Why Dash fails decentralization

[toknormal]

so prove me wrong

I think I just did that

[generalizethis]

so prove me wrong

I think I just did that

Honestly, you are going to require validation of personal ID, proof of purchase, ect. for all masternodes and coins? And people are going to want this from you why? Big Brother forces them to?

[toknormal]

Honestly, you are going to require validation of personal ID, proof of purchase

Well, actually, the great thing about Dash nodes - as with bitcoin nodes - is that they are decentralised. (Hopefully that will keep me 'on topic' as you say).

What that means is that the node can be reproduced as may times as there are machines to run it on - without recourse to a central authority. Nice ! 

The other nice thing about them is - unlike bitcoin nodes - they are incentivised. So thats why the Dash network has enjoyed a sustained growth for an uninterupted period of nearly 2 years.

The other nice thing about it is that - being an open, freely traded asset - large holdings of Dash get broken down over time whenever there's a price rise, just like every other asset in existence. You can in fact see this happening in 3 places:

 - the nicks in the mastered count that co-incide with big market movements
 - volume trades on exchanges
 - chatting to them in the pub where it turns out they just offloaded 10 of their nodes the week before in a profit take

The other nice thing about it is that this economic phenomenon (market distribution of assets) happens to be independent of how people acquired them. So people that grew their holdings by investing are exposed to the same prevailing economic incentives as those that grew their holdings through mining and they are similarly exposed to the same prevailing economic incentives as those who grew their holdings through collateralising a masternode.

So, all in all, maximisation of decentralised monetary properties is therefore what Dash is all about

Re. Centralisation, Personal ID, proof of purchase, trusted parties

You might be thinking of:

A. A bank
B. Obscured blockchains that require the public to depend on a layer of trusted third party technology rather than shared public consensus to establish an endorsed value (See more info here)

Hope that clears everything up ! 

(Mods: On topic)

[generalizethis]

Honestly, you are going to require validation of personal ID, proof of purchase

Well, actually, the great thing about Dash nodes - as with bitcoin nodes - is that they are decentralised. (Hopefully that will keep me 'on topic' as you say).

What that means is that the node can be reproduced as may times as there are machines to run it on - without recourse to a central authority. Nice !  

The other nice thing about them is - unlike bitcoin nodes - they are incentivised. So thats why the Dash network has enjoyed a sustained growth for an uninterupted period of nearly 2 years.

The other nice thing about it is that - being an open, freely traded asset - large holdings of Dash get broken down over time whenever there's a price rise, just like every other asset in existence. You can in fact see this happening in 3 places:

- the nicks in the mastered count that co-incide with big market movements
 - volume trades on exchanges
 - chatting to them in the pub where it turns out they just offloaded 10 of their nodes the week before in a profit take

The other nice thing about it is that this economic phenomenon (market distribution of assets) happens to be independent of how people acquired them. So people that grew their holdings by investing are exposed to the same prevailing economic incentives as those that grew their holdings through mining and they are similarly exposed to the same prevailing economic incentives as those who grew their holdings through collateralising a masternode.

So, all in all, maximisation of decentralised monetary properties is therefore what Dash is all about

Re. Centralisation, Personal ID, proof of purchase, trusted parties

You might be thinking of:

A. A bank
B. Obscured blockchains that require the public to depend on a layer of trusted third party technology rather than shared public consensus to establish an endorsed value (See more info here)

Hope that clears everything up !  

(Mods: On topic)

With the bolded above, you're assuming A. that the nodes and coins aren't just being traded between the same people, so people like yourself can say, "Look, verifiable evidence (if you trust us)" B. That people aren't lying to you when they say, "Hey, I just sold ten nodes!" C. that economic downturns that create selling pressure aren't manipulators looking to collect more cheap coins so they can expand their masternode fee collecting business and D. That price rise selling isn't recouped when the market invariably goes down. I know you aren't this naïve, do you believe others are?

