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

[Solarminer]

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.

It would be interesting to see the performance impact of running a higher transaction load.  I'm all new to this so I might have it wrong (starting both nodes, btc, Dash, in August).  I also run a bitcoin node and it is about 2x more network bandwidth (86 GiB for bitcoin for August vs 46 GiB dash), 15x more network connections (300+ for bitcoin vs 20 for Dash) and 4X more disk space (48 GB for bitcoin vs 14 GB for dash).  It looks like when problems happen on the bitcoin network (different attacks) my CPU and memory shoot way up but otherwise it seems similar to Dash.  While the rawmempoolinfo seems to be much higher on bitcoin (1000s vs singles in dash) I don't yet have a good enough understanding how that factors in to performance or if it matters. 

If Dash started to get to the same usage as bitcoin I would guess that specs for many of the MNs would need to increase (not sure if Raspberry Pi which some MN are running could handle it).  Would a VPS charge more?  Increased transactions would probably lead to less decentralization as only those who could afford the costs could pay for it (that is if they are holding the MN remuneration for speculation).  Similar to the problem that is seen in the decline of the current bitcoin nodes, though of course there isn't any compensation for running one. 

Hogwild, here is a table of some of the differences in transaction speeds and sizes.

DASH Metrics                                           DASH      Bitcoin
Average Transaction Size                              1           0.85   KB
Average Transactions per Day                    1500       110000  Transactions/Day
Blockchain Size                                          1.4          47     GB
Blockchain Growth                                      1.5         93.5   MB/Day
Blockchain Update Speed/hr blocktime(TAO)  0.15         4.14    Sec/Hr
Blockchain Download Speed                        0.417       0.941   MB/Sec

The Bitcoin disk space(47GB) is more than just 4x that of Dash.  It actually is over 31x bigger than Dash disk space(1.4GB).  That is why the bitcoin client takes so long to catchup when it starts.  It downloads a ton of data and then verifies it.

The Dash client does a lot more than a Bitcoin client.  Dash has budgets, darksend mixing, instantx, and voting to sync and manage between the clients and masternodes.  It is really not comparable to Bitcoin at this point.

As for upgrading, the masternode network will adapt to what works best.  The biggest expense right now is not disk, cpu, or ram, but the IPV4 address cost.  Maybe we will move to IPV6 to save some server costs and improve performance.  The masternode count will constantly change based on earnings/cost to run.  With the voting system, it will be easy to fairly implement any changes needed.  This is far different than encouraging users to run no incentive Bitcoin nodes.

I am really looking forward to the Dash Evolution Revolution.

[1714128117]

1714128117

[1714128117]

1714128117

[1714128117]

1714128117

[1714128117]

1714128117

[1714128117]

1714128117

[Walter_S]

What happens if we cut it in half?

The collateral gets halved
The reward gets halved
Expenses remain the same

Wouldn't expenses double ? For a given holding, you've got to run twice the number of nodes for the same return.

 No, because in essence a pro linux sys admin with semi-ninja skills can run 2 or more MN's from the same server.
 Though the point still stands for the majority at this point.

I run 3 on each of my VPS from Vultr, would run more if they'd give me more IPs! 

Walter

[flailing Junk]

Whenever evolution gets implemented we should create a budget item to "stress test" the new network to prove how many tps it can actually handle.

[illodin]

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?

I'm not him, but I hope you don't mind me answering anyway.

It can, if for example (not an exhaustive list)

 - the core team bought the coins cheaply from the market because there were a lot of coins being distributed on the market at ridiculous prices
 - people who bought coins at ridiculous prices decided to get involved to make their investment more valuable by joining the core team
 - people who bought coins at ridiculous prices decided to fund development

[GilAlexander]

Currently the true ROI is about 14%:

(blocks per day * avg reward * mn share / masternodes * days) = (reward at the end of the year)
576*6*.5/3270*365  = 192.88 DASH (19.2% of 1000 DASH)

Let's say a server costs $10 a month, so true ROI is about 144 DASH per year (14.4% of 1000 DASH).

