Dash needs to focus on store of value. I mean ALL focus on store of value, forget payments. That means storing value in the chain. Finding every way possible to do this. this way every holder of Dash should feel they have something valuable to save, to keep as investment.. From someone who holds 1 dash to someone who holds multiple masternodes. This way  investors may start to eyeball dash as a good place to be. Dash is not digital cash. Not the way I see it. Dash should be much more than that, Dash is digital money. ( The name Dash sounds better than Doney though) . I invested in Dash when it was still Darkcoin thinking it was as good as bitcoin, better than gold if you will, ie a scarce and valuable monetary commodity. Hard money. I ran my first masternode marvelling that I could earn a share of such a hard asset like bitcoin.

However masternode owners are grabbing the wealth, even voting themselves more of the wealth. Seemingly too dim witted to notice they harm the very value of the thing they desire. And that is being kind, there could be less savoury factors at play. Dash has a very hard time losing the scam tagline which came right at the very beginning of the project.  The value added by masternode layer does not justify the huge cost in the form of masternode payments. It is a huge cost. More than half the entire supply. The higher the dash price gets the more of a burden this becomes to the network pulling the price back down. If Dash wants to be a stable coin anchored to the cheap cost of hosting a server then Dash needs to keep doing what it is doing. Dash should be called  Hosting Tether Coin.

Perversely the masternode community seem to accuse the miners of doing what they themselves do. Which is being too expensive to justify the cost. 'Hashrate is too expensive'. This is the most corrosive thing that came out of Ryan's idea to #ImproveEconomicsOfDash. We can never have too much hashrate for the same reason we can't have too much scarcity. We want a valuable Dash. Don't we?

You can't look at the last dash bubble without also considering at the time dash was seen as the primary safe haven of a hostile bitcoin fork event. That particular circumstance won't repeat.

In reality hashrate is what brings the value. Too expensive hashrate misses the point entirely hashrate is not primarily about securing the chain. Chainlocks will never replace hashrate as a way of synthesising digital scarcity . Monetary proof of stake coins will never be a success. Truthfully the service and governance layer is too expensive. Far too expensive. I suspect this will prove to be the downfall of all masternode coins, that they judge their own reward as most justified and most important. And with the power of vote they vote for it. In theory the governance can lead to good decisions that better the network. In the case of Dash and mostly thanks to Evan Duffield there have been many promising innovation in Dash. But all these innovations come at what cost. Half the entire supply pissed away. But human failings come into play and so the great dramas of life always repeat past mistakes in new ingenious ways.

I am very disappointed in the miners. I thought they might fight this idea of gifting larger reward to masternodes. Nothing came from them, only meek surrender to the masternodes. The power of veto was in their hands they could have blocked the masternode dash grab by not updating to the new protocol. It is hard not to conclude that hybrid mining / masternode operating suits the large miners  as a way of pushing out small miners who can't afford masternodes. There is a smell of power grabbing in the air.  If not that then the reasons are unfathomable and mystifying. Dash mining is largely already not profitable.

How to maximise store of value? Masternodes should make only a modest profit over the cost of hosting the node. (This is only the cost of running a server and doing routine updates, making sure it has enough ram and storage. spending time reviewing  proposals can be included too but as far as proposals go that is more debatable. Thats it. that is the cost of running a masternode) 20 or 30 bucks a month plus some time reviewing proposals. The collateral remains your own capital it is not a cost of running a node.

Dash needs to go into emergency reversal mode. First overturn Ryan's dreadful proposal to gift more fresh minted dash to masternodes and instead pump all excess supply back into the mining network. Dash is a proof of work coin. This means hard money. ie scare. Limited in quantity, hard to get. Valuable. This was the premise behind my original investment. Gifting it to masternodes as a mining of zero difficulty only dilutes the value. Dash needs something built into the protocol to adjust masternode rewards to remain only modestly more than the cost of running the node automatically. Dash needs all the rest of the supply to go into hashrate. To avoid a huge shock this could be phased in.

Dash needs to somehow prevent masternode owners being able to adjust reward allocations or other parameters like the overall total ever to be created or the emission rate, it should be determined by the protocol. It is unthinkable that bitcoin will ever get its 21million limit changed. Dash should have similar lines in the sand that masternodes cannot vote to change. Masternode desicsions should be more like an approval committee for grants to promising startups. Without this dash has no hope of competing ever with a real store of value coin.

Dash has an ace up its sleeve. The dash investment foundation. DIF. Dash is not playing its ace. The DIF is doing what precisely? Is it amassing great quantities of gold? Dash can do this. There are not hurdles to that happening. I don't think anything else in the crypto world has this power. The power that central banks have. Is it doing it? If not why not? What are they in DIF up to? Is it feasible Dash can own bitcoin too? If Dash amasses a massive portfolio of valuable assets, owned by the Dash network. This becomes a rising baseline below which Dash will not fall. Who will sell or short Dash when its marketcap value is below the value the DIF holds ?

Dash can do this. (theoretically) but it won't. I have not faith in the governance to get any of this done.



 

well said

Nah its cos Roger Ver sed Dash was like how bitcoin woz supposed to be wif cheap transactions and stuff

maybe you missed this on the previous page. It is moving fast afterall.

I don't block anyone. Although sometimes tempted in the case of qwizzie.

That might be a factor (DCG). I'm not saying this is the only factor but surely airdropping half the supply basically for free to the wealthy dash holders is important. IMO the most important! By far!! Dash has its own investment foundation, this is not being used properly. Dash should be massing shit tonnes of gold and other real store of value assets. I don't think it is.

