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

[drkwarrior]

thought id chip in with my knowledge on last years btc/ltc/nmc/ppc pumps. 1st btc got its major whale pump (fontas) from news that baidu was adding btc as a payment in some areas of its business, the pump began on btce, this caused a ripple effect ,people who made money from the btc pump began buying the other alts this led noobs to think all coins are going to keep going up as long as btc keeps going up. This began in oct 2013 and lasted till mid nov, baidu announced they will stop taking btc and china then said they will consider banning btc. Btc was dumped heavily in dec the same time gold was at its lowest price in years and was ready to be pumped up. In jan 2014 gold was up over 30% and btc down.
Now gold is back on a downtrend .......

[1714078402]

1714078402

[1714078402]

1714078402

[1714078402]

1714078402

[1714078402]

1714078402

[Drobek]

thought id chip in with my knowledge on last years btc/ltc/nmc/ppc pumps. 1st btc got its major whale pump (fontas) from news that baidu was adding btc as a payment in some areas of its business, the pump began on btce, this caused a ripple effect ,people who made money from the btc pump began buying the other alts this led noobs to think all coins are going to keep going up as long as btc keeps going up. This began in oct 2013 and lasted till mid nov, baidu announced they will stop taking btc and china then said they will consider banning btc. Btc was dumped heavily in dec the same time gold was at its lowest price in years and was ready to be pumped up. In jan 2014 gold was up over 30% and btc down.
Now gold is back on a downtrend .......

Interesting, thanks!
RE: The november spike I heard it was caused by malfunctioning bots on Mt.Gox, any true in that one?

[TsuyokuNaritai]

If anyone wants some DRK dust to play with, we now have a faucet. (today only). Kudos to Silver Duke & the Underscores.

[coins101]

Enforcement, in itself, is just a workaround to ensure compliance. In other words, enforcement is not a good solution. What is needed is a protocol-based solution that works without forking and is non-voluntary.

+1

Why not use MN with X11+ as pool.

I understand the need for enforcement, but I actually don't like it.

The lurking thought is that it demonstrates a level of control over the network.  That has many unintended consequences.

For example,

* Those who would spin, could spin a view around the reality of decentralisation
* Those who would regulate, could spin a view around administration of a network

If we do it, I hope we can nuke that part of the code soon after it serves its purpose.

[drkwarrior]

thought id chip in with my knowledge on last years btc/ltc/nmc/ppc pumps. 1st btc got its major whale pump (fontas) from news that baidu was adding btc as a payment in some areas of its business, the pump began on btce, this caused a ripple effect ,people who made money from the btc pump began buying the other alts this led noobs to think all coins are going to keep going up as long as btc keeps going up. This began in oct 2013 and lasted till mid nov, baidu announced they will stop taking btc and china then said they will consider banning btc. Btc was dumped heavily in dec the same time gold was at its lowest price in years and was ready to be pumped up. In jan 2014 gold was up over 30% and btc down.
Now gold is back on a downtrend .......

Interesting, thanks!
RE: The november spike I heard it was caused by malfunctioning bots on Mt.Gox, any true in that one?

that defo was also a factor, but i wouldnt use the word malfunctiong, id say manufactured bots,lol

[thelonecrouton]

Enforcement, in itself, is just a workaround to ensure compliance. In other words, enforcement is not a good solution. What is needed is a protocol-based solution that works without forking and is non-voluntary.

+1

Why not use MN with X11+ as pool.

I understand the need for enforcement, but I actually don't like it.

The lurking thought is that it demonstrates a level of control over the network.  That has many unintended consequences.

For example,

* Those who would spin, could spin a view around the reality of decentralisation
* Those who would regulate, could spin a view around administration of a network

If we do it, I hope we can nuke that part of the code soon after it serves its purpose.

I agree with AlexGR, and I'm pretty sure the devs do too. I know flare is looking at ways to put MN fee payments directly in the hands of the MNs themselves.

[stealth923]

Look at the masternode count - we are almost at pre-RC4 levels now
Total Masternodes: 862 = 812 actives + 50 inactives

[baddw]

Enforcement, in itself, is just a workaround to ensure compliance. In other words, enforcement is not a good solution. What is needed is a protocol-based solution that works without forking and is non-voluntary.

+1

Why not use MN with X11+ as pool.

I understand the need for enforcement, but I actually don't like it.

The lurking thought is that it demonstrates a level of control over the network.  That has many unintended consequences.

For example,

* Those who would spin, could spin a view around the reality of decentralisation
* Those who would regulate, could spin a view around administration of a network

If we do it, I hope we can nuke that part of the code soon after it serves its purpose.

