Whether or not it will have any short term effect, I still urge all members of the Dashcoin community to contact btc-e and request that they stop creating confusion by using Dashcoin's DSH ticker to identify another coin.

There is no exclusive rights forever rule for anything anywhere, but there are issues with trademark law, which does recognize that the first and continuous user of a distinctive mark (whether registered or not) has enforceable rights. Now btc-e is basically a rogue exchange that operates on the gray web and does whatever the hell it wants, so I expect nothing different.

But if another exchange -- say one that is going out of its way to try to be legally-compliant -- wants to pick up Dash, they will probably want to avoid behaving in a similarly rogue manner.

No, it couldn't.

Focused work on the GUI was suspended in 2014-2015 in order to focus on improving the internals and reducing the memory requirements to a level that could actually run reasonably on a desktop, which was released as 0.9.0 on January 1, 2016. Some issues in 0.9.0 then needed to be addressed leading to 0.9.1-0.9.4 (early ones were more critical).

Of course, the in-progress GUI was available as open-source on github since 2014, and anyone could have contributed to it should they have wanted to work on it (or pay someone to work on it), but no one did.

The current GUI funding was initiated February 10, 2016 with a proposal from a developer who had a good balance between affordability and qualifications, but limited available time for the first few months. It is still in progress.

It was already noted that the cryptography for RingCT and multisig are more recent work.

There is one in the OP (community-provided) but it is only built for Windows.

Yes seconds. 86400 = 1 day

Use the getstakinginfo command in the wallet. If you are using the Qt wallet you might have to find the debug window.

You do see that a fair amount. I don't happen to have a link for that one, but I know I've seen it within the past month or two. If there were never anyone new here, we should just all leave, because, well, that's going to happen anyway as people leave one by one. It isn't, as much as it may seem that way sometimes.

But anyway, that's off topic for this thread I believe.

Click here:

Sure there is no question there are Bitcoin whales (both holders and traders) who dump in large amounts when they think the time is right. Whether ransomware developers do this or not is totally impossible for us to know, I'm just doubting it because everything I've seen indicates that almost everyone who is using Bitcoin as part of some other business just wants be rid of it ASAP. Waiting for a time to sell in bulk means holding, and that's exactly what most non-speculators don't want to do.

We don't know for sure, but the one thing we absolutely do know for sure is that virtually all ransomware buyers buy the coins they need to pay the ransom. Assuming your number of $350 million is close to correct, it works out to $1 million per day in buy pressure coming from ransomware buyers alone. That's a good chunk of all the daily mined coins (and it will more than the daily mined coins at current prices after the halving). So if ransomware developers are holding and waiting for a good time to sell, there would be massive upward pressure on the price all the rest of the time.

You guys?

I said it was (probably small) positive due to the holding period (i.e. activity). Ransomware operators might keep some BTC too, though I doubt it is much. No one other than speculators wants BTC; everyone who uses it just seems to treat it like a hot potato.

I don't think the size estimate on the ransomware market was outrageous. That's actually a small number for something having the visible footprint of ransomware.

Amazon is pretty high-end and not economical for a small masternode owner, unless they are using Amazon's free tier.

So the fact that many masternodes are observed on Amazon says one of two things: 1. Small masternode owners are using the free tier, meaning there aren't hosting costs; or 2. Many masternodes are owned by large masternode owners who can justify Amazon's higher hosting costs. Maybe some of both, but I suspect mostly 2, since the free tier runs out. Scamming is possible, though.

Kikko, you are wrong in practice. As the buys take orders off the book, market makers will move up their bids to maintain a target spread.

There is indeed a small effective fee paid to market makers by any liquidity takers (plus of course exchange fees) but these are absolutely negligible in the case the ongoing trickle of ransomware trades. Liquidity becomes a significant issue in practice when some whale wants to load up large amounts of BTC or when a trader puts on a 10-1 or 50-1 margin position of similar size.

I've personally traded amounts orders of magnitude larger than nearly all ransomware deals and I can tell you even at that scale it is not hard to not move the market significantly.


This indeed started to happen in 2014 as retailers signed on. The reason it was probably a negative net impact on the price is that Bitcoin early adopters were using retail as a way to cash out. Essentially nobody ever bought Bitcoin in order to spend them at retailers, as essentially all ransomware victims do. So it was a completely different situation.

Over the past year retail adoption has probably been negative, so maybe that is a small positive for Bitcoin price, but this probably reverses actual causality. Retail adoption has been negative because Bitcoin early adopters have spent all they want to spend on retail, so order volumes dried up and retailers said fuck it.

The costs are negligible, as I think it was you who stated that a $5 VPS was more than sufficient. In fact you can probably run many masternodes on a $5 VPS with some knowhow.


Actually it is. There is dilution, yes, but you would have dilution either way. The coins paid out in proportion to existing coin ownership is the portion of coin supply that does not count as distribution, which is exactly what I said earlier.

If this is not clear, imagine a corporation with 1 million shares. There is a 2-for-1 stock split on Monday, "distributing" (but not really) 1 million new shares in proportion to existing ownership, followed by 1 million new shares being sold to an outside investor on Tuesday. The effect here is distribution aka dilution of not 2 million shares, but actually 500000 (of the original-pre-split shares).

This is relevant in comparing between emissions of different coins. Since Monero has no coins-for-coins PoS-ish scheme, the full amount of ongoing distribution dilutes earlier holdings (including "cripplemined" coins). In coins that do have these schemes, ongoing distribution is in effect greatly reduced.

In other words, people complaining about the unoptimized miner 19 and 20 days after the launch, when approximately 2.7% of the base supply had been mined, and one day before NoodleDoodle released his optimizations (which were his own work and his to do with as he saw fit) on github.

How is this news?

EDIT: Actually first quote above was after NoodleDoodle had already released the code on github.

This is completely, utterly and 100% wrong. While all ransomware coins may or may not be dumped (I would agree most are), virtually 100% of ransomware coins need to be bought by the people paying the ransom. So it has no possible negative effect on the market. Overall it is slightly positive because of the necessary holding period during the ransoming process, or might (however unlikely) be more positive if ransomware operators keep some of the BTC.

No, not right, because in a proportional system, everyone else with a similar number of coins receives a similar payout, whether they mine or not. Second, mining has costs, and only your profits (which might not even be positive, but in any case probably not the same as every other miner) can be reinvested.

So they are not the same at all.

1 CLAM stake reward is paid per minute (1440/day), distributed across all the coins staking. The latter varies but is usually around 1-1.5 million. Divide your stake by that number and multiply by 1440 to tell how much per day you would expect. Last I calculated it was around 3% per month, but that might be out of date by now.

Example: with 1000 CLAM staking by you and assume 1 million CLAM total staking on the network you should get 1/1000 of the rewards or 1.44 CLAM/day. Of course randomly it could be less or more than this on any given day.

Sorry, that was not as clear as it should be. I meant not paying to existing "owners", but proportionately to existing ownership. That is effectively a "stock split" and does not distribute anything. There are other issues with how Dash does it but they are out of the scope of the overall rate of distribution so off topic for this thread.

With mining, it is not in any way proportional to existing ownership. In fact your example demonstrates this as if you continue mining (without selling) your ownership goes up but your rate of mining does not.


There are many different ways to do this with various positives and negatives. As long as they are not proportional to ownership, they actually accomplish something, at least.

Also: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=749961.0

It's just convenient to use that pair since the site does the charting for you. You get a virtually identical chart using the prices from XMR/BTC and DASH/BTC and dividing.