Again, you are asking us to trust that the 2 million coins mined in the first two days were redistributed based on market information that can't conclusively conclude anything unless there is some sort of ID and payment verification system layered on top of an already layer heavy system.

Please come back when you've figured out that no one with any sense is just going to trust you because you have charts as I can just post the chart of how many coins were mined in the first 5 hours and say see, "Someone mined a whole bunch and no one will ever know if they still have them or sold them, and since they can buy nodes that collect fees, they can centralize the coin even more."

[TPTB_need_war]

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?

We can't know except for example if they modify the protocol. That is what I argued to smooth and monsterer in the thread where I explained Satoshi did not solve the Byzantine General's Problem.

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.

The salient distinction is that mining influence in Bitcoin has nothing to do with how many tokens you own. And mining expenditure is ongoing whereas staked masternodes are only deposited once.

We've already explained this before. I am not going to explain again why staking is not secure.

[spatula]

The salient distinction is that mining influence in Bitcoin has nothing to do with how many tokens you own. And mining expenditure is ongoing whereas staked masternodes are only deposited once.

LOL! TPTB fancies himself a smart person, yet doesn't even understand the ongoing nature of opportunity cost. That's like finance 101.

[elbowface]

The salient distinction is that mining influence in Bitcoin has nothing to do with how many tokens you own. And mining expenditure is ongoing whereas staked masternodes are only deposited once.

We've already explained this before. I am not going to explain again why staking is not secure.

Mining influence in DASH has nothing to do with how many tokens you own either. Miners govern the coin in exactly the same way as other PoW coins - they can fork a chain at any time.

Masternodes/DGBB create an additional governance layer, providing, right now, funds for all sorts of beneficial projects directly from the blockchain.

Nobody is saying it's perfect, finished or a replacement for mining. It is, however, a good working solution <in the present> to the governance issues and decision making malaise that stunt the growth of other coins.

[toknormal]

With the bolded above, you're assuming A. that the nodes and coins aren't just being traded between the same people

Good point !

I could just be trying to fool everyone into thinking that anyone can buy Dash when it's in fact just a couple of us passing the same 6 million coins back and forward on Polo and charging more for them each time.

However, I just realised that I have personal experience of your theory needing at least a bit of polishing.

A few months ago I was saving up for another masternode. The reward share I was getting from my other node was helping with this (cos lets face it, getting paid a couple of Dash every few days for keeping a node running DOES help and DOES kind of make you want to get another one. So so far your theory's holding up).

But then something unexpected happened. PAMM ! The tenant in a small flat I rent out called me up in the middle of the night to say the ceiling had caved in due to water ingres from the roof above. Turns out I was uninsured for this catastrophe cos I hadn't told the insurer I was renting. So I did a review of which of my assets I could least afford to liquidate. It was a toss up between the '75 Fender Strat in my cupboard and the 600 Dash. Guess which one won

If only your theory about centralisation had held up - and Dash holders were not in an open economic system I might have had that other node. Instead somebody else has it.  

Then again, I've still got the strat. So maybe I'm not so disappointed after all  




By the way I hope you’re now staying away from those dodgy ‘obscured’ blockchains that tell everyone they can ‘rely on math’ when in fact they can only rely on trusted third-party implementors of math.

Bit of a scam that really, but I suppose everyone needs to get their kicks somewhere

[generalizethis]

With the bolded above, you're assuming A. that the nodes and coins aren't just being traded between the same people

Good point !

I could just be trying to fool everyone into thinking that anyone can buy Dash when it's in fact just a couple of us passing the same 6 million coins back and forward on Polo and charging more for them each time.

However, I just realised that I have personal experience of your theory needing at least a bit of polishing.

A few months ago I was saving up for another masternode. The reward share I was getting from my other node was helping with this (cos lets face it, getting paid a couple of Dash every few days for keeping a node running DOES help and DOES kind of make you want to get another one. So so far your theory's holding up).