ALL nodes on the network are responsible for enforcing the propriety of ALL blocks mined in ALL Bitcoin-derived crypto-currencies.  Hash doesn't match the block? Reject.  Block contains an invalid transaction? (e.g. improperly signed?)  Reject.  Block doesn't conform to formatting specifications? Reject.

Of course it represents a level of control over the network.  That is the entire point: that the network behaves according to a specified set of rules, which are clearly implemented in the software and spelled out in the source code.  Each node (whether mining, masternode, or just an end-user wallet) acts independently to implement all of these rules, and to reject bad blocks and/or transactions before they propagate throughout the network.

Enforcing Masternode payments should not be rocket science.  But it will require a hard fork.  The spork method (which, IIRC, basically requires a 'switch' being thrown by Evan) implies a method of control that could possibly make people uncomfortable.

[thelonecrouton]

Enforcement, in itself, is just a workaround to ensure compliance. In other words, enforcement is not a good solution. What is needed is a protocol-based solution that works without forking and is non-voluntary.

+1

Why not use MN with X11+ as pool.

I understand the need for enforcement, but I actually don't like it.

The lurking thought is that it demonstrates a level of control over the network.  That has many unintended consequences.

For example,

* Those who would spin, could spin a view around the reality of decentralisation
* Those who would regulate, could spin a view around administration of a network

If we do it, I hope we can nuke that part of the code soon after it serves its purpose.

ALL nodes on the network are responsible for enforcing the propriety of ALL blocks mined in ALL Bitcoin-derived crypto-currencies.  Hash doesn't match the block? Reject.  Block contains an invalid transaction? (e.g. improperly signed?)  Reject.  Block doesn't conform to formatting specifications? Reject.

Of course it represents a level of control over the network.  That is the entire point: that the network behaves according to a specified set of rules, which are clearly implemented in the software and spelled out in the source code.  Each node (whether mining, masternode, or just an end-user wallet) acts independently to implement all of these rules, and to reject bad blocks and/or transactions before they propagate throughout the network.

Enforcing Masternode payments should not be rocket science.  But it will require a hard fork.  The spork method (which, IIRC, basically requires a 'switch' being thrown by Evan) implies a method of control that could possibly make people uncomfortable.

Sporkage is just putting the rules you mention into action. Same as if they were hardcoded in the first place.

[luigi1111]

Enforcement, in itself, is just a workaround to ensure compliance. In other words, enforcement is not a good solution. What is needed is a protocol-based solution that works without forking and is non-voluntary.

+1

Why not use MN with X11+ as pool.

I understand the need for enforcement, but I actually don't like it.

The lurking thought is that it demonstrates a level of control over the network.  That has many unintended consequences.

For example,

* Those who would spin, could spin a view around the reality of decentralisation
* Those who would regulate, could spin a view around administration of a network

If we do it, I hope we can nuke that part of the code soon after it serves its purpose.

ALL nodes on the network are responsible for enforcing the propriety of ALL blocks mined in ALL Bitcoin-derived crypto-currencies.  Hash doesn't match the block? Reject.  Block contains an invalid transaction? (e.g. improperly signed?)  Reject.  Block doesn't conform to formatting specifications? Reject.

Of course it represents a level of control over the network.  That is the entire point: that the network behaves according to a specified set of rules, which are clearly implemented in the software and spelled out in the source code.  Each node (whether mining, masternode, or just an end-user wallet) acts independently to implement all of these rules, and to reject bad blocks and/or transactions before they propagate throughout the network.

Enforcing Masternode payments should not be rocket science.  But it will require a hard fork.  The spork method (which, IIRC, basically requires a 'switch' being thrown by Evan) implies a method of control that could possibly make people uncomfortable.

I don't believe enforcement was ever difficult to implement, I think the problems resulted from the payment/election code sometimes causing different nodes to believe different masternodes should be paid. So when enforcement was switched on (via hard fork), little forks started emerging because there wasn't consensus.

That is what I understand to have been happening; could've been something else though.

[baddw]

Sporkage is just putting the rules you mention into action. Same as if they were hardcoded in the first place.

Of course they had to be hardcoded in the first place for the spork to even work, but the fact that the software can be influenced by an external "switch" that can be turned on or off at any time is not in the spirit of cryptocurrencies.  I am fine with it for betas/RCs/development/whatever, but the final product should definitely not have any spork switches.

I don't believe enforcement was ever difficult to implement, I think the problems resulted from the payment/election code sometimes causing different nodes to believe different masternodes should be paid. So when enforcement was switched on (via hard fork), little forks started emerging because there wasn't consensus.

