Dash: The Future Internet Of Money?

[qwizzie]

Dashholders check in but they never check out.

I checked out.

It is certainly true that receiving masternode payments, voting on budget proposals through you masternode and working towards your next masternode
can all become very addictive. Dashholders seem to make more longterm goals for themselves.
   

[generalizethis]

Dashholders check in but they never check out.

I checked out.

It is certainly true that receiving masternode payments, voting on budget proposals through you masternode and working towards your next masternode
can all become very addictive. Dashholders seem to make more longterm goals for themselves.
   

Long term goals like keep on layering crap onto the paynodes until you've slowly built ripple 2.0 through a process of buzzwords and shoddy development? Yeah, sounds about right--a prison for greater fools.

[qwizzie]

generalizethis does raise an interesting topic : what do we Dash holders view as our longterm goals and hopes ?

is it related to price ?
is it related to development ?
is it related towards a new direction ?
is it related to an ideology ?

Lets hear you thoughts and views

[volyova]

Dashholders check in but they never check out.

I checked out.

It is certainly true that receiving masternode payments, voting on budget proposals through you masternode and working towards your next masternode
can all become very addictive. Dashholders seem to make more longterm goals for themselves.
   

Don't forget about the miners who secure your essential POW network, having to give (45%!!) of their hard-earned to people who have no running costs.

[volyova]

It's just like any other POS coin which favvour the early (massive) stake holders, for new investors these people are like a Sword of Damocles hanging over you eternally, and Dash much worse than say, PPC I could stake with any amount of coin. But with Dash you must have 1000?? Rich get richer is not why I got into crypto. :-/

[volyova]

Oh, and you can't vote either, because you're too poor.

[smooth]

Dashholders check in but they never check out.

I checked out.

It is certainly true that receiving masternode payments, voting on budget proposals through you masternode and working towards your next masternode
can all become very addictive. Dashholders seem to make more longterm goals for themselves.
   

Don't forget about the miners who secure your essential POW network, having to give (45%!!) of their hard-earned to people who have no running costs.

45% plus another 10% going to wherever Evan and the other instaminers vote to send it.

[stan.distortion]

Dashholders check in but they never check out.

I checked out.

It is certainly true that receiving masternode payments, voting on budget proposals through you masternode and working towards your next masternode
can all become very addictive. Dashholders seem to make more longterm goals for themselves.
  

Don't forget about the miners who secure your essential POW network, having to give (45%!!) of their hard-earned to people who have no running costs.

55% actually, 45% to the masternode operators for providing second tier services and 10% into the budget to fund Dash development via DGBB.

The 45% to masternodes is very profitable at the mo, a bit over 10% a year and the outlay is about $5 a month for a mediocre VPS but hardware requirements will go up significantly with third tier services. The potential capacity of the second tier is huge, thousands of transactions a second in its current state and an easy path to tens of thousands and on top of that it has to handle online wallets, the distributed API, storage and plenty more as time goes on. It won't be a free ride, the returns are extremely profitable at the mo but it'll need top end hardware if/when it needs full capacity.

That should take a while though, for now it's getting a lot of interest as a means of funding third party services. One of the fiat gateway providers is using it to provide free and zero charge fiat debit cards, there's a few gaming sites planning on using the same funding model, it's getting a lot of ideas along those lines. The 10% into development is a no-brainer, that's getting people on board too quickly to keep track of and v2 of the budget system can't come quickly enough, it's getting out of hand That should be out with v0.12.1 in a few months and some of the features should be available to regular users.

[smooth]

The 45% to masternodes is very profitable at the mo, a bit over 10% a year and the outlay is about $5 a month for a mediocre VPS but hardware requirements will go up significantly with third tier services. The potential capacity of the second tier is huge, thousands of transactions a second in its current state and an easy path to tens of thousands and on top of that it has to handle online wallets, the distributed API, storage and plenty more as time goes on. It won't be a free ride, the returns are extremely profitable at the mo but it'll need top end hardware if/when it needs full capacity.

