[DASH] Dash - Building the IoM | Dash Nation Progress Thread

[stan.distortion]

...
I didn't read your post. I know from previous posts you do not accept any wrong doing by xcoin or darkcoin.
...

On the contrary, there's absolutely nobody on this forum I trust without question, not Tao, not Evan and certainly not you and your trollero cronies, practically the entire Dash community has earned my respect while you and your group have proven time and again you're sociopaths entirely focused on your own greed.

Nearly 2 years ago I took a look at Dash, liked the looks of what I saw and decided to give it the benefit of the doubt and in those 2 years absolutely nothing has made me question that choice. I won't say everything has been perfect, Dash has a vast and varied community and the views of some run completely contrary to my own but when even the most extreme of those views have been taken on board and built upon it's been an improvement to Dash as a whole. I might not be in favour of those choices but many others do and the implementation has always been to the gain of those that want them with no loss to those that don't and that's exactly how digital cash has to work, all inclusive.

[qwizzie]

Insane jump upwards in just a few hours from 3667 to 3720 
Again we have a new ATH !!

[Lukas_Jackson]

I was there at the VERY start I watched it unfold in real time. There is nothing anyone can do to convince me that what i witnessed in real time did not happen. There was no mistake, there was no accident.

No one is trying to convice a fool.
Here is a different opinion

I was actually there the second that XCoin(Darkcoin/Dash) was launched (the thread with 0 reads popped up before my eyes) and never even once had the impression it was being launched in a fraudulent manner. The Dash folks have developed a lot of interesting stuff since then and seem to continue to do so

...no matter the innovation, or evans efforts now it deserves to be held back hard because of that FACT. If it can grow from here I would be shocked. It is not a bad coin from a tech standpoint but it is a coin that will be held back forever due to the bad decisions and actions at the start.

That "held back" is funny as hell. Look at what happens to many crypto projects, compare them to Dash and tell me what you see.
And tell me where Dash would be if its back wasn't held. You can say in market valuation, adoption or whatever criteria you assume would fit.
It grows since 2 years and it's going better than ever and much better than other projects.
You look shocked now btw.

[toknormal]

If you still choose to invest then that's your call.

Really ! ?  I'd never have guessed  

it deserves to be held back hard because of that

Says who ? I think it deserves to see whatever success its utility warrants.

So that makes it a kind of hung parliament. May the most popular view win. I suppose you'll just have to hope there are enough green-eyed zeolots around to make your predictions a self-fullfilling prophecy.

[generalizethis]

If you still choose to invest then that's your call.

Really ! ?  I'd never have guessed  

it deserves to be held back hard because of that

Says who ? I think it deserves to see whatever success its utility warrants.

So that makes it a kind of hung parliament. May the most popular view win. I suppose you'll just have to hope there are enough green-eyed zeolots around to make your predictions a self-fullfilling prophecy.

Hey Tokky, any comments? Or is it gonna be like the instamine, ignore it until you have to begrudgingly accept/spin it?

All of Tok's explanations on why the coins are well distributed depend on you trusting that no bad actors did things to further aggregate their control by manipulation--the problem is, Tok (you ignorant bastard) is that these system are supposed to be built so you don't have to trust anyone--least of all a gang of instaminers. Until you can prove that the system can work trustlessly and not reward a few hoarders sitting on a pile of coins, your coin cannot be verifiably decentralized and is nothing more than an (you guessed it) oligarchy.

It's like all these dashtards missed the trustless meeting, for fuck's sake, who needs any system that requires you to trust anyone, we already have credit card companies for that and I'm sure their systems will be just as "innovative" as the centrapoclyspe that Evan and his merry band of instaminers have built.

[cryptohunter]

I was there at the VERY start I watched it unfold in real time. There is nothing anyone can do to convince me that what i witnessed in real time did not happen. There was no mistake, there was no accident.

No one is trying to convice a fool.
Here is a different opinion

I was actually there the second that XCoin(Darkcoin/Dash) was launched (the thread with 0 reads popped up before my eyes) and never even once had the impression it was being launched in a fraudulent manner. The Dash folks have developed a lot of interesting stuff since then and seem to continue to do so

...no matter the innovation, or evans efforts now it deserves to be held back hard because of that FACT. If it can grow from here I would be shocked. It is not a bad coin from a tech standpoint but it is a coin that will be held back forever due to the bad decisions and actions at the start.

