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

[semajjames]

But you want this accessibility to be restricted

Being able to generate interest with only purchsaing 10 drk is a much lower barrier to entry than building a mining farm ..

Interesting, attracting new people to buy altcoins isn't gonna be easy.
How would you see this interest generated to make up for the loss of mining? Or do you see it as an alternative when most rigs stop mining DRK?

Concerning the argument about not being able to mine a crypto resulting in people losing interest... what do you think a noob can wrap his head around more easily.. piecing together a mining farm or purchasing a simple 10 drk and entering his key into a forum/website.

Concerning attracting new people to crypto, the instant and anonymous transactions aspects are useful enough in themselves.

Concerning rigs not mining drk, if the masternode network generates blocks, there is no use for mining.

If Evan created a redundancy of block generation by MNs, it wouldnt have to be activated immediately. We could see that it worked, while increasing MN payment ratio by 5% a month as he proposed. As mining became less profitable, the onus of supporting the network would gently shift toward the the MNs.

sneaky!!!  to be honest i'd rather we were just told to fuck off that way we don't end paying MN's any extra what so ever, that's just pure common sense,, you must think we are mad  

[1714919664]

1714919664

[1714919664]

1714919664

[1714919664]

1714919664

[1714919664]

1714919664

[stonehedge]

But you want this accessibility to be restricted

Being able to generate interest with only purchsaing 10 drk is a much lower barrier to entry than building a mining farm ..

Interesting, attracting new people to buy altcoins isn't gonna be easy.
How would you see this interest generated to make up for the loss of mining? Or do you see it as an alternative when most rigs stop mining DRK?

Concerning the argument about not being able to mine a crypto resulting in people losing interest... what do you think a noob can wrap his head around more easily.. piecing together a mining farm or purchasing a simple 10 drk and entering his key into a forum/website.

Concerning attracting new people to crypto, the instant and anonymous transactions aspects are useful enough in themselves.

Concerning rigs not mining drk, if the masternode network generates blocks, there is no use for mining.

If Evan created a redundancy of block generation by MNs, it wouldnt have to be activated immediately. We could see that it worked, while increasing MN payment ratio by 5% a month as he proposed. As mining became less profitable, the onus of supporting the network would gently shift toward the the MNs.

sneaky!!!  to be honest i'd rather we were just told to fuck off that way we don't end paying MN's any extra what so ever, that's just pure common sense,, you must think we are mad  

I wouldn't worry semaj, you are witnessing a hypothetical debate.  Don't let it wind you up.

As a masternode owner I am against increasing masternode payouts unless something is done to improve mining conditions for the miners.

Don't forget that masternodes have recently been running at a loss too despite our 20% slice of the pie.  This is probably now solved but still, we aren't raking it in at the miners expense.

[OnetyOne]

But you want this accessibility to be restricted

Being able to generate interest with only purchsaing 10 drk is a much lower barrier to entry than building a mining farm ..

Interesting, attracting new people to buy altcoins isn't gonna be easy.
How would you see this interest generated to make up for the loss of mining? Or do you see it as an alternative when most rigs stop mining DRK?

Concerning the argument about not being able to mine a crypto resulting in people losing interest... what do you think a noob can wrap his head around more easily.. piecing together a mining farm or purchasing a simple 10 drk and entering his key into a forum/website.

Concerning attracting new people to crypto, the instant and anonymous transactions aspects are useful enough in themselves.

Concerning rigs not mining drk, if the masternode network generates blocks, there is no use for mining.

If Evan created a redundancy of block generation by MNs, it wouldnt have to be activated immediately. We could see that it worked, while increasing MN payment ratio by 5% a month as he proposed. As mining became less profitable, the onus of supporting the network would gently shift toward the the MNs.

sneaky!!!  to be honest i'd rather we were just told to fuck off that way we don't end paying MN's any extra what so ever, that's just pure common sense,, you must think we are mad  

I wouldn't worry semaj, you are witnessing a hypothetical debate.  Don't let it wind you up.

