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

[dihydrogenmonoxide]

Sneak peek on what is coming up

'Wizard' lol reminds me of 1997. Isn't enough hatred piled on the wizard yet that they can change the installer name?

Mac version plsx./

What are you suggesting instead of wizard?

Angel !  

We should ask Jessica Alba to make a cameo appearance during the install.

Time for a poll 

[Facenose]

Sneak peek on what is coming up

'Wizard' lol reminds me of 1997. Isn't enough hatred piled on the wizard yet that they can change the installer name?

Mac version plsx./

You don't need a mac version.. you just drag it out the dmg...

I thought this must be for more than just the QT wallet 'wizard.' Im not up on all these windows "features."

[Facenose]

What are you suggesting instead of wizard?

Warlock clearly.

Sorry I just remember thinking the name was retarded at 12. Shocking that it hasn't changed but nor has the OS.

[oblox]

Sneak peek on what is coming up

'Wizard' lol reminds me of 1997. Isn't enough hatred piled on the wizard yet that they can change the installer name?

Mac version plsx./

What are you suggesting instead of wizard?

Installer.

[r4vani]

Sneak peek on what is coming up

       


         

[from https://darkcointalk.org/threads/windows-installer-artworks.1751/#post-11727]

dark need setup +1 raze

[r4vani]

4h

[patrolman]

I have DRK fat stacks and I'm fine with the idea. But there is the point that it is meant to be integral. Why should I get better anon just because I can afford it? Well, duh. That answers itself. BECAUSE I CAN AFFORD IT. Same reason I'm buying a Tesla Model S and you're not. Fairness has not a damn thing to do with it.

But your point is still valid. I guess it really depends on how this fattens the blockchain. Those adding fat should pay a little more. And they should pay it to the people who have to host it and mix it, the MNs. But, the bottom line question is really not there... We know there is a disparity, but is it enough to care?

Is it enough fat to warrant charging more?

In my view, fat should always need a proportional price to pay to prevent bloat attacks. If someone wants to bloat the blockchain with zero cost or low cost, that's a problem. You need to penalize attackers who can add gigabytes of bloat for peanuts (in terms of cost).

I agree, but the socialists want to turn the argument backwards and make it a "No fair, he gets to buy more anon!" I get to buy more ammo, too! Come and take it!

But the way logic is chasing this discussion, I think any bloat would be negligible to the point that it doesn't matter. Oh, and another cool idea... If it were 10 deep, change could be issued at different depths... What a mess! No way anyone would ever trace that shit...

I imagine most of those supporting extra fees for the MasterNodes are MN owners or those with the resources available to setupone or more MNs. DRK is not some consumable good with apreciable craftsmanship of superior components. If DRK is to become widespread, its main purpose is to be used as money. A medium of exchange. I think we all know how easy is to copy code when it is open source and most would agree that this project won't be successful if it the DrakSend(+) source code doesn't become availble. In this case it could be copied and the lack of anonymity fees being touted as a feature of another coin. Most people do not need to pay extra to exhange cash or gold for other goods in exchange for more anonymity.

That said, I see where you are both coming from and I think having a fee for greater anonymity could be a good way of avoiding blockchain bloat. But not if the standard option is a sub-par anonymity solution (I'm not saying it will be) and you need to pay fees for a reasonable level of anonymity.

edit: substituted in reasonable for higher

[Brilliantrocket]

Yeah, there's absolutely no reason to charge exorbitant fees. Why undermine one of the biggest attractive features of cryptocurrencies?

[stilgars]

Yeah, there's absolutely no reason to charge exorbitant fees. Why undermine one of the biggest attractive features of cryptocurrencies?

I concur, it is the stupidest idea ever to prevent mass adoption of the feature, and the coin.

[salmion]

Yeah, there's absolutely no reason to charge exorbitant fees. Why undermine one of the biggest attractive features of cryptocurrencies?

I concur, it is the stupidest idea ever to prevent mass adoption of the feature, and the coin.

+1 we need to establish ourselves as absolute widest adopted no.1 private coin.
Not provide easy routes for copy coins to usurp that title.

[stilgars]

Yeah, there's absolutely no reason to charge exorbitant fees. Why undermine one of the biggest attractive features of cryptocurrencies?

I concur, it is the stupidest idea ever to prevent mass adoption of the feature, and the coin.