That "held back" is funny as hell. Look at what happens to many crypto projects, compare them to Dash and tell me what you see.
And tell me where Dash would be if its back wasn't held. You can say in market valuation, adoption or whatever criteria you assume would fit.
It grows since 2 years and it's going better than ever and much better than other projects.
You look shocked now btw.

A fool? is that all you have? are all the other people that vote dash is a scam based upon the black and white evidence that it is a scam...are they all fools too? only you and the dashers are not fools?

I think it was around 7-10  bucks when i first broke this scam to the main board. So I see no major rise in my dash tokens value since then. Perhaps I should have cashed out before mentioning it?

I see masternodes shoring up its value for now. I don't see that lasting.

Let's revisit in another 2 years and see then. To me it does not matter at all.

To be honest dash was out early with some new tech, it has constant development and could have exceeded litecoin if it had not been hampered by being a scam. That is my opinion.

Again these diversionary questions are irrelevant to the fact dash was and remains a scam coin.

If I think it was held back and you do not that is merely opinion. The fact is was a scam is established fact. This is where the problem lies for dash. If you think that the dash scam being know and accepted as such to most is an advantage and hasn't held it back then that's fine I can't try and fix what nature has withheld. You must try only to take small steps when working through a logical process. Don't miss or jump steps else that's when trouble starts. Try thinking out aloud and explain how the dash scam being know and accepted as a scam has not held dash back at all.


Side tracking, diversions, swearing, cursing, shouting, claiming others are butthurt, jealous, cry babies, repeating non sense, accusing other coins of being scams, pointing out some innovation etc etc etc .... does nothing to change the fact dash is a scam coin.

When you realise that you can not convince the majority that black is in fact white....then you can all creep back to the dash thread and remain there in peace. Telling each other how lucky you all are to be part of dash nation and how everyone else is just butthurt and foolish for not wanting to be a part of it. Meanwhile the majority of the board will focus their efforts on non-scammy projects.

[toknormal]

abuse

Hey Tokky, any comments?

I think you've a problem deciding whether your an ideological crusader for libertarian fair values or a drunk football supporter that just stumbled out of a bar after their team lost.

Wake me up when your sort your story out.

[generalizethis]

abuse

Hey Tokky, any comments?

I think you've got a problem deciding whether your an ideological crusader for libertarian fair values or a drunk football supporter that just stumbled out of a bar after their team lost.

Wake me up when your sort your story out.

That's about what I expected. More diversion away from the obvious flaw in your main argument.

My contention is that Dash doesn't work as a trustless system, therefore it is useless as a cryptosystem--well useless in a world that already has trillions of dollars and hundreds of years invested in trust based systems.

It's that simple.

[toknormal]

My contention is that Dash doesn't work as a trustless system

Thats because you don't understand "trust".

You've got some ludicrous made up nonsense that associates individuals with nodes. The protocol logic (A) isn't run by individuals and (b) is decentralised (as in can be reproduced as many times as there are nodes).

"Trusted parties" on the other hand are those that issue promisary notes in place of bearer tokens.

Keep tryin to fling that word around though in the vain attempt that it'll stick. It'll only stick with anyone as clueless as the idiots that come up with this garbage. (Bit like cryptohunter above trying to fling the s-word as many times as he can in the hope that that'll stick).

[generalizethis]

My contention is that Dash doesn't work as a trustless system

Thats because you don't understand "trust".

You've got some ludicrous made up nonsense that associates individuals with nodes. The protocol logic (A) isn't run by individuals and (b) is decentralised (as in can be reproduced as many times as there are nodes).

"Trusted parties" are those that issue promisary notes in place of bearer tokens.

Keep tryin to fling that word around though in the vain attempt that it'll stick. It'll only stick with anyone as clueless as the idiots that come up with this garbage. (Bit like cryptohunter above trying to fling the s-word as many times as he can in the hope that that'll stick).

I associate those who plunk down 1000 dash to collect fees from those nodes to individuals, where this becomes a problem is that you cannot trustlessly verify that these individuals aren't using their collected fees to buy more nodes thus aggregating more control over voting and whatever other functions are tethered to nodes.

[qwizzie]

Global Bitcoin Nodes Distribution (Full Nodes & Normal Nodes)
https://bitnodes.21.co/




Dash Masternode Full Nodes
http://178.254.23.111/~pub/Dash/Dash_Info.html
http://178.254.18.153/~pub/Darkcoin/masternode_locations_stats.html



Anyone knows how many normal active nodes Dash has running to make this picture complete ?

edit : if anyone is wondering what that black dot in the middle of the South Pacific Ocean indicates .. i suspect its the location of Atlantis. 