Yes, was solely interested in how this would piece together. Too much MN dependancy wouldn't be a good thing imho tho

[oblox]

Don't forget that masternodes have recently been running at a loss too despite our 20% slice of the pie.  This is probably now solved but still, we aren't raking it in at the miners expense.

How? Unless you had terrible, and I mean terrible variance over the past 2 months, MN are profitable. Assuming that's what you meant by recently...

[stonehedge]

Don't forget that masternodes have recently been running at a loss too despite our 20% slice of the pie.  This is probably now solved but still, we aren't raking it in at the miners expense.

How? Unless you had terrible, and I mean terrible variance over the past 2 months, MN are profitable. Assuming that's what you meant by recently...

No I meant the period between RC4 and RC5.

There was a known issue causing some masternodes to repeatedly get paid thus causing a shift in distribution of payments.  

If you were a masternode owner with one or two masternodes on micro instances it was entirely possible to not be paid for weeks or months at a time. Therefore income was less than cost.

During that period I had 7 masternodes running.  Whilst two of my masternodes had amazing runs of 10+ payments a day the overall average across the 7 over a one month period was 0.22DRK per day.  This covered my server costs.

If you only had one or two masternodes, it was entirely possible to run at a loss.

EDIT:  Forget about variance.  That is how it was supposed to work (and how it is working now).  Variance was broken for RC4.

DOUBLE EDIT:  If you look at the stats you will also see that mining pool compliance started to worsen during the same period making the situation worse.

[splawik21]

Don't forget that masternodes have recently been running at a loss too despite our 20% slice of the pie.  This is probably now solved but still, we aren't raking it in at the miners expense.

How? Unless you had terrible, and I mean terrible variance over the past 2 months, MN are profitable. Assuming that's what you meant by recently...

No I meant the period between RC4 and RC5.

There was a known issue causing some masternodes to repeatedly get paid thus causing a shift in distribution of payments. 

If you were a masternode owner with one or two masternodes on micro instances it was entirely possible to not be paid for weeks or months at a time. Therefore income was less than cost.

During that period I had 7 masternodes running.  Whilst two of my masternodes had amazing runs of 10+ payments a day the overall average across the 7 over a one month period was 0.22DRK per day.  This covered my server costs.

If you only had one or two masternodes, it was entirely possible to run at a loss.

EDIT:  Forget about variance.  That is how it was supposed to work (and how it is working now).  Variance was broken for RC4.

I agee, had the same situation, some MNs worked at the loss even because many pools didn`t paid at all 20% fee, Now with RC5 and RC3 voting engine it look much better, only good news, Evan will enforce the network max monday 13.10.14 if not earlier... so it works cool for me now.

[patrolman]

Satoshis principles of how a blockchain is secured and validated. You just want to let the validation be done by an elitist club of early adopters, instead of giving EVERYBODY a chance of participating in the coin creation. That's what I don't get.

Mining gives everybody the possibility to get to some DRK without the need to go thru an exchange or thru some smug MN holder who thinks he is now supposed to be the sole source of DRK.

I am mining all kinds of coins, so I don't need to go thru the whole established banking system with all their KYC etc...
No bank anywhere has my personal information and knows that I bought cryptocurrencies, EXACTLY because I was able to get to some coins by running a mining machine!

So, if you get rid of mining, you take away from people the possibility that they can create coins themselves, instead you are forcing them to only be able to buy darkcoins thru an exchange, which is INSANE!

Darkcoin is VERY COOL in that regard, because it let's you still mine with your CPU/GPU. (And imagine in the future having X11 USB ASICS that cost 10 $? Isn't that fantastic? Giving some kid a X11 miner as present and having him participate in the network. Ok, maybe in some rich elitist famility they can give some kid 1000 DRK complete with managed server, .... )

If the blockchain were to be validated by MN network only, I would not trust it. Sure, everybody can provide a blockchain, it's not just about its visibility, it's about its integrity!

You have the burden of the proof to show that MN network can really replace mining. Not me!
Such extraordinairy claims require extraordinairy evidence.

