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

[crowning]

It seems to me like we have the same people defending increasing the current 20% MN payments and a much larger set of people against it. I have been a DRK supporter since early February and I haven't had this bad of a feeling about something Evan suggested since that airdrop idea he floated...

This!

A crypto-currency is by design  a self-regulating dynamic system with a LOT of variables. You can only change ONE variable and wait how the system adjusts to get an idea what it does or not does, never two or more.

There's a reason why the Bitcoin developers are VERY resistant to introduce protocol changes.
Darkcoin on the other hand changes a lot.

The truth is somewhere in the middle.

[1715190052]

1715190052

[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?

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.  

So now you're saying that MN ops are less privileged? Jesus, make your mind up.  

edit: I completely agree with you on this BTW, running a MN is arguably far riskier than having mining gear with resale value, even taking into account hardware depreciation.

[toknormal]

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?

Where I disagree with your (well thought out and made in good faith) point of view is in your lumping of masternode service provision in the same category as mining. It's a ludicrous comparison.

For a start it creates a mismatch in the fundamental proof of work concept - miners are paying for a service which they do not receive. Darkcoin has a 2-tier architecture. The anonymisation layer is independent of the coin supply process. You can see this just by looking at Coinwarz:

http://www.coinwarz.com/cryptocurrency

Darkcoin is 68th most profitable coin to mine. It's anonymity features do nothing to that rating because they are independent of the mining process. However you see it, coinwarz will only see it one way - as a massive reduction in profitability. Masternode count may go up or may go down but jeez - what a price to pay. The fact that "Evan already did, for very good reasons" is because he didn't have any alternative, but it doesn't change the fact that it's an anomaly.

Masternodes are a value added service, end of story. Nothing to do with mining.

[toknormal]

Bitcoin 4hr MACD still diverging.

15 minute chart going positive though. Panic buy-back starting.

Will the market have the stomach to drive it back to 266  or below ?

Seats please.

[BlockaFett]

So now you're saying that MN ops are less privileged? Jesus, make your mind up.  

It's all love

[BlockaFett]

Bitcoin 4hr MACD still diverging.

15 minute chart going positive though. Panic buy-back starting.

Will the market have the stomach to drive it back to 266  or below ?

Seats please.

Seats and spare pair of pants at the ready!!!

[thelonecrouton]

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?

Where I disagree with your (well thought out and made in good faith) point of view is in your lumping of masternode service provision in the same category as mining. It's a ludicrous comparison.

For a start it creates a mismatch in the fundamental proof of work concept - miners are paying for a service which they do not receive. Darkcoin has a 2-tier architecture. The anonymisation layer is independent of the coin supply process. You can see this just by looking at Coinwarz:

http://www.coinwarz.com/cryptocurrency

Darkcoin is 68th most profitable coin to mine. It's anonymity features do nothing to that rating because they are independent of the mining process. However you see it, coinwarz will only see it one way - as a massive reduction in profitability. Masternode count may go up or may go down but jeez - what a price to pay. The fact that "Evan already did, for very good reasons" is because he didn't have any alternative, but it doesn't change the fact that it's an anomaly.

Masternodes are a value added service, end of story. Nothing to do with mining.

DRK is often the most profitable X11 coin to mine. Why do you think multipools mine it?

And 'two-tier' is needless rhetoric. 'Two-fold' would be better - I think miners are important, believe it or not (I am one, remember) but I think the whole 'securing the network' thing is overestimated and overassumed, and what little security they do provide is currently too expensive.

Enforce p2pool and mining suddenly does help make the network secure. Right now, it simply doesn't.

[toknormal]

DRK is often the most profitable X11 coin to mine. Why do you think multipools mine it?

And 'two-tier' is needless rhetoric. 'Two-fold' would be better - I think miners are important, believe it or not (I am one, remember) but I think the whole 'securing the network' thing is overestimated and overassumed, and what little security they do provide is currently too expensive.

Enforce p2pool and mining suddenly does help make the network secure. Right now, it simply doesn't.

Won't you just get the same centralised thing happening with masternodes ? Masternode farming and half the coin supply locked up, no liquidity ?

I'd rather have centralised mining than centralised masternodes. They are a value added service. Think supermarkets:

[1] - mining=stocking the shelves
[2] - masternodes = carrying your stuff home for you

Your saying that the prices on the shelves should reflect the cost of the delivery service, even for folk who bring their own bags and cart their stuff home.

And b.t.w. 2-tier is EXACTLY the right terminology, not 2-fold. By any interpretation of software architecture, Darkcoin's anonymisation layer is a completely separate tier, both conceptually and literally.