[generalizethis]

Global Bitcoin Nodes Distribution (Full Nodes & Normal Nodes)
https://bitnodes.21.co/




Dash Masternode Full Nodes
http://178.254.23.111/~pub/Dash/Dash_Info.html
http://178.254.18.153/~pub/Darkcoin/masternode_locations_stats.html



Anyone know how many active normal nodes Dash has running to make this picture complete ?

Wow, just wow! So you don't really understand that A: Bitcoin doesn't aggregate coins through nodes like dash (which is the problem), 2. That where the node is located is of little importance, what's important is who controls/owns the node?

The point, again,

My contention is that Dash doesn't work as a trustless system

Thats because you don't understand "trust".

You've got some ludicrous made up nonsense that associates individuals with nodes. The protocol logic (A) isn't run by individuals and (b) is decentralised (as in can be reproduced as many times as there are nodes).

"Trusted parties" are those that issue promisary notes in place of bearer tokens.

Keep tryin to fling that word around though in the vain attempt that it'll stick. It'll only stick with anyone as clueless as the idiots that come up with this garbage. (Bit like cryptohunter above trying to fling the s-word as many times as he can in the hope that that'll stick).

I associate those who plunk down 1000 dash to collect fees from those nodes to individuals, where this becomes a problem is that you cannot trustlessly verify that these individuals aren't using their collected fees to buy more nodes thus aggregating more control over voting and whatever other functions are tethered to nodes.

Nodes hold the power in the dash scheme and coins buy that power, which means if coins are aggregated through nodes, that power can continually grow in the hands of a few oligarchs.

But nice, non-applicable graphic to wow noobs and those who realize how absurd the insinuation is that qwizzie and other dash hypsters are trying to make.

[qwizzie]

Global Bitcoin Nodes Distribution (Full Nodes & Normal Nodes)
https://bitnodes.21.co/




Dash Masternode Full Nodes
http://178.254.23.111/~pub/Dash/Dash_Info.html
http://178.254.18.153/~pub/Darkcoin/masternode_locations_stats.html



Anyone know how many active normal nodes Dash has running to make this picture complete ?

edit : if anyone is wondering what that black dot in the middle of the South Pacific Ocean indicates .. i suspect its the location of Atlantis.  

Wow, just wow!

I'm glad i managed to impress someone with this, someone none other then generalizethis .. Wow, just wow.

[toknormal]

Nodes hold the power in the dash scheme and coins buy that power, which means if coins are aggregated through nodes, that power can continually grow in the hands of a few oligarchs.

I don't know if I should bother answering this. It's a kind of mickey mouse symbolic characterisation. Symbolically - ok - people 'own' nodes in the sense that they own the coinage at some random blockchain address which collateralises it.

But symbolism is where it ends. I might as well characterise the bitcoin miners as 'trusted' for all the power they have to affect the protocol and for that change to have a practical impact on the network's logical integrity.

where this becomes a problem is that you cannot trustlessly verify that these individuals aren't using their collected fees to buy more nodes thus aggregating more control over voting and whatever other functions are tethered to nodes.

Well, the whole point is that they can, so what you see as a "bug" I see as a "feature".

You're confusing a democracy with a capital asset. It remains to be seen how healthy the whole approach is in terms of the long term benefit of the project but one thing they can't do is "vote" the coins out of other people's hands, so what works for large holders has also got to work for small.

Another thing, Dash blockchain governance is only one aspect of "governance". It focuses the voice of one particular set of stakeholders that would not otherwise have a voice. However there are other "quadrants" of stakeholders who are at least equally influential and critical to the buoyancy of the whole asset. Large coin holders have no influence over these. It's a POW coin for a start so the mining majority is one of them. Another is commercial stakeholders such as exchanges and yet another is developers.

So characterising the whole thing as some kind of kind of oligarchy is simply symbolic obfuscation and bluster.

[Lukas_Jackson]

...my opinion.

Ok, I had my entertainment unignoring you after someone quoted you.
Keep your opinion. Don't forget to be everywhere with your paid signature. That speaks for itself.