That is what I understand to have been happening; could've been something else though.

This is certainly believable, and I guess it would be a problem if a given miners/pools "chose" the same MNs over and over again, excluding other MNs.  However, it is better for them to be paying MNs than not at all.

Personally I've always thought the "election" process was convoluted and prone to error (given that not all MNs can necessarily always be seen by all nodes on the network) and that the coinbase transaction should simply pay the MNs who provably performed the mixing during that particular block.  Split it up among them proportionately.  The clients will choose which MNs to send to at random; or if they mess with the code to always favor certain MNs, that's fine too (although they will probably be losing some privacy if they choose to always use their own MN = shooting themselves in the foot = hopefully nobody is so stupid as to do this).  The MNs are paid for providing a service, and if they provide that service in a given block, then they should be paid in that block.  JM2C

[tungfa]

MN's numbers are up up up
we are nearly at the RC 3 count !
Check the stats !
 

RC4
Total Masternodes: 862 = 811 actives + 51 inactives            28.8
Total Masternodes: 850 = 808 actives + 42 inactives      29.8
Total Masternodes: 831 = 791 actives + 40 inactives      27.8
Total Masternodes: 801 = 774 actives + 27 inactives      25.8
Total Masternodes: 745 = 727 actives + 18 inactives      23.8
Total Masternodes: 715 = 698 actives + 17 inactives      23.8
Total Masternodes: 806 = 688 actives + 118 inactives
Total Masternodes: 805 = 685 actives + 120 inactives      22.8
Total Masternodes: 780 = 661 actives + 119 inactives
Total Masternodes: 771 = 635 actives + 136 inactives      21.8
Total Masternodes: 766 = 631 actives + 135 inactives      21.8
Total Masternodes: 739 = 627 actives + 112 inactives      20.8
Total Masternodes: 729 = 622 actives + 107 inactives      20.8
Total Masternodes: 726 = 614 actives + 112 inactives      20.8
Total Masternodes: 713 = 599 actives + 114 inactives      19.8
Total Masternodes: 706 = 586 actives + 120 inactives      18.8
Total Masternodes: 704 = 589 actives + 115 inactives      16.8
Total Masternodes: 701 = 581 actives + 120 inactives      15.8
Total Masternodes: 667 = 596 actives + 71 inactives      14.8
Total Masternodes: 667 = 571 actives + 96 inactives
Total Masternodes: 670 = 575 actives + 95 inactives      13.8

RC 3
Total Masternodes: 874 = 873 actives + 1 inactives      06.8
Total Masternodes: 865 = 864 actives + 1 inactives
Total Masternodes: 864 = 862 actives + 2 inactives      05.8
Total Masternodes: 892 = 857 actives + 35 inactives
Total Masternodes: 891 = 854 actives + 37 inactives      04.8
Total Masternodes: 887 = 852 actives + 35 inactives
Total Masternodes: 884 = 853 actives + 31 inactives      03.8
Total Masternodes: 878 = 847 actives + 31 inactives
Total Masternodes: 877 = 845 actives + 32 inactives      02.8
Total Masternodes: 869 = 842 actives + 27 inactives
Total Masternodes: 868 = 837 actives + 31 inactives
Total Masternodes: 867 = 840 actives + 27 inactives
Total Masternodes: 866 = 840 actives + 26 inactives      01.8
Total Masternodes: 856 = 833 actives + 23 inactives      31.7
Total Masternodes: 855 = 833 actives + 22 inactives      31.7
Total Masternodes: 851 = 830 actives + 21 inactives      30.7
Total Masternodes: 850 = 832 actives + 18 inactives
Total Masternodes: 844 = 831 actives + 13 inactives      29.7

[baddw]

Enforcement, in itself, is just a workaround to ensure compliance. In other words, enforcement is not a good solution. What is needed is a protocol-based solution that works without forking and is non-voluntary.

+1

Why not use MN with X11+ as pool.

Using MNs as pools actually sounds like a pretty darn good idea.  Or at least as the backbones of a P2Pool.  And then require all mining to be done through P2Pool.  You get rid of the MN payment problem and the mining pool centralization problem in one shot.  Although this would require a LOT of work and completely re-writing lots of working code.

[oblox]

Enforcement, in itself, is just a workaround to ensure compliance. In other words, enforcement is not a good solution. What is needed is a protocol-based solution that works without forking and is non-voluntary.

+1

Why not use MN with X11+ as pool.

