Dash could hit page 3 on CMC at 10k sats and still have 5000 masternodes, just not with the same owners as when they cost $1 million a pop.
True
Most of all I'm gobsmacked at the lack of effort to explain or account for the reason that the split reward ratio has not made us more competitive compared with our 100% mined counterparts. The evidence is there staring us in the face. They have BOTH more mining reward (which we claim is our problem) AND less functional versatility (which we claim is our strength). Yet we choose to ignore this and are now doubling down on more of the same ..
Its the twilight zone. |
|
|
|
There may be those, like me, who were saving during the bear market, believing Dash was at a bargain price. In fact I was saving and also buying on the market too, until Ryans proposal to move the block reward allocation. In my case I feel that the investment I was making is not the same investment anymore. Rug pulled out from under my feet. Now I feel overinvested in an asset that is changing to something else. I have been through similar experiences with another investment (Byteball now OByte) and can see all the warning signs again. I rode byteball down out of the top 100, I don't plan to do that with Dash. You don't think marketcap is important? That is a bit of a losing mentality to be blunt. Dash should be top5, firmly established. The Dash should have value, not be cheap. Anyway, Just as you can argue that we (ie Dash) pay too much for hashrate you can argue we pay too much for masternodes. How many nodes do we need in order to run the layer two stuff? Have we got too many miners or too many masternodes?  Or too many of both  What does having 5000 nodes give you extra compared to 4000 nodes? What does more hashrate give you than less hashrate ? All the same arguments against hashrate can be turned around to the masternodes just as easily. The only thing Ryan is trying to achive is to make a price pump if he can entice a few more masternodes to come on line and hodl the collatoral. That is not long term thinking Does it matter to your conclusions whether or not masternodes hold most of their earnings? No. Because masternodes are no different from any other part of the supply. They might hold under one set of circumstances and sell under another. Dash supply is not "locked up in masternodes", it never was because no-one in their right mind would hold onto such a huge capital loss in a bear market, while in a bull market the principal attraction is capital gain, not fixed income so entire nodes will get dumped at the top of a rally. The only people that hold through both are Dash tribalists who do not represent the wider economic landscape. Yet we currently have 4914 masternode operators that did exactly that (hold onto such a huge capital loss in a bear market). Those 4914 are also pretty close to our ATH (4969), and Dash is not even in a bull market. Number of masternodes never reached lower then 4500 (discounting network updates causing large fluctuations) throughout this bear market. That is a lot of 'Dash tribalists'  I would dare say 4,5 million Dash (46,9% of Dash circulating supply) staying long term invested despite a rampaging bearmarket, does represent a large portion of the economic landscape. To me it indicates that there are other factors driving masternode operators. Factors that are getting overlooked or ignored in your theory. Maybe just maybe your all-explaining theory has holes. Holes you are never ever willing to admit exists. |
|
|
|
So far Dash is managing to stay in the proof of work category of coins (although not holding a high enough ranking as it should have), this is quite remarkable considering how economically Dash already has large proof of stake component. We are just about getting away with it at the moment. But if we move further towards proof of stake, how long until we are valued as proof of stake ?  |
|
|
|
I'm disappointed that this one remark (the scammy question) is all that has been noted about my post. I've removed that question from my post now. It was not my opinion, rather put as a question intended to highlight what some will accuse Dash of being. Anyway I would urge you to read my post again. Now without that offending one line. @qwizzie Yes its true Dash has always (since very early days at least) been a masternode coin. This is one of the reasons I invested and stayed invested. Masternodes are a fantastic innovation. I think I can also speak for toknormal on this if I say neither of us dislike masternodes. The point as I see it is that they don't come without cost. If the reward favours masternode more, the cost to pay for the masternode layer goes up. The original schedule would not have been good for Dash as store of value. Nor will Ryan's proposal be good for Dash as a store of value. Dash has already paid too much for masternodes layer which is why Dash is not a top 5 coin. As much mining as possible IS good for Dash as a store of value. Masternodes add value but at a cost. If the cost is too high it negates the benefits. These are my opinions. I don't want to see Dash spiral down the rankings. Dash has potential to be a top project. This is a bannana skin for Dash, we can slip and fall. Excellent article. Your opinions and view were very well articulated. Everybody at some point will question their investments because that is part and parcel of the investing and reflecting cycle but the way you expressed your views on the where it seems the future will be moving away from PoW towards PoS. If you expressed your views and concerns then you have a right to them. I broadly agree with most of what you wrote in your article. Masternode owners already benefit to the tune of a massive 40% share of block rewards and they have considerable voting power on top - so there seems to be a huge conflict on interest to say the least. My answer to the question you asked in your article is categoric and resounding "Yes it does": " Does it seem a bit scammy for masternode owners to decide by vote, amongst themselves, to give themselves more and miners less ?" How can it be considered 'scammy' when our orginal blockreward schedule also included a planned reduction in blockrewards for miners ? With a 60% (masternodes) and 40% (miners) end goal !! Masternode Payment schedule :
