[ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency

[qwizzie]

Some of these trolls are reaching new lows, which i thought was impossible these days.
Congratz dnaleor, you just beat AdamWhite & iCEBREAKER  

i am totally with you brother
lol
this is getting serious hilarious here
 

Its about time we got a good comedian in our forum to entertain us.
I guess we found our comedian. 

[1715564232]

1715564232

[1715564232]

1715564232

[1715564232]

1715564232

[1715564232]

1715564232

[dnaleor]

....
so... You guys have pretty ladies and we have real decent working technology that is appreciated by several well known reputable people
If you want snake oil covered girls, great. Go for it.

We have decent tech, no girls. I can live with that.

Lets have a look at one of your previous posts on that, one you had no reply for btw:

...
1) the fact that you need liquidity providers to have somewhat usable mixing (still very slow) shows clearly that your system is flawed
2) the "decentralized autonomous organization" is neither decentralized, nor autonomous as it requires a "fund manager" for the liquidity providers.
3) instantX is a crazy form of "proof of stake" which is just flawed by design. You can't get consensus when miners decide to mine a double spend in stead of the "locked" transaction.

Slow and will probably won't be near instant even with thousands involved (unless instant transactions come into it), the liquidity providers are a test for implementing it as a running function rather than a feature.

Anyone can propose a project to fund, its easier to get a handle on it on dashwhale than explain it but all sorts of budgets are being discussed. It costs 5 dash to put it to a vote which you get back if it passes:
https://www.dashwhale.org/index.php?page=budget&action=active

InstantX uses quorums, well established in distributed computing and the miners seal it all up and make it final each block:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum_%28distributed_computing%29

I didn't reply because it's so obvious it is flawed, that it doesn't really need explaining. But hey, let's go for it:

Monero has instant mixing, no masternodes needed.

Yeah, anyone can propose a project for Monero too, we have a forum funding system that already paid several developers. And you know what? These people are paid by donations, NOT by inflation. That's a huge difference... We trust that our community want to invest in the development, you guys need to "steal" from holders of the coin to pay for development by inflating the supply. (or if you look at it from another angle, you steal from miners and "masternode operators") Did you ever wonder what would happen when there are no more "free coins" to hand out?

InstantX is some kind of "hard mempool". That is not secure. The ledger is written by the miners. So accepting an InstantX is risky.  

Some of these trolls are reaching new lows, which i thought was impossible these days.
Congratz dnaleor, you just beat AdamWhite & iCEBREAKER  

i am totally with you brother
lol
this is getting serious hilarious here
 

Its about time we got a good comedian in our forum to entertain us.
I guess we found our comedian.  

Don't hope for it.
My posts here already are a waste of time because you guys don't seem to understand what the problem is.

[qwizzie]

Dont mind me guys, i'm just enjoying the show.. i just hope he doesn't exspect tips aftwards.

[toknormal]

I didn't reply because it's so obvious it is flawed...Monero has instant mixing, no masternodes needed

Thats because Monero mixes fake data with real. Dash mixes real with real in a way thats consistent with the transparency requirements demanded of a trustless, unbacked currency.

On the other hand, Monero's whole ethos is not to act as a currency but as an encrypted, distributed cyphering system which has little to do with establishing a new base monetary media.

[illodin]

Monero has instant mixing, no masternodes needed.

Yes, the approaches are different. That's pretty much understood.

Yeah, anyone can propose a project for Monero too, we have a forum funding system that already paid several developers. And you know what? These people are paid by donations, NOT by inflation. That's a huge difference... We trust that our community want to invest in the development, you guys need to "steal" from holders of the coin to pay for development by inflating the supply. (or if you loo at it from another angle, you steal from miners and "masternode operators") Did you ever wonder what would happen when there are no more "free coins" to hand out?

The inflation has not increased after the blockchain funding was activated. What do you mean?

Having a funding mechanism built into the protocol doesn't mean a dev couldn't create a gambling site and use the profits for development or people couldn't still donate if their preferred project doesn't get the necessary votes from the network.

InstantX is some kind of "hard mempool". That is not secure. The ledger is written by the miners. So accepting an InstantX is risky.  

Nothing is 100% secure. But please elaborate. Could you describe an attack vector that could realistically be used to perform a double spend?

[dnaleor]

Well I'm not really familiar enough with Monero to answer that, I've heard some criticisms that appear valid but hey, we get that every day here too. And the point of the system is to ensure fungibility, one of the fundamentals of sound money. Assuming Moneros system works you may also want to make that clear.

You clearly don't know what fungibility is. You need to have it either for every output or you just don't have it.
Mixing needs to be the default.

InstantX is some kind of "hard mempool". That is not secure. The ledger is written by the miners. So accepting an InstantX is risky.  

Nothing is 100% secure. But please elaborate. Could you describe an attack vector that could realistically be used to perform a double spend?

Miners can just mine the blocks they want. The data in the "hard mempool" isn't kept forever, so eventually, those instantX transactions will be dropped from the network, making it possible for a double spend attack to succeed.

And this is assuming your masternodes are actually locking transactions, because if I understand correctly, they aren't paid for locking transactions.

[the-baker]

My posts here already are a waste of time because you guys don't seem to understand what the problem is.

That might have something to do with your communications skills. Just saying...

[the-baker]

Miners can just mine the blocks they want. The data in the "hard mempool" isn't kept forever, so eventually, those instantX transactions will be dropped from the network, making it possible for a double spend attack to succeed.

And this is assuming your masternodes are actually locking transactions, because if I understand correctly, they aren't paid for locking transactions.

AFAIK if a lock isn't achieved before the next block, it falls back to regular pow confirmations. Or am I missing something?