---

What happens if we cut it in half?

The collateral gets halved
The reward gets halved
Expenses remain the same
Overall return goes down
Node count should nearly double (slightly lower because of the reduced reward)

(blocks per day * avg reward * mn share / masternodes * days) = (reward at the end of the year)
576*6*.5/6490*365  = 97 DASH  (19.6% of 500 DASH)
 ( notice it's not double 3270, that would be 6540... it's lower)

Let's say a server costs $10 a month, so true ROI is about 49.18 DASH per year (14.6% of 500 DASH)

All things being equal, it's just supply and demand working themselves out in something like a bond market. The market demands a return on average currently of about 14% after expenses, the idea is it carries over no matter what collateral is required. Nodes that are allocated before should be allocated after, even if the user decides he doesn't want to do it, that would raise the ROI on the market, which would drive people to setup more nodes, getting us back to where we're at now.

That help? It's a tad confusing

Thread looks like not all agree.
Why not to use decentralised voting to figure out the opinion of the community at this time?

[masterNoder]

Thread looks like not all agree.
Why not to use decentralised voting to figure out the opinion of the community at this time?

Sure, but before the voting starts, the community must debate ad nauseam the subject, in order that each voter understands what are the pros and cons, having so formed his own convictions on the matter.

[Sub-Ether]

haha, on a happier note, Portugal just beat Denmark 1-0 , I won 10 extra Dash 

<Public Service Reminder>
This is a NO SPOILERS thread.  I'm still downloading today's action.  I came in here to NOT know the results.
</Public Service Reminder>

Sorry, won't happen again, I forgot not everyone can watch live in their time zone.

[Sub-Ether]

So many great things going on here, and being worked on. Could Dash be a contender of the fastest or most scalable crypto? (measured in possible TPS)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1203228.0
It would be cool to hear the Dash experts there.

I haven't been able to max out Dash instantX by flooding testnet because the balance goes to unconfirmed spent change and the DOS window can't keep up with the client demands,it is probably better to wait for the Dash 'evolution' roll out then the argument against the 4 second transaction locking 5 confirmation guarantee kinda becomes a moot point.

[qwizzie]

Interview of the Winklevoss twins after opening Bitcoin Exchange Gemini
 
http://www.foxbusiness.com/business-leaders/2015/10/08/winklevoss-twins-on-launch-their-gemini-bitcoin-exchange/

looking to open in Europe and Asia very soon

[ddink7]

You can't build a system based on price speculation. But sometimes you have no choice.

The issue is one of SLA. If you build a network that can handle 30% of the global payments, and then growth reaches a plateau, then you risk destablising the network as masses of people cash out their nodes. 

Indeed. But the principle of a supporting a currency reserve market needs to be sustained in a way that the market will support.

An investor who puts their money into the Dash reserve market will simply work off an ROI equation that looks like this (in principle):

Gain=[Capital sum invested x Interest] - Number of masternodes required to deploy the full capital value.

What this means is that by lowering the collateral, you increase the cost of deploying a given amount of coins in the reserve market and securing a return on them. Right now I only need to deploy 1 masternode to get a return on 1000 Dash. WIth a 500 collateral I need to deploy 2. That's a PITA for an investor so it becomes less attractive. But if the dollar value doubles then it becomes more attractive again.

I agree completely, that at the present time it's a PITA to double the amount of setup work, double the number of nodes you have to monitor, double the likelihood that one of your nodes will crash or have issues, etc. You're talking double the setup and double the maintenance. At the moment it's not needed nor is it worth it.

I do see a time coming when the opposite is the problem. What if Dash reaches a valuation of $14 billion*? Each masternode would be worth more than a million dollars, and there aren't many people who a) could afford that, or b) would want that much of their net worth tied up in a single investment.

While the earlier poster is right (to an extent) about not basing your network properties on the value of your coin, there comes a time when that is necessary because your coin has become so valuable.