People can visit http://dash.org or http://dashtalk.org to see what's happenning 

[generalizethis]

Nodes hold the power in the dash scheme and coins buy that power, which means if coins are aggregated through nodes, that power can continually grow in the hands of a few oligarchs.

I don't know if I should bother answering this. It's a kind of mickey mouse symbolic characterisation. Symbolically - ok - people 'own' nodes in the sense that they own the coinage at some random blockchain address which collateralises it.

But symbolism is where it ends. I might as well characterise the bitcoin miners as 'trusted' for all the power they have to affect the protocol and for that change to have a practical impact on the network's logical integrity.

where this becomes a problem is that you cannot trustlessly verify that these individuals aren't using their collected fees to buy more nodes thus aggregating more control over voting and whatever other functions are tethered to nodes.

Well, the whole point is that they can, so what you see as a "bug" I see as a "feature".

You're confusing a democracy with a capital asset. It remains to be seen how healthy the whole approach is in terms of the long term benefit of the project but one thing they can't do is "vote" the coins out of other people's hands, so what works for large holders has also got to work for small.

Another thing, Dash blockchain governance is only one aspect of "governance". It focuses the voice of one particular set of stakeholders that would not otherwise have a voice. However there are other "quadrants" of stakeholders who are at least equally influential and critical to the buoyancy of the whole asset. Large coin holders have no influence over these. It's a POW coin for a start so the mining majority is one of them. Another is commercial stakeholders such as exchanges and yet another is developers.

So characterising the whole thing as some kind of kind of oligarchy is simply symbolic obfuscation and bluster.

Feature? lol

Lets make this simple, though I wonder how much simpler I can make it?

Dash's nodes collect fees, those fees can be used to buy more nodes, which in turn collect more fees, which in turn can buy more nodes and on and on and on....

That should be the end of the argument for someone who actually gets why these systems are built to rely on mathematics rather than protocol, but Tok has proved over and over and over that he doesn't get this little tidbit. So I'll try to dumb it down even more than I have already--though I suspect Tok might just be playing dumb and wants to muddy the waters while he regroups for another game or graphic versus reality. But whatever.

Why this isn't a problem for Bitcoin and is a problem for dash is that dash's nodes are used for goverance, privacy, and an ever growing laundry list of features (probably to validate why they are collecting fees in the first place), it doesn't take a genius to realize that this fails as a trustless system because I must trust that the node holders aren't using their fees to buy more nodes, or engaging in market manipulation to gain more nodes at a cheaper price and thus increasing profit and power at the same time.

It would be severly naïve to think that this isn't happening, but luckily in the world of cryptosystems, these systems are supposed to work in a trustless manner, so I can safely say that dash fails to deliver decentralization because it cannot verify this claim trustlessly.

And why this is important follows, so keep reading....

Dash is useless because it can't work trustlessly, because credit card companies and banks can do the same thing, only better (looks at ripple). It's only trustlessly decentralized systems that can offer something banks and credit card companies can't--a way for instituions, individuals, and citizens to work in conjunction without the threat of manipulation and coercion. Any system that can't offer a trustless means (or at the very least a statistically acceptable risk of decentralization--though that is a risk that is time madated) is doomed because it fails at being of any more use than what already exist.

Now watch half the dashtards scramble to argue why it is decentralized, while the other half argues it doesn't need to be. Or maybe they can just mumble jealousy under their collective breath--though they may need to vote on that.

[toknormal]

it doesn't take a genius to realize that this fails as a trustless system because I must trust that the node holders

For what ? Governance over how the node-based block reward is spent ?

That isn't "trust", thats called having a f*cking rudder attached to your ship.

[stan.distortion]

Nodes hold the power in the dash scheme and coins buy that power, which means if coins are aggregated through nodes, that power can continually grow in the hands of a few oligarchs.

I don't know if I should bother answering this. It's a kind of mickey mouse symbolic characterisation. Symbolically - ok - people 'own' nodes in the sense that they own the coinage at some random blockchain address which collateralises it.

But symbolism is where it ends. I might as well characterise the bitcoin miners as 'trusted' for all the power they have to affect the protocol and for that change to have a practical impact on the network's logical integrity.

where this becomes a problem is that you cannot trustlessly verify that these individuals aren't using their collected fees to buy more nodes thus aggregating more control over voting and whatever other functions are tethered to nodes.

Well, the whole point is that they can, so what you see as a "bug" I see as a "feature".