Using MNs as pools actually sounds like a pretty darn good idea.  Or at least as the backbones of a P2Pool.  And then require all mining to be done through P2Pool.  You get rid of the MN payment problem and the mining pool centralization problem in one shot.  Although this would require a LOT of work and completely re-writing lots of working code.

I'm curious how this will work if MN's mined themselves. Would they be competing against all the other pools for blocks? If that's the case, I have to imagine the variance would be even worse.

As it stands right now, I am averaging over 10 nodes about half of what I should be getting since RC4 was released.

[bamsterdam]

so just to be clear .. the current mn protocol doesn't work since the network doesn't pay each mn the same amount of the drk that are should receive?

I read people are talking about rewriting most of the code, fixing it in the algo and more but doesn't that mean that all the work in the last past months has been for nothing

kristov atlas has not even checked it out rigth? Even said he has a plan .. wonder what it is. It sounded to me that the way the mn are working now is from the table, and it can not be fixed like a bug or something but has to be rewritten from scratch..? mn are putting the hole network at risk of attack..?

not so happy with the news as a lot of people I imagine.. Are there some positive points I missed or did not understand ..?

thanks


 

[sin242]

Some big buys there.

[Brilliantrocket]

so just to be clear .. the current mn protocol doesn't work since the network doesn't pay each mn the same amount of the drk that are should receive?

I read people are talking about rewriting most of the code, fixing it in the algo and more but doesn't that mean that all the work in the last past months has been for nothing

kristov atlas has not even checked it out rigth? Even said he has a plan .. wonder what it is. It sounded to me that the way the mn are working now is from the table, and it can not be fixed like a bug or something but has to be rewritten from scratch..? mn are putting the hole network at risk of attack..?

not so happy with the news as a lot of people I imagine.. Are there some positive points I missed or did not understand ..?

thanks


 

The current masternode payment system does not work correctly, and is being scrapped. It's being replaced with the old payment system. The old payment system was the cause of the RC3 forks. They occurred because enforcement was turned on. The old system can, however, work if there is no enforcement. So the downside is the time lost developing the system being scrapped, ( kind of depressing as I was under the impression that several weeks were spent perfecting this) as well as enforcement being delayed for an unknown period of time. The upside is that the bugs encountered with the new system will go away.  

[thelonecrouton]

so just to be clear .. the current mn protocol doesn't work since the network doesn't pay each mn the same amount of the drk that are should receive?

I read people are talking about rewriting most of the code, fixing it in the algo and more but doesn't that mean that all the work in the last past months has been for nothing

kristov atlas has not even checked it out rigth? Even said he has a plan .. wonder what it is. It sounded to me that the way the mn are working now is from the table, and it can not be fixed like a bug or something but has to be rewritten from scratch..? mn are putting the hole network at risk of attack..?

not so happy with the news as a lot of people I imagine.. Are there some positive points I missed or did not understand ..?

thanks


 

The MN code works pretty well as is, but it isn't perfect, and MNs currently rely on pools running correctly configured software to get paid their fees for anonymising coins etc.

All that's being discussed are possible alternative methods of making the process better.

AFAIK Kristov has full code access and we know he has been working with Evan for a while now, but remember DRK is a constantly evolving platform, not a clone/rename/premine/IPO/release/pump/dump shitcoin. We're doing something new here, and this is a great thing.

At the end of the day MNs are getting paid pretty well, just with a few niggles. Reworking the platform to improve this is just one of many ongoing tasks, it's not currently even that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things.

[Minotaur26]

Lol.. the concern trolls are out in full force... The most important thing is improving on the anon, masternodes are already getting paid in a high percentage. The original rewards for MNs was 10% and everyone was happy Evan took it to 20% and even with the hiccups we are somewhere in the middle. The purpose is incentivizing people to create nodes and the count just keeps going up, so if you dont like the rewards take down your nodes, more coins for me. Evan should focus on Darksend+. Payments are good enough for the time being.

[AlexGR]

so just to be clear .. the current mn protocol doesn't work since the network doesn't pay each mn the same amount of the drk that are should receive?

I read people are talking about rewriting most of the code, fixing it in the algo and more but doesn't that mean that all the work in the last past months has been for nothing

To put things into perspective:

There is the temp solution (or solutions) and the perm solution.

Perm solution = the protocol makes sure everyone pays

Temp solution = semi-voluntary payments, like it's been for the last 2 months or so. It's a "workaround" used so that nodes could get paid until the perm solution is established.

Problems with temp solution = who cares, it's temp anyway

Worry-worthy issue is not having a perm solution in place over time.