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

[Macrochip]

'Monero Guy'

This is their legacy.
I found the "Scumbag Steve"-hat to be a perfect match

[1714034534]

1714034534

[1714034534]

1714034534

[1714034534]

1714034534

[1714034534]

1714034534

[ddink7]

...
In this video Evan  explains decentralized oracles, is a must watch to understand subquorums.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGh43BQrxK0

Quick and possibly daft question on the method for selecting the 10 masternodes. The 10 nodes to handle a transaction are selected by the 10 nearest transaction IDs for the 1000 Dash transaction needed to set up the masternode (I think). Is that vulnerable to the malleability issues Bitcoin is seeing at the mo? ie. could transaction IDs be modified to direct to a small number of malicious masternodes?

Unless I'm mistaken, it's based off the block hash, not the transaction IDs.

[bigrcanada]

Please let's stop quoting the trolls.  It's down to one issue that is so old and irrelevant it's laughable.

So... For the benefit of the trolls,  yet again,  it was instamined....and thank god... It fuelled the development we have today.  In hind site,  this model should be copied by all cryptos so they have the funds to fuel real innovation and full time developers.   Great stroke of luck.  

[qwizzie]

http://bitcoinagile.com/3D6B8F/fintech-is-set-to-disrupt-the-financial-industry_stream

Put simply, Fintech is financial technology; a digital revolution. It’s about major changes to asset management, business and personal loans, fund raising, money transfers, and the way we invest.
Fintech involves disrupting the way all businesses operate, as well as our personal finances.

It is all about technological developments that can rewrite the infrastructure on which the financial system runs.
It’s about replacing the pipes that connect the market and what runs through those pipes, for example, digital currencies. So it’s about the application of technology to remove the friction
within the financial system itself that imposes time and cost on the consumer.

i guess this is what the next meeting is more or less about in Amsterdam ...

http://www.meetup.com/Holland-FinTech-Meetup/events/219713936/



9 spots still available...

[BlockaFett]

For anyone interested in AdamWhite's real motivation for scam-trolling the Dash thread every day for the last 8 months, you can check his deleted posts from the Monero Speculation thread:

"im in this coin for the long haul. I've exchanged all my alts for XMR."

https://bitcointa.lk/threads/ann-mro-monero-a-coin-with-strong-privacy-based-on-cryptonote-technology.304375/page-509#post-7491079

Yup, it's a Monero Troll.

(A big one too, something like ~500 "Scam!" accusations posts on his competitor, i.e. Dash, threads, that's commitment.)

EDIT: If you look, he's deleted all posts relating to his Monero investments on BCT.  Guess he didn't know they are saved out there on the internets....

[Lebubar]

Oh boy, grow a little, learn from your past mistakes (and there is a lot).
Became a man and buy one MN, you'll be able to play with adult.

[binaryFate]

In hind site,  this model should be copied by all cryptos so they have the funds to fuel real innovation and full time developers.   Great stroke of luck.  

This is in fact done by many cryptos. It even has a name: premine.

Question to you: how can it fund development like you describe since it was allegedly distributed on the market at ridiculous prices?

[BlockaFett]

In hind site,  this model should be copied by all cryptos so they have the funds to fuel real innovation and full time developers.   Great stroke of luck.  

This is in fact done by many cryptos. It even has a name: premine.

Question to you: how can it fund development like you describe since it was allegedly distributed on the market at ridiculous prices?

Um...because the price went up?

And it went up because the devs were a) innovative, committed and hard working, unlike 90% of alt devs and b) economically incentivized to stay with the coin and deliver value to the investors for the long haul, with being participants in the public launch, like everyone else on that BCT thread at the time?

EDIT: are we back to the idiotic premine accusation?  That's been going on for 8 months now, don't you have something better to do over at Monero?

[binaryFate]

economically incentivized to stay with the coin

I don't understand. I thought it was a bug (at best), lately it's being described as a feature instead. Then I've heard the instamine was redistributed on market early on. Now you're saying they kept the 2 millions coins?

