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

[mrkavasaki]

dash is not even really anonymous, it will replaced sooner or later by an cryptonode coin

[Panadacoin]

dash is not even really anonymous, it will replaced sooner or later by an cryptonode coin

What is the point to come and spread fud here?

[kadrek]

What is the point to come and spread fud here?

They feel their coins are threatened by Dash and are envious of everyone who got in early 

[eduffield]

dash is not even really anonymous, it will replaced sooner or later by an cryptonode coin

Once the budget system is running we're going to have bounties available. How about $2000 to break an 8 round DS? It's never been done because it's impossible 

[TheDasher]

dash is not even really anonymous, it will replaced sooner or later by an cryptonode coin

Once the budget system is running we're going to have bounties available. How about $2000 to break an 8 round DS? It's never been done because it's impossible 

Hardly worth anyone's time at 2000.  If you are certain of your product why not up the ante to something which might motivate someone with half a brain to try?

[TanteStefana2]

dash is not even really anonymous, it will replaced sooner or later by an cryptonode coin

Once the budget system is running we're going to have bounties available. How about $2000 to break an 8 round DS? It's never been done because it's impossible 

Sure, but lets not put too much into bounties that may never be claimed 'cause I'd rather see the coins get used and distributed.  But I'm kind of hammering the head off the nail with this one, LOL.

[sdef2]

https://youtu.be/YozN5VX1VU4  100 IX transactions in 10 seconds using my new "sendtoaddressix" command  

looks great!

By the way, at 2:05 in the video we can see you even had a 0.1 second 'sleep' command after each send, i was wondering why ?

[Macrochip]

This was an almost turd-free zone for days. All Evan had to do was tear the haters a new one with a tiny video clip and the turds came zooming out like torpedoes leaving their skidmarks with age old debunked and refuted shitstains disguised as arguments. Marvelous how the hate and envy machine of Failero works...

Eat your heart out, losers.

Why would eduffield not relaunch

Because the community voted "NO" you lying criminal scumbag. Go to jail and give the money back you stole, Hashfast scammer!

dash is not even really anonymous, it will replaced sooner or later by an cryptonode coin

Oh hey, nice Trust level you got there, bro! Why is it always liars, thiefs and scammers who attack Dash?

[illodin]

dash is not even really anonymous, it will replaced sooner or later by an cryptonode coin

Once the budget system is running we're going to have bounties available. How about $2000 to break an 8 round DS? It's never been done because it's impossible 

Hardly worth anyone's time at 2000.  If you are certain of your product why not up the ante to something which might motivate someone with half a brain to try?

Are you saying there's no one with half a brain in Monero who holds enough Moneros to have the upside of +$2000 when the big bad DASH goes away so MONERO can go to MOOOON?

[illodin]

Greed addresses and InstantX are totally different. For starters, Green addresses require TRUST, and each trusted party have to be trusted separately. Very unpractical.

Whereas InstantX is trustless, and just works automatically for everyone.

[Sub-Ether]

Looks infinitely scalable to me, might have to test 1 million instantX transactions just for the sheer hell of it      
 
'So how many tx a quorum(10 MNs) can take? Is it a matter of bandwidth or...please axplain??
If 30000 or more itx hit MN network, what then? Can a MN on average be a part of 3000 quorums or more?'
--Lukas_Jackson--

'Sure, the only limit to the system is the amount of memory we have available. But then again, we have a 2-tier network... so we can just require beefy masternodes. '
--Evan Duffield--

[thelonecrouton]

Bitcoin currently handles 7 unconfirmed tx per second + confirmation/waiting time
DASH handles 10 confirmed tx per second and you can walk out the shop with the merchant safe and happy.

Not quite right, the entire Bitcoin network handles a maximum of 7 txes per second. Each IX only requires a tiny subset of the 3000 MN total to work. You're looking at tx throughput two orders of magnitude+ better than BTC, each one in seconds, not minutes/hours.

[thelonecrouton]

Why does the network have so much new capacity with this release ?

IX capacity has always been better than PoW capacity, as you're not having to wait for the whole lumbering Proof-of-Waste farce, you're getting consensus from a much smaller group of nodes, with the main constraint being network latency (milliseconds), not arbitrary Watt-burning make-work (minutes+.)

[Macrochip]

Bitcoin currently handles 7 unconfirmed tx per second + confirmation/waiting time
DASH handles 10 confirmed tx per second and you can walk out the shop with the merchant safe and happy.

Not quite right, the entire Bitcoin network handles a maximum of 7 txes per second. Each IX only requires a tiny subset of the 3000 MN total to work. You're looking at tx throughput two orders of magnitude+ better than BTC, each one in seconds, not minutes/hours.

So if the subset is 10 for example, at 3k M-Nodes the TPS would be 3,000 as well, I assume? That's 1k more than VISA handles atm.
This is a very interesting read on that matter: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability

[thelonecrouton]

Bitcoin currently handles 7 unconfirmed tx per second + confirmation/waiting time
DASH handles 10 confirmed tx per second and you can walk out the shop with the merchant safe and happy.

Not quite right, the entire Bitcoin network handles a maximum of 7 txes per second. Each IX only requires a tiny subset of the 3000 MN total to work. You're looking at tx throughput two orders of magnitude+ better than BTC, each one in seconds, not minutes/hours.

