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

[curious009]

Hi, i am one of the most dum user here...can someone shed some light on On-Chain Scaling and Off-chain scaling.

My understanding is that Dash is going towards On-Chain scaling, where as Bitcoin might go with Off-chain using lightning network... What are the advantages/disadvantages of these two methods in long term and short term...!!!!

Why did Evan choose On-Chain solution ?

Thanks...

[toknormal]

Hi, i am one of the most dum user here...can someone shed some light on On-Chain Scaling and Off-chain scaling.

Off chain scaling is where the transactions are handled by a proxy network and then aggregated into a single 'dump' into the blockchain. If you've ever used an exchange like Poloniex or Coinbase - that's an example of the approach that off-chain scaling would take.

When you're on the exchange you can trade away all day without making any blockchain transactions. Thousands of trades can occur until you end up with a final aggregate balance. Then at some point you notionally withdraw that balance into the blockchain. So the exchange has helped the bitcoin economy scale because it kept all that traffic off the blockchain and only aggregated it into one withdrawal.

Another example is the Lightning network in bitcoin. This plans to work like the exchange - where 'accounts' are kept of aggregate transaction balances between transacting parties and dumped into the blockchain at discrete intervals like the exchange deposit/withdrawal system. The only difference between the Lightning Network and the exchange is that Lightning will be decentralised and notionally trustless.

On-chain scaling on the other hand is about increasing the capacity of the core blockchain protocol and infrastructure so that the traffic doesn't have to be buffered by a secondary network. All interactions are made directly with the blockchain and cleared in realtime.

Why did Evan choose On-Chain solution ?

2 reasons:

1. It's what users want and expect. Cryptocurrency is based on a cash monetary archetype. Cash is a realtime settlement medium
2. Whatever approach you take, you need on-chain scaling anyway because the more off-chain networks you have generating economic activity, the more demand there will be at the clearing layer

Consider the lightning network for example. It doesn't actually scale the bitcoin at all. It just generates even more traffic for it to process by capturing new markets such as movie watching charged by the second and so on. So you still need to somehow scale the core capacity of the blockchain to process throughput.

[TanteStefana2]

Hey guys, only 1 more day to vote for this month's proposals.  One of our long time excellent community members, agnewpickens , a publisher, proposed to do a huge ad in his new publication, Burnt Hamster Minestrone.

I really think this one deserves your second look.  It's quite a fun little rag and stylish too, for the young hip generation. It'd be really cool to be an ad in what could potentially be a hot new magazine's first edition!  https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/proposal-burnt-hamster-minestrone.15394/#post-130240

[TaoOfSaatoshi]

CATV | Flying High: A Dash Aerosports Update



https://youtu.be/cyiQbP4i4QU

#DashNation #CashAlternative

[TanteStefana2]

Hi, i am one of the most dum user here...can someone shed some light on On-Chain Scaling and Off-chain scaling.

Off chain scaling is where the transactions are handled by a proxy network and then aggregated into a single 'dump' into the blockchain. If you've ever used an exchange like Poloniex or Coinbase - that's an example of the approach that off-chain scaling would take.

When you're on the exchange you can trade away all day without making any blockchain transactions. Thousands of trades can occur until you end up with a final aggregate balance. Then at some point you notionally withdraw that balance into the blockchain. So the exchange has helped the bitcoin economy scale because it kept all that traffic off the blockchain and only aggregated it into one withdrawal.

Another example is the Lightning network in bitcoin. This plans to work like the exchange - where 'accounts' are kept of aggregate transaction balances between transacting parties and dumped into the blockchain at discrete intervals like the exchange deposit/withdrawal system. The only difference between the Lightning Network and the exchange is that Lightning will be decentralised and notionally trustless.

On-chain scaling on the other hand is about increasing the capacity of the core blockchain protocol and infrastructure so that the traffic doesn't have to be buffered by a secondary network. All interactions are made directly with the blockchain and cleared in realtime.

Why did Evan choose On-Chain solution ?

2 reasons:

1. It's what users want and expect. Cryptocurrency is based on a cash monetary archetype. Cash is a realtime settlement medium
2. Whatever approach you take, you need on-chain scaling anyway because the more off-chain networks you have generating economic activity, the more demand there will be at the clearing layer

Consider the lightning network for example. It doesn't actually scale the bitcoin at all. It just generates even more traffic for it to process by capturing new markets such as movie watching charged by the second and so on. So you still need to somehow scale the core capacity of the blockchain to process throughput.

