Why Dash fails decentralization

[qwizzie]

Lets take a look at some numbers with regards to Masternode rewards :

https://dash-news.de/dashtv/?value=1000



As you can see the annual MN interest is currently 11.33% which is depending on both number of active masternodes and mining difficulty.

[generalizethis]

Also, Tok, please refrain from hiding behind media--either make a sound argument, preferably concise

Your claim is that with Dash the more of the coin supply people own, the more they WILL own. (Masternodes are not "owned". I already pointed that out to you).

My response to that was that Dash was an open, not a closed system and that that rendered your theory about as veracious as most of your other posts which are more about opening your mouth and letting your belly rumble than economics, ethics or balanced technical appraisals.

Your sure giving your keyboard good workout though. Appreciate the attention  

Would you say masternodes are controlled? Or are they in the ether of non-existence and the fees go to no one? When I say owned, I mean that someone is controlling them and that person paid for their use with collaterall, so when you're done playing semantical hopscotch, I'll be over here waiting for an apology for all my time that you wasted with linguistic parlor tricks and half-truths.

[generalizethis]

Lets take a look at some numbers with regards to Masternode rewards :

https://dash-news.de/dashtv/?value=1000



As you can see the annual MN interest is currently 11.33% which is depending on both number of active masternodes and mining difficulty.

So using this helpful chart we can see that in roughly a year, that someone who controlled 2000 masternodes could accrue 200 more and increase their voting power by 20% without lifting a finger or producing a useful project. I use 2000 as this is the number that could be bought by those lucky enough to be mining the first 2 days of the coins existence (2 million coins of 18.9 million).


I'm taking a break to watch a movie and go to bed, but anyone can step in and show logically why dash can't be verified  trustlessly decentralized. At this point it's more of a PSA than an argument.

[qwizzie]

Lets take a look at some numbers with regards to Masternode rewards :

https://dash-news.de/dashtv/?value=1000



As you can see the annual MN interest is currently 11.33% which is depending on both number of active masternodes and mining difficulty.

So using this helpful chart we can see that in roughly a year, that someone who controlled 2000 masternodes could accrue 200 more and increase their voting power by 20% without lifting a finger or producing a useful project. I use 2000 as this is the number that could be bought by those lucky enough to be mining the first 2 days of the coins existence (2 million coins of 18.9 million).

if only nobody dumped in those first few days, then that theory would have held some value.
unfortunetely for your theory it was mass dumped as fast as it was mass mined.

https://dashdot.io/alpha/?page_id=118

[TPTB_need_war]

Re: Why Duckfeld fails decentralization

User of Dashpay  

 

Hahaha. [...] "Who me? I didn't do it. I'm just your puppy eyes friendly duck with a transmorgrifried beakground in finance".

Son you talk too much[1]. K.I.S.S.  

[1] that was one of the my sister's favorite songs, huhuhu

[BitcoinNational]

i will now consult DASH
any fanboys pls. PM and send me tips ::
---------------------------------------

Dash is 1000% about centralization

be proud of it
strut around and say, " Hey, I am like Ripple but "mysterious"! "
You might be more like Stellar @ 97% centralization?

own that shit!

Dash is Duff Bucks ... Don;t be a H8tr!

_{*NOTE* sorry i hold no dash of yet but if you pm i might, give me a week or 3, get an address, and you can tip me a few $1000 duffs ... cuz SRSLY play it dat a way.}

[qwizzie]

i sense a decline in the quality of posts since generalizethis went away to see a movie 

[TPTB_need_war]

i sense a decline in the quality of posts since generalizethis went to (one or more of)[bed | movie | toilet | snuff-den | Dash g-string pump up doll rendevouz at the Dash Dalmation dog soda vending machine]+

Stop reading your own posts then, lol.  

[qwizzie]

i sense a decline in the quality of posts since generalizethis went to bed

Stop reading your own posts then, lol.  

i actually thought about making an edit about that for a few seconds but then decided against it  
touche.

[generalizethis]

Qwizzie, the problem with any graph that supposedly shows that dash is decentralized by coins being moved is that no one can verify that the coins are moving to different owners or being moved between an owner's controlled addresses. Again, market manipulation just as easily explains this movement as anything else, so it fails the trustless test.

TLDR: Unless you can prove that coins or masternodes changed hands, dash still fails the trustless test.