*Look at the valuation of Facebook, Uber, Snapchat, Whatsapp, Oculus, Etsy, Twitter, etc. Most of them haven't even turned a profit. The youngest billionaire in the world (25) is one of the cofounders of Snapchat. You can't tell me that there isn't a possibility, at least, that Dash Evolution won't be more useful than Snapchat!

[tungfa]

Dash Team at Holland Fintech / Amsterdam Presentation
(nearly live / pictures)
http://www.meetup.com/Holland-FinTech-Meetup/events/219713936/
 
Tx dutch0nomad Tx flare


https://dashtalk.org/threads/dash-team-at-holland-fintech-amsterdam-presentation.6362/

[GhostPlayer]

 I so wished I could be there...

.

[ddink7]

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.

I agree that Marketing/PR is very important. The Core Team uses outside resources as well as internal ones. One issue with pushing *everything* to an outside firm is that outsiders often don't understand the tech well enough to write intelligently and accurately about it. Fortunately, we have writers who are experienced with Dash helping the Core Team internally, so that outsiders can polish/distribute.

[ddink7]

I do not see Bitcoin as "The One" and I haven't for a long time. Bitcoin was a brilliant start, and Evan is undoubtedly standing on the shoulders of giants. But Bitcoin has too many problems to allow it to "take over." The *only* advantage that Bitcoin has over Dash is its network effect. I admit that network effects are difficult to overcome, but consider:

1) Bitcoin is too slow to use in person-to-person transactions.
2) Bitcoin's fees are too high for it to be used for micropayments.
3) Bitcoin doesn't scale past 7 TPS.
4) Bitcoin's blockchain is huge and it's unlikely to be pruned due to consensus issues.
5) Bitcoin has a very high level of infighting and it's nearly impossible to achieve consensus. As Tok pointed out earlier, the only consensus in the Bitcoin community is that it should be left alone and never changed, updated, improved, or fixed.
6) Bitcoin nodes are disappearing at an alarming rate because they aren't incentivized.
7) Bitcoin's consensus mechanism is under constant risk of attack. Collusion of just two pools would allow double-spends.
8) Long-standing issues like transaction malleability still have not been cleared up, and there's no sign that Bitcoin developers have any interest in fixing them.
9) Bitcoin's governance model is deeply flawed. Funding comes from centralized sources (Foundation and MIT) and governance is dangerously fragmented between often-hostile devs.
10) Bitcoin is and always will be traceable. People don't want the world knowing the details of their finances, and as more people move into crypto this will become a bigger and bigger issue. "You mean everybody can see how much money I have and where I sent it if they know my address?"
11) Bitcoin devs and maximists have their heads buried in the sand and refuse to accept that Bitcoin might not be the solution for everything. It's analogous to the situation in World War II when Japanese admirals were too scared or proud to report their actual losses, and so their high command kept making decisions based on incorrect information.
12) Centralization and censorship in the community. Theymos has managed to grab ownership of BCT and the subreddit and regularly censors any voices he disagrees with (case-in-point: anyone who talked about Bitcoin-XT).
13) Bitcoin is complicated to use and understand for a neophite. We all remember how long it took us to fully wrap our heads around everything.

Dash already solves many of these problems, and Dash Evolution will solve the rest of them:

