Bitcoin problems are pushing me to Dash ! Thanks Amanda Johnson

[ArticMine]

...

ftfy

As if large blocks in Monero won't also cause mining centralization.

It depends on the technology used. Storing the Monero blockchain on punched cards would be extremely expensive even for a major superpower's government such as the US government. 

As a baby boomer I have a somewhat different perspective on this than centennials, millennials or gen X. I was a toddler when the following picture was taken. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card#/media/File:IBM_card_storage.NARA.jpg   

[1714314633]

1714314633

[1714314633]

1714314633

[1714314633]

1714314633

[1714314633]

1714314633

[iamnotback]

It depends on the technology used.

And depends on the demand or lack thereof if txn fees skyrocket due to centralized control.

[ArticMine]

...
And the demand or lack thereof if txn fees skyrocket due to centralized control.

... and what is supposed to cause centralized control? Punched cards? Telegraph lines? Tabulating machines?

[iamnotback]

...
And the demand or lack thereof if txn fees skyrocket due to centralized control.

... and what is supposed to cause centralized control? Punched cards? Telegraph lines? Tabulating machines?

The implication above was demand that outstrips the current technology, which is plausible if you want to support microtransactions to billions of people.

But even that isn't necessary. Centralization is a natural outcome of economies-of-scale in all PoW systems (including Monero) and we already had this debate before you and you lost:

https://gist.github.com/shelby3/c0d6e0ed132be7e4577df3663c81ee09
https://gist.github.com/shelby3/67111f328822a36beb4cad1a5220eb33
https://gist.github.com/shelby3/e90a45604969f1ed64395b0b72a56487

My whitepaper goes into much greater detail and improves and expounds upon those earlier draft sections above. In particular, I totally annihilate your nonsense about mining as space heaters.

Please don't force me to embarrass you again. Because you are wasting my time by repeating the same nonsense over and over again.

Monero's days are numbered. My white paper is coming...

I suggest we just agree to continue this debate AFTER I release my white paper. I don't have time to argue with you back and forth right now.

But please stop that holier than thou crap again. Monero will have centralization problems same as Bitcoin when it scales up.

[ArticMine]

...

The implication above was demand that outstrips the current technology, which is plausible if you want to support microtransactions to billions of people.

But even that isn't necessary. Centralization is a natural outcome of economies-of-scale in all PoW systems (including Monero) and we already had this debate before you and you lost:

https://gist.github.com/shelby3/c0d6e0ed132be7e4577df3663c81ee09
https://gist.github.com/shelby3/67111f328822a36beb4cad1a5220eb33
https://gist.github.com/shelby3/e90a45604969f1ed64395b0b72a56487

My whitepaper goes into much greater detail and improves and expounds upon those earlier draft sections above. In particular, I totally annihilate your nonsense about mining as space heaters.

Please don't force me to embarrass you again. Because you are wasting my time by repeating the same nonsense over and over again.

Monero's days are numbered. My white paper is coming...

I suggest we just agree to continue this debate AFTER I release my white paper. I don't have time to argue with you back and forth right now.

But please stop that holier than thou crap again. Monero will have centralization problems same as Bitcoin when it scales up.

Actually it is you who has been repeatedly embarrassed by insisting on using the same model for Monero as for Bitcoin when the situation is fundamentally different. Monero has 1) A tail emission and 2) An adaptive blocksize limit, which Bitcoin or other similar coins such as Litecoin or Dash do not have. Ignore this difference at your peril.  It cannot have the same centralization problems as Bitcoin or other similar coins such as Litecoin or Dash, for this simple reason. There is no "holier than thou" here. The reality remains that whatever problems, if any, Monero may have in this area will be fundamentally different from those of Bitcoin or other similar coins such as Litecoin or Dash.

Furthermore who said Monero is suitable for micro transactions on the main chain. We went over this already.

I will wait for your paper and then we can discuss it, provided there a relevant analysis on Monero that does not simply extrapolate from Bitcoin.

Edit: When it comes to the economics of electricity generation and consumption, and whether it favours de-centralization or centralization  this is a field that is currently changing very fast. So I will wait for your paper and then discuss it. The goalposts may well have moved by the time your paper is out.

[dinofelis]

As if large blocks in Monero won't also cause mining centralization.