[generalizethis]

Good evening everyone!

Why centralized organizations funding Bitcoin development is a train-wreck:

https://petertodd.org/2016/mit-chainanchor-bribing-miners-to-regulate-bitcoin

Dash will avoid these kind of issues with decentralized governance and funding. That's a big reason why Dash is poised to be the digital cash Satoshi envisioned, the Internet of Money.

All who value progress, optimism and decentralized technology are welcome to join us in Dash Nation.

LOL, as the first post illustrates, you can't build decentralized governance by starting with a 2 million coin mine in two days and then creating a paynode scheme that aggregates coins into the hands of the instaminers--any argument that states that the coins are redistributed expects you to trust that markets aren't being manipulated and the instaminers aren't lying about their holdings, which is Satoshi's nightmare and the reason Bitcoin was created in the first place--and while Bitcoin has its problems, you can look at its data and determine trustlessly whether it is centralized or not.

1. a centralized currency can and will be controlled by a set of people

So like 7 pool operators for instance?

The point is that you can see it for yourself and make your decision based on data rather than hype. Put another way: do you want the kinda-cute puppy that you can see, or the one in a lock-box that the salesman swears is "the best dog ever and has never bitten anyone"?

[toknormal]

Generalize must be missing his soldiers since he’s spending so much time waging Symbolic Ideological Warfare in attempting to convince people that Dash is a closed system where only 1 economic characteristic dominates over all others.

I think the free market might have something to say about that theory

In fact Dash looks after its monetary properties better than almost any electronic asset, being that it places the three tenets of electronic cash as it highest priority.



Unbacked money does not gain value from technology or ideology. It gains it from a shared experience of the blockchain mechanics that leads to a shared consensus that leads to unconditional acceptance.

The only coins that warrant being the subject of “real” ideological warfare are the ones that torpedo the one monetary property that supports that shared consensus in an unbacked token. (As opposed to a ‘backed’ one like the CT sidechain or fiat clearing networks).

Convince people they’re holding a “bearer token” while denying them them security of a publicly endorsed blockchain ?




…and thats where generalize should be directing both his toy soldiers and his real ones.

[generalizethis]

Tok, If you want to use info-graphics to dumb down the debate, that's your prerogative. And if you want to claim that dash is good because it does the same thing other money has done throughout history (rely on trust), that's fine and a different argument that should be made on another thread. But the point of this thread is that dash has no way to objectively verify that it is decentralized--so argue that that isn't true or stop wasting everyone's time.

[elbowface]

Dash has decentralized technology (PoW mining, full nodes, masternodes, blockchain governance). There is no debate here.

The point you're laboring is that there's no way to prove this technology isn't operated/controlled by a handful of people. You claim that because DASH's distribution is unverifiable, it's fatally flawed as a 'cryptosystem'.

For this argument to have any substance, you should demonstrate how competing coins solve the relationship between node/coin distribution & centralization. Bitcoin for example has massive mining centralization and millions of coins held by Satoshi / persons unknown. All PoW coins face mining centralization issues at scale. Monero has a massive whale in Risto who could manipulate/trash the market at any time and arguably kill the coin. Monero's core team could arguably kill the coin if they wanted to. As for governance, explain how DASH's blockchain governance is inferior to other coins where decisions either don't get made (Bitcoin) or there are just a few individuals pulling the strings (Monero).

Basically, make some reasonable, specific arguments instead of just bleating on about the instamine.

[generalizethis]

Dash has decentralized technology (PoW mining, full nodes, masternodes, blockchain governance). There is no debate here.

The point you're laboring is that there's no way to prove this technology isn't operated/controlled by a handful of people. You claim that because DASH's distribution is unverifiable, it's fatally flawed as a 'cryptosystem'.

For this argument to have any substance, you should demonstrate how competing coins solve the relationship between node/coin distribution & centralization. Bitcoin for example has massive mining centralization and millions of coins held by Satoshi / persons unknown. All PoW coins face mining centralization issues at scale. Monero has a massive whale in Risto who could manipulate/trash the market at any time and arguably kill the coin. Monero's core team could arguably kill the coin if they wanted to. As for governance, explain how DASH's blockchain governance is inferior to other coins where decisions either don't get made (Bitcoin) or there are just a few individuals pulling the strings (Monero).