[eduffield]

...
In this video Evan  explains decentralized oracles, is a must watch to understand subquorums.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGh43BQrxK0

Quick and possibly daft question on the method for selecting the 10 masternodes. The 10 nodes to handle a transaction are selected by the 10 nearest transaction IDs for the 1000 Dash transaction needed to set up the masternode (I think). Is that vulnerable to the malleability issues Bitcoin is seeing at the mo? ie. could transaction IDs be modified to direct to a small number of malicious masternodes?

Unless I'm mistaken, it's based off the block hash, not the transaction IDs.

All security is inherited from the mining network, which basically is deterministically setting up the quorum system, in a way that is provable. For example when you use DAPI, it will do something like create a transaction from Xaddr1 to Xaddr2 for 10 DASH. You then get back your command, a result status and all of the signatures from the quorum participants. You as the end user will know what quorum is activated for that node already, so you can tell if they're lying.

In terms of scalability, if we have 3300 masternodes and a quorum size of 10, that means we can handle 330 requests at once. If the average time per request is about 100 ms, that means we can do 3300 requests per second. The estimate is based on the fact that the network is also doing maintenance at all times (propagating blocks, shard updates, syncing clients, etc), so I'm guessing ~50% of a fully utilized network will go to other activities. Therefore we end up with 1650 requests per second.

Also we're going to aim for your average every day user, so we're talking just a few requests per month. So how many users can we support if they use 15 requests per month? 86400*1650*30/15 = 285,120,000. Ok, 285 million, that's pretty good.

What about reducing the collateral to 500 DASH? Now we have 6600 masternodes and can handle 570 million users. Isn't the masternode count going up anyway? Yep. That number should hit about 700M about when we launch. This is why it says 500-1500 tx per second, I guess that should say "requests per second" because it's not really accurate. Also the 700M should be a range also, that's the high end, the low end is 285M for current Dash requirements.

I've done a lot of guesswork to figure out these numbers, we'll see how close I am when we start seeing some serious adoption. Either way the system is built to scale with adoption in a way nothing else can, it should be pretty cool. I figure if we start to see a good deal of adoption and usage, we'll always either ask for more storage, processing power or reduce the collateral to split the network before it becomes an issue . They'll be good problems to have and we'll have lots of solutions available.

[BlockaFett]

economically incentivized to stay with the coin

I don't understand. I thought it was a bug (at best), lately it's being described as a feature instead. Then I've heard the instamine was redistributed on market early on. Now you're saying they kept the 2 millions coins?

https://dashtalk.org/threads/the-birth-of-darkcoin.162/

http://dashdot.io/alpha/?page_id=118

[binaryFate]

https://dashtalk.org/threads/the-birth-of-darkcoin.162/

I implemented X11 in a weekend and found it worked pretty well and it would give a completely fair start to the currency

Such a pity to screw so much the block reward after that. And then to divide the supply by 4. 

[qwizzie]

Maybe we should make a "premine versus instamine for dummy's guide" so less Monero dummy's mix those two names up.

Monero appearently had its own instamine problem with mining software deliberately set to low mining speed while
a few others could mine at full speed for a certain period of time.

Did the Monero dev team that took-over intended it ? Yes / No / Maybe ..
Did it happen ? Yes
End-Result : Instamine.

So everytime someone from Monero post "instamine" in our forum they are in total discredit as they had their own
instamine problem. Its rather pathetic to be honest. There is even a word for it : hypocrite

But i understand .. a paid troll has to troll to get paid
  
 

[stealth923]

...
In this video Evan  explains decentralized oracles, is a must watch to understand subquorums.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGh43BQrxK0

Quick and possibly daft question on the method for selecting the 10 masternodes. The 10 nodes to handle a transaction are selected by the 10 nearest transaction IDs for the 1000 Dash transaction needed to set up the masternode (I think). Is that vulnerable to the malleability issues Bitcoin is seeing at the mo? ie. could transaction IDs be modified to direct to a small number of malicious masternodes?

Unless I'm mistaken, it's based off the block hash, not the transaction IDs.