The idea is maybe not that Monero grows a lot.  It already has a more than large enough market cap to sustain a sensible underground economy.  If it wants to serve the anonymous economy and stay sufficiently under the radar, maybe it shouldn't grow much more.  It can then be used by those (few) people who want to do underground economics, and that's good enough, no ?

And if more demand for anonymous coins is needed, more coins can be invented, so that there is no "runaway" in value, and high concentrations of wealth from this, no ?  The idea is not to have monopolies, is there ?

In my opinion, this is true decentralization: myriads of coins, new ones regularly created, with (slightly) different technologies, different chains etc...  all of them small-scale and not worth being centralized, because the investment is too risky and not worth it.

[iamnotback]

As if large blocks in Monero won't also cause mining centralization.

The idea is maybe not that Monero grows a lot.  It already has a more than large enough market cap to sustain a sensible underground economy.  If it wants to serve the anonymous economy and stay sufficiently under the radar, maybe it shouldn't grow much more.  It can then be used by those (few) people who want to do underground economics, and that's good enough, no ?

And if more demand for anonymous coins is needed, more coins can be invented, so that there is no "runaway" in value, and high concentrations of wealth from this, no ?  The idea is not to have monopolies, is there ?

In my opinion, this is true decentralization: myriads of coins, new ones regularly created, with (slightly) different technologies, different chains etc...  all of them small-scale and not worth being centralized, because the investment is too risky and not worth it.

Refer to where I wrote about monetary theory recently:

Yeah thanks, let's discuss about monetary theory.

The seigniorage is the price we-the-society pay for there being confidence in the currency. For without confidence, money has no value. This is a critical point that most people under appreciate, so it is very important that readers click that link and understand more deeply the linked thread in all its detail.

The ability to get a large community to rally around one thing as money, is essential for money can't exist without confidence that it is a liquid and fairly universal unit-of-exchange.

So he who can create that confidence, gets the seigniorage.

Actually it is you who has been repeatedly embarrassed by insisting on using the same model for Monero as for Bitcoin when the situation is fundamentally different. Monero has 1) A tail emission and 2) An adaptive blocksize limit, which Bitcoin...

Edit: When it comes to the economics of electricity generation and consumption, and whether it favours de-centralization or centralization  this is a field that is currently changing very fast. So I will wait for your paper and then discuss it. The goalposts may well have moved by the time your paper is out.

Lol. If you thought I was embarrassed it was because of the inkblot in your comprehension of the issues. Centralization occurs due to economies-of-scale on hashrate. For example, propagation delay is ~0 for those who win their own blocks. I explain this all in my paper.

Well I have seen research where bacteria can be induced to produce energy. But even electricity cost and access became egalitarian, that still wouldn't change the fact that economies-of-scale in hashrate accrue (for many reasons, including economies-of-scale in hardware optimization and cooling to which no PoW algorithm can be immune).

Furthermore who said Monero is suitable for micro transactions on the main chain. We went over this already.

I see you haven't been paying attention:

Hey please husshhh. Keep this a secret please. Don't tell Blockstream et al, that side-chains are a fundamentally and insolubly broken design concept:

https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos/issues/46

Lol.  

[iamnotback]

The Dash "scam" is so impenetrable, one has to admire it.

Dash is a DAC - Deliberate Autocratic Obfuscation organization.

Assuming the allegation is true that "Evan Inc." controls the majority of masternodes given their headstart with the "buggy" instamine and that they've had favorable ROI on that initial huge share given their early adoption of masternodes and their thus concomitant control of the fake decentralized governance, then we can see that they are earn $76,000 per day in block rewards for the masternodes and Dash foundation (which allegedly gets paid back to "Evan Inc." via kickbacks, etc), then assuming they do most of their "buying from themselves to manipulate the market prices" on Poloniex (where 67% of the volume is), then at 0.1% fees, they only need to pay < $11,000 a day to keep this manipulation going.

https://bitinfocharts.com/darkcoin/
https://poloniex.com/fees/

So clearly it is economic for them. I doubt they need to be all of the volume on the exchanges, just a portion of it. So perhaps they are spending only a few $1000s per day to keep the manipulation going. And they could probably offset those costs in other ways (maybe even turning them into gains), but also shorting and taking leveraged long positions when they know they will manipulate the price a certain direction.

This is the problem with non-aggregate markets wherein one group controls a large portion of the money supply such that the decentralized float is actually quite tiny.