if(nHeight > 158000) ret += blockValue / 20; //25.0% - 2014-10-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*1)) ret += blockValue / 20; //30.0% - 2014-11-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*2)) ret += blockValue / 20; //35.0% - 2014-12-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*3)) ret += blockValue / 40; //37.5% - 2015-01-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*4)) ret += blockValue / 40; //40.0% - 2015-02-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*5)) ret += blockValue / 40; //42.5% - 2015-03-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*6)) ret += blockValue / 40; //45.0% - 2015-04-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*7)) ret += blockValue / 40; //47.5% - 2015-05-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*9)) ret += blockValue / 40; //50.0% - 2015-07-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*11)) ret += blockValue / 40; //52.5% - 2015-09-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*13)) ret += blockValue / 40; //55.0% - 2015-11-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*15)) ret += blockValue / 40; //57.5% - 2016-01-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*17)) ret += blockValue / 40; //60.0% - 2016-03-23
Does that mean Darkcoin/Dash was scammy from the start ? I don't think so. Miners and masternode operators knew very well what they were getting themselves into (at least those that paid attention). And yes, we stopped in 2015 with a 45%/45%/10% blockreward split (which was very very fortunate for miners), but that does not mean we are not allowed to change this when we need to. And it certainly does not mean that by changing it (again), this crypto project suddenly becomes a scam project. I am going to repeat this once more, Darkcoin/Dash is and always has been a masternodes-focussed cryptocurrency. If people only start to realize that now (6 years later), then that means those people did not really understand Dash all that well or understand where its power and decision-making lays. I understood that perfectly well in 2014 / 2015 --> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=860067.0 and seeing the explosion of masternodes that followed in those early years many many others understood that as well. People can try to bend this crypto project into a form that they want or desire as much as they want, but if that conflicts with a crypto project's identity and that which really drives such a crypto project, then those efforts will be pretty pointless and not very realistic. |
|
|
|
Better to be a troll than to sit and praise scammers for 3 cents!  So I'm guessing you prefer Monero? |
|
|
|
|
@toknormal. Are you thinking of reducing your exposure to dash if/when this vote to increase masternode reward goes through?
|
|
|
|
Personally I am dismayed this idea of taking miner share of block reward and adding it to masternode reward has come back again....Cheaply produced coins will be valued cheaply by the market, like deciding you can use tungsten instead of gold....Dash is not overpaying miners, Dash is overpaying masternodes This is how I see it as well. I just don't get it. Here's the real problem and why messing around with masternode block reward in the manner proposed IMO is going to make zip difference other than steadily deplete Dash's quality as an investable asset (though it may still remain a technically interesting payment medium).... You can increase the mining block reward. You can decrease it. You can do whatever the hell you want with it, but 2 aspects of Dash "economics" remain unchanged: 1. the emission schedule 2. who pays for it The cost of the maintaining the emission schedule is still 100% borne by miners, regardless of what reward they receive. That should have formed the starting point for any "economic analysis" because it's the only quantitively known factor in Dash's economics. If it costs them $100k to mine X days of Dash's emission curve, they still have to dump $100k of Dash on markets to pay for it. (Before MN's even sell 1 single Duff). Similarly, it doesn't matter whether difficulty goes up, down or sideways or whether coin prices lead or follow mining cost. The relationship between reward ratio and supply to markets (in fiat value terms) is clear: 1. the generation cost of the ENTIRE supply is still borne by miners and that therefore determines the potential liquidity they supply to markets 2. that potential supply is only ADDED TO by increasing the masternode reward ratio Sociological guesswork about stakeholder demographics and "who is most likely to sell" may or may not be useful, but it's no substitute for basic accounting which is unambiguous in pointing out where the price has to go to support the spraying of free money at a gated sector of the coin holding community which has to make supernormal profits at the ultimate expense of new investors.  Finally, by depleting the mining reward, we're making Dash: • less scarce (because, by definition, coins mined at high difficulty are more scarce than those mined at low difficulty - it's why competitive mining was invented) • less efficient in markets (because more fiat demand is needed to maintain the price for each coin mined) • less stable (because masternodes act against the natural correcting effect of difficulty adjustments by being able to continue to sell at a profit in bear markets) What we need to do is increase the mining reward, not decrease it and whether Dash community people see it this way or not, it's how new investors will see it IMO. (Most of them can at least count). I think a large part of the problem is that masternode owners can't/don't or won't see the service they provide as an additional cost to the network. "Sociological guesswork about stakeholder demographics" That is in a nutshell what the proposal is based on, I'd like to see Ryan Taylor refute anything tok wrote in this post |
|
|
|
|
Its good to see you posting toknormal. I've missed you on the discord channel
|
|
|
|
*snip*
Why was that reallocation schedule abandoned ?
