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

[TanteStefana]

As it stands, DarkCoin can live forever, if the artificial 84million cap were removed.  It is still rare, it takes a century to get to 100 million.  Look at the United States Deficit!  It's in the Trillions!  And people think 100 million coins for the world population is too much?

I'm going to respectfully disagree.  Darkcoin needs a cap, it doesn't have to be quick or sharp, or anytime soon, but there needs to be an expectation that it's a limited commodity  like gold.  Why?  Because it's directly competing with other limited commodity cryptocurrencies.  If darkcoin is inflationary, there is no advantage to keeping your money in it long term.  This is a problem, because trying to trade in and out of the currency would reduce the privacy that it affords.  I could hold another limited commodity cryptocurrency instead and very likely watch its value gain with time.  

Gradually reducing the rewards over time is an excellent solution.  Miners will still make money off of transaction fees, the price will adjust upwards as inflation diminishes, and there will be real incentive to keeping your money in darkcoin long term.  These

are the characteristics you would want in an ideal currency.

I guess, I just saw a different future for this coin, as an actual coin, not a commodity.  I've said my peace

Is it that simple? Why wouldn't people use the coin for transactions even if others are hoarding them. Still anonymous transactions. I'm hoarding mine right now regardless. Isn't that a llegitimate function? Some will transact some will hoard. I think know there's a happy medium.

I'm sure there is a happy medium, that's how the world works best.  Sorry  if I sounded self centered as I was just trying to clearly state my viewpoint.  I literally got exhausted.  Still am.  I made the best points I could for leaving it as is, but I saw eddufield's comment that investors are insisting on a change, and the coin does need to survive childhood, so... hopefully we can keep it mild

[1714719285]

1714719285

[AlexGR]

If you push too hard for only investors to get in, the end-users who would most benefit from the anonymity factor (people in seriously oppressive regimes and the suchlike) won't be able to, and it'll become stagnant, and full of partially laundered money that rarely moves.

This can't happen. If the price goes up many times due to being a store of value coin, then the quantities needed for trading or trading anonymously, go down massively because each monetary unit (1 DRK) represents a much higher value: A $100 DRK will require 1/100th of the coins being liquid and on the move, in order to facilitate trade, compared to a $1 DRK.

It's an auto-compensation mechanism.

A scarce, low-inflation, high-value coin can also be a medium of payments/commercial transactions etc. The opposite is not true however: You can have any coin as a medium of payments but not as a store of value, unless it satisfies certain criteria.

The choice is really not between

a) A store of value coin which is unable to do payments

and

b) A payment coin which cannot hold value


...it's rather


c) A coin that can do payments AND be a store of value - because these two are not mutually exclusive

vs

d)  A payment coin which cannot hold value



The problem of (b/d) is this: Coin competition is strong. In order to survive out there you must have the least amount of improvable weaknesses. Every weakness of yours can be exploited by others. You can have the best technical coin and a clone will come and then say: "Darkcoin was great but it is too inflationary for it to become both a payment medium AND a store of value... so we fixed their problem and we'll do better" => problem right there.

[coastermonger]

If you push too hard for only investors to get in, the end-users who would most benefit from the anonymity factor (people in seriously oppressive regimes and the suchlike) won't be able to, and it'll become stagnant, and full of partially laundered money that rarely moves.

This can't happen. If the price goes up many times due to being a store of value coin, then the quantities needed for trading or trading anonymously, go down massively because each monetary unit (1 DRK) represents a much higher value: A $100 DRK will require 1/100th of the coins being liquid and on the move, in order to facilitate trade, compared to a $1 DRK.

It's an auto-compensation mechanism.

A scarce, low-inflation, high-value coin can also be a medium of payments/commercial transactions etc. The opposite is not true however: You can have any coin as a medium of payments but not as a store of value, unless it satisfies certain criteria.