But then something unexpected happened. PAMM ! The tenant in a small flat I rent out called me up in the middle of the night to say the ceiling had caved in due to water ingres from the roof above. Turns out I was uninsured for this catastrophe cos I hadn't told the insurer I was renting. So I did a review of which of my assets I could least afford to liquidate. It was a toss up between the '75 Fender Strat in my cupboard and the 600 Dash. Guess which one won

If only your theory about centralisation had held up - and Dash holders were not in an open economic system I might have had that other node. Instead somebody else has it.  

Then again, I've still got the strat. So maybe I'm not so disappointed after all  




By the way I hope you’re now staying away from those dodgy ‘obscured’ blockchains that tell everyone they can ‘rely on math’ when in fact they can only rely on trusted third-party implementors of math.

Bit of a scam that really, but I suppose everyone needs to get their kicks somewhere

Did I say every single last coin? You should work on your reading skills and learn to not be so literal, but nice try--but at least you got to make another infographic.

[elbowface]

we are arguing: can you verify trustlessly that dash is decentralized.

Can you verify, trustlessly, that any coin is decentralized?

While you're at it, define 'trustlessly' and 'decentralized', since they're your favorite words (apart from instamine).

[generalizethis]

we are arguing: can you verify trustlessly that dash is decentralized.

Can you verify, trustlessly, that any coin is decentralized?

While you're at it, define 'trustlessly' and 'decentralized', since they're your favorite words (apart from instamine).

As concepts that we're aiming to achieve, I would say decentralized means that the power structure (whether it be mining in coins like Monero or Bitcoin, or in nodes like dash) is distributed enough that one party can't determine the outcome of votes without discussion and consensus--the mere appearance of discussion and consensus hardly counts, so let me dull that sword before you even get it out.

Trustlessly, I would define as the ability to review the functions of a coin (whether it be privacy, governance, speed, ect.) within a statistical tolerance level that accounts for risk in the form of time and level of risk.

While no current coin can claim either of these as a 100%, either or metric, the point I've been maintaining is that dash, due to the instamine and the masternode scheme will never be able to achieve these to any great degree without being able to identify each node and coin to a person and trace that history throughout time.

So here's a question for you, can you show me without the aid of trust that dash's nodes aren't in the hands of the instaminers or that those instaminers redistributed their coins?

I know someone in dashland will throw up a graphic that shows things in motion as they done over and over again, but getting in front of this so I don't have to make another post, that information can't show any more than that coins were exchanged, whether it is between the same people or new owners is a matter of pointless speculation.

Now Monero and Bitcoin and a few other coins are working to solve this, but will dashers be willing to give up their masternodes or identify themselves to show an honest redistribution? Those are the only ways in which to do it, but I'm sure someone will spout off about what we don't know about the future and some fairy dust statements, and my reply will be, "There is a way to do it today and you aren't doing it (just as you didn't do it two days after the relaunch and exasperated it with a reduction in coin emissions), so it isn't a matter of technology, like with POW mining issues, it's a matter of the community not having the will to do something about an obvious problem. At the end of the day I made my point. I think it's weird that a community that has such a shady past wants trust to be their biggest claim to the promise of decentralization.

[toknormal]

I would say decentralized means that the power structure (whether it be mining in coins like Monero or Bitcoin, or in nodes like dash) is distributed enough that one party can't determine the outcome of votes

When you say "power structure", in Dash the power structure is exactly where it is with every other coin:

 - with mining majority (and their choice of what protocol run run)
 - with commercial stakeholders (and their choice of whether to support the coin)

The "outcome of votes" as regards those executed by master nodes affects neither of those two. But then Dash has one additional "power structure" that other coins do not:

 - a monthly budget that comprises 10% of the block reward

That gets spent on proposals to further the interests and development of the coin. The ENTIRE coin supply counts towards the execution of that budget spend - not just people with masternodes. Anyone with the smallest amount of Dash can have their holding invested in Dash's reserve market and potentially influence that spend.