That should take a while though, for now it's getting a lot of interest as a means of funding third party services. One of the fiat gateway providers is using it to provide free and zero charge fiat debit cards, there's a few gaming sites planning on using the same funding model, it's getting a lot of ideas along those lines. The 10% into development is a no-brainer, that's getting people on board too quickly to keep track of and v2 of the budget system can't come quickly enough, it's getting out of hand That should be out with v0.12.1 in a few months and some of the features should be available to regular users.

So what you are saying is that the masternodes are (and more importantly have been for the last year or more) a redistribution scheme that further concentrates coins with instaminers and early adopters, since their costs have been negligible. Later, possibly, costs will be higher and no one else will ever have the same opportunity.

Thank you for confirming that.

[stan.distortion]

The 45% to masternodes is very profitable at the mo, a bit over 10% a year and the outlay is about $5 a month for a mediocre VPS but hardware requirements will go up significantly with third tier services. The potential capacity of the second tier is huge, thousands of transactions a second in its current state and an easy path to tens of thousands and on top of that it has to handle online wallets, the distributed API, storage and plenty more as time goes on. It won't be a free ride, the returns are extremely profitable at the mo but it'll need top end hardware if/when it needs full capacity.

That should take a while though, for now it's getting a lot of interest as a means of funding third party services. One of the fiat gateway providers is using it to provide free and zero charge fiat debit cards, there's a few gaming sites planning on using the same funding model, it's getting a lot of ideas along those lines. The 10% into development is a no-brainer, that's getting people on board too quickly to keep track of and v2 of the budget system can't come quickly enough, it's getting out of hand That should be out with v0.12.1 in a few months and some of the features should be available to regular users.

So what you are saying is that the masternodes are (and more importantly have been for the last year or more) a redistribution scheme that further concentrates coins with instaminers and early adopters, since their costs have been negligible. Later, possibly, costs will be higher and no one else will ever have the same opportunity.

Thank you for confirming that.

No, that's a story you made up Smooth. Remember, imagination... reality... there's a difference. It must be the GUI, you're getting as bad as icebreaker with his imaginary mining hardware :/ Digital cash needs more than just security Smooth and incentivising functionallity and development as well as security is a no brainer, you're own coins holders should be asking why it's still using such an outdated funding model

Fwiw mining is getting an overhaul with the next release. X11 is being kept of course, no point fixing what ain't broke and seeing as hardware manufacturers have enough faith to develop ASICs for it then it'd be rude to change it. The focus is on avoiding centralisation, Evan was very concerned about it after attending the Satoshi Island meetup and had definite plans for preventing it happening in Dash, no details so far but considering the core teams record of overdelivering I'm really looking forward to hearing about that one.

[volyova]

The 45% to masternodes is very profitable at the mo, a bit over 10% a year and the outlay is about $5 a month for a mediocre VPS but hardware requirements will go up significantly with third tier services. The potential capacity of the second tier is huge, thousands of transactions a second in its current state and an easy path to tens of thousands and on top of that it has to handle online wallets, the distributed API, storage and plenty more as time goes on. It won't be a free ride, the returns are extremely profitable at the mo but it'll need top end hardware if/when it needs full capacity.

That should take a while though, for now it's getting a lot of interest as a means of funding third party services. One of the fiat gateway providers is using it to provide free and zero charge fiat debit cards, there's a few gaming sites planning on using the same funding model, it's getting a lot of ideas along those lines. The 10% into development is a no-brainer, that's getting people on board too quickly to keep track of and v2 of the budget system can't come quickly enough, it's getting out of hand That should be out with v0.12.1 in a few months and some of the features should be available to regular users.

So what you are saying is that the masternodes are (and more importantly have been for the last year or more) a redistribution scheme that further concentrates coins with instaminers and early adopters, since their costs have been negligible. Later, possibly, costs will be higher and no one else will ever have the same opportunity.

Thank you for confirming that.

I got nothin'.

Crypto was meant to be fair. Dash is unfair to new investors. How can this last, nevermind scale?

[smooth]

The 45% to masternodes is very profitable at the mo, a bit over 10% a year and the outlay is about $5 a month for a mediocre VPS but hardware requirements will go up significantly with third tier services. The potential capacity of the second tier is huge, thousands of transactions a second in its current state and an easy path to tens of thousands and on top of that it has to handle online wallets, the distributed API, storage and plenty more as time goes on. It won't be a free ride, the returns are extremely profitable at the mo but it'll need top end hardware if/when it needs full capacity.

