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

[coins101]

BTC-e Trollbox have talked themselves into a hole.  Have they crossed the rubicon? The pitfalls of 24/7 BTC trading.

[BlockaFett]

And none of those 10 people have come up with a rational argument as to why miners deserve 4X the block reward of Masternodes, just tears and threats.

These arguments you've presented are like saying the price of the flight is as important as the integrity of the plane's wings.

In crypto hashrate is everything. You're arguing for cheap flights at the potential expense of the wings falling of. No f*cking way.

20% masternode fee is huge. Don't be greedy.

What part of 4 people could fork the blockchain anytime they wanted to or were coerced to do you not grasp?

This is not integrity. This is not security. This is a liability.

The wings are held on by hope. Hope is not a plan.

pools aren't people Crouton, that's a misrepresentation, same applies to any big coin. those pools have a few big miners but 100's of small drk miners, and implying they will fork the network nefariously how often has this happened in the real world? 

[toknormal]

What part of 4 people could fork the blockchain anytime they wanted to or were coerced to do you not grasp?

The part that claims that decentralisation is more important than hashrate.

It is not.

[antonioserrano72]

Do you guys think that the price will recover to 0.01 again by any chance?

[thelonecrouton]

And none of those 10 people have come up with a rational argument as to why miners deserve 4X the block reward of Masternodes, just tears and threats.

These arguments you've presented are like saying the price of the flight is as important as the integrity of the plane's wings.

In crypto hashrate is everything. You're arguing for cheap flights at the potential expense of the wings falling of. No f*cking way.

20% masternode fee is huge. Don't be greedy.

What part of 4 people could fork the blockchain anytime they wanted to or were coerced to do you not grasp?

This is not integrity. This is not security. This is a liability.

The wings are held on by hope. Hope is not a plan.

pools aren't people Crouton, that's a misrepresentation, same applies to any big coin. those pools have a few big miners but 100's of small drk miners, and implying they will fork the network nefariously how often has this happened in the real world? 

All those pools have someone, who if coerced, would do what an attacker told them. How many individual miners are on that pool is completely irrelevant.

Is your argument for security really, "Well, it hasn't happened yet!"

[thelonecrouton]

What part of 4 people could fork the blockchain anytime they wanted to or were coerced to do you not grasp?

The part that claims that decentralisation is more important than hashrate.

It is not.

WTF?

So 1 person with a gazillion megahash makes for a secure network? You clearly have no clue.

[twinflame]

I hope people will think twice now before using mintpal. Millions go through that exchange but it's run by amateurs.
When you go from one version to a newer version you would test this first on test servers and if that runs well, you would go live. Do they only have production servers or what? If they can't go to v2, they should revert back to v1.

It's been five days now. I hope no one had coins left there. Only dump coins on an exchange when you're going to trade. Never, ever leave coins on an exchange. You never know when someone pulls another "gox" on you.

[mailmansDOGE]

Wanna know why master nodes deserve the peyment they get? Solely because they lock a big portion of funds making themselves unable to use those coins in any way if they want to make a ROI from the investment in the masternode. There is no derivative market from darkcoin mining since there are no asics. Developers are going to keep it this way so they can have control of the most valid investment. As long as masternodes are the only popular investment in existence developers are going to keep the upper hand on the market. They don't want asics produced for their coin so they don't lose any of the control and influence they have. Although allowing derivatives like asics and cloud mining farms would let the network hashrate multiply, cause more coins to move around the market rather than just letting them locked, a huge wave of buys and sells and even outsiders looking to get into DRK to invest in it's mining. All those things can only lead the price UP. But as we see now with bitcoin, as the difficulty rises and the bubble of purchasing home miners popped, the price is plunging for now. Maybe that's also a thing the developers are trying to avoid.

[toknormal]

All those pools have someone, who if coerced, would do what an attacker told them. How many individual miners are on that pool is completely irrelevant.

Is your argument for security really, "Well, it hasn't happened yet!"

Changing the masternode / mining revenue balance isn't going to do jack to consolidated mining. All it will do is impact the hashrate adversely while leaving pools as centralised as ever. You still won't be able to solo mine.