With Bitcoin one might argue this is more difficult because there isn't a revenue stream, except there is! The mining farms have such low costs, that they are in effect taking a huge revenue stream out of the ecosystem which can then be used to manipulate the markets.

This crypto ecosystem works for as long as the supply of new fools (new money to steal) coming into our ecosystems continue. In this way, the manipulators can continue to take the lion's share while a few speculators might make some money, but most lose. Yet with all the paid shills, they are enticed to come back and try their luck a few more times before they lost interest. But then we always have a new supply of new fools to replace those who finally give up (and gamblers don't give up easily).

Here is the rub. Dash will make you rich! You are profiting off Dash's ability to draw a steady supply of greater fools into it, which allows you to sell when you need to. While the manipulators manage the price to keep the fools coming, because the price is most always manipulated upwards. Maybe I shouldn't use the term 'fools'. But one day the music will stop playing and only a few will get out the door before the fire burns it all down. I haven't determined when and why that Minsky Moment will come. I am still working on that...

[Ayers]

despite my hate for asic coin, i admit that dash is doing great but i think it's only because investors moved their money into that, when all the coins are dumped the "money" seek for the next good investments and by luck it can happen that they all jump in the same one, this time is dash, next time who know, 0.03 is a very good price i'm looking it closely to see if it can reach a new all time high and surpass ethereum old value

[iamnotback]

despite my hate for asic coin

There is no PoW algorithm that can't at large enough scale be subjected to economies-of-scale in hardware (and electricity cost).

I studied this extensively, even having a debate with the venerable @tromp (c.f. the Ethereum Paradox thread). At the chip level maybe the best resistance you could hope for is only 10 to 100X advantage for the custom hardware. And there are other areas to achieve further economies-of-scale.

So a CPU or GPU-only coin is only an ephemeral condition. And you might not even know if someone already has a secret FPGA running and cheating everyone else.

Thus I'd prefer a widespread hardware optimized algorithm such as SHA-256 (actually I prefer replacing PoW but no one has yet shown how to do that securely and still maintain the positive attributes of PoW...although I claim to have a secret vaporware solution which hasn't been sufficiently peer reviewed).

i admit that dash is doing great

So fraud doesn't matter? If the insiders can bleed the newcomers (and our ecosystem) and produce technologically useless product, that is okay? Because we don't really want crypto to actually become adopted right. We just want to make money. Correct?

Or do you guys really believe the BS about Dash's technology and adoption plans? I am asking for marketing reasons. I want to try to understand the mentality of the people who invest in Dash.

[BagHolder010]

Ohh the nostalgic feeling I got from reading this thread, same ppl hating on DASH for the past 2 years are still here, Yet nothing to make their own Monero better. Hating on Evan with their website type developer...what was is it a gambling site?

[iamnotback]

Ohh the nostalgic feeling I got from reading this thread, same ppl hating on DASH for the past 2 years are still here, Yet nothing to make their own Monero better.

Btw, I have never owned XMR (nor Dash) and you can see from my postings that I am not a Monero shill.

I am writing objectively (even I use the word 'alleged' instead of 'proven') about the Dash situation. You don't care about fraud? Seriously? What kind of world do you want to live in? Do you deny the instamine happened? Do you deny that with the control of the instamine, "Evan Inc." would own a majority of the masternodes by now? Please don't pretend you are dumb and can't do basic math e.g. relating to compounding (even though Dash's developers couldn't even do high school level probability when they wrote the InstantX paper).

I am just trying to understand the mentality of you guys who seem to brush aside fraud. Can you please explain to me how your thinking goes?

[iamnotback]

I haven't determined when and why that Minsky Moment will come. I am still working on that...

Let's hope most of the masternodes are still on cloud providers and some hacker (or ISP insider sells out) does a widescale hack on Dash via Amazon AWS, Microsoft Azure, etc., which proves how antifragile the masternode concept is. Was Dash impacted by the AWS outage yesterday?

That might be enough to REKT Dash and cause that stampede which the tiny (true) float can't accommodate.

But I assume they are not that stupid and have diversified their masternode hosting.

Specifically I think the anonymity would be easier to break than stalling the entire blockchain. In theory (last time I checked), you'd only need access to the specific masternodes involved in a DarkSend (or what ever they name it now), to deanonymize.

[noobtrader]

fud, another Fud and More FUD... but its good,  FUD is like a viagra to DASH   

[iamnotback]

fud, another Fud and More FUD... but its good,  FUD

Which of the stated allegations is FUD specifically? Could you be specific?

