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

[toknormal]

BTC vs DASH?
Andreas on fungibility(33:08).

He says that 'over time I think we're going to see some improvements to that".

Well, not at protocol level we're not. Only at "boilerplate" level.

I think he was uncomfortable answering that question because he basically didn't have a clue what to say (since they're isn't anything to say - as I just pointed out, 'fungibility' in bitcoin is as good as it's ever going to get at protocol level). He ends up deviating and attacking governments and blacklists instead.

[kointrend]

...

Lol, Andreas sums it up nicely here There'll be a lot more than 50 before it's all over...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak1iojpiHpM
EDIT: The quote's at about 24 minutes

BTC vs DASH?
Andreas on fungibility(33:08).

I would LOVE to see a DASH banner behind him.  

Was there, don't you saw it?

[flailing Junk]

Andreas has talked about dash, or darkcoin at least. I believe he said something to the effect that if governments didn't like bitcoin and successfully attacked it that they really wouldn't like darkcoin replacing it.

[kointrend]

Andreas has talked about dash, or darkcoin at least. I believe he said something to the effect that if governments didn't like bitcoin and successfully attacked it that they really wouldn't like darkcoin replacing it.

Yes, in this occasion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NfNwjJfrOg&t=48m18s

[cryptonewb]

...
What is this about? I didn't read the whole topic on dashtalk yet...
Is that guy a troll?

Smoothie's only trollish sometimes but he definitely has a thing for trolling this thread, the block reward for the first few hours was 500 coins and anyone mining from the start got a lot of coins. The trolls are calling that an "instamine" and claiming Evan made a huge amount of coins from it and smoothie's got behind it for whatever reason but I'd suggest flicking through some of the early pages and having a look for yourself. Releases are chaos and this one was no different, personally I'd be more inclined to think established miners taking advantage of the low difficulty when alts are released did far better out of it.

I'm not really interested in mining anyway, but the issue was that there were too much coins distributed in the beginning?
Was it a big amount? I see on coinmarket cap that currently there are about 5.9 million DASH in existence. I also read somewhere that there would be 22 coins eventually. Are these numbers correct?
so DASH started in january 2014 according to the blockchain (I checked block 1 here: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/dash/block.dws?000007d91d1254d60e2dd1ae580383070a4ddffa4c64c2eeb4a2f9ecc0414343.htm)

So it's (12+9) = 21 months old, that's about 5.9/21 = 0.28 million coins per month.
As long as the number of coins in the first hours isn't more than 0.28 million or so, i'm not really worried. That would be the equavalent of "one fake additional month"... Is there a chart somewhere on the history of the number of dash in circulation?

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

i think there will be between 18 and 22 million in total existence .. once fully mined.   

So it was more than 0.28 million? I read that it was 1.9 million in 24h? That seems a lot...
How can we be sure the coins got distributed like the article says?
These coins could be responsible for the downtrend, no?

And "between 18 and 22 million". Do we have an exact figure?

I'm thinking now that maybe it was better to start the network again when Evan discovered the bug. But I guess it's too late now...

Still interested in buying more though, I placed an order for 180 coins (when filled I'll own 200)
I hope these 1.9 million coins won't raise problems for future adoption. The tech is interesting, so maybe we can overcome this problem.

[kointrend]

Andreas has talked about dash, or darkcoin at least. I believe he said something to the effect that if governments didn't like bitcoin and successfully attacked it that they really wouldn't like darkcoin replacing it.

Lol, now THAT is an endorsement

EDIT: Damnit, I knew the name shouldn't have been changed, that vid clip... omg

And here, around 25:30, he doesn't name Dash but...

https://youtu.be/J8y_GypCWf4?t=1496

I think that sometime sooner than later he could say: "Forget bitcoin, Dash is the answer!"  

[cryptonewb]

...I wonder how you can have so much transactions per second? (the slide shows 500-1500) I read that bitcoin is limited to 7 transactions per second...