+1 we need to establish ourselves as absolute widest adopted no.1 private coin.
Not provide easy routes for copy coins to usurp that title.

If fat there is indeed in the blockchain, it could be deal with at the later stage but we need need the feature/coin to be massively used FIRST before putting some fence in place. Pure greed motivates those suggesting otherwise.

[JGCMiner]

Yeah, there's absolutely no reason to charge exorbitant fees. Why undermine one of the biggest attractive features of cryptocurrencies?

I concur, it is the stupidest idea ever to prevent mass adoption of the feature, and the coin.

I don't think I saw anybody suggesting exorbitant fees. This overreaction is rather absurd.

If it costs nearly nothing to bloat up the blockchain then that is an obvious attack vector that could destroy the coin. Can't have a decentralized currency if nobody is willing to download the blockchain. Bitcoin is already starting to have this problem and cryptonote coins may be dead in the water because of the issue.

Ideas to prevent this were being discussed... that's all. This whole obviously forced master - slave rhetoric is really boring.    

Disclaimer: I have no masternodes or any intention to set any up.

[stilgars]

Yeah, there's absolutely no reason to charge exorbitant fees. Why undermine one of the biggest attractive features of cryptocurrencies?

I concur, it is the stupidest idea ever to prevent mass adoption of the feature, and the coin.

I don't think I saw anybody suggesting exorbitant fees. This overreaction is rather absurd.

If it costs nearly nothing to bloat up the blockchain then that is an obvious attack vector that could destroy the coin. Can't have a decentralized currency if nobody is willing to download the blockchain. Bitcoin is already starting to have this problem and cryptonote coins may be dead in the water because of the issue.

Ideas to prevent this were being discussed... that's all. This whole obviously forced master - slave rhetoric is really boring.    

Disclaimer: I have no masternodes or any intention to set any up.

EDIT: going back a little further, I see that some people suggested to pay some extra money to obtain additional depth in terms of mixing and so more anonymity. It is still a bad idea, DRK protocol regarding mixing coins at MN should settle at a level considered as good enough (like the 6 confirmations) and stick with it. Additional complexity in terms of charging transactions and the fact people will misunderstand the scheme  are not good things at all ("DRK is scam to enrich MN owners, blabla shitcoins provides free guaranteed anonymity for everyone however blabla ... ... Ad nauseum" - we don't want that)

[JGCMiner]

Yeah, there's absolutely no reason to charge exorbitant fees. Why undermine one of the biggest attractive features of cryptocurrencies?

I concur, it is the stupidest idea ever to prevent mass adoption of the feature, and the coin.

I don't think I saw anybody suggesting exorbitant fees. This overreaction is rather absurd.

If it costs nearly nothing to bloat up the blockchain then that is an obvious attack vector that could destroy the coin. Can't have a decentralized currency if nobody is willing to download the blockchain. Bitcoin is already starting to have this problem and cryptonote coins may be dead in the water because of the issue.

Ideas to prevent this were being discussed... that's all. This whole obviously forced master - slave rhetoric is really boring.    

Disclaimer: I have no masternodes or any intention to set any up.

EDIT: going back a little further, I see that some people suggested to pay some extra money to obtain additional depth in terms of mixing and so more anonymity. It is still a bad idea, DRK protocol regarding mixing coins at MN should settle at a level considered as good enough (like the 6 confirmations) and stick with it. Additional complexity in terms of charging transactions and the fact people will misunderstand the scheme  are not good things at all.

If people misunderstand the scheme then they just need to be educated. The goal here is a high level of anonymity with minimal downsides. If that requires complexity (be it fees or some other structure) then so be it.

[slapper]

Well the primary idea was discussion on enhancing the anonymity levels utilizing more MNs and assess any impacts in terms of bloat etc by going this route. Fees are not really the focus and the concern is understandable but derailing the main point.

[stilgars]

Yeah, there's absolutely no reason to charge exorbitant fees. Why undermine one of the biggest attractive features of cryptocurrencies?

I concur, it is the stupidest idea ever to prevent mass adoption of the feature, and the coin.

I don't think I saw anybody suggesting exorbitant fees. This overreaction is rather absurd.

If it costs nearly nothing to bloat up the blockchain then that is an obvious attack vector that could destroy the coin. Can't have a decentralized currency if nobody is willing to download the blockchain. Bitcoin is already starting to have this problem and cryptonote coins may be dead in the water because of the issue.

