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

[eduffield]

I realize there's no hurry on V12, but just out of curiosity...we've already blown through two release dates...is there any idea of when this might be released? Reading the test thread it looks like it could be anywhere from hours to days to a week!

In a couple hours 

[ddink7]

I realize there's no hurry on V12, but just out of curiosity...we've already blown through two release dates...is there any idea of when this might be released? Reading the test thread it looks like it could be anywhere from hours to days to a week!

In a couple hours 

Yay!! Masternode update script is ready =)

[LucD88]

Urgent message to DASH miners:
Spread out the hash more evenly, move away from coinmine.pl ASAP!

Pool statistics: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/dash/#!extraction

[Jestah]

Has anyone considered contacting them and ask them to limit?

[qwizzie]

Has anyone considered contacting them and ask them to limit?

I noticed tungfa contacted them yesterday and i placed a request for limitation just now.

[LucD88]

I noticed tungfa contacted them yesterday and i placed a request for limitation just now.

I contacted them as well about an hour ago. Seems their hashrate is dropping, still around ~55% right now.

[eduffield]

Imagine the miners were as committed to the dash project? Coinmine still has over 60% of the hashrate. This could kill all credibility for a coin to consistently have over 60% of it's hashrate generating from one pool.

I recall when BTC had this same issue, the community pulled together and miners started leaving the pool responsible.

All this community seems hell bent on protecting are their own feelings and rationale when called out on instamine etc.

If I were smooth or any of the other dash haters I would simply keep calling the community out on their laggard response to a network hashrate distribution issue.

Buckle up, do something as a community, spread the word to your miner friends on dash and tell them to leave coinmine for the time being and join another pool or go p2p mining(it's so dam easy)

Several long-time members have see this coming for a long time and have been trying to sound the alarm. Every time we try, we are completely ignored by the devs and largely ignored by the community. I finally just gave up and figured "why bother?"

The possibility of a bad actor launching a "51% attack" against any PoW coin is, to me, doomsday. People like to point out that no rational pool admin would do such a thing, and they are right, for the most part. But what happens if:

a) Pool gets hacked. If Target and God knows how many other major corporations with dekamillion dollar IT budgets can get successfully hacked, do you really thing suchpool (or whomever) can't be?
b) Pool op is irrational/delusional/destructive.
c) Pool op concludes that double spending will net him more income than the pool itself does. Look at exit scams like Evolution--the guy was making insane bank, so stealing everything and shutting down the site seemed irrational. But when he figured out he could make more in one scam than he could in five years of hard work, he took the easy route.

I've practically begged devs to explore another model. Proof of Service runs our masternode network--how come something like that can't run our blockchain? I don't know, maybe it's impossible, but nobody even bothers to respond to my threads on dashtalk, so I don't even make them anymore.

The only good news in this whole deal is that, as far as I know, InstantX transactions cannot be double spent because they are locked by the masternode network. In a worst-case scenario, that might could be used to stabilize the network until the problem could be dealt with.

P.S. A bit of reading between the lines implies that the devs are looking strongly toward the possibility of using the masternode network in their future scalability plans. With the new "sendinstantxto" (or whatever the exact command is), it's now easier to send multiple IX's at the same time. This looks promising.

We're definitely open to improving the pool distribution if anyone has ideas. However, PoS is incompatible with anything that uses masternode quorums. The quorums are chosen based off of the proof-of-work hash, so if we were to switch to a proof-of-stake model, we would end up with less secure hashes and other issues that would have to be addressed. That would allow an attacker to pick the masternodes that approve a transaction lock for example, something that we definitely want to avoid.

[ddink7]

snip

We're definitely open to improving the pool distribution if anyone has ideas. However, PoS is incompatible with anything that uses masternode quorums. The quorums are chosen based off of the proof-of-work hash, so if we were to switch to a proof-of-stake model, we would end up with less secure hashes and other issues that would have to be addressed. That would allow an attacker to pick the masternodes that approve a transaction lock for example, something that we definitely want to avoid.

Evan, thank you for addressing this. It's good to know the limitations that we're up against!

[qwizzie]

It would be nice if we could make some "gentlemen" agreements with one or two of the bigger pools to have them automatically
limit their hashrate or have them put into action a discouragement policy (referring miners to use other pools) once they reach 50% or more on the Dash
network.

It would be as much in their interest as it is in our interest, a pool without trust could very quickly become a pool with a lot less miners....

[aleix]

As I said in the thread about it in dashtalk.org I will propose the funding for a dev to fix and improve the code to p2p mining. Not only for Dash but for the entire crypto economy projects.

April 27, 2014

https://dashtalk.org/threads/masternode-donation-to-p2pool.326/

https://dashtalk.org/threads/discussion-projects-founded-by-blockchain.5419/#post-56569

 

[rentahash]

Imagine the miners were as committed to the dash project? Coinmine still has over 60% of the hashrate. This could kill all credibility for a coin to consistently have over 60% of it's hashrate generating from one pool.