The choice is really not between

a) A store of value coin which is unable to do payments

and

b) A payment coin which cannot hold value


...it's rather


c) A coin that can do payments AND be a store of value - because these two are not mutually exclusive

vs

d)  A payment coin which cannot hold value



The problem of (b/d) is this: Coin competition is strong. In order to survive out there you must have the least amount of improvable weaknesses. Every weakness of yours can be exploited by others. You can have the best technical coin and a clone will come and then say: "Darkcoin was great but it is too inflationary for it to become both a payment medium AND a store of value... so we fixed their problem and we'll do better" => problem right there.

+1 great explanation

[the_darkness]

If you make the minimums so small, nobody would care about the coin.  They'd say, oh  only the people who got in early will ever have any coin, why should I make them rich?

You'll kill this coin with greed.

+1
For Darkcoin to really succeed, it needs to be highly distributed among its users, achieving high equality.
If a small number of people hold most of the coins, it will gain no network effect, and it can kill the coin.

Right now, we have ~3.7m coins, of which ~2m where mined in the first 24hours.
If Darkcoin has 84m coins within X years, then the equality will obviously be achieved, especially if all the GPU miners come to darkcoin after Asic ruled the Scryp-coins.

But if we limit the coin supply, and have say 10m coins within X years, then one might think that this makes the coin a good store of value, but I would argue that it will TanteStefana is right about what people would say...

They'd say, oh  only the people who got in early will ever have any coin, why should I make them rich?

Yeah I agree with this general line of reasoning. If the coin caps start decreasing it will be a strong deflationary pressure that will encourage people to only hold coins rather than to use them in transactions. I see what people mean about encouraging this use as a store of value, but I think it is a bit early given that you need to have widespread adoption/acceptance of the value of a commodity before that is really possible. If everyone holds on to something there will be insufficient volume to encourage adoption, the use of Darksend to conduct anonymous purchases, etc.

[AlexGR]

If the coin caps start decreasing it will be a strong deflationary pressure that will encourage people to only hold coins rather than to use them in transactions

There is no need to guess what can happen with a hoarded coin regarding liquidity and trade: We already know how it works from seeing a $600 BTC with hoarding percentages of >50%. The only thing that changes is the amount of BTC that merchants ask for their goods. Five years ago they would ask 10.000 BTC for a pizza, now they are ok for 0.02 BTC and in two years they might be ok for a few satoshis Thus the problem of liquidity is solved.

The only reason more coins are needed is to provide a fairer distribution in the mid term.

[godzirra]

No worries TanteStefana. I'm actually unclear how the present reward structure works.

Can anyone explain it to me like I'm 5?

My biggest concern with all alts are the mining raping. Miners seem to only want more btc and use endless new coins to further that end. People hold btc even measure all else in btc. Could that be achieved without a cap? I seriously doubt it. But we all agree that transactions are the real world goal. To get it flowing as a payment method.

[coins101]

If you push too hard for only investors to get in, the end-users who would most benefit from the anonymity factor (people in seriously oppressive regimes and the suchlike) won't be able to, and it'll become stagnant, and full of partially laundered money that rarely moves.

This can't happen. If the price goes up many times due to being a store of value coin, then the quantities needed for trading or trading anonymously, go down massively because each monetary unit (1 DRK) represents a much higher value: A $100 DRK will require 1/100th of the coins being liquid and on the move, in order to facilitate trade, compared to a $1 DRK.

It's an auto-compensation mechanism.

A scarce, low-inflation, high-value coin can also be a medium of payments/commercial transactions etc. The opposite is not true however: You can have any coin as a medium of payments but not as a store of value, unless it satisfies certain criteria.

The choice is really not between

a) A store of value coin which is unable to do payments

and

b) A payment coin which cannot hold value


...it's rather


c) A coin that can do payments AND be a store of value - because these two are not mutually exclusive

vs

d)  A payment coin which cannot hold value



The problem of (b/d) is this: Coin competition is strong. In order to survive out there you must have the least amount of improvable weaknesses. Every weakness of yours can be exploited by others. You can have the best technical coin and a clone will come and then say: "Darkcoin was great but it is too inflationary for it to become both a payment medium AND a store of value... so we fixed their problem and we'll do better" => problem right there.