Also, off chain scaling solutions are centralized.  They are not run by a trustless network.  They are to be run by TRUSTED entities.  This destroys the whole purpose of crypto currencies.  However it's big fat worm bait to the existing banking industry, who are obvious choices to run them.

[curious009]

Hi, i am one of the most dum user here...can someone shed some light on On-Chain Scaling and Off-chain scaling.

Off chain scaling is where the transactions are handled by a proxy network and then aggregated into a single 'dump' into the blockchain. If you've ever used an exchange like Poloniex or Coinbase - that's an example of the approach that off-chain scaling would take.

When you're on the exchange you can trade away all day without making any blockchain transactions. Thousands of trades can occur until you end up with a final aggregate balance. Then at some point you notionally withdraw that balance into the blockchain. So the exchange has helped the bitcoin economy scale because it kept all that traffic off the blockchain and only aggregated it into one withdrawal.

Another example is the Lightning network in bitcoin. This plans to work like the exchange - where 'accounts' are kept of aggregate transaction balances between transacting parties and dumped into the blockchain at discrete intervals like the exchange deposit/withdrawal system. The only difference between the Lightning Network and the exchange is that Lightning will be decentralised and notionally trustless.

On-chain scaling on the other hand is about increasing the capacity of the core blockchain protocol and infrastructure so that the traffic doesn't have to be buffered by a secondary network. All interactions are made directly with the blockchain and cleared in realtime.

Why did Evan choose On-Chain solution ?

2 reasons:

1. It's what users want and expect. Cryptocurrency is based on a cash monetary archetype. Cash is a realtime settlement medium
2. Whatever approach you take, you need on-chain scaling anyway because the more off-chain networks you have generating economic activity, the more demand there will be at the clearing layer

Consider the lightning network for example. It doesn't actually scale the bitcoin at all. It just generates even more traffic for it to process by capturing new markets such as movie watching charged by the second and so on. So you still need to somehow scale the core capacity of the blockchain to process throughput.

Thanks a lot for the detailed reply... sure this helps..
Does this mean that lightning network will really just accumulate transactions at the peak-time and dump them on blockchain during off peak hours (like on weekends), which might not be really scaling, but just adjusting and spreading transactions evenly over a longer time period So it is really a short term solution which works only until off peak times also get fully loaded (Like long weekend shopping !!!) ?? Is my understanding correct ? Then how does it prevent double spend ? if things are kept off the blockchain for sometime period not everyone will know if that money is already spent.

Does Dash's "instant send" does something similar ? I tried Dash instant sent for sending a small amount, but it also prevented me from spending rest of my balance, may be until previous transaction got confirmed on blockchain !!! then how will someone use wallet more than once even if he have extra money, until previous transaction synchronized with blockchain ? Sure I am missing something here

Why NEM and few others can scale more even today ? NEM seem to have some "new more efficient code".. but why is that better than Dash's code ?
 
Thanks in advance..
 

[TanteStefana2]

Thanks a lot for the detailed reply... sure this helps..
Does this mean that lightning network will really just accumulate transactions at the peak-time and dump them on blockchain during off peak hours (like on weekends), which might not be really scaling, but just adjusting and spreading transactions evenly over a longer time period So it is really a short term solution which works only until off peak times also get fully loaded (Like long weekend shopping !!!) ?? Is my understanding correct ? Then how does it prevent double spend ? if things are kept off the blockchain for sometime period not everyone will know if that money is already spent.

No, you stay at your "bank" or lightening network until you want to exit.  At that point, you pay the fees to re-enter Bitcoin.  All the rest won't be on any block chain but your "bank" will probably trade off chain, just like they do with fiat, amongst themselves.  Maybe they will do so through the bitcoin blockchain in batches.  But since that is expensive, I would wager they'll just trade like they do today, with escrow, etc... just like today, for the majority of transactions and only use the Bitcoin blockchain when time is of the essence.