This is a great point, especially when you consider that in some parts of the world, people have had their bank accounts closed for being involved in trading cryptocurrencies. To be fair though, if you really wanted Darkcoins, you could receive some in exchange for goods or services without going through the exchanges.

To add to your point, at the moment the plan regarding instant transactions is to use the miners' block generation as a backup when there is a problem. Without the miners, that wouldn't be possible.

That said, I think the point thelonecrouton raises about not needing so much computing power to process the transactions is a valid one, what's needed is consensus. I'm not condoning the abolition of miners either, but it is important to adapt. Things do not necessarily need to be done the way they've always been done in the past.

[stonehedge]

Don't forget that masternodes have recently been running at a loss too despite our 20% slice of the pie.  This is probably now solved but still, we aren't raking it in at the miners expense.

How? Unless you had terrible, and I mean terrible variance over the past 2 months, MN are profitable. Assuming that's what you meant by recently...

No I meant the period between RC4 and RC5.

There was a known issue causing some masternodes to repeatedly get paid thus causing a shift in distribution of payments. 

If you were a masternode owner with one or two masternodes on micro instances it was entirely possible to not be paid for weeks or months at a time. Therefore income was less than cost.

During that period I had 7 masternodes running.  Whilst two of my masternodes had amazing runs of 10+ payments a day the overall average across the 7 over a one month period was 0.22DRK per day.  This covered my server costs.

If you only had one or two masternodes, it was entirely possible to run at a loss.

EDIT:  Forget about variance.  That is how it was supposed to work (and how it is working now).  Variance was broken for RC4.

I agee, had the same situation, some MNs worked at the loss even because many pools didn`t paid at all 20% fee, Now with RC5 and RC3 voting engine it look much better, only good news, Evan will enforce the network max monday 13.10.14 if not earlier... so it works cool for me now.

Yup.  I've got a lot more masternodes set up now and I'm seeing proper random variance with RC5.  I.e roughly equalling out over time with some nodes doing a bit better than others. 

[stonehedge]

Satoshis principles of how a blockchain is secured and validated. You just want to let the validation be done by an elitist club of early adopters, instead of giving EVERYBODY a chance of participating in the coin creation. That's what I don't get.

Mining gives everybody the possibility to get to some DRK without the need to go thru an exchange or thru some smug MN holder who thinks he is now supposed to be the sole source of DRK.

I am mining all kinds of coins, so I don't need to go thru the whole established banking system with all their KYC etc...
No bank anywhere has my personal information and knows that I bought cryptocurrencies, EXACTLY because I was able to get to some coins by running a mining machine!

So, if you get rid of mining, you take away from people the possibility that they can create coins themselves, instead you are forcing them to only be able to buy darkcoins thru an exchange, which is INSANE!

Darkcoin is VERY COOL in that regard, because it let's you still mine with your CPU/GPU. (And imagine in the future having X11 USB ASICS that cost 10 $? Isn't that fantastic? Giving some kid a X11 miner as present and having him participate in the network. Ok, maybe in some rich elitist famility they can give some kid 1000 DRK complete with managed server, .... )

If the blockchain were to be validated by MN network only, I would not trust it. Sure, everybody can provide a blockchain, it's not just about its visibility, it's about its integrity!

You have the burden of the proof to show that MN network can really replace mining. Not me!
Such extraordinairy claims require extraordinairy evidence.

This is a great point, especially when you consider that in some parts of the world, people have had their bank accounts closed for being involved in trading cryptocurrencies. To be fair though, if you really wanted Darkcoins, you could receive some in exchange for goods or services without going through the exchanges.

To add to your point, at the moment the plan regarding instant transactions is to use the miners' block generation as a backup when there is a problem. Without the miners, that wouldn't be possible.

That said, I think the point thelonecrouton raises about not needing so much computing power to process the transactions is a valid one, what's needed is consensus. I'm not condoning the abolition of miners either, but it is important to adapt. Things do not necessarily need to be done the way they've always been done in the past.