This means we should create a darkcoin gravity wave for coin issuance over a fixed supply:

more transactions, more fees, less coins issued

Few transactions, lower fees, more mined coins.

[camosoul]

You can have the best of both worlds, just:
1) make the reward adjustment less than 50%.  Evan is suggesting 20%, and this allows for much more gradual tapering over time.
2) Make the reward period long enough, 20% every 1-3 years is pretty slow
3) Adjust these parameters so that overall, the total number of coins remains high.  

I think this is the mistake. How much was Bitcoin worth 2 years ago?

Acceptance doesn't occur gradually over time. It comes in leaps and bounds of realization from the unwashed masses who barely comprehend what is happening. Most of them will call it a scam and refuse to put in real thought. Satoshi handled it best by simply ignoring the unstable human element. Set it BELOW what a spike of acceptance might be at it's maximum. The rest is just mental masturbation. The acceptance rate, which you cannot predict with any degree of accuracy, is what keeps the block rate from being inflationary. So make it too low. Always. Value will spike now and again. So what. As long as it doesn't dip from too much production, and the 3x diff does this... The algo keeps it distributed instead of ASIC consolidation... This means that production will unlikely every match the spikes of recognition.

With capped crypto, everything is backwards of what you're used to thinking. The diff and the supply don't change and all this tinkering is like the Fed... The exact number is really not that important as long as it isn't crazy high. Pick something and stop screwing with it. You're goofing around with the most important aspect of a cryptocoin's value capacity and trustworthiness. 20%, 30%, who cares. Just pick something and stick with it. I thin people just want something to talk about... Go outside and get some Sun... No, not SunCoin... Actual sunlight. I like 20%. I'd like 15% more. But 20% will do fine. Consider that BitCoin has already popped the crypto cherry, and it's roughly 50% ever 4 years. That's 12.5% and at the most broad acceptance rate you can ever expect. Even 15% is a bit high. But it's really not that bad. It's not that important.

Go outside guys...

[the_darkness]

If the coin caps start decreasing it will be a strong deflationary pressure that will encourage people to only hold coins rather than to use them in transactions

There is no need to guess what can happen with a hoarded coin regarding liquidity and trade: We already know how it works from seeing a $600 BTC with hoarding percentages of >50%. The only thing that changes is the amount of BTC that merchants ask for their goods. Five years ago they would ask 10.000 BTC for a pizza, now they are ok for 0.02 BTC and in two years they might be ok for a few satoshis Thus the problem of liquidity is solved.

The only reason more coins are needed is to provide a fairer distribution in the mid term.

I see what you're saying but I guess I have a different perspective on what the mid term is. Even Bitcoin's userbase is relatively tiny at this point so in terms of developing something with meaningful staying power, the system needs to remain accessible. I do think that Darkcoin is taking a long view with the horizon for total mining to be completed over the span of decades, partly for this reason.

[AlexGR]

If you push too hard for only investors to get in, the end-users who would most benefit from the anonymity factor (people in seriously oppressive regimes and the suchlike) won't be able to, and it'll become stagnant, and full of partially laundered money that rarely moves.

This can't happen. If the price goes up many times due to being a store of value coin, then the quantities needed for trading or trading anonymously, go down massively because each monetary unit (1 DRK) represents a much higher value: A $100 DRK will require 1/100th of the coins being liquid and on the move, in order to facilitate trade, compared to a $1 DRK.

It's an auto-compensation mechanism.

A scarce, low-inflation, high-value coin can also be a medium of payments/commercial transactions etc. The opposite is not true however: You can have any coin as a medium of payments but not as a store of value, unless it satisfies certain criteria.