1) Dash has InstantX, which allows transactions to be fully confirmed in about four seconds.
2) Dash Evolution apparently has no fees (information from the slide).
3) Dash Evolution will scale to 1500+ TPS.
4) Dash Evolution is likely to use pruning at some point (Evan has spoken about this before and says pruning is definitely possible).
5) Dash enables masternode owners to vote and express their opinions in a binding fashion using the decentralized budgeting system.
6) Dash nodes (masternodes) are incentivized and the number grows daily. The growth will eventually taper, but there is very little chance of numbers declining due to the significant incentivization.
7) Dash Evolution will have a confirmationless wallet using InstantX locks for all transactions. Even if one entity gets 51% or more of the network's hash power, it will be impossible to double-spend.
8) Dash developers regularly incorporate fixes as the problems are discovered. A great example of this was the "dead change" issue that Aswan discovered last year. It was fixed very rapidly.
9) Dash uses Decentralized Governance by Blockchain to enforce good governance and to pay developers directly from the blockchain. It's decentralized and trustless.
10) Dash users have the option of using Darksend to anonymize their transactions, and Dash Evolution will build this anonymity into the protocol itself, making all transactions anonymous by default.
11) Dash regularly incorporates new ideas from the community and from other cryptos, or even from the trolls in our own community. Evan has actually said that many of his best ideas came from the arguments trolls were trying to use against us.
12) This thread is unmoderated, and Dashtalk, while moderated, has no history of censorship.
13) Dash Evolution will be using a decentralized API to make the network trivial to use for newbies (information comes from presentation slide...I don't know how this works yet, but I do know that Evan has previously said that making Dash easy to use was a priority).

[qwizzie]

nice post ddink7

[aigeezer]

I haven't seen anyone else refer to this specific issue yet, forgive me if I have overlooked a discussion.

The last few times I have fired up my BTC wallet - routine catchup about once a week - it has hogged all the bandwidth of my (admittedly slow) connection - literally knocking many devices offline. For example, all antminer fans slow then stop and the miners start beeping. Once the wallet catches up, bandwidth use returns to normal. The issue is replicable.

If this is widespread (and increasing?), then it should be very good for Dash although of course not so good for BTC.

I'm thinking it is the kind of thing one might not notice with a fast connection. Anyone else seeing a recent major surge in BTC wallet bandwidth use?

 

[flailing Junk]

1) Bitcoin is too slow to use in person-to-person transactions.
2) Bitcoin's fees are too high for it to be used for micropayments.
3) Bitcoin doesn't scale past 7 TPS.
4) Bitcoin's blockchain is huge and it's unlikely to be pruned due to consensus issues.
5) Bitcoin has a very high level of infighting and it's nearly impossible to achieve consensus. As Tok pointed out earlier, the only consensus in the Bitcoin community is that it should be left alone and never changed, updated, improved, or fixed.
6) Bitcoin nodes are disappearing at an alarming rate because they aren't incentivized.
7) Bitcoin's consensus mechanism is under constant risk of attack. Collusion of just two pools would allow double-spends.
Long-standing issues like transaction malleability still have not been cleared up, and there's no sign that Bitcoin developers have any interest in fixing them.
9) Bitcoin's governance model is deeply flawed. Funding comes from centralized sources (Foundation and MIT) and governance is dangerously fragmented between often-hostile devs.
10) Bitcoin is and always will be traceable. People don't want the world knowing the details of their finances, and as more people move into crypto this will become a bigger and bigger issue. "You mean everybody can see how much money I have and where I sent it if they know my address?"
11) Bitcoin devs and maximists have their heads buried in the sand and refuse to accept that Bitcoin might not be the solution for everything. It's analogous to the situation in World War II when Japanese admirals were too scared or proud to report their actual losses, and so their high command kept making decisions based on incorrect information.
12) Centralization and censorship in the community. Theymos has managed to grab ownership of BCT and the subreddit and regularly censors any voices he disagrees with (case-in-point: anyone who talked about Bitcoin-XT).
13) Bitcoin is complicated to use and understand for a neophite. We all remember how long it took us to fully wrap our heads around everything.

Let me play devils advocate.

1) Zero confirmation transactions are usually fine. I have never even heard a story of someone trying to do a double spend at an in person transaction. Im pretty sure you are more likely to get a gun pulled on you.

3) It could scale past 7 transactions tomorrow if the core devs would pull their heads out.

5) I'm pretty sure that everyone wants to change bitcoin they just cant agree on how. You are right about the infighting and lack of consensus though.

6) Is it really alarming? I know a bunch disappeared recently, but I thought that was most likely because of the recent stress test/attack.

7) True, but those pools would cease to exist immediately after trying this. I suppose it might be worth it for them to do it. A successful double spend on the Gemini hotwallet could be worth it and would be hugely damaging. I think we know who the pool operators are though. They would have to try to pull the we got hacked story and there would definitely be an investigation. I guess we can call this a high damage low probability risk.