This is why I'd love to see diversification in the role provided by miners.  Let pools/miners mine.  But lets also encourage people to CPU mine using their QT wallets too if only for reasons of distribution and collective hash rate.

As I said on DCT yesterday, this coin is barely a sapling right now.  Less than a year old.  I can't help but think that making decisions about changing the fundamentals at this point could turn out to be a fatal mistake.  For this reason, lets diversify and distribute.  Lets do what we can to make sure that masternode owners and miners are able to do so profitably but more importantly...



....lets concentrate efforts on attracting new money and ADOPTION.

We can start playing around with how things work in a year or two when we know what sort of tree the sapling has grown into.

[georgem]

That's why I immediately assume that you must have some bad agenda (I am probably wrong), because you just want to push forward and drop mining altogether...

Slow down. Clear your mind. Look at this picture from 10 steps back and forget everything you know.

That's always a good advice. You are right. 

[Ignition75]

Darkcoins come into existence thru mining. And only thru mining.

Evan Duffield and team, and the whole Masternode concept had nothing to do with it? Just miners?

The miners share a few of their new found coins with the masternodes.
Mining is not only about maintaining the blockchain.
Even if there are no transactions for days, it doesn't matter. If there are NO transactions for days, then THAT'S the state of blockchain that has to be integrated and shared for everybody to accept.

A single old Celeron can do all that.

The amount of transactions (low or high or whatever) has nothing to do with the validity of mining. It just is what is.  

What does that even mean?

We have Petahashes of POW miners mining for Bitcoin because more and more people want to go after fewer and fewer coins, while technology combined with free market competition creates innovation. (faster and faster machines, which in turn make the coins even more scarcer and scarcer... which is key for value creation in the first place.)

Fulfilling a market need is the key to value, not throwing money at GPU manufacturers.

If we only had masternodes... we would basically take darkcoin out of the most insane innovation cycle we have seen in the last decades.
(If only servers had the innovation that miners have, lol   , but how are they going to have innovation without competition? Just masternode holders sitting on their piles of coins is not something that is very "competitive")

So, the key concepts to not forget are: competition creates innovation which in turn creates scarcity (value). Ergo mining.

I'm not actually proposing doing away with miners, but please explain to me what great innovations have come about through chasing pointless hashpower? The Darkcoin developers provide innovation, a bunch of people running up electricity bills in the hope of a quick buck do not.

There are a few types of miners, and they are all part of the ecosystem.

Insta-Miners help with supply and distribution.

Holders put that shit away on lock.

Most, would love to hold forever but need to pay bills, so they sell what they need to.

In all cases, they may not be contributing to the development of a coin, but they've spent hard earned cash on hardware that is securing the network.  Which is a lot more than what most "developers" do...

[IYFTech]

Anyone know if there's a windoze installer for the new wallet in the pipeline - or is it only the binary?

Ta 

[georgem]

Satoshis principles of how a blockchain is secured and validated. You just want to let the validation be done by an elitist club of early adopters, instead of giving EVERYBODY a chance of participating in the coin creation. That's what I don't get.

Mining gives everybody the possibility to get to some DRK without the need to go thru an exchange or thru some smug MN holder who thinks he is now supposed to be the sole source of DRK.

I am mining all kinds of coins, so I don't need to go thru the whole established banking system with all their KYC etc...
No bank anywhere has my personal information and knows that I bought cryptocurrencies, EXACTLY because I was able to get to some coins by running a mining machine!

So, if you get rid of mining, you take away from people the possibility that they can create coins themselves, instead you are forcing them to only be able to buy darkcoins thru an exchange, which is INSANE!

Darkcoin is VERY COOL in that regard, because it let's you still mine with your CPU/GPU. (And imagine in the future having X11 USB ASICS that cost 10 $? Isn't that fantastic? Giving some kid a X11 miner as present and having him participate in the network. Ok, maybe in some rich elitist famility they can give some kid 1000 DRK complete with managed server, .... )

If the blockchain were to be validated by MN network only, I would not trust it. Sure, everybody can provide a blockchain, it's not just about its visibility, it's about its integrity!