Ideas to prevent this were being discussed... that's all. This whole obviously forced master - slave rhetoric is really boring.    

Disclaimer: I have no masternodes or any intention to set any up.

EDIT: going back a little further, I see that some people suggested to pay some extra money to obtain additional depth in terms of mixing and so more anonymity. It is still a bad idea, DRK protocol regarding mixing coins at MN should settle at a level considered as good enough (like the 6 confirmations) and stick with it. Additional complexity in terms of charging transactions and the fact people will misunderstand the scheme  are not good things at all.

If people misunderstand the scheme then they just need to be educated. The goal here is a high level of anonymity with minimal downsides. If that requires complexity (be it fees or some other structure) then so be it.

I still can't get why we can't agree on a mixing depth good enough to provide anonymity (99% confidence or 95 or 99%% whatever) - period. Putting different anon service level in place impairs the overall confidence in the anon protocol of DRK.

[salmion]

Let's get darksend+ out there and built upon and adopted.
Start thinking of broader adoption targets. The 10 Drk limit lifting is seriously good news and means we can really promote the coin.

Then we can start arguing (discussing)  Darksend Super +++
(which evan will probably make anyway without bloat or further fees)

[JGCMiner]

Well the primary idea was discussion on enhancing the anonymity levels utilizing more MNs and assess any impacts in terms of bloat etc by going this route. Fees are not really the focus and the concern is understandable but derailing the main point.

Exactly.

Far too many people jumping on this DRK is for MN owners to get rich angle which is totally untrue. People need to read and understand the discussion before commenting. That argument should be made for a proof of stake coin -- DRK is proof of service. Without the masternodes you don't have Darksend(+), without incentives people would not run masternodes, but somehow the existence of masternodes is a scam.

So frustrating.  

Yeah, there's absolutely no reason to charge exorbitant fees. Why undermine one of the biggest attractive features of cryptocurrencies?

I concur, it is the stupidest idea ever to prevent mass adoption of the feature, and the coin.

I don't think I saw anybody suggesting exorbitant fees. This overreaction is rather absurd.

If it costs nearly nothing to bloat up the blockchain then that is an obvious attack vector that could destroy the coin. Can't have a decentralized currency if nobody is willing to download the blockchain. Bitcoin is already starting to have this problem and cryptonote coins may be dead in the water because of the issue.

Ideas to prevent this were being discussed... that's all. This whole obviously forced master - slave rhetoric is really boring.    

Disclaimer: I have no masternodes or any intention to set any up.

EDIT: going back a little further, I see that some people suggested to pay some extra money to obtain additional depth in terms of mixing and so more anonymity. It is still a bad idea, DRK protocol regarding mixing coins at MN should settle at a level considered as good enough (like the 6 confirmations) and stick with it. Additional complexity in terms of charging transactions and the fact people will misunderstand the scheme  are not good things at all.

If people misunderstand the scheme then they just need to be educated. The goal here is a high level of anonymity with minimal downsides. If that requires complexity (be it fees or some other structure) then so be it.

I still can't get why we can't agree on a mixing depth good enough to provide anonymity (99% confidence or 95 or 99%% whatever) - period. Putting different anon service level in place impairs the overall confidence in the anon protocol of DRK.

Maybe we can and maybe we can't. My point is don't preclude something just because it involves fees or is complex and scary. All options should be considered.

[eltito]

Two things to take away from that exchange:

Extra fees for better features is a bad idea.  It's not going to happen.

Should it become necessary for the safety of the network, we could look at ways to discourage malicious, intentional bloating of the blockchain by making it costly to do so.

Everything else was just people thinking out loud.

[stilgars]

Well the primary idea was discussion on enhancing the anonymity levels utilizing more MNs and assess any impacts in terms of bloat etc by going this route. Fees are not really the focus and the concern is understandable but derailing the main point.

Exactly.

Far too many people jumping on this DRK is for MN owners to get rich angle which is totally untrue. People need to read and understand the discussion before commenting. That argument should be made for a proof of stake coin -- DRK is proof of service. Without the masternodes you don't have Darksend(+), without incentives people would not run masternodes, but somehow the existence of masternodes is a scam.

So frustrating.  

I have several MN. But I certainly think the fees proposals was an idiotic one nevertheless it is not like MN owners do not get already paid for the anon service.

And to get back on track, I already explained why providing different level of service is not a good one neither.