Well, there had to be room for the decentralized budget and i think at that point in time both miners and masternodes were very close to each other with regards to percentage of block rewards. I guess it made sense back then to just freeze it at 45 / 45 / 10. I do wonder sometimes what would have happened if we continued with the original masternode payment schedule where masternodes where heavily preferenced over miners, while including the 10% for the decentralized budget. I'm guessing Dash would be out of the top 100 by now if that had happened |
|
|
|
|
Personally I am dismayed this idea of taking miner share of block reward and adding it to masternode reward has come back again.
I am a masternode owner not a miner. But even so I hate this idea, I want my dash to be valuable. To that end we should embrace more proof of work not less.
This reallocation is a move towards proof of stake. Cheaply produced coins will be valued cheaply by the market, like deciding you can use tungsten instead of gold. Proof of stake does not provide store of value. Show me the leading proof of stake coin. Tell me why I'm wrong. The more proof of stake we take the more store of value we lose. The leading proof of stake coin, the first mover. The innovator. Peercoin is so poorly valued most people probably think its dead. It is not. It boasts fast transactions, low fees. Many innovations. And yet is a terrible store of value.
Also this idea of reducing inflation. It is not correct to think that inflation of circulating coins will be less if masternode rewards are increased. This is based on a presumption (a dangerous presumption) that price will rise and the number of masternodes will increase, with the move towards proof of stake. (Which will be a move going against evidence of all other proof of stake coins). Masternode collatoral is not locked in. IF increased masternode rewards leads to cheaper Dash (I think it will) then the circulating supply of dash will inflate massively when masternodes start being sold.
It is only conjecture that miners sell and masternode owners hold the new supply of dash.. I as a masternode owner have been selling, 1 for tax reasons and 2 because I am deeply concerned about these ideas of changing the block reward towards more proof of stake.
Dash is not overpaying miners, Dash is overpaying masternodes. (And the treasury on the whole is wasteful).
Not forgetting to mention, getting masternode owners to vote for more for themselves sounds scammy. Because it is scammy. Monero trolls will have a field day with it.
|
|
|
|
I fully support increasing MN allocation! As do i. To be fair though, it is not just the case of trying to improve Dash trustless full masternodes by re-allocating more of the blockrewards to masternodes (from 45% to 54%). There is also the case of trying to flatten Dash circulating supply during the next five years and trying to get a grip on the sell pressure (which seems to mostly come from miners immediately selling all their mined Dash, regardless of the price). I have masternodes myself and i have stopped selling my masternode payments months ago. I wonder how many miners are in a situation that they can afford to do the same, or even care all that much about Dash longterm. The way i see it, if this proposal passes Dash will be more or less returning to its original masternode payment schedule, while still being able to get funding for its decentralized budget. Original Masternode Payment Schedule in 2014 (note : there was no decentralized budget then, just rewards for masternodes and miners and it was the main reason that made me invest longterm in Dash) : if(nHeight > 158000) ret += blockValue / 20; //25.0% - 2014-10-23 if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*1)) ret += blockValue / 20; //30.0% - 2014-11-23 if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*2)) ret += blockValue / 20; //35.0% - 2014-12-23 if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*3)) ret += blockValue / 40; //37.5% - 2015-01-23 if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*4)) ret += blockValue / 40; //40.0% - 2015-02-23 if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*5)) ret += blockValue / 40; //42.5% - 2015-03-23 if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*6)) ret += blockValue / 40; //45.0% - 2015-04-23 if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*7)) ret += blockValue / 40; //47.5% - 2015-05-23 if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*9)) ret += blockValue / 40; //50.0% - 2015-07-23 if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*11)) ret += blockValue / 40; //52.5% - 2015-09-23 if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*13)) ret += blockValue / 40; //55.0% - 2015-11-23 if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*15)) ret += blockValue / 40; //57.5% - 2016-01-23 if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*17)) ret += blockValue / 40; //60.0% - 2016-03-23 We changed above Masternode Payment Schedule in 2015, when Evan Duffield introduced Dash decentralized budget. So instead of reaching 60% for masternodes, and 40% for miners at some point in 2016, the schedule settled on 45% masternodes, 45% miners, 10% decentralized budget. (current situation) The Masternode Payment Schedule change being proposed by Dash Core Group recently (2020) will return us pretty close to that once planned 60% for masternodes / 40% miners (namely 54% masternodes, 36% miners, 10% budget), but at a much slower rate (spread over 5 1/2 years). I can live with that, as i believe this will improve Dash economics in the longterm. Looking back, the original masternode payment schedule had an incredibly high rate of change, a masternode reward increase & miners reward decrease of every 1 or 2 months. That will not be the case here, it will be spread out over a long period of time. Why was that reallocation schedule abandoned ? |