The choice is really not between

a) A store of value coin which is unable to do payments

and

b) A payment coin which cannot hold value


...it's rather


c) A coin that can do payments AND be a store of value - because these two are not mutually exclusive

vs

d)  A payment coin which cannot hold value



The problem of (b/d) is this: Coin competition is strong. In order to survive out there you must have the least amount of improvable weaknesses. Every weakness of yours can be exploited by others. You can have the best technical coin and a clone will come and then say: "Darkcoin was great but it is too inflationary for it to become both a payment medium AND a store of value... so we fixed their problem and we'll do better" => problem right there.

This means we should create a darkcoin gravity wave for coin issuance over a fixed supply:

more transactions, more fees, less coins issued

Few transactions, lower fees, more mined coins.

Heh... I can only imagine what would happen with fake transactions in order to increase the mining output 

[AlexGR]

Pick something and stop screwing with it. You're goofing around with the most important aspect of a cryptocoin's value capacity and trustworthiness. 20%, 30%, who cares. Just pick something and stick with it. I thin people just want something to talk about...

This is very important point (sticking with it). DRK is a a coin that is just 2 months old so some tweaking is ok, aside from feature additions which are always ok, but the inflation formula is a key parameter that should be set in stone, forever with no further changes. Even changing the parameter has the potential to shake the confidence in a coin, whether that change is inflationary or deflationary (which benefits most of the existing stakeholders). The rationale is this: If today the formula was changed to this and yesterday it was changed to that, then what is my guarantee as a bagholder / miner / investor etc, that tomorrow the same won't happen towards an unknown direction? Is a coin dev the Bernanke of the X, Z coin? This kind of questioning was introduced with the Doge situation and it wasn't good.

[camosoul]

Pick something and stop screwing with it. You're goofing around with the most important aspect of a cryptocoin's value capacity and trustworthiness. 20%, 30%, who cares. Just pick something and stick with it. I thin people just want something to talk about...

This is very important point (sticking with it). DRK is a a coin that is just 2 months old so some tweaking is ok, aside from feature additions which are always ok, but the inflation formula is a key parameter that should be set in stone, forever with no further changes. Even changing the parameter has the potential to shake the confidence in a coin, whether that change is inflationary or deflationary (which benefits most of the existing stakeholders). The rationale is this: If today the formula was changed to this and yesterday it was changed to that, then what is my guarantee as a bagholder / miner / investor etc, that tomorrow the same won't happen towards an unknown direction? Is a coin dev the Bernanke of the X, Z coin? This kind of questioning was introduced with the Doge situation and it wasn't good.

The Bernanke of FailCoin. SuccessCoin doesn't have a Bernanke.

+1 DRK for you.

It's hard for a software developer to stop tweaking things and just let it ride. There will be situations imaginable and which may occur in reality for which no number is good. the human element will always affect it in a way you didn't predict. The ability to take your hands of the wheel and just let it ride is the antithesis of what a programmer is...

Don't ask anybody. Don't pay any attention tot eh vote. Just do it man! Then never touch it again.

This is the first thing to shake my confidence in this coin. C'mon Evan, you know better... This is DarkCoin not ThePeoplesCoinOfUganda.

[eltito]

If the coin caps start decreasing it will be a strong deflationary pressure that will encourage people to only hold coins rather than to use them in transactions

There is no need to guess what can happen with a hoarded coin regarding liquidity and trade: We already know how it works from seeing a $600 BTC with hoarding percentages of >50%. The only thing that changes is the amount of BTC that merchants ask for their goods. Five years ago they would ask 10.000 BTC for a pizza, now they are ok for 0.02 BTC and in two years they might be ok for a few satoshis Thus the problem of liquidity is solved.

The only reason more coins are needed is to provide a fairer distribution in the mid term.

Exactly my thinking.  There is no liquidity issue and there never will be.  Same goes for initial buy in, for the same reason.  Prices of real goods will simply adjust to reflect the relative value of the coin, and investors have something more attractive.  I'm not sure I see the downside, aside from general concerns about dicking around with the inflation formula.