This is a POW coin. You can't f*ck about with that fact, I'm sorry. Running a masternode is a value added service that's provided ONCE THE MONEY SUPPLY HAS BEEN CREATED. There can be a myriad of such services and they have to attract their own revenue source according to the nature of that service. In my opinion we're damn lucky to get 10% of mining fees never mind 20 but it's working - hashrate is good and the network has a ton of masternodes.

You've got a solution that's looking for a problem but unfortunately one doesn't exist in this case.

[antonioserrano72]

Wanna know why master nodes deserve the peyment they get? Solely because they lock a big portion of funds making themselves unable to use those coins in any way if they want to make a ROI from the investment in the masternode. There is no derivative market from darkcoin mining since there are no asics. Developers are going to keep it this way so they can have control of the most valid investment. As long as masternodes are the only popular investment in existence developers are going to keep the upper hand on the market. They don't want asics produced for their coin so they don't lose any of the control and influence they have. Although allowing derivatives like asics and cloud mining farms would let the network hashrate multiply, cause more coins to move around the market rather than just letting them locked, a huge wave of buys and sells and even outsiders looking to get into DRK to invest in it's mining. All those things can only lead the price UP. But as we see now with bitcoin, as the difficulty rises and the bubble of purchasing home miners popped, the price is plunging for now. Maybe that's also a thing the developers are trying to avoid.

You bring up an interesting point. However I find accusing the developers of wanting to have control isn't really reasonable. They're more likely trying to avoid bubbles and letting third parties get involved as you said. It's not about having control over the coin.

[BlockaFett]

All those pools have someone, who if coerced, would do what an attacker told them. How many individual miners are on that pool is completely irrelevant.

Is your argument for security really, "Well, it hasn't happened yet!"

It's your argument Crouton - the 4 biggest pools are 'people' who could fork the network.

I'm saying your argument isn't rational because, the difference between a pool and an individual miner, is that as soon as any pool tried to fork the network, miners would leave instantly meaning they had no hash power and would only get a brief window to attack so not much DRK anyway. 

Second, the 4 biggest pools would have to cooperate in the attack which is again unlikely.

It's in pools interests not to do this, they would only control the network briefly until miners left, and they can make more $ providing a good service

This is what history has shown and yes past examples is another valid argument when considering security I think

Anyway, just bringing you up on this, saying drk mining is controlled by 4 people is the irrational argument in my book for those reasons.

We are all dark supporters so dont want to argue, it looks really bad to observers MN owners having a go at miners I think, not what we need right now with hashrate droppping

[thelonecrouton]

All those pools have someone, who if coerced, would do what an attacker told them. How many individual miners are on that pool is completely irrelevant.

Is your argument for security really, "Well, it hasn't happened yet!"

Changing the masternode / mining revenue balance isn't going to do jack to consolidated mining. All it will do is impact the hashrate adversely while leaving pools as centralised as ever. You still won't be able to solo mine.

This is a POW coin. You can't f*ck about with that fact, I'm sorry. Running a masternode is a value added service that's provided ONCE THE MONEY SUPPLY HAS BEEN CREATED. There can be a myriad of such services and they have to attract their own revenue source according to the nature of that service. In my opinion we're damn lucky to get 10% of mining fees never mind 20 but it's working - hashrate is good and the network has a ton of masternodes.

You've got a solution that's looking for a problem but unfortunately one doesn't exist in this case.

Changing the block split isn't meant to combat consolidated mining. It's meant to increase the MN count further to improve network security and cope with adoption and the InstanTX workload. Mandatory p2pool use would completely solve the centralisation problem, but that doesn't appear to be a priority to anyone currently.

As for , 'you can't fuck about with that fact, sorry' - did you miss the part where Evan already did, for very good reasons?

[BlockaFett]

remember that MN owners are the privileged investors here.  The ones saying they aren't earning enough and why do they need the other investors, get a clue what this sounds like to the small investors, how would you like it if you own tiny share in a company you believed in and the rich guys who had 25% of the company you could only dream of are talking like this. 