|
|
|
The DASH bear trendDASH versus Bitcoin on weekly log chart. 2020 has been a very strong year for Dash so far, but despite that Dash is still in a bear channel its been in since 2018 or earlier. Back in January Dash almost broke above but ultimately ran out of momentum on that occasion.  chartIn the last day or two Dash is again testing the top trendline, meeting resistance where you might expect. A close up on 1hr timescale looks like this.  In the wake of covid 29 pandemic, the economy is probably heading into a great depression. Dash, and all cryptos and gold and silver should do very well as FIAT turns to toilet paper. Actually that might be a handy use for fiat given the shortages of toilet roll. Back to the Dash versus Bitcoin pair will Dash be able to start a new bull trend against bitcoin ? In short who knows? But some factors to weigh in.. Dash has continued to innovate with Dash Platform now released, we should hopefully see some great new features starting to appear in the Dash ecosystem. Like the long promised decentralised user accounts and usernames things like that giving an experience much friendlier for crypto noobs. Dash should be implement full functionality including privatesend on light wallets. Chainlocks and instantsend give an immutable blockchain in seconds. However bitcoin being the biggest crypto with its supply going to cut in half will be seen as the premier crypto to use as a safe haven. In this use case people will not really care about speed of transactions. Also chainlocks is a double edged sword. It gives Dash protection against 51% mining attacks and mining centralisation BUT it introduces the temptation to lean more heavily on chainlocks as the main method of securing the blockchain, seen as a 'cheaper' way of doing it than proof of work. This line of thinking takes Dash down the road of proof of stake, at least to some degree. The markets show that proof of stake does not attract the same value as proof of work in crypto. This temptation to 'improve' Dash by messing around with block reward distribution introduces a lot of risk and uncertainty. In my opinion proof of stake is the wrong direction for Dash. I worry Dash will go the wrong way.
|
|
|
|
|
All of Ryan Taylor's options lean towards proof of stake. He does say full proof of stake the most extreme option but all other options he presents go in the same direction which is to varying degrees of crippling pow in favour of proof of stake economics, bribing users, or as he puts it offsetting inflation or something.
I have never yet heard a compelling reason why more proof of stake is going to make dash go in the opposite direction than happened to other proof of stake coins and go up in value instead of down, way down.
Ryan Taylor has come up with this 'existential threat' and new economics out of desperation at the bottom of a bear market. If he gets his way and moves dash away from proof of work he may block the recovery which is already in the pipeline.
|
|
|
|
Are we bullish yet?I've posted a bit of technical analysis lately on the dash versus bitcoin pair and thought it time for a bit of a follow up. On the monthly chart, using polo because it has good range of historical data. this is what I'm looking at. Note I nearly always use a log scale. Its just what I prefer.  Monthly ChartSo observations on that: Two green candles in a row is good and bullish (I'm using Heikin Ashi candles btw). Last time that happened was nearly a year ago but this looks stronger. Also It looks like a good bounce off the bottom of a large channel with support going back as far as 2015 or earlier. Also the MACD indicator on this scale looks like it is ready to swing upwards, there should be a golden cross soon. On this 'long term' view it looks like it could be shaping up to be a sea change era for dash to be stronger than bitcoin. But zooming in to a 4hr view provides a good look at the immediate hurdle that needs to be overcome in the near term..  4hr ChartWe can see that Dash is facing resistance on the top trend line of a bearish channel it has been trapped in for a couple of years now. Despite strong bullish moves and consolidation Dash has not yet managed to break above the top of that bear channel. So now the speculation part. It looks like the crypto market might be turning bullish, Dash on the leading edge of that. Dash has climbed quite a few market places on coinmarketcap in this year to date. However Dash has still not broken free of a bear channel it has been in for two years. The question is. Is Dash consolidating after a big rise ready for the next one to finally break above the bear channel, or will Dash fail to start a new bullish trend and merely trade within a larger horizontal range it has been in almost since it's inception? Or worse, is Dash going to stay in this bear channel its been in for two years and plunge to new depths (maybe following peercoin into the realms of obscurity).  