[Ignition75]

It seems to me like we have the same people defending increasing the current 20% MN payments and a much larger set of people against it. I have been a DRK supporter since early February and I haven't had this bad of a feeling about something Evan suggested since that airdrop idea he floated...

I still don't know why we don't give the currency several months to a year to grow organically before messing with the technicals. If DRK/fiat increases then MN's will become more profitable and their numbers will naturally increase. The current plan is heavy handed and may well be a disaster if too many people are pissed off.

Much larger? I see 10 people voting for the staus quo:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=579976.msg6335710#msg6335710

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.

In the near future Masternodes will be performing the vast majority of blockchain maintenance. Miners will exist as a backup, and they aren't even a secure backup...

Masternodes are orders of magnitude more decentralised than miners.

Take a look at http://drk.poolhash.org/poolhash.html -

Last 24hrs:
suchpool 19.4%
x11ltcbtccom 17.3%
coinminepl 10.4%
wafflepool 7.2%
miningpoolhub 6.2%
trademybitcom 6%

That's 66.5% of the total hash controlled by 6 individuals. Only takes 4 of them to mount a 51% attack.

A successful attack on the MN network would need way more than 51%. More like 90%+ for any reasonable chance.

More miners = better security is a complete myth when 90%+ of miners use pools instead of p2pool.

'Securing the network' my arse. Miners are in it for the money, all those pools dump DRK straight to BTC, and right now those figures look like a liability to me, not any form of security.

The argument that miners give the coin value because of the electricity/rig costs is also bogus. If that were the case, the vast majority of miners wouldn't be selling their DRK at a loss straight away.

People don't instamine DRK, there are plenty more profitable coins to GPU mine if you are after BTC.

They are holders...

[thelonecrouton]

DRK is often the most profitable X11 coin to mine. Why do you think multipools mine it?

And 'two-tier' is needless rhetoric. 'Two-fold' would be better - I think miners are important, believe it or not (I am one, remember) but I think the whole 'securing the network' thing is overestimated and overassumed, and what little security they do provide is currently too expensive.

Enforce p2pool and mining suddenly does help make the network secure. Right now, it simply doesn't.

Won't you just get the same centralised thing happening with masternodes ? Masternode farming and half the coin supply locked up, no liquidity ?

I'd rather have centralised mining than centralised masternodes. They are a value added service. Think supermarkets:

[1] - mining=stocking the shelves
[2] - masternodes = carrying your stuff home for you

Your saying that the prices on the shelves should reflect the cost of the delivery service, even for folk who bring their own bags and cart their stuff home.

And b.t.w. 2-tier is EXACTLY the right terminology, not 2-fold. By any interpretation of software architecture, Darkcoin's anonymisation layer is a completely separate tier, both conceptually and literally.

Masternodes are inherently more secure as a random selection are chosen each block, requiring a much greater percentage of them to be compromised to mount a successful attack. There's a table floating around somewhere, you'd need 95% of the Masternodes to have a 1% chance, or some similar number, so no, it's not the same thing.

Liquidity is a non-issue, we have a decimal point.

Tiers imply one thing built on top of another. As you admit, they are completely separate. Complimentary, not hierarchic!

[thelonecrouton]

It seems to me like we have the same people defending increasing the current 20% MN payments and a much larger set of people against it. I have been a DRK supporter since early February and I haven't had this bad of a feeling about something Evan suggested since that airdrop idea he floated...

I still don't know why we don't give the currency several months to a year to grow organically before messing with the technicals. If DRK/fiat increases then MN's will become more profitable and their numbers will naturally increase. The current plan is heavy handed and may well be a disaster if too many people are pissed off.

Much larger? I see 10 people voting for the staus quo:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=579976.msg6335710#msg6335710

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.

In the near future Masternodes will be performing the vast majority of blockchain maintenance. Miners will exist as a backup, and they aren't even a secure backup...

Masternodes are orders of magnitude more decentralised than miners.

Take a look at http://drk.poolhash.org/poolhash.html -

Last 24hrs:
suchpool 19.4%
x11ltcbtccom 17.3%
coinminepl 10.4%
wafflepool 7.2%
miningpoolhub 6.2%
trademybitcom 6%

That's 66.5% of the total hash controlled by 6 individuals. Only takes 4 of them to mount a 51% attack.

A successful attack on the MN network would need way more than 51%. More like 90%+ for any reasonable chance.