I think there is definitely interest in fixing them, but it is true that they have not been fixed though there has certainly been time to do so. This is another consensus/governance issue rather than a lack of interest.

10) There are proposals to make bitcoin more private. It comes back to the consensus and governance issues preventing those proposals from happening.

11) I dont really understand this one. Could you be more specific about what they have their head in the sand about and why they are wrong to ignore it?

13) People dont need to understand the email protocol to use it, and Dash isn't any simpler



Seems like most of the problems could be fixed with better governance.

Proposal:
If the bitcoin community can fix its governance it will succeed, if it cannot it will lose its throne to another crypto.

Perhaps if XT succeeds it can restore the benevolent dictator model?

[TanteStefana2]

Dash mentioned on The Daily Decrypt

(1:20 min)

https://youtu.be/rwWTWLX2K6k?t=1m8s

 

Please share:
https://twitter.com/AnonUpdatesNews/status/652283226833063936

Who is that pretty lady?  It's always nice to see more ladies in Crypto

[ddink7]

Let me play devils advocate.

1) Zero confirmation transactions are usually fine. I have never even heard a story of someone trying to do a double spend at an in person transaction. Im pretty sure you are more likely to get a gun pulled on you.

3) It could scale past 7 transactions tomorrow if the core devs would pull their heads out.

5) I'm pretty sure that everyone wants to change bitcoin they just cant agree on how. You are right about the infighting and lack of consensus though.

6) Is it really alarming? I know a bunch disappeared recently, but I thought that was most likely because of the recent stress test/attack.

7) True, but those pools would cease to exist immediately after trying this. I suppose it might be worth it for them to do it. A successful double spend on the Gemini hotwallet could be worth it and would be hugely damaging. I think we know who the pool operators are though. They would have to try to pull the we got hacked story and there would definitely be an investigation. I guess we can call this a high damage low probability risk.

I think there is definitely interest in fixing them, but it is true that they have not been fixed though there has certainly been time to do so. This is another consensus/governance issue rather than a lack of interest.

10) There are proposals to make bitcoin more private. It comes back to the consensus and governance issues preventing those proposals from happening.

11) I dont really understand this one. Could you be more specific about what they have their head in the sand about and why they are wrong to ignore it?

13) People dont need to understand the email protocol to use it, and Dash isn't any simpler



Seems like most of the problems could be fixed with better governance.

Proposal:
If the bitcoin community can fix its governance it will succeed, if it cannot it will lose its throne to another crypto.

Perhaps if XT succeeds it can restore the benevolent dictator model?

Great points! Before I rebut, let me say that I'm envisioning a mainstream, global financial protocol. Honestly, Bitcoin is pretty decent for the *current* use case. It's generally fast enough, especially since most merchants who accept it are online and can always delay shipping. It doesn't get used a whole lot, so the maximum transactions per second and blocksize aren't really that relevant. The blockchain is still a manageable size so there are enough nodes run by altruists to support the network. There's no anonymity, but most people aren't that interested in digging into your finances, because Bitcoin just isn't used enough for that. Ease-of-use isn't that important either, since only computer and finance nerds are using it.

But if you want to create a paradigm-shift in the financial world, bring analog money into the digital age, and approach a mainstream use-case, then changes are needed. Changes that Dash has brought and that Dash Evolution will continue to bring.

In answer to your counterpoints:

1) Zero confirmation transactions are usually fine. I have never even heard a story of someone trying to do a double spend at an in person transaction. Im pretty sure you are more likely to get a gun pulled on you.

--That's very true on a use-by-use case. But zoom out and look at the larger picture. If you're looking at the really big numbers needed to make crypto "mainstream"...billions of dollars moved per day...would you trust any system that is less than 100% bulletproof? At least in my opinion, this is about confidence in the protocol rather than whether a merchant can "risk" selling me a pack of toaster.