Does Dash's "instant send" does something similar ? I tried Dash instant sent for sending a small amount, but it also prevented me from spending rest of my balance, may be until previous transaction got confirmed on blockchain !!! then how will someone use wallet more than once even if he have extra money, until previous transaction synchronized with blockchain ? Sure I am missing something here

I'm not sure what happened to your instant send transaction, but it should arrive instantly confirmed in the receiving address and spendable in 1 confirmation, unless I remember wrongly and it's instantly spendable?  It should have nothing to do with the rest of your unspent balance.

But instant send does nothing like LN.  The network selects a quorum of MNs (currently 10 MNs are randomly chosen) who review and lock the transaction.  The transaction then can not be double spent, it is locked, there is no way to reverse it.  It can take however long to get this transaction actually on the blockchain (assuming one day we have full blocks, currently it is rarely confirmed later than the next block) but it still can not be reversed or double-spent.

This is how instant send works, basically.  it gives you the equivalent of 5 confirmations instantly, with the 6th an actual confirmation/entry.  This is only done due to extreme caution.  There has been no known issue with IS and the one block confirmation will likely be removed in the future.

Why NEM and few others can scale more even today ? NEM seem to have some "new more efficient code".. but why is that better than Dash's code ?
 
Thanks in advance..

[/quote]

Sorry, I know nothing of NEM

But I will say this.  Bitcoin's blockchain has been proven as is.  It preserves all the most important information so you can follow the "coins" from creation to it's current "splatter" This makes it a fully auditable blockchain.  Dash intends to keep it.  The plan for scaling is the plan Satoshi Nakamoto initially intended, which is to build the network's power.  The thing is, Bitcoin never incentivised their network.  It's a voluntary network.  Subsequently, when the power required to run a node is more than a hobbyist can afford, they give up on altruism.  

Dash pays collateralized nodes to provide minimal specifications.  If MNs are required to run large data centers, then that's what they will have to do or they will not be paid.  If we grow so big, you can be assured it will still be profitable.

And if any GOOD scaling solutions are discovered, you can be assured Dash will implement them.

[IMZ]

Hi, i am one of the most dum user here...can someone shed some light on On-Chain Scaling and Off-chain scaling.

Off chain scaling is where the transactions are handled by a proxy network and then aggregated into a single 'dump' into the blockchain. If you've ever used an exchange like Poloniex or Coinbase - that's an example of the approach that off-chain scaling would take.

When you're on the exchange you can trade away all day without making any blockchain transactions. Thousands of trades can occur until you end up with a final aggregate balance. Then at some point you notionally withdraw that balance into the blockchain. So the exchange has helped the bitcoin economy scale because it kept all that traffic off the blockchain and only aggregated it into one withdrawal.

Another example is the Lightning network in bitcoin. This plans to work like the exchange - where 'accounts' are kept of aggregate transaction balances between transacting parties and dumped into the blockchain at discrete intervals like the exchange deposit/withdrawal system. The only difference between the Lightning Network and the exchange is that Lightning will be decentralised and notionally trustless.

On-chain scaling on the other hand is about increasing the capacity of the core blockchain protocol and infrastructure so that the traffic doesn't have to be buffered by a secondary network. All interactions are made directly with the blockchain and cleared in realtime.

Why did Evan choose On-Chain solution ?

Ta for this.

2 reasons:

1. It's what users want and expect. Cryptocurrency is based on a cash monetary archetype. Cash is a realtime settlement medium
2. Whatever approach you take, you need on-chain scaling anyway because the more off-chain networks you have generating economic activity, the more demand there will be at the clearing layer

Consider the lightning network for example. It doesn't actually scale the bitcoin at all. It just generates even more traffic for it to process by capturing new markets such as movie watching charged by the second and so on. So you still need to somehow scale the core capacity of the blockchain to process throughput.

[hashmoon]

craig wright  said  our (bitcoin) frontend wallet still suck after 8 years ..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAcOnvOVquo&t=10668s

[NibiruHybrid]

Dash WordPress WooCommerce Plugin Proposal Update - Dash Force News

It goes without saying that ecommerce is a huge segment of the marketplace. For Dash to truly become Digital Cash it needs to have a full suite of tools to be easily integrated into online stores and shopping carts.  WordPress is one of the most popular content management systems (CMS) currently in use (including this website) so having a method to use Dash on WordPress is important.  Last year a treasury proposal was funded to fill this need.