Right now, there are around 3700 collateralised masternodes. Of the coin supply that forms that collateral, around a few hundred (node's worth) are thought to be in the hands of so called "early adopters" or "instaminers" to use your terms. So even in this minority stockholding aspect of governance, they are well outnumbered and even if they weren't, they could still not overturn the POW majority, still not overturn the commercial stakeholding majority and still not overturn the economic majority who actually endorse Dash's value in markets. (Which is why they have to act in the coin's best aggregate interests - not their own -  if they want to protect their investment).

Finally, although I've argued that the 10% block reward budget governance is not an executive force in terms of technical and commercial protocols, it does do one other thing which is of huge strategic importance. That is to focus the voice of the coin holding population - whoever they may be - in such a way that market observers can judge the merits of their development priorities.

Whatever the outcome and however that voting population is made up, that is a huge dollop of transparency right there which other coins don't have because everyone can monitor the aspirations, concerns, priorities and achievements of the coin holding population who are putting their money where there mouth is right out in the open.

[TPTB_need_war]

The salient distinction is that mining influence in Bitcoin has nothing to do with how many tokens you own. And mining expenditure is ongoing whereas staked masternodes are only deposited once.

We've already explained this before. I am not going to explain again why staking is not secure.

Mining influence in DASH has nothing to do with how many tokens you own either. Miners govern the coin in exactly the same way as other PoW coins - they can fork a chain at any time.

Masternodes/DGBB create an additional governance layer, providing, right now, funds for all sorts of beneficial projects directly from the blockchain.

Nobody is saying it's perfect, finished or a replacement for mining. It is, however, a good working solution <in the present> to the governance issues and decision making malaise that stunt the growth of other coins.

Masternodes can corrupt the security of the InstantX and the anonymity.

Evolution is building more corruptible features on masternodes.

Masternodes concentrate the coin supply to those who own the masternodes by paying them a dividend (up to 50% per annum according a chart that was on the Dash website last year), and the masternode has no significant ongoing cost, as the stake deposit is only made once.

The decentralization of the mining is irrelevant when the coin supply is largely controlled by those who instamined and have been concentrating their percentage of the coin supply, thus they can force any protocol change they want, because ultimately it is payers who control which protocol they sign their transactions to.

I don't have time to get in a detailed debate with you, but rest assured I can destroy all your arguments when I am ready to. That time is coming... just wait...

[generalizethis]

Tok you can't assert things into being true.

"Of the coin supply that forms that collateral, around a few hundred are thought to be in the hands of so called "early adopters" or "instaminers" to use your term"

That is pure chimerical speculation on your part--no one but the instaminers know for sure what happened to those coins. Some may have sold all of them, a bit of them, none of them, who knows?

And of course everything turns into "look decentralization" because you rolled an assertion snowball down a hill and let its momentum do all the work.

Also, another fact you continual ignore is that thanks to the collection nodes, whatever was instamined could be used to gain more coins, even if masternodes don't account for all voting, the coins they collect could very well be used to determine the vote from total coins.

And again, any market argument that hinges on what's best for the coin misses that good intentions, or the appearance of good intentions, doesn't mean bad things aren't being done behind the scenes, though I guess if Evan suddenly bought a Lear, no one in dash would complain, which is really, really strange, but whatever. My point is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions and claiming that somehow someway management will do the best thing represents one of those fallacies that sparked cryptocurrencies. Or are you missing that dash doesn't hire cryptographers with those votes, but finds more ways to advertise to noobs--so I guess a steady supply of fresh meat would be fine by you, not necessarily healthy for the actual functioning coin, but good for those holding the most nodes (my guess is you don't think people will notice this aspect in all your BS).

[TPTB_need_war]

chinese miners are true freedom fighters ... which of you in the west would risk your necks to run a quasi-legal operation under a communist, totalitarian regime? They chop heads off in china, the chinese miners probably have a stronger ethos for freedom than a lot of the part-timers in the west who pay lip-service to freedom and then hand fat checks to the corrupt governments and banksters while they get the shaft from them.

Bitcoin mining has gravitated to the strongest hands, just as it was designed to be ... you cant truly know freedom until you have truly known oppression.