3) It could scale past 7 transactions tomorrow if the core devs would pull their heads out.

--True. It could get all the way up to 14 if they doubled the block size. Or 70 if they dectupled it. But that's not really going to scale to global adoption, is it? I'll play devil's advocate here: Bitcoin could theoretically make a change and scale up to 70 TPS. Dash will still be ahead by 1430 TPS once Evolution is released. Dash wins.[/quote]

5) I'm pretty sure that everyone wants to change bitcoin they just cant agree on how. You are right about the infighting and lack of consensus though.

--That's a distinction without a difference. I want to be able to walk through walls, but I can't figure out how to make that happen. An exaggeration, yes, but the same principle. My problem is physics; Bitcoin's problem is politics. Both appear intractable, or nearly so.

6) Is it really alarming? I know a bunch disappeared recently, but I thought that was most likely because of the recent stress test/attack.

--Today? No. But when scaling up to a truly global payment system? Yes. How many of the existing nodes do you think could successfully serve up a 1 TB blockchain? 10 TB? 100 TB? The cost to run a Bitcoin node today is small...if Bitcoin was to scale up though, the cost would be astronomical. Who would be willing to pay that cost, other than a very few die-hard do-gooders? And would those few be enough to truly call it "decentralized?"

7) True, but those pools would cease to exist immediately after trying this. I suppose it might be worth it for them to do it. A successful double spend on the Gemini hotwallet could be worth it and would be hugely damaging. I think we know who the pool operators are though. They would have to try to pull the we got hacked story and there would definitely be an investigation. I guess we can call this a high damage low probability risk.

--I'm less concerned about the pools and more concerned about the currency. Everyone who addresses this topic focuses on game theory and the relative advantage of acting versus not acting. I call B.S. on this approach. Target got hacked. Ashley Madison got hacked. The U.S. government got hacked. Who really believes that it's impossible for a few bitcoin pools to get hacked? The hacker, having nothing to lose, could easily attach the network for "lulz." What about a state- or corporate-actor who doesn't mind losing money if it destroys a competitor? The problem isn't "Joe Bob is going to doublespend $10,000." The problem is "Oh shit, Bitcoin's been broken. Sell your Bitcoin now. It's been attacked once; it could happen again. Bitcoin isn't secure. Sell. Sell. Sell." It's all about confidence. A truly global system must be bulletproof.

I think there is definitely interest in fixing them, but it is true that they have not been fixed though there has certainly been time to do so. This is another consensus/governance issue rather than a lack of interest.

--Agreed. Yet the problem still remains intractable due to politics.

10) There are proposals to make bitcoin more private. It comes back to the consensus and governance issues preventing those proposals from happening.

--Agreed. Yet the problem still remains intractable due to politics. Hell, Gavin could port Darksend into Bitcoin tomorrow if he wanted--the code is open source and I'm sure people would be happy to run Bitcoin masternodes--but it isn't really likely to happen. It's not because it is impossible--Dash has proven that it is--it's because nobody will make or adopt the necessary changes to the protocol.

11) I dont really understand this one. Could you be more specific about what they have their head in the sand about and why they are wrong to ignore it?

--This is a reference to Bitcoin maximalists thinking that there are no good and valid ideas out there other than their own. Peter Todd for instance is very vocal about Dash being useless; Gavin has said that all the energy spent on altcoins is "wasted." When your competition has a brilliant idea, the proper response is to see if you can match it or beat it. The best response the Bitcoin community can muster is "We are bigger than you. We have the network effect on our side. We will bury you."

13) People dont need to understand the email protocol to use it, and Dash isn't any simpler

--Exactly so! That's a great analogy. No, Dash isn't currently any simpler, but apparently Dash Evolution will be.

Proposal:
If the bitcoin community can fix its governance it will succeed, if it cannot it will lose its throne to another crypto.

--Sure thing...but good luck. They've been arguing about block size for two years, and malleability has been a known problem for four. It's not that these problems are impossible to solve technically--Dash proves that they aren't. The problem is that the Bitcoin devs and community simply do not innovate for political reasons.