So if the subset is 10 for example, at 3k M-Nodes the TPS would be 3,000 as well, I assume? That's 1k more than VISA handles atm.
This is a very interesting read on that matter: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability

If 10 MNs are needed for each IX then with 3000 MNs you'd have theoretical capacity for 300 simultaneous IX's. There are going to be overheads, and some MNs may be tied up doing DS or something else, but you get the idea.

I don't know if or how the concept of MN multithreading/multitasking applies, but there's probably room to squeeze a shitload more efficiency out of the system yet.

[Macrochip]

Why does the network have so much new capacity with this release ?

IX capacity has always been better than PoW capacity, as you're not having to wait for the whole lumbering Proof-of-Waste farce, you're getting consensus from a much smaller group of nodes.

Without PoW consensus I feel like this is becoming dangerous territory: If the subset of elected IX-nodes is small enough, wouldn't someone like Otoh with over 600 MNs have a good chance that a TX is entirely in his domain? What would stop an attacker from reversing an IX-tx before it hits the miners, when all consensus nodes are controlled by one person?

[thelonecrouton]

Why does the network have so much new capacity with this release ?

IX capacity has always been better than PoW capacity, as you're not having to wait for the whole lumbering Proof-of-Waste farce, you're getting consensus from a much smaller group of nodes.

Without PoW consensus I feel like this is becoming dangerous territory: If the subset of elected IX-nodes is small enough, wouldn't someone like Otoh with over 600 MNs have a good chance that a TX is entirely in his domain? What would stop an attacker from reversing an IX-tx before it hits the miners, when all consensus nodes are controlled by one person?

You have it exactly backwards, MN subsetting is tens of thousands of times more secure than PoW.

If there are 600 compromised nodes out of 3000, and you need 10 of those 3000 to beat the system, the chances that all of the 10 needed nodes for any one IX will be among the 600 compromised nodes are miniscule.

Roughly, (600/3000)^10 = 0.000000102

Evil-Otoh will be waiting a long time to bugger up a single IX.

There's a reason hierarchical structures arise in nature and society - efficiency. Societal hierarchies are easy targets for compromise because they are essentially static, they provide fixed targets. Pooled mining is a good example of an this, it's a vulnerability, not an asset.

Overlay networks like Masternodes are a fluid hierarchy and vastly more resilient to attack.

[Sub-Ether]

Bitcoin currently handles 7 unconfirmed tx per second + confirmation/waiting time
DASH handles 10 confirmed tx per second and you can walk out the shop with the merchant safe and happy.

Not quite right, the entire Bitcoin network handles a maximum of 7 txes per second. Each IX only requires a tiny subset of the 3000 MN total to work. You're looking at tx throughput two orders of magnitude+ better than BTC, each one in seconds, not minutes/hours.

So if the subset is 10 for example, at 3k M-Nodes the TPS would be 3,000 as well, I assume? That's 1k more than VISA handles atm.
This is a very interesting read on that matter: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability

If 10 MNs are needed for each IX then with 3000 MNs you'd have theoretical capacity for 300 simultaneous IX's. There are going to be overheads, and some MNs may be tied up doing DS or something else, but you get the idea.

I don't know if or how the concept of MN multithreading/multitasking applies, but there's probably room to squeeze a shitload more efficiency out of the system yet.

300 is not the maximum, Evan said its down to the amount of memory of the masternodes, the upper limit is unknown.
We were sending hundreds of IX in testnet with only 150 masternodes and they all worked up until someone reduced the number of nodes, there looked to be a failure point were they return to proof of work but its pretty low node count wise and when scaled up to 3000 nodes may be impossible to break due to the strength of the network.

[thelonecrouton]

Bitcoin currently handles 7 unconfirmed tx per second + confirmation/waiting time
DASH handles 10 confirmed tx per second and you can walk out the shop with the merchant safe and happy.

Not quite right, the entire Bitcoin network handles a maximum of 7 txes per second. Each IX only requires a tiny subset of the 3000 MN total to work. You're looking at tx throughput two orders of magnitude+ better than BTC, each one in seconds, not minutes/hours.

So if the subset is 10 for example, at 3k M-Nodes the TPS would be 3,000 as well, I assume? That's 1k more than VISA handles atm.
This is a very interesting read on that matter: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability

If 10 MNs are needed for each IX then with 3000 MNs you'd have theoretical capacity for 300 simultaneous IX's. There are going to be overheads, and some MNs may be tied up doing DS or something else, but you get the idea.

I don't know if or how the concept of MN multithreading/multitasking applies, but there's probably room to squeeze a shitload more efficiency out of the system yet.

300 is not the maximum, Evan said its down to the amount of memory of the masternodes, the upper limit is unknown.
We were sending hundreds of IX in testnet with only 150 masternodes and they all worked up until someone reduced the number of nodes, there looked to be a failure point were they return to proof of work but its pretty low node count wise and when scaled up to 3000 nodes may be impossible to break due to the strength of the network.

Splendid. Three+ orders of magnitude better tx throughput than Bitcoin then.

[Macrochip]

If there are 600 compromised nodes out of 3000, and you need 10 of those 3000 to beat the system, the chances that all of the 10 needed nodes for any one IX will be among the 600 compromised nodes are miniscule.

Roughly, (600/3000)^10 = 0.000000102

Evil-Otoh will be waiting a long time to bugger up a single IX.

Just covering all bases here. Thanks for the explanation. I really have to refresh my combinatoric knowledge