[antonioserrano72]

remember that MN owners are the privileged investors here.  The ones saying they aren't earning enough and why do they need the other investors, get a clue what this sounds like to the small investors, how would you like it if you own tiny share in a company you believed in and the rich guys who had 25% of the company you could only dream of are talking like this. 

Check your masternode privilege.

[thelonecrouton]

All those pools have someone, who if coerced, would do what an attacker told them. How many individual miners are on that pool is completely irrelevant.

Is your argument for security really, "Well, it hasn't happened yet!"

It's your argument Crouton - the 4 biggest pools are 'people' who could fork the network.

I'm saying your argument isn't rational because, the difference between a pool and an individual miner, is that as soon as any pool tried to fork the network, miners would leave instantly meaning they had no hash power and would only get a brief window to attack so not much DRK anyway. 

Second, the 4 biggest pools would have to cooperate in the attack which is again unlikely.

It's in pools interests not to do this, they would only control the network briefly until miners left, and they can make more $ providing a good service

This is what history has shown and yes past examples is another valid argument when considering security I think

Anyway, just bringing you up on this, saying drk mining is controlled by 4 people is the irrational argument in my book for those reasons.

We are all dark supporters so dont want to argue, it looks really bad to observers MN owners having a go at miners I think, not what we need right now with hashrate droppping

The more likely attack vector is not 4 people decide to fork the network for shits and giggles, but one entity compels them to do so for purposes of their own.

Wishful thinking that this will not ever happen both irrational and naive.

[BlockaFett]

The more likely attack vector is not 4 people decide to fork the network for shits and giggles, but one entity compels them to do so for purposes of their own.

Wishful thinking that this will not ever happen both irrational and naive.

ok lets agree to differ

[thelonecrouton]

remember that MN owners are the privileged investors here.  The ones saying they aren't earning enough and why do they need the other investors, get a clue what this sounds like to the small investors, how would you like it if you own tiny share in a company you believed in and the rich guys who had 25% of the company you could only dream of are talking like this. 

How is someone spending a few thousand $ on a MN, or a few $ on DRK to contribute to a MN share,  any more privileged than someone spending the same on mining gear?

[BlockaFett]

remember that MN owners are the privileged investors here.  The ones saying they aren't earning enough and why do they need the other investors, get a clue what this sounds like to the small investors, how would you like it if you own tiny share in a company you believed in and the rich guys who had 25% of the company you could only dream of are talking like this. 

How is someone spending a few thousand $ on a MN, or a few $ on DRK to contribute to a MN share,  any more privileged than someone spending the same on mining gear?

because (lets say) $1000 spent on DRK MN is a much higher cost than $1000 spent on mining gear when you fact in the opportunity cost of not being able to hedge to other investments, which you can do with mining gear.   It's much higher risk to put all the investment in one currency so the real cost of doing so is higher not just the $1000 initial outlay.  

[coins101]

Uh... Evan said he WANTED ASICs - he's not going to keep it GPU mined. So... there are just no ASICs YET, and in the event DRK succeeds, ASICs are a certainty, and so is the fact they will destroy GPU mining for X11 worse than Scrypt ASICs did for Scrypt coins. It won't be quite the level of slaughter it was on BTC, but it'll be quite close.

The number of X11 projects makes ASICs certainty.  The current price of BTC at the moment is depressing the market for ASICs, but they can still do the R&D in readiness for a bump in prices across the board. But yes, DRK will be the one that leads on the ASICs ROI development front.

[antonioserrano72]

Uh... Evan said he WANTED ASICs - he's not going to keep it GPU mined. So... there are just no ASICs YET, and in the event DRK succeeds, ASICs are a certainty, and so is the fact they will destroy GPU mining for X11 worse than Scrypt ASICs did for Scrypt coins. It won't be quite the level of slaughter it was on BTC, but it'll be quite close.

Is this a bad thing? I haven't heard of anyone investing heavily in x11 specific rigs. Many of the miners are people using outdated(-ish) rigs from the scrypt era. I don't see how asics would cause any harm for darkcoin. A big derivatives market would attract attention to the markets and bring more movement to the coin through mining and trading.