Basically, make some reasonable, specific arguments instead of just bleating on about the instamine.

What the Bitcoin, Monero and other well designed coins do is allow you to see the centralization as verifiable data, that's the difference that matters. As I pointed out in my second post.

1. a centralized currency can and will be controlled by a set of people

So like 7 pool operators for instance?

The point is that you can see it for yourself and make your decision based on data rather than hype. Put another way: do you want the kinda-cute puppy that you can see, or the one in a lock-box that the salesman swears is "the best dog ever and has never bitten anyone"?

Now your claim that Risto can destroy the coin by dumping, ect, is conjecture on your part, conjecture I don't agree with, but if he could acquire coins by accruing them through nodes and having voting power through those nodes, I'd agree--in Monero and Bitcoin the governance is done by the miners and miners have a verifiable percentage of power through mining pools. Dash created a new and worse problem by their solution, so not exactly apples to apples. But if you want to argue about mining centralization, there are threads (populated by many members of the Monero and Bitcoin community) for that. This isn't a dash versus xmr or btc thread. It is a thread about dash's failure to make distribution of power a readily available data set that anyone can objectively observe and make fair and honest assessments.

*Also, if something like an algorithm that sells/buys chosen coins based on their centralization levels came into use, then there is no reliable data set I can use to determine a dash percentage, so this type of second tier way to combat mining centralization is useless with dash--though this a second level argument and really doesn't keep with what this thread is about.

[toknormal]

Tok, If you want to use info-graphics to dumb down the debate, that's your prerogative.

Thanks !

It did look like you'd benefit from a "dumbed down" version of the fundamentals. Here you go then...

What the Bitcoin, Monero and other well designed coins do is allow you to see the centralization as verifiable data, that's the difference that matters

Well, lets just test that theory out a minute. For the avoidance of doubt, a public blockchain in this analysis is one where every blockchain address is inspectable by every person, through multiple reference points and independently of whether or not they hold a private key to that address.



...looks to me like you meant "Bitcoin and Dash" actually.

[toknormal]

Lets try that other one...



Yep. That about squares

[toknormal]

A before & after of generalize. (Having been directed to the 'real' basis of cryptocurrency integrity, economic viability and transparency).



You can thank me later  

[elbowface]

What the Bitcoin, Monero and other well designed coins do is allow you to see the centralization as verifiable data, that's the difference that matters. As I pointed out in my second post.

Explain how mining centralization statistics are 'verifiable data'. How do you know who controls the big mining pools? How do you know if they're not all controlled by one entity/guv etc?

Now your claim that Risto can destroy the coin by dumping, ect, are conjecture on your part, that I don't agree with, but if he could acquire coins by accruing them through nodes and having voting power through those nodes, I'd agree--in Monero and Bitcoin the governance is done by the miners and miners have a verifiable percentage of power through mining pools. Dash created a new and worse problem by their solution, so not exactly apples to apples. But if you want to argue about mining centralization, there are threads (populated by many members of the Monero and Bitcoin community) for that. This isn't a dash versus xmr or btc thread. It is a thread about dash's failure to make distribution of power a readily available data set that anyone can objectively observe and make fair and honest assessments.

Your claim that DASH's governance solution is a 'worse problem' is conjecture on your part. Arguably, since all the voting/governance is controlled by coin holders rather than (typically mercenary) miners, there is a vested interest in a healthy coin that provides services as designed.

Also, there is objective/verifiable data on masternodes. We can see a list of public IPs, geographical locations and in most cases determine the hosting providers. This provides insight into the distribution of nodes. Of course, we can't say for sure how many nodes are ultimately controlled by any given entity/person, but that's true of mining too.

Considering you call DASH 'pointless', you write an awful lot of words on the Internet about it.

[generalizethis]

Again, Tok, there is no trustless way to verify that dash is decentralized, so prove me wrong instead of deciding that your definition of money makes dash lack of decentralization acceptable. I'm sure it is acceptable to you, but we aren't arguing about the properties of money as Tok would like them to be, we are arguing: can you verify trustlessly that dash is decentralized. I suggest you stop wasting everyone's time with infographics, that while cute, fail to stay on topic. If you keep going off topic, I will contact the Moderators to remove your posts. Sorry, but this doesn't have to be that difficult.