Read more: https://www.dashforcenews.com/dash-wordpress-woocommerce-plugin-proposal-update/

Dash Force News 3 Amigos Podcast Episode 6 - Dash Force News

The Dash Force News Three Amigos podcast enters its sixth installment as we three Dash Force partners chat about whats new in Dash and cryptocurrency, and field questions from the audience.

We chat about Craig Wright coming back to make a splash with Bitcoin, Dash Evolution’s ambitious upgrade and its ins and outs, governance questions, and more. We also talk internal happenings including cross-network communication and how to improve each sub-DAO organization’s communication with the community at large.

Thanks for everyone who dropped in to say hi or leave a question. We’ll be doing this again at 3pm EST, so make sure you’re watching!

Read more: https://www.dashforcenews.com/dash-force-news-3-amigos-podcast-episode-6/

[curious009]

Thanks a lot for the detailed reply... sure this helps..
Does this mean that lightning network will really just accumulate transactions at the peak-time and dump them on blockchain during off peak hours (like on weekends), which might not be really scaling, but just adjusting and spreading transactions evenly over a longer time period So it is really a short term solution which works only until off peak times also get fully loaded (Like long weekend shopping !!!) ?? Is my understanding correct ? Then how does it prevent double spend ? if things are kept off the blockchain for sometime period not everyone will know if that money is already spent.

No, you stay at your "bank" or lightening network until you want to exit.  At that point, you pay the fees to re-enter Bitcoin.  All the rest won't be on any block chain but your "bank" will probably trade off chain, just like they do with fiat, amongst themselves.  Maybe they will do so through the bitcoin blockchain in batches.  But since that is expensive, I would wager they'll just trade like they do today, with escrow, etc... just like today, for the majority of transactions and only use the Bitcoin blockchain when time is of the essence.

Does Dash's "instant send" does something similar ? I tried Dash instant sent for sending a small amount, but it also prevented me from spending rest of my balance, may be until previous transaction got confirmed on blockchain !!! then how will someone use wallet more than once even if he have extra money, until previous transaction synchronized with blockchain ? Sure I am missing something here

I'm not sure what happened to your instant send transaction, but it should arrive instantly confirmed in the receiving address and spendable in 1 confirmation, unless I remember wrongly and it's instantly spendable?  It should have nothing to do with the rest of your unspent balance.

But instant send does nothing like LN.  The network selects a quorum of MNs (currently 10 MNs are randomly chosen) who review and lock the transaction.  The transaction then can not be double spent, it is locked, there is no way to reverse it.  It can take however long to get this transaction actually on the blockchain (assuming one day we have full blocks, currently it is rarely confirmed later than the next block) but it still can not be reversed or double-spent.

This is how instant send works, basically.  it gives you the equivalent of 5 confirmations instantly, with the 6th an actual confirmation/entry.  This is only done due to extreme caution.  There has been no known issue with IS and the one block confirmation will likely be removed in the future.

Why NEM and few others can scale more even today ? NEM seem to have some "new more efficient code".. but why is that better than Dash's code ?
 
Thanks in advance..

Sorry, I know nothing of NEM

But I will say this.  Bitcoin's blockchain has been proven as is.  It preserves all the most important information so you can follow the "coins" from creation to it's current "splatter" This makes it a fully auditable blockchain.  Dash intends to keep it.  The plan for scaling is the plan Satoshi Nakamoto initially intended, which is to build the network's power.  The thing is, Bitcoin never incentivised their network.  It's a voluntary network.  Subsequently, when the power required to run a node is more than a hobbyist can afford, they give up on altruism.  

Dash pays collateralized nodes to provide minimal specifications.  If MNs are required to run large data centers, then that's what they will have to do or they will not be paid.  If we grow so big, you can be assured it will still be profitable.

And if any GOOD scaling solutions are discovered, you can be assured Dash will implement them.
[/quote]

Thats great... thanks a lot...