That should take a while though, for now it's getting a lot of interest as a means of funding third party services. One of the fiat gateway providers is using it to provide free and zero charge fiat debit cards, there's a few gaming sites planning on using the same funding model, it's getting a lot of ideas along those lines. The 10% into development is a no-brainer, that's getting people on board too quickly to keep track of and v2 of the budget system can't come quickly enough, it's getting out of hand That should be out with v0.12.1 in a few months and some of the features should be available to regular users.

So what you are saying is that the masternodes are (and more importantly have been for the last year or more) a redistribution scheme that further concentrates coins with instaminers and early adopters, since their costs have been negligible. Later, possibly, costs will be higher and no one else will ever have the same opportunity.

Thank you for confirming that.

No, that's a story you made up Smooth. Remember, imagination... reality... there's a difference. It must be the GUI, you're getting as bad as icebreaker with his imaginary mining hardware :/ Digital cash needs more than just security Smooth and incentivising functionallity and development as well as security is a no brainer, you're own coins holders should be asking why it's still using such an outdated funding model

Fwiw mining is getting an overhaul with the next release. X11 is being kept of course, no point fixing what ain't broke and seeing as hardware manufacturers have enough faith to develop ASICs for it then it'd be rude to change it. The focus is on avoiding centralisation, Evan was very concerned about it after attending the Satoshi Island meetup and had definite plans for preventing it happening in Dash, no details so far but considering the core teams record of overdelivering I'm really looking forward to hearing about that one.

This has nothing to do with mining, nor security. If you run a masternode, you are supposed to be providing a service, but as you explained for at least the first year of masternodes and continuing for an indefinite period going forward, the cost to provide the service has been negligible, reducing it to a redistribution scheme funneling coins to people with masternodes (and some have hundreds of nodes -- not surprising since as you say the cost to operate them is so low).

To avoid being a redistribution scheme, a masternode system would have the node earnings (at least most of the earnings; a small subsidy might be justified) coming from fees paid by people who actually use the service.

[stan.distortion]

The 45% to masternodes is very profitable at the mo, a bit over 10% a year and the outlay is about $5 a month for a mediocre VPS but hardware requirements will go up significantly with third tier services. The potential capacity of the second tier is huge, thousands of transactions a second in its current state and an easy path to tens of thousands and on top of that it has to handle online wallets, the distributed API, storage and plenty more as time goes on. It won't be a free ride, the returns are extremely profitable at the mo but it'll need top end hardware if/when it needs full capacity.

That should take a while though, for now it's getting a lot of interest as a means of funding third party services. One of the fiat gateway providers is using it to provide free and zero charge fiat debit cards, there's a few gaming sites planning on using the same funding model, it's getting a lot of ideas along those lines. The 10% into development is a no-brainer, that's getting people on board too quickly to keep track of and v2 of the budget system can't come quickly enough, it's getting out of hand That should be out with v0.12.1 in a few months and some of the features should be available to regular users.

So what you are saying is that the masternodes are (and more importantly have been for the last year or more) a redistribution scheme that further concentrates coins with instaminers and early adopters, since their costs have been negligible. Later, possibly, costs will be higher and no one else will ever have the same opportunity.

Thank you for confirming that.

No, that's a story you made up Smooth. Remember, imagination... reality... there's a difference. It must be the GUI, you're getting as bad as icebreaker with his imaginary mining hardware :/ Digital cash needs more than just security Smooth and incentivising functionallity and development as well as security is a no brainer, you're own coins holders should be asking why it's still using such an outdated funding model

Fwiw mining is getting an overhaul with the next release. X11 is being kept of course, no point fixing what ain't broke and seeing as hardware manufacturers have enough faith to develop ASICs for it then it'd be rude to change it. The focus is on avoiding centralisation, Evan was very concerned about it after attending the Satoshi Island meetup and had definite plans for preventing it happening in Dash, no details so far but considering the core teams record of overdelivering I'm really looking forward to hearing about that one.