My thinking goes this far.  Instant Transactions will have the input funds locked by a set of 10 masternodes chosen deterministically.  There are 3,500 masternodes.  Therefore 350 (3500/10) Instant Transactions (minus overhead) can be locked simultaneously.  If this process can happen a couple of times every second, then 500-1500 is the answer.

If there are any devs watching that want to correct me, please do. 

This is true but they have to be in a block later. This part is interesting.

would indeed be interesting to get an answer from a dev

I thought about this a bit more and I came to the conclusion that the part in bold isn't correct:
the reason is that it's impossible to have through a random process pick 350 times 10 different masternodes at the same time. There will be overlap, so the amount of instant ransactions that can be locked is a much lower amount. I didn't calculate the statistics, but it can be easily calculated:
chances to pick for example 100 different nodes out of a pool of 3500 is:
(3500*3499*3498*...*3402*3401)/(3500^100)

still would appreciate a dev explaining this...

[cryptonewb]

I just want to say that Evolution is probably not going to be explained in detail for quite some time.  It might even start out closed sourced just like DarkSend did.  The reason I'm saying this is because of 2 things Evan said.  He said he doesn't want to lose first mover's advantage and he also said he want's to reveal everything slowly (presumably because it's a large chunk of information, and he want's to control how people learn/see the plan)

I think honestly, publicizing a white paper wouldn't make things so confusing, even if it's super challenging to understand.  People around here are massively intelligent and there are several that would understand and explain to the public.  So personally, I think it's all about keeping the ideas from being stolen.  And I'm all for that.

So what does this mean for the rest of us?  Well, 1st, it means we have to trust the technology is real.  Since Evan has come through so many times, I have no problem with that.  I also don't see this as being impossible to achieve, so again, no problem with trusting the core team.  I also think we'll have a working version before we have open code, just like with DarkSend.

Ahem... That's something that would get some seriously bad feeling from some of the geeks amongst us, open source isn't just a method, its a philosophy and there's a strong "us and them" aspect to it. Darksend wasn't released closed source, you and many others wanted the source kept secret on release but Evan went with keeping things open

I 100% agree, already posted this:

After all, we are a decentralized currency, no? So if someone wants to help developing, it would be a good idea for Evan to release his plans so others can start working on it, even as volunteers! As far as I know, bitcoin has a lot of volonteers working on the code, not many are paid.

so I hope he releases his plans soon, so volonteers can help to code it as soon as possible!

[TanteStefana2]

Stan, no matter what, we can't keep anything about Dash closed sourced (except like we did with DarkSend, until it's ready) because if it's put on mainnet, nobody would use it/trust it unless it's open sourced.  So it has to be open sourced once it goes live, no matter what.  It turned out to be a good tactic with DarkSend, so it still might work out this time.  Only with DarkSend, we did go to mainnet with it closed.  I am sure we couldn't get away with that now.  Too many people use Dash, it must be open if it's live.

RE: Gavin, if he doesn't get Bitcoin back via BitcoinXT (meaning control over development) he should just join us.  All the developers with real talent and imagination should join us and get excited about the space all over again.  Frankly, I don't understand why more of them haven't done so yet.  Maybe he could start out by peer reviewing Dash, and once he's fallen in love, he can join us

[cryptonewb]

BTC vs DASH?
Andreas on fungibility(33:08).

He says that 'over time I think we're going to see some improvements to that".

Well, not at protocol level we're not. Only at "boilerplate" level.

I think he was uncomfortable answering that question because he basically didn't have a clue what to say (since they're isn't anything to say - as I just pointed out, 'fungibility' in bitcoin is as good as it's ever going to get at protocol level). He ends up deviating and attacking governments and blacklists instead.