All security is inherited from the mining network, which basically is deterministically setting up the quorum system, in a way that is provable. For example when you use DAPI, it will do something like create a transaction from Xaddr1 to Xaddr2 for 10 DASH. You then get back your command, a result status and all of the signatures from the quorum participants. You as the end user will know what quorum is activated for that node already, so you can tell if they're lying.

In terms of scalability, if we have 3300 masternodes and a quorum size of 10, that means we can handle 330 requests at once. If the average time per request is about 100 ms, that means we can do 3300 requests per second. The estimate is based on the fact that the network is also doing maintenance at all times (propagating blocks, shard updates, syncing clients, etc), so I'm guessing ~50% of a fully utilized network will go to other activities. Therefore we end up with 1650 requests per second.

Also we're going to aim for your average every day user, so we're talking just a few requests per month. So how many users can we support if they use 15 requests per month? 86400*1650*30/15 = 285,120,000. Ok, 285 million, that's pretty good.

What about reducing the collateral to 500 DASH? Now we have 6600 masternodes and can handle 570 million users. Isn't the masternode count going up anyway? Yep. That number should hit about 700M about when we launch. This is why it says 500-1500 tx per second, I guess that should say "requests per second" because it's not really accurate. Also the 700M should be a range also, that's the high end, the low end is 285M for current Dash requirements.

I've done a lot of guesswork to figure out these numbers, we'll see how close I am when we start seeing some serious adoption. Either way the system is built to scale with adoption in a way nothing else can, it should be pretty cool. I figure if we start to see a good deal of adoption and usage, we'll always either ask for more storage, processing power or reduce the collateral to split the network before it becomes an issue . They'll be good problems to have and we'll have lots of solutions available.

Evan you and the team are doing amazing work. What was the estimate launch date you are using for Evolution

Either way, I think we need to keep pushing hard on the marketing front! I love seeing you get out there talking at conferences and educating, you never know what doors may open from the people you meet on the road! We should also attack this by using a professional marketing / PR firm if possible. As per discussions in dashtalk I think that the core dev team should get their cut from the monthly budget and the ENTIRE remaining amount should be expended for marketing purposes for at least the next 6 months. IMO I think we have more work to do in this space than we do in the creation of Evolution.

[Macrochip]

I don't understand.

Coming from a CryptoNote acolyte, you're excused.

I thought it was a bug (at best)

It was a bug and claiming any different is unproven insinuation with zero evidence.

lately it's being described as a feature instead.

Yeah, it's called "learning from mistakes" and "turning weaknesses into strengths" it's a part of growth, maturity and development. The large coin supply turned out to be beneficial for adoption as proven by the undeniable success of DASH as a TOP10 currency.

Then I've heard the instamine was redistributed on market early on.

Oh boy, you heard correctly and because our blockchain isn't invisible like yours, it's even publicly provable!

Now you're saying they kept the 2 millions coins?

No. No one ever said that. Your cherry-picked quote "economically incentivized to stay with the coin" simply means they were incentivized to stay with the project as it grew and matured. But of course you knew that and played dumb.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bumpings for the new page:

[coins101]

.....
What about reducing the collateral to 500 DASH? Now we have 6600 masternodes....

I'm not sure that works. But perhaps I'm missing something.

If you half the collateral, it doesn't follow that you double the masternodes.

First, the block reward hasn't changed, so the revenue to run nodes remains the same overall.

Second, going from one MN to two would potentially double the cost to run them - you have to ignore any speculation on price increases, although it would (speculating) potentially go up with real world adoption.

So, one server goes to two servers, but the reward remains the same.

If you introduce a micro fee, that would enable the network to scale with a reduction in collateral requirement.

[toknormal]

Just another example of how lousy Bitcoin's development/developers have been. Malleability has been a known issue for four years, and they still have done nothing to fix it. It almost boggles the mind.

I must say, I've never even contemplated bitcoin not being "the one", but for the first time Im starting to entertain the idea.

Its high marketcap has ironically lead to an atrophying maintenance paradigm combined with an impoverished solutions pool for tackling future challenges.