Crypto was meant to be fair. Dash is unfair to new investors. How can this last, nevermind scale?

The answer to that is right there in front of you. You invest time in Dash development, you get a return. You invest in hardware to run the network, you get a return. You invest in hardware to secure the network, you get a return. Dash thrives by incentivising essential parts of the network.

EDIT: The aim is to be able to offer limited free transactions to every user and advanced payment network features.

[volyova]

This is where centralised, unfair money has brought us to. This cannot be the future, because that was the past. Nobody is going to let you be "Kings of the World" You're dreaming, nobody in the crypto-space even likes Dash. Doge has received kind help from litecoin and ETH, the top networks are aligning themselves..

[smooth]

The 45% to masternodes is very profitable at the mo, a bit over 10% a year and the outlay is about $5 a month for a mediocre VPS but hardware requirements will go up significantly with third tier services. The potential capacity of the second tier is huge, thousands of transactions a second in its current state and an easy path to tens of thousands and on top of that it has to handle online wallets, the distributed API, storage and plenty more as time goes on. It won't be a free ride, the returns are extremely profitable at the mo but it'll need top end hardware if/when it needs full capacity.

That should take a while though, for now it's getting a lot of interest as a means of funding third party services. One of the fiat gateway providers is using it to provide free and zero charge fiat debit cards, there's a few gaming sites planning on using the same funding model, it's getting a lot of ideas along those lines. The 10% into development is a no-brainer, that's getting people on board too quickly to keep track of and v2 of the budget system can't come quickly enough, it's getting out of hand That should be out with v0.12.1 in a few months and some of the features should be available to regular users.

So what you are saying is that the masternodes are (and more importantly have been for the last year or more) a redistribution scheme that further concentrates coins with instaminers and early adopters, since their costs have been negligible. Later, possibly, costs will be higher and no one else will ever have the same opportunity.

Thank you for confirming that.

No, that's a story you made up Smooth. Remember, imagination... reality... there's a difference. It must be the GUI, you're getting as bad as icebreaker with his imaginary mining hardware :/ Digital cash needs more than just security Smooth and incentivising functionallity and development as well as security is a no brainer, you're own coins holders should be asking why it's still using such an outdated funding model

Fwiw mining is getting an overhaul with the next release. X11 is being kept of course, no point fixing what ain't broke and seeing as hardware manufacturers have enough faith to develop ASICs for it then it'd be rude to change it. The focus is on avoiding centralisation, Evan was very concerned about it after attending the Satoshi Island meetup and had definite plans for preventing it happening in Dash, no details so far but considering the core teams record of overdelivering I'm really looking forward to hearing about that one.

Crypto was meant to be fair. Dash is unfair to new investors. How can this last, nevermind scale?

The answer to that is right there in front of you. You invest time in Dash development, you get a return. You invest in hardware to run the network, you get a return. You invest in hardware to secure the network, you get a return. Dash thrives by incentivising essential parts of the network.

That would be fine, but it contradicts what you said. There is minimal investment to operate a masternode ($5/month; possibly less). Massive amounts of coins are just being paid to people who had enough early coins for masternodes, without regard to any real investment in development or hardware.

[stan.distortion]

...
This has nothing to do with mining, nor security. If you run a masternode, you are supposed to be providing a service, but as you explained for at least the first year of masternodes and continuing for an indefinite period going forward, the cost to provide the service has been negligible, reducing it to a redistribution scheme funneling coins to people with masternodes (and some have hundreds of nodes -- not surprising since as you say the cost to operate them is so low).

To avoid being a redistribution scheme, a masternode system would have the node earnings (at least most of the earnings; a small subsidy might be justified) coming from fees paid by people who actually use the service.

The aim is to have zero fees for normal use, there'd be fees for large numbers of transactions but regular users should never have to pay to use the network. Hard to see how that'll scale as coin output is reduced but everything is being done step by step, the governance system has had time to get established now and is getting an update based on how it's worked so far and it'll be the same for the fee system, test it, tweak it, etc, etc.