DASH build some amazing tools to improve fungibility, but I wouldn't say it's in the protocol... As we all know the big problem of bitcoin is that it has public addresses and balances. DASH just copies this flaw but adds tools to it (darksend) to make the coins private and unlink them from identities. For example when you buy DASH on an exchange and send it to your wallet, that address is linked to you. But when you use darksend to send the coins to yourself, it will be unlinked! That is the real improvement. As far as I know, it's impossible to have a cryptocoin which doesn't have public balances for addresses, but that would be better. If that ever gets implemented in DASH somehow, it would be fantastic!

Also, i'm a bit concerned about the masternodes largely being hosted on external services (I saw a post about the outage of Vultr where some nodes are hosted), but I guess when we have enough different nodes, this isn't really a problem...

but overall, I think DASH does the job. It's good enough, it works! looking forward to the evolution vid

[TanteStefana2]

So it was more than 0.28 million? I read that it was 1.9 million in 24h? That seems a lot...
How can we be sure the coins got distributed like the article says?
These coins could be responsible for the downtrend, no?

And "between 18 and 22 million". Do we have an exact figure?

I'm thinking now that maybe it was better to start the network again when Evan discovered the bug. But I guess it's too late now...

Still interested in buying more though, I placed an order for 180 coins (when filled I'll own 200)
I hope these 1.9 million coins won't raise problems for future adoption. The tech is interesting, so maybe we can overcome this problem.

Yup, between 1.7 and 1.9 spilled out in the beginning.  You have to put yourself in Evan's shoes.  He wanted people to join up, he needed people to get involved or he wasn't going to have a platform to work on.  So here he had a bunch of miners who got a nice bunch of coins, they were happy.  He discovered this after a point (that they were pouring out coins.)  You can imagine after the mining was going steady, Evan went to sleep, then to work, it was a while before he knew what was up.  Then his head was working on what was wrong, how to fix it.  Ok, he got it fixed, things are going well, then later, gosh, it was like 2 weeks later, people started to complain that too much was mined in the beginning. Evan wasn't concerned about that, he was happy the thing was launched, and moving along, but since the complaints were growing, he asked if everyone wanted to re-launch.  Nobody did.  You can imagine, not just the time the miners spent on mining, but worse, the people who spent real money buying up the coins.  At that point, he would have alienated his followers.

I agree with toknormal.  The complaints of an "imperfect" launch are stupid and irrelevant to the project.  It's only used to distract newcomers.  There was nothing hidden from the public.  The announcement that this coin was going to launch was out there at least 3 days before it went.  I say this because, maybe this thread wasn't started at that point, but my husband somehow found Evan's posts about it, and we found this thread before launch date.  If we, newest of the new, found it (really had to look hard to find it again, but we did!) I think it was out there enough for long-timers to find- if they had any interest.  And they did, I was counting up the people who posted on this thread that first 24 hours, and there were over 25 of 'em the first few pages.  So it's all BS that it was unfair.  It was open, it was public, be there or be square.  I'm not crying because I didn't know how to compile the miner, etc... and people were complaining right away "no windows miner?  Fail!"  Oh really?  Linux is a free operating system.  It's infinitely easier to compile on, and any miner worth his salt uses it.  So the whole thing from the very beginning is a bunch of whiny small minded snot nose 'its'.

And the trolls aren't going to get anything more from me ever again, I won't even acknowledge the "instamine" ever again (except in PMs if anyone really wants my memories or opinions.)  I'm not angry, I just am now at my limit with the stupid narrow minded, small minded, short sighted subject

[cryptonewb]

Funny Tungfa, you have/find some of the best pictures, LOL

Cryptonewb, if two instantX transactions are sent, and they go to two different masternodes, the first one that clears wins.  If a block is found that includes the wrong one (because somehow it didn't get all the information), it is rejected.  Maybe that's why we'll be forcing IX transactions to go to the second block now?  So that rejects will be minimized?

And the reason why it's secure against double spending is that those masternodes rule.  You can't get past their locks.  You can't get into a block if those funds are locked via another route.  The block would be rejected by the network.