1wk ChartThe reason I mention Peercoin is the worrying aim that the CEO of dash core group has for Dash which is to steer Dash towards a future leaning more towards (the failed imo) model of proof of stake. Ryan Taylor is a very influencial person in Dash and could take us (imo) in the complete wrong direction if his aweful idea gains enough traction. Proof of stake has not worked as judged by the likes of peercoin and blackcoin which were once contenders to bitcoins crown (peercoin was no 3 in market cap at its peak) but now languish in the forgotten realms of crypto graveyard. Lets not let Ryan Taylor steer dash in that direction, and leave Dash unmolested free to once again scale some new bullish heights
|
|
|
|
Proof of Work vs. Proof of Stake Economics | Decentralized Debate
In this debut of Cash Alternative TV's Decentralized Debate with Rod Ambrissi, the panelists Ryan Taylor (Dash Core Group CEO) and Darren Tapp (Assistant Research Professor, Arizona State University) contemplate the economic merits of Proof of Work vs. Proof of Stake.  Thanks for watching! There was not debate. Just Ryan continuing on this horrible idea of reallocating dash rewards  The professor was there purely to nod in agreement. No challenge. No alternative viewpoint as has been discussed at length on Dash Nation discord. No debate. Disappointed. |
|
|
|
Amazing bullish moves by Dash recently. But is the bear market over yet?Looking at the DashBTC pair. Dash has tested the top of 'the' big bear channel and so far been rejected by that resistance. Seen here on 1hr chart  1hr chartDash almost had the momentum to break above it but ultimately ran out of steam (for now at least) By zooming out to a wider timescale like on this daily chart. You can see where the channel originates.  1day chartNote on this chart RSI indicator showing overbought signal. Coupled with the resistance from the trendline at the top of the channel it looks like a correction is inevitable. I'd be expecting Dash to quite likely fall down just below 0.01 again. Which might be a good area to buy back in. If the bear market bites in deep, retest of lows is possible, but I don't think (or at least hope) that is not likely for that scenario and more likely Dash really has turned to a new bullish trend and now needs a period of consolidation before pushing on upwards above that bearish channel. On the 1 month timescale chart below. I really like the look of the RSI and MACD which both look to be turning bullish.  1 month chartIn summary I think Dash has turned bullish, but it is not yet conclusive. A correction is here and may take some time yet to play out.. This is only my opinions for information purpose not investment advice.
|
|
|
|
The phoenix is rising, i repeat : the phoenix is rising.   At least we can both still celebrate dash rising in price  |
|
|
|
Hello Dash Community,
Thank you so much for the technology called "Chainlocks" in our understanding we don't need to give to miners almost half of the block reward (45%) to secure the network. It enables us to incentivize other parties of the network.
We are testing your new technology "CHAINLOCKS" in order to try a different distribution of the block reward. which consists in:
10% MINERS
60% MASTERNODES
20% SYSTEM PROPOSALS
10% CHARITY PROPOSALS
We really appreciate the hard work of Dash Core-Team and we will let you know. How "chainlocks" works in practice within a small project..
Best regards,
Meraki Core-Team
Interesting distribution of the block reward. Good luck with your project. Yes good luck with that. It is an interesting experiment. But as my understanding goes this will not be a success. It stands to reason. Why not give 1% to miners? Then 99% to everyone! Yay free money for everyone. It has to be a success. |
|
|
|
Ryan Taylor is only guessing and making assumptions about the market.
A lot of peopleare only guessing and making assumptions about the market .. including you, me, toknormal and Ryan. Lets face it, thats what toknormal posts are : assumptions about the market. In this case i put more value to Ryan's assumptions about the market, and put much less value on toknormal assumption about the market. Its not a popularity contest between Ryan Taylor and Toknormal. Maybe it help if you explain why you put more weight? What is toknormal (and I presume myself) judging badly? In my opinion our PoW needs adjusting to restrict the miners value over time and make sure they do not become more centralized then they already are. Toknormal assumption about market focus on restricting masternodes value over time and shift more value to miners. These are two opposite and clashing views. Are you worried about 51% attacks? We have chainlocks for that protection. So far mining centralisation has not caused many problems that I am aware of apart from a few 51% attacks in small market cap coins. If a large mining attack were to happen it would cost massive amounts of energy to do anything significant wouldn't it? Or you think a government could attempt it to bring down crypto. Eg china seizes mining pools and directs attacks on bitcoin? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