I recall when BTC had this same issue, the community pulled together and miners started leaving the pool responsible.

All this community seems hell bent on protecting are their own feelings and rationale when called out on instamine etc.

If I were smooth or any of the other dash haters I would simply keep calling the community out on their laggard response to a network hashrate distribution issue.

Buckle up, do something as a community, spread the word to your miner friends on dash and tell them to leave coinmine for the time being and join another pool or go p2p mining(it's so dam easy)

Several long-time members have see this coming for a long time and have been trying to sound the alarm. Every time we try, we are completely ignored by the devs and largely ignored by the community. I finally just gave up and figured "why bother?"

The possibility of a bad actor launching a "51% attack" against any PoW coin is, to me, doomsday. People like to point out that no rational pool admin would do such a thing, and they are right, for the most part. But what happens if:

a) Pool gets hacked. If Target and God knows how many other major corporations with dekamillion dollar IT budgets can get successfully hacked, do you really thing suchpool (or whomever) can't be?
b) Pool op is irrational/delusional/destructive.
c) Pool op concludes that double spending will net him more income than the pool itself does. Look at exit scams like Evolution--the guy was making insane bank, so stealing everything and shutting down the site seemed irrational. But when he figured out he could make more in one scam than he could in five years of hard work, he took the easy route.

I've practically begged devs to explore another model. Proof of Service runs our masternode network--how come something like that can't run our blockchain? I don't know, maybe it's impossible, but nobody even bothers to respond to my threads on dashtalk, so I don't even make them anymore.

The only good news in this whole deal is that, as far as I know, InstantX transactions cannot be double spent because they are locked by the masternode network. In a worst-case scenario, that might could be used to stabilize the network until the problem could be dealt with.

P.S. A bit of reading between the lines implies that the devs are looking strongly toward the possibility of using the masternode network in their future scalability plans. With the new "sendinstantxto" (or whatever the exact command is), it's now easier to send multiple IX's at the same time. This looks promising.

We're definitely open to improving the pool distribution if anyone has ideas. However, PoS is incompatible with anything that uses masternode quorums. The quorums are chosen based off of the proof-of-work hash, so if we were to switch to a proof-of-stake model, we would end up with less secure hashes and other issues that would have to be addressed. That would allow an attacker to pick the masternodes that approve a transaction lock for example, something that we definitely want to avoid.

I might have an idea, but maybe it is too hard to implement.

I believe as we all want to have as much spread of the hashing on one side and pool owners to have much profit from their miners on another side is really hard to meet.

My idea is to use power of MNs in a way that every block which is mined on a pool with the higher/highest share of total hashrate should earn less DASHes then normal 50% of the block. If it can be implemented dynamical sharing the earnings of a block pool/MN we could dynamically solve spreading of hashes as miner will leave top hashrate pools by himself.

So I am see it as like the more blocks you are finding in time the less profit you are getting from it... at the end of the day whole hash spreading should meet the equilibrium of spreading near to p2p pools.

Also pools could compete again in % of fees as they used to...

Maybe it is not possible to implement easily but I think it is a good idea for dynamically change block rewards for miners and MNs.

[Macno]

Are there currently known issues with the Android wallet? Trying to send some Dash to directbet, but 2 tx are still unconfirmed after 15 mins (1 with InstantX, one without).

[bigrcanada]

or masternodes could mine with only one core instead of all cpu cores. Most of our servers have 4 or more cores.
3000 decentralised more cores of hashing power sounds good to me.

this seems like a cool idea.  I would be interested in having that set up with my MN's...could your run 2 or 3 cores or do MN's need 2 or more cores to operate properly.  I'll pass this by Splawik.

[eduffield]

V12 Release!

https://dashtalk.org/threads/v12-release.5888/

[minersday]

or masternodes could mine with only one core instead of all cpu cores. Most of our servers have 4 or more cores.
3000 decentralised more cores of hashing power sounds good to me.

Hmm, this sounds interesting, all pointed to a closest p2pool +1 for this!

[qwizzie]

V12 Release!

https://dashtalk.org/threads/v12-release.5888/

Congratulations Evan and the whole Dev-Team

[illodin]

or masternodes could mine with only one core instead of all cpu cores. Most of our servers have 4 or more cores.
3000 decentralised more cores of hashing power sounds good to me.

Probably about equal to one medium sized GPU rig.

[r4vani]

V12 Release!

https://dashtalk.org/threads/v12-release.5888/

Congratulations Evan

[qwizzie]

damn, there goes me using this cute little dog to bump Evan's post :



thanks a lot r4vani   

[illodin]

V12 Release!

https://dashtalk.org/threads/v12-release.5888/