Now the cryptographically challenging part is: how do we enable the miners and full-nodes to reject invalid transactions? This is where the zero-knowledge proofs come in. With zero-knowledge proofs, the creator of a transaction can include a proof that the transaction is valid (i.e. isn't a double-spend) without revealing anything about the encrypted "From Address", "To Address", or "Amount Transferred". good luck dealing with that company behind it Zcash Electric Coin Company https://z.cash/team.html(and the 10% payment) https://z.cash/blog/funding.htmli stick to Decentralised Funding via blockchain The technology looks pretty shit hot, IMO. The source code is open source, so having a company releasing the code is not an issue. They are maintaining it, but it can be forked at any point. Don't make the Dodo mistake of thinking the new kid on the block is harmless. Darksend could be orders of magnitude less robust than zerocash when it comes to privacy. You know, I've been talking to a lot of people who run exchanges at these conferences. There's a huge unintended benefit to Darksend. Basically when you mix via Darksend, you're reseting your history. Like clearing your browser history. After the fact when you're sending coins to an exchange from their prospective, address A (your pubkey) is sending address B (their pubkey) coins. What freaks these exchanges out is when it could be multiple people, completely unrelated to your public key that are sending them money (e.g. address A or B or C or D or E sent money to address F). All of these other technologies use something closer to the later, which will cause them to have less adoption in the long run, unless legal compliance gets easier over time... which I doubt. TLDR; Some decent privacy and an easy to understand blockchain makes compliance easier. |
|
|
|
Vote on whether or not to implement contracts ? Or benevolent dictator decides
How about we make a proposal to decide if we implement contracts? Like I've always said, I'm along for the ride. If the network doesn't want me to implement something I won't. However, I'm voting yes and I'll argue the merit of contracts for our platform. I think they're important. I agree. If I may offer an opinion, I read that you were looking at setting rules for locking into 6 month and 1 year contracts. I would hazard that 1 year contracts are simply too long (especially in the accelerated world of crypto). There's nothing a 1 year contract can't accomplish that two successive 6 month contracts cannot. It can be done just like car insurance. If the contract sours early on, we have a sixth month checkpoint that allows us to be mercifully set free. BTW, thanks for listening to us on the noisy forums. I think one year contracts are too long as well and the network should be absolutely sure about it before locking into that argeement. That's why I suggest we require at least 51% of the network to support the given 12-month contract. Imagine 10% of the network vote "No", that would mean 61% would be required to vote yes. Alternatively 6-months would require 33% network support and 3-month would require 20%. I think that's fair and would measure the network for consensus accurately. These projects also require 30-days of voting to elapse, so they would be heavily debated. The community would be very well informed before deciding ultimately. |
|
|
|
Vote on whether or not to implement contracts ? Or benevolent dictator decides
How about we make a proposal to decide if we implement contracts? Like I've always said, I'm along for the ride. If the network doesn't want me to implement something I won't. However, I'm voting yes and I'll argue the merit of contracts for our platform. I think they're important. As feelthebern said, thanks for great response Evan. To me this does seem obvious for a proposal. Personally I don't like the risks of locking into long term projects. Maybe I haven't considered it all through enough but I don't like the risks. The budget allowance is not a bottomless pit. The exchange rates too volatile. As with Occams razor maybe simplest solution is best. Someone said Dash might be a monster. I hope ultimately in a good way. I had a vague uneasy vision of 'the network' turning out being worse than 'for profit corporations' are now. Maybe human kind is doomed to these fates. Imagine if we are all one day enslaved by the Dash network in a way 10x worse than what goldman sachs and jp morgan do today ?!  I'm not really saying we have to use contracts for everything or anything really. That much would be up to the network. However, wouldn't it be good if we could promise funding to a vendor for a given period of time? Let's say the Lamassu project requires one year of funding in order to make it happen, is it better to use a 12-month contract or not have the Lamassu project at all? |
|
|
|
Vote on whether or not to implement contracts ? Or benevolent dictator decides
You decide. If you don't update your client, that's your no vote. If you do update your client, that's your yes vote. It's just like Bitcoin, in that sense. That doesn't actually work on our network, it's not like Bitcoin at all. The masternode network decides the direction we go. |
|
|
|
Vote on whether or not to implement contracts ? Or benevolent dictator decides
How about we make a proposal to decide if we implement contracts? Like I've always said, I'm along for the ride. If the network doesn't want me to implement something I won't. However, I'm voting yes and I'll argue the merit of contracts for our platform. I think they're important. |
|
|
|
Now the Transform PR proposal is voted down again, the voters have spoken. So obviously I am doing something right here, no?
I think Transform PR was doing a fantastic job and I would like to work with them again, however it's not really possible to do it when the network can flip-flop back and forth. We've now funded them, unfunded them, funded them again, then finally unfunded them. I would recommend the network vote down this proposal due to the completely crazy and unprofessional way this makes our operation look. How can we possibly work with a company like Transform, with 3-month minimums when our network has the ability to do a complete backflip, essentially voiding a contract? I think it's best we wait until 12.1 when we can do irrevocable contracts like I laid out earlier. Not so sure we want irrevocable contracts though... atleast not just yet, the budget is way to small for large contracts like this. Maybe you should do some investigation as to WHY the proposal was voted down? Maybe there is a solution thats glaring you in the face and you just refuse to see it? Let the network vote. Don't just force contracts onto the network please, we all know everytime you put something up for proposal it passes right awya until people talk about it a bit and see the details of whats happening. Just like the PR company issue we are facing right now. I finally changed my votes to "No" due to the crazy flip-flopping the network was doing. Plus Otoh had changed his votes from "No" to "Yes" just this morning, due to hearing it was working out with Terpin. I asked him to change them back to "No" so we could implement a proper contract. I think it makes much more sense. We'll I'm glad we know what happened then atleast. Forgive me for pissing all over everyones shoes. But some good has come from this, no? Absolutely, 12.1 will fix this entirely. |
|
|
|
Yet i like to see the system to work in this very dynamic manner, excactly what we had in mind while creating the governance system: Instant voting Absolutely. This is great for month-to-month deals. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