EDIT: Also, isn't what you're describing simply a 51% attack?

[dnaleor]

Miners can just mine the blocks they want. The data in the "hard mempool" isn't kept forever, so eventually, those instantX transactions will be dropped from the network, making it possible for a double spend attack to succeed.

And this is assuming your masternodes are actually locking transactions, because if I understand correctly, they aren't paid for locking transactions.

AFAIK if a lock isn't achieved before the next block, it falls back to regular pow confirmations. Or am I missing something?

You can have double spend attacks, you can have flooding the network with a bunch of instantX transactions, you can have DDOS against masternodes... All of these attacks are possible and will make InstantX unusable even without going into the details on how InstantX works.

[alex-ru]

We have no girls. We can't produce any software, but we can professionally troll other projects!

Special video edition "Trolls don't love Dash"

[illodin]

Well I'm not really familiar enough with Monero to answer that, I've heard some criticisms that appear valid but hey, we get that every day here too. And the point of the system is to ensure fungibility, one of the fundamentals of sound money. Assuming Moneros system works you may also want to make that clear.

You clearly don't know what fungibility is. You need to have it either for every output or you just don't have it.
Mixing needs to be the default.

InstantX is some kind of "hard mempool". That is not secure. The ledger is written by the miners. So accepting an InstantX is risky.  

Nothing is 100% secure. But please elaborate. Could you describe an attack vector that could realistically be used to perform a double spend?

Miners can just mine the blocks they want. The data in the "hard mempool" isn't kept forever, so eventually, those instantX transactions will be dropped from the network, making it possible for a double spend attack to succeed.

And this is assuming your masternodes are actually locking transactions, because if I understand correctly, they aren't paid for locking transactions.

Ok thanks. Now the next question, how many % of the mining hashrate do you estimate an attack like that would require from the attacker, if we assume the tx lock stays for example 24 hours?

[AzzAz]

My posts here already are a waste of time because you guys don't seem to understand what the problem is.

Ok, BYE, see you in next DASH conference :-)

[dnaleor]

We have no girls. We can't produce any software, but we can professionally troll other projects!

Special video edition "Trolls don't love Dash"

please don't create fake quotes.

We have usable software, we do have a GUI (although not an "official" one. Most bitcoin users don't use Bitcoin-QT either by the way)  
It's DASH that can not create a real working digital cash... You guys are centralized and have very slow mixing as a result. Good job.

[dnaleor]

Well I'm not really familiar enough with Monero to answer that, I've heard some criticisms that appear valid but hey, we get that every day here too. And the point of the system is to ensure fungibility, one of the fundamentals of sound money. Assuming Moneros system works you may also want to make that clear.

You clearly don't know what fungibility is. You need to have it either for every output or you just don't have it.
Mixing needs to be the default.

InstantX is some kind of "hard mempool". That is not secure. The ledger is written by the miners. So accepting an InstantX is risky.  

Nothing is 100% secure. But please elaborate. Could you describe an attack vector that could realistically be used to perform a double spend?

Miners can just mine the blocks they want. The data in the "hard mempool" isn't kept forever, so eventually, those instantX transactions will be dropped from the network, making it possible for a double spend attack to succeed.

And this is assuming your masternodes are actually locking transactions, because if I understand correctly, they aren't paid for locking transactions.

Ok thanks. Now the next question, how many % of the mining hashrate do you estimate an attack like that would require from the attacker, if we assume the tx lock stays for example 24 hours?

When the network is flooded with instantX transactions, your masternodes won't be able to keep everything in that 'hard mempool' for 24h and for sure some double spends will slip through.

[Walter_S]

Yeah, anyone can propose a project for Monero too, we have a forum funding system that already paid several developers. And you know what? These people are paid by donations, NOT by inflation. That's a huge difference... We trust that our community want to invest in the development, you guys need to "steal" from holders of the coin to pay for development by inflating the supply. (or if you look at it from another angle, you steal from miners and "masternode operators") Did you ever wonder what would happen when there are no more "free coins" to hand out?

You quite clearly don't understand how the blockchain rewards and voting system works.. Nobody 'steals' anything. Your statement doesn't even make sense.  If stakeholders don't vote for development work then it isn't funded. Seems fair to me. These funds are from the existing blockchain reward system, currently allocated  45% miners 45% masternodes and 10% budget. The 10% budget is up for grabs if projects are voted and funded, else the 'coins' never get created.

If anything, the mechanism is likely to be deflationary, especially if projects aren't voted for and the funds allocated, because they get burned. Please correct your post.

Walter

[r4vani]

let me see, where do we stand with Dash ?

Marketcap : 5th for some time now --> check
Number of active masternodes : new ATH --> check
ANN Dash Forum : most viewed thread --> check
Altcoin most active development --> check
PR & Marketing : in startup phase --> check

We are under colonialism Bitcoin  --> check

we compare ourselves with Bitcoin (BTC/DASH) --> check

BTC big holder control our market  --> check

We need to separate ourselves from the world of coins, as i say  Dash is new money system technology.(We need to change our vision)

[Macrochip]

Thanks again for proving that Moronero has shit to show for, except baseless attacks against its vastly superior competition.

[AzzAz]

Thanks again for proving that Moronero has shit to show for, except baseless attacks against its vastly superior competition.

Please Evan and others give this guy 2 minutes to speak at next conference so he don't need to use fliers.

[Macrochip]

Aww, I was enjoying that

Huh? What happened? Did I scare him away?

[qwizzie]

Trolls are good for one thing and one thing only :

Providing a good laugh once a while to anyone reading this forum


Unifying and strenghtening a community


For sacrifice purposes, to appease the crypto gods


To put on ignore