[alevlaslo]

Dash is the strongest coin, it falls less than others

[NibiruHybrid]

The Scaling Debate Is Over, Not Just for Bitcoin - Dash Force News

“Scaling” is one of those blockchain world buzzwords that sounds both cool and urgent (Don’t believe me? Next time you want to ditch a family function, tell them you can’t go because you’re at a blockchain scaling conference all weekend. Trust me, it’ll work). But more importantly, it’s actually, legitimately one of the most important issues facing distributed ledger technology: how can we make this stuff work just as great when everyone’s trying to use it. This scaling debate has raged for years now, but it has finally drawn to a close. Why? Because it’s time to start actually trying the stuff we’re talking about.

Read more: https://www.dashforcenews.com/scaling-debate-not-just-bitcoin/

[qwizzie]

When i try to visit the dashforcenews site (https://www.dashforcenews.com/scaling-debate-not-just-bitcoin/)
it shows the following :



FYI

[tungfa]

When i try to visit the dashforcenews site (https://www.dashforcenews.com/scaling-debate-not-just-bitcoin/)
it shows the following :
....

FYI

works fine for me !


Dash DanielDias + RoceloLopes at CoinBR
(Olla Brazil)

https://youtu.be/_AagS_a0dmo

[alevlaslo]

July 7 the decision point of traders

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8q7wS6bgk1bZE1rQ3F4akI1YzA

[NibiruHybrid]

Fund more DAO’s in Dash Proposal Review - Dash Force News

Fund more DAOs/Co-ops for treasury scaling?  Owner: rion  5 DASH  (added on 2017-04-26) Votes: 735 Yes / 185 No / 110 Abstain.  

This was submitted as a governance question asking the masternodes to make a decision on:
Do you want to fund more cooperatives/sub-DAOs/teams/groups for treasury scaling?
Yes  (735 votes 71%)
 I see the problem; I generally agree with the proposed solution
 I want to encourage more teams (co-ops) to submit proposals
No (185 votes 18%)
 I see the problem, but I’m opposed to the proposed solution
 I don’t see the problem; nothing needs to be solved
Abstain (110 votes 11%)
 I have considered the information, but I don’t have an opinion
 I am not strongly in favor or opposed
 I don’t like the way the question is phrased

It seems significant that 71% of the voting masternodes agree that more teams should be created.  I think it is important to explore where Dash currently stands.

Read more: https://www.dashforcenews.com/fund-daos-dash-proposal-review/

[MasterMined710]

Ethereum Ran Into Two Problems Dash Long Since Fixed


As Bitcoin’s usability declines, Ethereum has become a popular substitute for the largest cryptocurrency. Unfortunately, this has led to the rise of some of the same issues facing Bitcoin: scalability and privacy. While it’s understandable that any major cryptocoin would eventually have to deal with similar factors, Dash has already solved both of these problems. Years ago....

https://www.dashforcenews.com/ethereum-ran-two-problems-dash-long-since-fixed/

[NibiruHybrid]

Dash Labs, Third Dash Organization Headed by Founder Evan Duffield, Expands - Dash Force News

Evan Duffield is expanding the Dash Labs team to grow the third major organization in the Dash network.

Dash’s founder, Duffield stepped away from the Core team earlier this year, handing off leadership to current CEO Ryan Taylor and shutting down his masternodes in order to focus less on the day-to-day of the coin’s operations. In order to help “future-proof” Dash, Duffield now heads up Dash Labs, which will include custom open-source hardware creation for the long-term scaling of the network.

https://www.dashforcenews.com/dash-labs-third-dash-organization-headed-founder-evan-duffield-expands/

[MasterMined710]

How Dash Governance Incentivizes Prudent Decision-Making


A big hot-topic in the cryptocurrency world is governance, who gets to make the decisions to run the network. This question is so important that it split Ethereum in two, and threatens to do the same to Bitcoin this year. A well-structured decision-making process is essential to the long-term viability of any project, and digital assets are no exception.

Dash was one of the very first to have a thoroughly-intentioned governance system, and we have that to thank for a very stable and drama-free community over the years. However, there have been some criticisms that the entry price point to being able to have a masternode and vote on governance decisions, once only a few thousand dollars, is now far too high. As such, “community-based governance” is the concept du jour in the cryptoverse, with many clamoring for everyone to get a vote in how coins are run. This might not be the best idea right away, and here’s why I think Dash has it right in delaying implementing a more purely democratic system...

https://www.dashforcenews.com/dash-governance-incentivizes-prudent-decision-making/