It may be true, but it is still not trustless decentralization.

Power corrupts absolutely and it will be no different an outcome if the power of mining is vested in too few people's hands.

[generalizethis]

chinese miners are true freedom fighters ... which of you in the west would risk your necks to run a quasi-legal operation under a communist, totalitarian regime? They chop heads off in china, the chinese miners probably have a stronger ethos for freedom than a lot of the part-timers in the west who pay lip-service to freedom and then hand fat checks to the corrupt governments and banksters while they get the shaft from them.

Bitcoin mining has gravitated to the strongest hands, just as it was designed to be ... you cant truly know freedom until you have truly known oppression.

It may be true, but it is still not trustless decentralization.

Power corrupts absolutely and it will be no different an outcome if the power of mining is vested in too few people's hands.

Every few days or so I read this as a reminder of what this is about. It's nice that it's short and there's no mention of price or investment opportunities or what coin is set to pump--just an idea developed in mind of the technology at hand. You can't kill ideas, but you can certainly corrupt them.

http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html

[TPTB_need_war]

Even without Dash's instamine and later emission cut, Masternodes are trusted third parties and thus a security no-no.

Well summarized.

[generalizethis]

how many bitmonero, bmr, mro, xmr monero were cripplemined the first 3 months?  

the question they don't want to answer.  

Ask an objective question (in which case you can answer it from a block explorer, etc.) or might as well just make up your own answer.

I really thought you are an expert in making own assumptions and giving your own answers after all that bullshit i read from you on dash ... how often did you tell us eduffield has mined almost every xcoin within the instamine days? *facepalm* (or are you in blockchain analysis now, and can prove any of the "instamine scam" - "eduffield mined almost 2 mio coins" bullshit?!)

I really hate people throwing shit, and then if the shit hits the fan, and comes back to their own face, they just say, "hey that's something totally different" LOL

Questions:

How many dash were mined in the first two hours?

How many xmr were mined in the first two hours?

How many dash were mined in the first two days?

How many xmr were mined in the first two days?

How many dash were mined in first two months?

How many xmr were mined in first two months?

How much emissions were cut from dash's total supply?

How much emissions were cut from xmr's total supply?

Do the early mining totals potentially affect dash's power centralization (yes/no)? And if so, to what potential degree?

Do the early mining totals potentially affect xmr's power centralization (yes/no)? And if so, to what potential degree?

My guess is no dasher will answer these questions with just the numbers filled in--they will attempt to skew and spin, but never answer in a straight forward and direct manner (if at all).

[generalizethis]

Thanks for the bump, macrochip. The argument on dash's superior marketing versus monero's superior design highlights very divergent methods to coin development, while dash's method allows for them to buy soda machines and girls in bikini's to further its cause, it still hasn't paid for any cryptographers to show how their coin centralizes itself into an unfair and fragile design that governments (or their own leadership) can exploit. Strange that I have to point it out and that no one in their community wants or can address it as a problem. Monero may not get the notice of the noobs, but its design is superior and those who wish to market it, and even write about it here, do so out of love for the technology and a desire to see it succeed based on merit and not hype.

Even when they wanna talk about Monero (or so they claim) in their own subreddit they end up bitching and moaning about Dash instead of trying to improve their shitty, failed product. By design or stupidity? You decide:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/4i6147/advertising_for_monero/

[Lebubar]

Decentralizationthis :




Centralizationthis :



Without mentioning, that without GUI more than 90% of all XMR must be in Polo great decentralization example kid!
How many node Monero have  (from https://monerohash.com/nodes-distribution.html)
Total nodes: 176 - Last updated: 24 minutes ago (just lol : another great decentralization example kid!)

Another shit thread from Trolleros.
YOU WILL NEVER SWALLOW DASH MARKETCAP! For fuck sake NEVER! Your coin is dying because of your fucking community of morons...

Once again: Try to make something positive for what you like, and stop talking about Dash all day long.