The central problem is that there's been a consensus emerging that bitcoin should "not be touched". Scaling, functional diversity, governance and privacy must all be dealt with through external 'boilerplating' because everyone's sh*t scared to adversely impact its marketcap.

But maybe its marketcap is about to be compromised anyway. That consensus could be wrong.

The roadmap that Dash has just unveiled raises the opportunity cost of that consenus by an order of magnitude because we are talking here about very fundamental protocol level inhibitors to adoption which are endemic to Bitcoin, now being addressed in Dash. The reason that's significant is that Dash is a compatible clone which can plug straight into the Bitcoin commercial ecosystem. I wrote a bit a while back about the sociological need for money to be seen to function effectively as cash before it can form a sustainable basis for credit. (In bitcoin, for 'credit' read every type of off-blockchain secondary manifestation from sidechains to ETF's to the Lightning network).

Well the Evolution roadmap puts all those requirements squarely in its sights. It represents an unambigious prescription for cash - not for credit, nor a settlement layer, nor any boiler-plated hybrid. Maximum openness, maximum fungibility (giving rise to maximum anonymity), instant transfer and universal accessibility at the base monetary layer are what characterise the medium known to the general public as 'cash'.



If it reaches a successful implementation, you can forget about trolls because the value won't be speculative anymore. It will be driven by a completely different type of market that's more far more interested in immediate commercial priorities than any squabble-threaded exchange on bitcointalk.

IMO, last night's roadmap staked out a territory that's concerned with commercial adoption, not popularity contests. It also drove a fleet of tanks straight onto the lawn that bitcoin's devs vacated in fear - protocol level specialisation.

Say what you like about the risks, but there comes a point in the risk-reward seesaw when the latter end of it just gets too big to ignore. If Dash pulls off what was on that slide, it will have turned the see-saw into a catapault.

[binaryFate]

It was a bug and claiming any different is unproven insinuation with zero evidence.

There is zero evidence either it was not intentional.

Oh boy, you heard correctly and because our blockchain isn't invisible like yours, it's even publicly provable!

You're wrong. You can only prove coins were moving or not on the blockchain, it tells you nothing about ownership.

No. No one ever said that. Your cherry-picked quote "economically incentivized to stay with the coin" simply means they were incentivized to stay with the project as it grew and matured. But of course you knew that and intentionally played dumb.

How were there incentivized if they got rid of their instamined coins? This was and is a honest question.

[BlockaFett]

It was a bug and claiming any different is unproven insinuation with zero evidence.

There is zero evidence either it was not intentional.

Oh boy, you heard correctly and because our blockchain isn't invisible like yours, it's even publicly provable!

You're wrong. You can only prove coins were moving or not on the blockchain, it tells you nothing about ownership.

No. No one ever said that. Your cherry-picked quote "economically incentivized to stay with the coin" simply means they were incentivized to stay with the project as it grew and matured. But of course you knew that and intentionally played dumb.

How were there incentivized if they got rid of their instamined coins? This was and is a honest question.

Just another shameless Monero troll feigning ignorance and trying to spin semantics to slander his competition (with a sig saying "This makes Monero a better candidate to deserve the term "digital cash". LOL)

How come when you expose each one as a scammer / liar another one pops up, do you think they grow them in vats like in the Matrix?

[qwizzie]

.....
What about reducing the collateral to 500 DASH? Now we have 6600 masternodes....

I'm not sure that works. But perhaps I'm missing something.

If you half the collateral, it doesn't follow that you double the masternodes.

First, the block reward hasn't changed, so the revenue to run nodes remains the same overall.

Second, going from one MN to two would potentially double the cost to run them - you have to ignore any speculation on price increases, although it would (speculating) potentially go up with real world adoption.

So, one server goes to two servers, but the reward remains the same.

If you introduce a micro fee, that would enable the network to scale with a reduction in collateral requirement.

if one server became two servers i would pay 10 USD per month renting costs instead of 5 USD but also the increase in masternodes (from 3300 to 6600) will automatically
force lower MN rewards for everyone, will it not ?