You have the burden of the proof to show that MN network can really replace mining. Not me!
Such extraordinairy claims require extraordinairy evidence.

This is a great point, especially when you consider that in some parts of the world, people have had their bank accounts closed for being involved in trading cryptocurrencies. To be fair though, if you really wanted Darkcoins, you could receive some in exchange for goods or services without going through the exchanges.

To add to your point, at the moment the plan regarding instant transactions is to use the miners' block generation as a backup when there is a problem. Without the miners, that wouldn't be possible.

That said, I think the point thelonecrouton raises about not needing so much computing power to process the transactions is a valid one, what's needed is consensus. I'm not condoning the abolition of miners either, but it is important to adapt. Things do not necessarily need to be done the way they've always been done in the past.

Ofcourse, I think everybody has valid points, me disagreeing doesn't mean that I am not open for discussion.

You mentioned the other important way to get to DRK that will soon become the most important way for myself.
I have been asking for DRK donations (for all the crazy shit I create) since day one, and I plan on creating small apps on my DRK only website and selling them for DRK.
I am 100% in for whatever ways exist to grab some DRK without the need of exchanging Fiat for it.

Yes we need to evolve, but let's take nature as an example:
we need more redundancy, we need backups, we need fallback solutions.
We must think of the darkcoin system as an organism, and think of masternodes and miners as cells within this system.
I call miners the GUT BACTERIA. LMAO.  
I try to establish that notion.
But what would masternodes represent in this case? Well, obviously it's the NERVOUS SYSTEM.
GUT BACTERIA digest food and create the energy particles that the NERVOUS SYSTEM needs to function.

[georgem]

I can't help but think that making decisions about changing the fundamentals at this point could turn out to be a fatal mistake. 

ABSO +1 LUTELY!

[Ignition75]

I wouldn't worry semaj, you are witnessing a hypothetical debate.  Don't let it wind you up.

As a masternode owner I am against increasing masternode payouts unless something is done to improve mining conditions for the miners.

Don't forget that masternodes have recently been running at a loss too despite our 20% slice of the pie.  This is probably now solved but still, we aren't raking it in at the miners expense.

I was gutted the other day whean I read you hired that beast of a farm.

I was watching you connect and disconnect from the DarkcoinTalk Pool and my pulse was racing when I saw you at 3.5Gh/s dude...

I was like "Yeah Baby" thinking you had a 1000 GPU setup lol 

[fernando]

Satoshis principles of how a blockchain is secured and validated. You just want to let the validation be done by an elitist club of early adopters, instead of giving EVERYBODY a chance of participating in the coin creation. That's what I don't get.

Mining gives everybody the possibility to get to some DRK without the need to go thru an exchange or thru some smug MN holder who thinks he is now supposed to be the sole source of DRK.

I am mining all kinds of coins, so I don't need to go thru the whole established banking system with all their KYC etc...
No bank anywhere has my personal information and knows that I bought cryptocurrencies, EXACTLY because I was able to get to some coins by running a mining machine!

So, if you get rid of mining, you take away from people the possibility that they can create coins themselves, instead you are forcing them to only be able to buy darkcoins thru an exchange, which is INSANE!

Darkcoin is VERY COOL in that regard, because it let's you still mine with your CPU/GPU. (And imagine in the future having X11 USB ASICS that cost 10 $? Isn't that fantastic? Giving some kid a X11 miner as present and having him participate in the network. Ok, maybe in some rich elitist famility they can give some kid 1000 DRK complete with managed server, .... )

If the blockchain were to be validated by MN network only, I would not trust it. Sure, everybody can provide a blockchain, it's not just about its visibility, it's about its integrity!

You have the burden of the proof to show that MN network can really replace mining. Not me!
Such extraordinairy claims require extraordinairy evidence.

This is a great point, especially when you consider that in some parts of the world, people have had their bank accounts closed for being involved in trading cryptocurrencies. To be fair though, if you really wanted Darkcoins, you could receive some in exchange for goods or services without going through the exchanges.