[camosoul]

Exactly my thinking.  There is no liquidity issue and there never will be.

Decimal points move to the left in deflationary, capped cryptocurrency. This worry comes from having one's head still stuck in print-more-money land. I can spend 1DRK just as easily as I can spend 0.00001DRK...

[godzirra]

Exactly my thinking.  There is no liquidity issue and there never will be.

Decimal points move to the left in deflationary, capped cryptocurrency. This worry comes from having one's head still stuck in print-more-money land. I can spend 1DRK just as easily as I can spend 0.00001DRK...

+1

~15-20% seems like a good number to me as well.

[camosoul]

Exactly my thinking.  There is no liquidity issue and there never will be.

Decimal points move to the left in deflationary, capped cryptocurrency. This worry comes from having one's head still stuck in print-more-money land. I can spend 1DRK just as easily as I can spend 0.00001DRK...

+1

~15-20% seems like a good number to me as well.

I think 7% to 8% would be ideal. But, what is far more ideal is picking a damn number, even if it isn't perfect, and sticking with it.

[coins101]

Hello everyone and happy Friday!

Anyone who's been around long enough knows nothing in Darkcoin is ever set in stone and we listen to the community. Last time we removed the block halving we received a lot of crap, here's the problems with yearly halving.

- It's too fast and could destroy the coin
- It's way too much (50% per year)
- We already have formula for controlling the supply

Problems with not having a fixed supply:

- We'll have a constant amount of inflation forever. Most of us are in the austrian camp of economics, so I'd like to fix this.

In true Darkcoin fashion, I'd like to propose a solution that no other crypto has and fixes all of the issues. A yearly reduction of supply of 20%. With this we'll hit the cap of coins near 2056. I'm guessing we'll have somewhere near 25M coins (12M minimum, 49M maximum. Depends on how many miners we attract).



Let's have a vote!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=525093.0

I've had a look around some other scrypt boards.

By the end of the year, ASICs will push out GPU miners all over the place.  Expect a lot of miners on Darkcoin because it has value, utility, less power draw, anti-ASIC bias, active community and innovation.

If $100m is transacted through DarkSend each day, at 0.5%, 30,000 miners can earn a lot in regular fees.

[BitOffer]

I want to start mining this instead of Vert. I'm sold on the lower electricity and anti asic properties and the more I research it the better it looks as an investment standpoint(lower difficulty good time to get in).

Looking that this, how do i find strait forward directions on how to optimize this for GPU"S. I'm new to X11 and will just jump in and try and figure it out, but if anymore can help speed up that process with links or specific info, please do for me, and anyone after me. I have a 6 rig 7950 msi twin frozr that i will use full time on this coin.

[eltito]

I want to start mining this instead of Vert. I'm sold on the lower electricity and anti asic properties and the more I research it the better it looks as an investment standpoint(lower difficulty good time to get in).

Looking that this, how do i find strait forward directions on how to optimize this for GPU"S. I'm new to X11 and will just jump in and try and figure it out, but if anymore can help speed up that process please do for me, and anyone after me.

I use almost the exact same GPU settings as with Scrypt with the exception of intensity.  15 or 16 works better than 18 or 19, for me at least.  I suggest starting with your scrypt settings and tweaking from there.

Make sure you're using the darkcoin kernel in sgminer.

[AD_Infinitum]

Exactly my thinking.  There is no liquidity issue and there never will be.

Decimal points move to the left in deflationary, capped cryptocurrency. This worry comes from having one's head still stuck in print-more-money land. I can spend 1DRK just as easily as I can spend 0.00001DRK...

+1

~15-20% seems like a good number to me as well.

I think 7% to 8% would be ideal. But, what is far more ideal is picking a damn number, even if it isn't perfect, and sticking with it.

+1

7% per year.

2015 - 930,000 DRK
2016 - 864,900 DRK
2017 - 804,357 DRK
2018 - 748,052 DRK
2019 - 695,688 DRK
2020 - 646,990 DRK