They are not even my allegations. I would really like to know the truth. Please tell me the truth specifically. I am eager to know how Dash is really a honest and good system not doing the alleged misdeeds. It would make me feel much better about our ecosystem if you could convince me. Really.

And please be convincing and refute all factual details which had been provided by @smooth et al in the past.

And please don't obfuscate by filling up the thread with an overload of noise. Please present a concise, COMPLETE, and very convincing retort of @smooth's allegations. If such already exists, just link me to it.

How do you prove that given "Evan Inc." had something like a majority of the token supply after the instamine, that via compounding and higher revenue for early masternodes, that he hasn't compounded this into a supermajority holding of the money supply and thus the supply of masternodes? Are we supposed to be retarded and think he (the "Evan Inc" group) would have not compounded his control.  

We need to just say no to scammers. If you scam once you are a pariah and not to be accepted back. Sorry once trust is broken that's it.

The community is going to fight back against the scammers (because our community wants actual adoption and solutions for our world, not just bullshit and because of the crab bucket mentality). Scammers' days are numbered. Be forewarned.

Price is stable, volume is stable.
Litecoin is a second most accepted coin in the Universe.
No other coin, especially centralised coins like ETH, can compete with litecoin real adoption.
Even wikileaks accepts litecoin (proof: https://shop.wikileaks.org/donate#dlitecoin)
Call me when ethereum premine will have some real adoption besides pockets of manipulators and crooks.

[noobtrader]

Which of the stated allegations is FUD specifically? Could you be specific?

1.
Let's hope most of the masternodes are still on cloud providers and some hacker (or ISP insider sells out) does a widescale hack on Dash via Amazon AWS, Microsoft Azure, etc., which proves how antifragile the masternode concept is. Was Dash impacted by the AWS outage yesterday?

2.
That might be enough to REKT Dash and cause that stampede which the tiny (true) float can't accommodate.
But I assume they are not that stupid and have diversified their masternode hosting.

3.
Specifically I think the anonymity would be easier to break than stalling the entire blockchain. In theory (last time I checked), you'd only need access to the specific masternodes involved in a DarkSend (or what ever they name it now), to deanonymize.

[iamnotback]

Which of the stated allegations is FUD specifically? Could you be specific?

They are not even my allegations.

And please don't obfuscate by filling up the thread with an overload of noise. Please present a concise, COMPLETE, and very convincing retort of @smooth's allegations.

How do you prove that given "Evan Inc." had something like a majority of the token supply after the instamine, that via compounding and higher revenue for early masternodes, that he hasn't compounded this into a supermajority holding of the money supply and thus the supply of masternodes? Are we supposed to be retarded and think he (the "Evan Inc" group) would have not compounded his control.

(empty response)

As expected, @noobtrader has refused to respond the specific allegations of the instamine and the compounding that would have "Evan Inc." controlling a majority of the masternodes.

He refuses to provide cogent rebuttals to all the facts provided by @smooth.

Because he can't.


Technologov, are you still adamant about supporting and promoting this alleged scam?

[Ostonian]

It depends on the technology used.

And depends on the demand or lack thereof if txn fees skyrocket due to centralized control.

If the block size is increased, the transaction fee will reduce.

[iamnotback]

It depends on the technology used.

And depends on the demand or lack thereof if txn fees skyrocket due to centralized control.

If the block size is increased, the transaction fee will reduce.

Oh simple-minded pumpkin, you seem to forget that if mining is centralized (i.e. more than 50% colluding), they can set transaction fees as high as they want (they can reject any block they wish to and you can't even objectively prove they rejected it), regardless of the blocksize.

Must be another Dashtard.

[noobtrader]

Which of the stated allegations is FUD specifically? Could you be specific?

(empty response)

As expected, @noobtrader has refused to respond the specific allegations of the instamine and the compounding that would have "Evan Inc." controlling a majority of the masternodes.

He refuses to provide cogent rebuttals to all the facts provided by @smooth.

Because he can't.


Technologov, are you still adamant about supporting and promoting this alleged scam?

nice work on moving the goalpost...  

i already answer about your post which i replied to and i consider fud also i  put red number as marker so you cant miss it. however you seem miss it completely and ask me completely different thing.  

btw instamine is known fact, the difference is that i dont think of it as ill intent while you do.