You can also buy cryptos over the counter. Not everywhere, but localbitcoins works great.

[georgem]

You can also buy cryptos over the counter. Not everywhere, but localbitcoins works great.

Yes, ofcourse, I need to try that, supposedly there is a guy in my town selling/buying BTC... lol, I wonder who he is...
Anyway, my prefered way will be to sell you guys something that you want, and getting payed in DRK. Nothing more satisfying than that.  

Oh, this reminds me:

Continuing my darkcoin community research...

...using the forum extraction tool I am developing...

What is the next thing you want to see?

1) Do you want to know who of all the darkcoin users swears the most (using words like f**k etc..) then vote by donating any amount to this address:
Xwz1utupG5LqWMsCeZqF3vo9xtiA7FXcjH

2) If you would like to see a word cloud of all the comments evan duffield ever made, vote by donating to this address:
Xn9b76yUZ5zGAcMvFv41ZSYn9XHMJpX833

(I will eventually fulfill both tasks if they reach 5 DRK each, otherwise just the one that has more DRK)

[stonehedge]

I wouldn't worry semaj, you are witnessing a hypothetical debate.  Don't let it wind you up.

As a masternode owner I am against increasing masternode payouts unless something is done to improve mining conditions for the miners.

Don't forget that masternodes have recently been running at a loss too despite our 20% slice of the pie.  This is probably now solved but still, we aren't raking it in at the miners expense.

I was gutted the other day whean I read you hired that beast of a farm.

I was watching you connect and disconnect from the DarkcoinTalk Pool and my pulse was racing when I saw you at 3.5Gh/s dude...

I was like "Yeah Baby" thinking you had a 1000 GPU setup lol 

We were running at 7Gh/s for a while!  Set my pulse racing too!

Serious question...how do you build a rig with that kind of hash rate? 

[stonehedge]

Satoshis principles of how a blockchain is secured and validated. You just want to let the validation be done by an elitist club of early adopters, instead of giving EVERYBODY a chance of participating in the coin creation. That's what I don't get.

Mining gives everybody the possibility to get to some DRK without the need to go thru an exchange or thru some smug MN holder who thinks he is now supposed to be the sole source of DRK.

I am mining all kinds of coins, so I don't need to go thru the whole established banking system with all their KYC etc...
No bank anywhere has my personal information and knows that I bought cryptocurrencies, EXACTLY because I was able to get to some coins by running a mining machine!

So, if you get rid of mining, you take away from people the possibility that they can create coins themselves, instead you are forcing them to only be able to buy darkcoins thru an exchange, which is INSANE!

Darkcoin is VERY COOL in that regard, because it let's you still mine with your CPU/GPU. (And imagine in the future having X11 USB ASICS that cost 10 $? Isn't that fantastic? Giving some kid a X11 miner as present and having him participate in the network. Ok, maybe in some rich elitist famility they can give some kid 1000 DRK complete with managed server, .... )

If the blockchain were to be validated by MN network only, I would not trust it. Sure, everybody can provide a blockchain, it's not just about its visibility, it's about its integrity!

You have the burden of the proof to show that MN network can really replace mining. Not me!
Such extraordinairy claims require extraordinairy evidence.

This is a great point, especially when you consider that in some parts of the world, people have had their bank accounts closed for being involved in trading cryptocurrencies. To be fair though, if you really wanted Darkcoins, you could receive some in exchange for goods or services without going through the exchanges.

You can also buy cryptos over the counter. Not everywhere, but localbitcoins works great.

One of banks that I use in the UK now challenges every payment I make to a bitcoin whale as fraudulent activity.  I have to spend ten minutes on the phone verifying my identity and explaining the transaction. 

[georgem]

One of banks that I use in the UK now challenges every payment I make to a bitcoin whale as fraudulent activity.  I have to spend ten minutes on the phone verifying my identity and explaining the transaction. 

Exactly the kind of shit I want to ommit