I don't tend to compare with Eth of di-fi that is not monetary in the way bitcoin and dash are. Dash is slipping up. Dropped the ball on 'store of value'. Store of value is the most important monetary aspect. Fiat is dying. People will want store of value above all else especially in coming years.

About inflation curve Dash has slightly high inflation. This is not new. And IMO also not as important as 'airdrop half the supply'

Heres bitcoin and some other altcoins that you forgot



As you can see bitcoin is only 6.53% down from its all time high. The leading 100% proof of work coin. The leading 100% proof of work 'alt' coin is currently litecoin (not counting etherium). It is down 77.2% from its all time high. All these other notable competitors are doing much better against their own all time highs than Dash which is the leading masternode coin.

You might also note the real volume for dash does not look so good either. Also the lowest out of these competitors

So I kind of stand by what I said here ...


Having almost half the supply airdropped to a group of wealthy owners is killing dash.

Nice.. I see what you did there. Moving your goalposts   

The difference is Dash is leading the way of masternode coins.
Bitcoin cash is not leading the way of 100% mined coins. Bitcoin is.

How close is bitcoin to its all time high?

With regards to toknormal being a masternode owner and yet being negative about the way the reward allocation is split. This is not twisted at all. It is a natural reaction to the economics it all. As he has explained many times in many different ways.

There was some comparison with litecoin in a previous post. So I'm going to go ahead and compare.

Does litecoin have instantsend transactions? No
Does litecoin have private mixing builtin? No
Does litecoin have protection of chainlocks against 51% mining attack? No
Does litecoin have a treasury to fund development work and marketing and give grants to 3rd parties who may benefit its network? No
Does litecoin have much in the way of active development? No (as far as I know)
Does litecoin have a platform for dapps? No
Does litecoin have an investment foundation so that the network can actually own gold and other assets? No
Is litecoin an innovator in the crypto space? No

Dash has all this. Dash should be killing it. But wait theres a little bit more.
Are both coins proof of work? Is Dash?

Does litecoin split rewards so miners get less than half the supply of new coins and more than that is airdropped to set of wealthy owners?

There lies the difference. As far as my judgement goes dash overpays its service layer. The service layer is great. But just not worth almost 50% of the entire supply to pay for it. Most masternode owners are in utter denial of this. At this time Dash is leading the way in showing that masternode coins are not a winner. As far as I know there isnt yet a masternode coin which restrains the masternode reward. All succumb to the temptation of rewarding too much free coins to the masternodes.

Toknormal is bullish dash, despite his belief that the direction is wrong with regards to rewarding the miners, he is staying with it, still invested. This is someone who likes dash and still believes in it. But wishes to influence the thinking behind the reward split. What would his vote have achieved if he had voted anyway? Perhaps influencing the community carries more weight than that vote would have done.

All those first points that Dash has in its favour they are great. Dash could be great.

I'm not sure thats the case. One can just diverge the blockchain at an agreed height, some mining will occur on one chain and some on the other, each then sailing into the sunset in their own particular directions. I would presume the developers on the new blockchain could disable chainlocks during the initial stages via disabling spork 19 which is the one controlling chainlocks activation, if it needed to.

No I don't get the impression from that.  It looks like these mining pools are not dash focused and cater for many different crypto currencies. At the level of this pool anyway, they are worried small miners may no longer participate in the pool, ie they will lose contributors.
 

Thanks for that link qwizzie

I just been looking at some of the mining pool websites and found this interesting on the Luxor Mining pool website

https://medium.com/luxor/dash-block-reward-proposal-62204cf71c96

It seems they at least are voicing concerns, (even though apparently supporting the change).

Qwizzie you have said yourself in the past that miner centralisation is a problem dash has to avoid, which I agree with entirely. Surely you still think this is the case?

There is evidence that the incentives are there. You know fine that the proposal incentives masternodes at expense of mining, this is the whole proposal made by Ryan Tayor. We don't need the hashrate.

Thunderjet was talking about how this pushes out small miners no? ie miners becoming highly centralised. Because of the incentives.

The price decline is a whole different argument.

Wheres your evidence that a dash/masternode hybrid isn't worth doing? It seems very obvious that small miners who can't afford a masternode will be squeezed out.

The fork idea was that dash core group could fork Dash with different reward allocations by having one fork going in the direction of Ryans proposal. Toknormal proposed an idea (which was quickly stamped on by nearly everyone who heard it) that Dash core group could make another fork in which miner allocation was increased. So one fork would support growing the masternode network the other would support strengthening hashrate and scarcity. We could then see in a real world market situation what the market prefers.

edit Unlike contentious hard forks this would have both sides supported by Dash community. Possibly even bringing a lot of attention to Dash. Masternode owners would have the same masternode collatoral on both forks. They would also be able to choose to dump one fork to support the other. Toknormal hasn't endorsed this for a long time that I've seen. But qwizzie likes to bring it up every now and then and imply that it is contentious and toknormal is malicious in intent.

What is that chart if not evidence that something weird is happening? It shows mining profitability is in a chronic decline. Yes they embrace the proposal. This seems to be a big disconnect. Hashrate continues to be relatively high. This points to miners not caring about profit. This is strange no?

There is no word from any mining pools that I know of. They are strangely silent on this matter.

It is a compelling argument. Miners like everyone are motivated by how to maximise their own profit. This is game theory. Large miners who can also afford to run masternodes will push out those miners who do not. I don't see any good counterargument to this

Dash versus bitcoin

chart

On a more positive note Dash has climbed above the red trendline. Looks like will probably test it as support rather than resistance next. The black line above is the big one dash needs to push through.

Heres a zoomed out version

chart