I'm still not clear on this. As I posted before, how are miners forced to reject blocks? They can just mine on a different chain, no?
I just repost what I wrote about it, hopefully can give a good answer to this...

And please answer cryptonewb's post too 'cos he's way ahead of me

@cryptonewb, as far as I know if you try and make a double spend of an input the same masternodes will be selected to process it but I'm really not sure, more reading up to do :/ They don't get fees though, they're paid a percentage of the block rewards rather than on individual transactions.

I thought the maternodes were chosen based on the transaction hash or something. Therefore, a double spend (with a different destination of course) would have a different hash => different masternodes to lock the transaction.

so masternodes don't get fees to lock transactions? How are the masternode rewards distributed then? How can the network "know" that masternodes are online and doing the work in stead of just being idle to have a lower bandwidth usage?

And please, can someone take a look at the questions I had earlier in bold:

I watched the vids. I'm still not sure how InstantX manages to be secure though...
I kinda understand how it works, but not sure how the security works.

This is how I think bitcoin works:
the big problem in cryptocurrencies is that there is lag on a network. If there wasn't lag, we could just all send transactions. Everybody would see the first transactions and an attempt at double spend would be automatically ignored.
But there is lag (latency) on a network, so we need some kind of synchronization. Therefore, bitcoin groups transactions in "blocks". These blocks are propagated in the network. Once a block is mined, the transaction has one confirmation. However, it's still possible someone mines on an older version of the chain, so for bigger transactions, it's better to wait for more (2, 3, ...) confirmations to be sure it's included in the longest chain.
(correct me if I'm wrong)

This is how I think DASH works:
There are decentralized oracles that are deterministically chosen and vote on "locking" a transaction. When the oracles decide that a transaction is locked, miners can't mine a double spend because all nodes (masternodes or all nodes?) reject transactions that are in conflict with the locked transaction. If a block is mined with a conflicting transaction, that block is rejected by the nodes and other miners (but how can you force miners to reject a block? ).
Also, I'm not clear on what happens with the double spend transaction if that one also get locked by other masternodes that ignore the first transaction. After all, your masternode get a fee when you vote for a transaction (I think?), so you have an incentive to vote for the double spent transaction. is it possible that there is a competing locked transaction?

So as you can see, I still have some questions about the security of InstantX. i marked them so it's easier to address them.

[TanteStefana2]

I'm still not clear on this. As I posted before, how are miners forced to reject blocks? They can just mine on a different chain, no?
I just repost what I wrote about it, hopefully can give a good answer to this...

Miners don't reject the blocks, the Masternodes reject them.  Blocks can't go through without the Masternode's ok.  That's the beauty, and difference in our network.  Actually, I think that all nodes have to agree in Bitcoin et al as well

[moocowmoo]

Regarding XCoin/DarkCoin/Dash's "instamine":

The plain and simple fact is that big hash on a new coin always causes trouble when the difficulty adjustment only occurs over very large block intervals and when that difficulty adjustment has a limited maximum multiplier per interval.

Litecoins launch had similar difficulty readjustment issues with similar minting results.



There is no scam here, only inherited bad models.

[toknormal]

DASH build some amazing tools to improve fungibility, but I wouldn't say it's in the protocol...

I suppose that depends what you define as the 'scope' of the protocol. The masternode network are simply peers of the regular network which operate in a an alternate logic mode. Thats why they're often referred to as a second 'tier', or 'tier 2'. Their function is 'protocol level' enough to be subject to the condition of mining majority for successful adoption which I think is the significant criteria in that respect.

As far as I know, it's impossible to have a cryptocoin which doesn't have public balances for addresses

Doesn't Cryptonote do that ? In Cryptonote the balances are not public.

[TanteStefana2]

DASH build some amazing tools to improve fungibility, but I wouldn't say it's in the protocol...

I suppose that depends what you define as the 'scope' of the protocol. The masternode network are simply peers of the regular network which operate in a an alternate logic mode. Thats why they're often referred to as a second 'tier', or 'tier 2'. Their function is 'protocol level' enough to be subject to the condition of mining majority for successful adoption which I think is the significant criteria in that respect.