More miners = better security is a complete myth when 90%+ of miners use pools instead of p2pool.

'Securing the network' my arse. Miners are in it for the money, all those pools dump DRK straight to BTC, and right now those figures look like a liability to me, not any form of security.

The argument that miners give the coin value because of the electricity/rig costs is also bogus. If that were the case, the vast majority of miners wouldn't be selling their DRK at a loss straight away.

People don't instamine DRK, there are plenty more profitable coins to GPU mine if you are after BTC.

They are holders...

No, multipools sell for BTC and pay out in BTC. Although maybe X11LTCBTC sell for LTC and I think trademybit gives you the option.

[toknormal]

Masternodes are inherently more secure as a random selection are chosen each block, requiring a much greater percentage of them to be compromised to mount a successful attack. There's a table floating around somewhere, you'd need 95% of the Masternodes to have a 1% chance, or some similar number, so no, it's not the same thing.

Liquidity is a non-issue, we have a decimal point.

Tiers imply one thing built on top of another. As you admit, they are completely separate. Complimentary, not hierarchic!

You make very interesting points. I just hope my points are taken into account as well.

What does Evan say about this ?

How will the market see it ?

What will the crypto-press do ? Put the boot in ?

[thelonecrouton]

Masternodes are inherently more secure as a random selection are chosen each block, requiring a much greater percentage of them to be compromised to mount a successful attack. There's a table floating around somewhere, you'd need 95% of the Masternodes to have a 1% chance, or some similar number, so no, it's not the same thing.

Liquidity is a non-issue, we have a decimal point.

Tiers imply one thing built on top of another. As you admit, they are completely separate. Complimentary, not hierarchic!

You make very interesting points. I just hope my points are taken into account as well.

What does Evan say about this ?

How will the market see it ?

What will the crypto-press do ? Put the boot in ?

Interesting times. 

I'd love for Evan to weigh in and tell me I'm talking complete bollocks, I might learn something... 

[Ignition75]

No, multipools sell for BTC and pay out in BTC. Although maybe X11LTCBTC sell for LTC and I think trademybit gives you the option.

They fall back on DRK when there isn't a more profitable coin, because people are choosing to mine by algorithm.

These were the fall-back currencies on Wafflepool:

Scrypt - LTC
Scrypt-N - Vert
x11 - DRK

Back when there were profits on the alt scene, the multipools would hardly touch those currencies.

Then ASICS came out for LTC and the entire alt scene dipped, multipools were spending more and more time on the fallback currencies.

Now, they virtually mine the fallback currencies 24/7 because there's no money anywhere.

Add that with multipool switching ports and as soon as any profit pops up on the scene the roaches are all over it.


So what you're arguing is just a reflection of the current state of affairs, there's no money anywhere now, lots of Fiat leaving the crypto scene... For now...

[r-ando]

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/report-russians-behind-huge-jpmorgan-122025107.html

Looks like they would have benefitted from using DRK

[thelonecrouton]

So what you're arguing is just a reflection of the current state of affairs

Is it? Back when alts were worth more (against Bitcoin) they were still mined by multipools and then instantly traded for Bitcoin. Nothing has changed.

[toknormal]

200 BTC sellwall @ $302.

....pulled.

[BlockaFett]

200 BTC sellwall @ $302.

$100 coming. 2 spare pairs of pants and a big bag of fiat recommended.

[thelonecrouton]

200 BTC sellwall @ $302.

$100 coming. 2 spare pairs of pants and a big bag of fiat recommended.

Heh, it would be interesting to know just how much fiat is stockpiled on exchanges ready to pounce. But only the exchanges know that... gives them a bit of an advantage, eh?

[toknormal]

200 BTC sellwall @ $302.

$100 coming. 2 spare pairs of pants and a big bag of fiat recommended.

The thing is, if people are interested in accumulating crypto (as opposed to accumulating fiat), there are far easier ways of doing it in the altcoin market than in the fiat market.

Even if you sold your entire holdings at $600 and then bought back at $300, you'd still only be in for a 100% gain. ok - not to be scoffed at, but at the same time you can get far bigger returns for far less risk just buying JackpotCoin, CINNI, Quark, Ducknotes, Mazza....etc @2 satoshis and offloading at a reasonable exit point.

This pissing about with huge amounts of fiat numbering in the thousands in nervy trading just to gain a few BTC is not my preferred pastime. All my BTC are in a cold"ish" wallet and staying there. Maybe they won't be worth anything in a few weeks but what kind of world will be living in in that case ? People like Barry Silvert won't be very happy.