You're confusing a democracy with a capital asset. It remains to be seen how healthy the whole approach is in terms of the long term benefit of the project but one thing they can't do is "vote" the coins out of other people's hands, so what works for large holders has also got to work for small.

Another thing, Dash blockchain governance is only one aspect of "governance". It focuses the voice of one particular set of stakeholders that would not otherwise have a voice. However there are other "quadrants" of stakeholders who are at least equally influential and critical to the buoyancy of the whole asset. Large coin holders have no influence over these. It's a POW coin for a start so the mining majority is one of them. Another is commercial stakeholders such as exchanges and yet another is developers.

So characterising the whole thing as some kind of kind of oligarchy is simply symbolic obfuscation and bluster.

Feature? lol

Lets make this simple, though I wonder how much simpler I can make it?

Dash's nodes collect fees, those fees can be used to buy more nodes, which in turn collect more fees, which in turn can buy more nodes and on and on and on....

That should be the end of the argument for someone who actually gets why these systems are built to rely on mathematics rather than protocol, but Tok has proved over and over and over that he doesn't get this little tidbit. So I'll try to dumb it down even more than I have already--though I suspect Tok might just be playing dumb and wants to muddy the waters while he regroups for another game or graphic versus reality. But whatever.

Why this isn't a problem for Bitcoin and is a problem for dash is that dash's nodes are used for goverance, privacy, and an ever growing laundry list of features (probably to validate why they are collecting fees in the first place), it doesn't take a genius to realize that this fails as a trustless system because I must trust that the node holders aren't using their fees to buy more nodes, or engaging in market manipulation to gain more nodes at a cheaper price and thus increasing profit and power at the same time.

It would be severly naïve to think that this isn't happening, but luckily in the world of cryptosystems, these systems are supposed to work in a trustless manner, so I can safely say that dash fails to deliver decentralization because it cannot verify this claim trustlessly.

And why this is important follows, so keep reading....

Dash is useless because it can't work trustlessly, because credit card companies and banks can do the same thing, only better (looks at ripple). It's only trustlessly decentralized systems that can offer something banks and credit card companies can't--a way for instituions, individuals, and citizens to work in conjunction without the threat of manipulation and coercion. Any system that can't offer a trustless means (or at the very least a statistically acceptable risk of decentralization--though that is a risk that is time madated) is doomed because it fails at being of any more use than what already exist.

Now watch half the dashtards scramble to argue why it is decentralized, while the other half argues it doesn't need to be. Or maybe they can just mumble jealousy under their collective breath--though they may need to vote on that.

Replace "masternodes" with "miners" and that reads just the same, want to go attack Bitcoin with that argument? The trolleros are fairly determined to disrupt this threads narrative, hope they've nothing else planned for the rest of the day;)

Most cryptos only incentivise the security, mining. Dash incentivises three key areas and seeing as repetition seems to be the theme of the day, here's a post on how that works from earlier in the thread:

Great cue there, wannabe Deckard!

Dash is the first cryptocurrency in the world to offer incentivized full nodes. That's why Dash has the strongest, fastest and largest non-Bitcoin full-node network in existence.

To run a full node you have to put up a never-spent collateral of 1000 DASH that never leaves your possession. Once set up you earn 45% of the block reward for supporting and strenghtening our network and offering an increasing amount of unique features invented by Dash (InstantX, PrivacyProtect, Blockchain Governance, soon to be more when Evolution comes out).

Some have criticized the Masternode collateral as too high, but let's not forget that anyone was able to attain one back when Dash was relatively cheap. If you're angry for missing out, don't despair: With Evolution services like decentralized and trustless Masternode sharing will become possible and implemented allowing anyone with minor amounts (probably around 50 Dash) to participate in a shared full node earning proportionate rewards and equally proportionate voting rights in the Decentralized Governance by Blockchain (invented and pioneered by Dash).

[Macno]

Short question, I`ve lost track a little...The masternode block-rewards generalizethis now calls "fees" are what he called "taxes" before, right?
Seems to me like a small but still laudable step in the right direction.

[generalizethis]

Sigh. I can't make it any more simple--it's like they don't grasps that the nodes are bought with dash and earn the dash that can let the operator buy more nodes thus increasing centralization. Or that this is a problem because it requires trust to believe that this very scenario isn't happening.....you can lead a horse to water, but you can't explain the basics of cryptosystems without someway to expand its neural capabilities. Maybe nanabots or direct neural connections to expand brain capacity would help?