Same with the masternodes, the rewards have been big so far but they'll start dropping now that's established, it has to stay profitable to run the second tier but they could come down a lot and still give a very good return. Ultimately that could lead to centralisation, need for dedicated hardware rather than just renting a VPS at the going rate but if things look like they're going that way it'll be addressed.

[smooth]

...
This has nothing to do with mining, nor security. If you run a masternode, you are supposed to be providing a service, but as you explained for at least the first year of masternodes and continuing for an indefinite period going forward, the cost to provide the service has been negligible, reducing it to a redistribution scheme funneling coins to people with masternodes (and some have hundreds of nodes -- not surprising since as you say the cost to operate them is so low).

To avoid being a redistribution scheme, a masternode system would have the node earnings (at least most of the earnings; a small subsidy might be justified) coming from fees paid by people who actually use the service.

The aim is to have zero fees for normal use, there'd be fees for large numbers of transactions but regular users should never have to pay to use the network. Hard to see how that'll scale as coin output is reduced but everything is being done step by step, the governance system has had time to get established now and is getting an update based on how it's worked so far and it'll be the same for the fee system, test it, tweak it, etc, etc.

Even with zero fee you could still scale the masternode rewards according to usage, or at least wait until such a system is actually deployed before paying people to allegedly provide a service that doesn't exist. Or possibly ramp up masternode rewards slowly along with usage (years). They were ramped but only over a few months.

It is hard to see how the past year or more and the next year or more of masternode rewards is anything but redistribution.

[stan.distortion]

...
This has nothing to do with mining, nor security. If you run a masternode, you are supposed to be providing a service, but as you explained for at least the first year of masternodes and continuing for an indefinite period going forward, the cost to provide the service has been negligible, reducing it to a redistribution scheme funneling coins to people with masternodes (and some have hundreds of nodes -- not surprising since as you say the cost to operate them is so low).

To avoid being a redistribution scheme, a masternode system would have the node earnings (at least most of the earnings; a small subsidy might be justified) coming from fees paid by people who actually use the service.

The aim is to have zero fees for normal use, there'd be fees for large numbers of transactions but regular users should never have to pay to use the network. Hard to see how that'll scale as coin output is reduced but everything is being done step by step, the governance system has had time to get established now and is getting an update based on how it's worked so far and it'll be the same for the fee system, test it, tweak it, etc, etc.

Even with zero fee you could still scale the masternode rewards according to usage, or at least wait until such a system is actually deployed before paying people to allegedly provide a service that doesn't exist. Or possibly ramp up masternode rewards slowly along with usage (years). They were ramped but only over a few months.

It is hard to see how the past year or more and the next year or more of masternode rewards is anything but redistribution.

I can see your point there, it really needed to be up to full scale as quickly as possible to get it tested and build the services to run on that layer and high rewards made that happen. Tbh, no one is really complaining about it, I've not heard miners objecting to the rates and I've suggested varying rewards for both miners and masternodes to put more funds into development in the past with no objections so imo the community would be open to tweaking the model. The masternodes are weird, the collateral doesn't seem like as your coins anymore and it seems more like they're a payment for participation in the governance, that's my experience anyway :/

[Lukas_Jackson]

Dashholders check in but they never check out.

I checked out.

It is certainly true that receiving masternode payments, voting on budget proposals through you masternode and working towards your next masternode
can all become very addictive. Dashholders seem to make more longterm goals for themselves.
   

Don't forget about the miners who secure your essential POW network, having to give (45%!!) of their hard-earned to people who have no running costs.

Without Masternodes they would either secure a shitcoin without value or they wouldn't even bother to mine it.
Masternode network is what gives Dash value. Darksend and Instantx is there thanks to it.

[smooth]

Dashholders check in but they never check out.

I checked out.

It is certainly true that receiving masternode payments, voting on budget proposals through you masternode and working towards your next masternode
can all become very addictive. Dashholders seem to make more longterm goals for themselves.
   

Don't forget about the miners who secure your essential POW network, having to give (45%!!) of their hard-earned to people who have no running costs.

Without Masternodes they would either secure a shitcoin without value or they wouldn't even bother to mine it.
Masternode network is what gives Dash value. Darksend and Instantx is there thanks to it.

On this I agree, but the rewards are grossly excessive for the services provided.