[alex-ru]

I do not see Bitcoin as "The One" and I haven't for a long time. Bitcoin was a brilliant start, and Evan is undoubtedly standing on the shoulders of giants. But Bitcoin has too many problems to allow it to "take over." The *only* advantage that Bitcoin has over Dash is its network effect. I admit that network effects are difficult to overcome, but consider:

1) Bitcoin is too slow to use in person-to-person transactions.
2) Bitcoin's fees are too high for it to be used for micropayments.
3) Bitcoin doesn't scale past 7 TPS.
4) Bitcoin's blockchain is huge and it's unlikely to be pruned due to consensus issues.
5) Bitcoin has a very high level of infighting and it's nearly impossible to achieve consensus. As Tok pointed out earlier, the only consensus in the Bitcoin community is that it should be left alone and never changed, updated, improved, or fixed.
6) Bitcoin nodes are disappearing at an alarming rate because they aren't incentivized.
7) Bitcoin's consensus mechanism is under constant risk of attack. Collusion of just two pools would allow double-spends.
Long-standing issues like transaction malleability still have not been cleared up, and there's no sign that Bitcoin developers have any interest in fixing them.
9) Bitcoin's governance model is deeply flawed. Funding comes from centralized sources (Foundation and MIT) and governance is dangerously fragmented between often-hostile devs.
10) Bitcoin is and always will be traceable. People don't want the world knowing the details of their finances, and as more people move into crypto this will become a bigger and bigger issue. "You mean everybody can see how much money I have and where I sent it if they know my address?"
11) Bitcoin devs and maximists have their heads buried in the sand and refuse to accept that Bitcoin might not be the solution for everything. It's analogous to the situation in World War II when Japanese admirals were too scared or proud to report their actual losses, and so their high command kept making decisions based on incorrect information.
12) Centralization and censorship in the community. Theymos has managed to grab ownership of BCT and the subreddit and regularly censors any voices he disagrees with (case-in-point: anyone who talked about Bitcoin-XT).
13) Bitcoin is complicated to use and understand for a neophite. We all remember how long it took us to fully wrap our heads around everything.

Dash already solves many of these problems, and Dash Evolution will solve the rest of them:

1) Dash has InstantX, which allows transactions to be fully confirmed in about four seconds.
2) Dash Evolution apparently has no fees (information from the slide).
3) Dash Evolution will scale to 1500+ TPS.
4) Dash Evolution is likely to use pruning at some point (Evan has spoken about this before and says pruning is definitely possible).
5) Dash enables masternode owners to vote and express their opinions in a binding fashion using the decentralized budgeting system.
6) Dash nodes (masternodes) are incentivized and the number grows daily. The growth will eventually taper, but there is very little chance of numbers declining due to the significant incentivization.
7) Dash Evolution will have a confirmationless wallet using InstantX locks for all transactions. Even if one entity gets 51% or more of the network's hash power, it will be impossible to double-spend.
Dash developers regularly incorporate fixes as the problems are discovered. A great example of this was the "dead change" issue that Aswan discovered last year. It was fixed very rapidly.
9) Dash uses Decentralized Governance by Blockchain to enforce good governance and to pay developers directly from the blockchain. It's decentralized and trustless.
10) Dash users have the option of using Darksend to anonymize their transactions, and Dash Evolution will build this anonymity into the protocol itself, making all transactions anonymous by default.
11) Dash regularly incorporates new ideas from the community and from other cryptos, or even from the trolls in our own community. Evan has actually said that many of his best ideas came from the arguments trolls were trying to use against us.
12) This thread is unmoderated, and Dashtalk, while moderated, has no history of censorship.
13) Dash Evolution will be using a decentralized API to make the network trivial to use for newbies (information comes from presentation slide...I don't know how this works yet, but I do know that Evan has previously said that making Dash easy to use was a priority).

Good points.

Can somebody produce a nice infographic (Dash vs Bitcoin) based on  this type of comparison?