As far as I know, it's impossible to have a cryptocoin which doesn't have public balances for addresses

Doesn't Cryptonote do that ? In Cryptonote the balances are not public.

Yup, I think they go only by transaction number?  Or am I remembering incorrectly?  It's a super confusing Blockchain explorer.  I decided above all else, that cryptonote will likely never work because the amount of information each transaction has to be run through is going to become such a large database, it will slow down so badly that it will become a slug.  I can't see how they can possibly trim any of it.  They say they can, but I have other issues I can't figure out, and I've tried.  Still, no gui, a bloated block chain and no real developers working on it makes me think that if it's ever workable, it'll be 20 years in the future.  

Being about 3/4 the age of Dash, almost 5 times the size blockchain, and far far fewer people using it (meaning not nearly as many transactions going through as Dash), their blockchain issues are massive.

[smoothie]

Regarding XCoin/DarkCoin/Dash's "instamine":

The plain and simple fact is that big hash on a new coin always causes trouble when the difficulty adjustment only occurs over very large block intervals and when that difficulty adjustment has a limited maximum multiplier per interval.

Litecoins launch had similar difficulty readjustment issues with similar minting results.



There is no scam here, only inherited bad models.

Wrong. Here is the math below for a apples to apples comparison of mintage vs time:

Litecoin current supply - 42,681,260 LTC

In the first 24 hours   504,650 LTC were mined
Block #10092          2011-10-14 03:08:59
LINK: http://explorer.litecoin.net/chain/Litecoin?hi=12095&count=2016
block link: http://explorer.litecoin.net/block/fca5b3100fe457c1642c914c45214b4860aacd265d8bfd1e4af0004fd89a9032


After 1 year 9 months later -  19,398,754  LTC were mined  
block #387,985
DATE & TIME - 2013-07-13 12:53:54
link: http://explorer.litecoin.net/chain/Litecoin?hi=390000&count=2016

504,650 / 19,398,754 = 0.02601455742982 OR 2.6% of supply


block link: http://explorer.litecoin.net/block/37c6b847bd3d433247cff941ed874786487715ff4fff9c2977bf273d1c967965


Dash current supply - 5,882,880 (~1 year 9 months)

1,625,000 DASH was mined in first 8 hours

1,625,000 DASH / 5,822,880 = 0.27622525021758 OR 27.62% of supply


link: http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=a_massive_investigation_of_instamines_and_fastmines_for_the_top_alt_coins#monero

Darkcoin
   ▪   derived from Quark
   ▪   type of algorithm: blake, bmw, groestl, keccak, jh, stein
   ▪   PoW and PoS
The following data and time stamps were collected from the Darkcoin blockchain 37).
   ▪   Block 1: 2014-01-19 Time: 3:54:41
   ▪   Block 1000 : 2014-01-19 Time: 4:33:39
   ▪   Block 2000: 2014-01-19 Time: 06:25:47
   ▪   Block 3000: 2014-01-19 Time: 09:10:16
   ▪   Block 3250: 2014-01-19 Time: 11:22:11
Looking at this data, we see that Darkcoin was mined with 500 DRK generated per block from the get go. From block 1 to at least block 3250, according to their blockchain, they were still producing 500 coins each block. The transition from 500 to 277 coins per block occurs between 3250 and 3500 but this author did not see the necessity of getting the exact moment of halving. Simple math shows that 3250 blocks multiplied by 500 coins a block is 1,625,000 Darkcoins created between the times of 3:54 and 11:22 on January 19th, 2014. As of today there are around 4,300,000 DRK in existence, making this a pretty hefty instamine. The Darkcoin website expects around 22,000,000 DRK to be created. That means in less than 8 hours, almost 5% of the Darkcoins that ever will be created spawned in that 1/3 of a day. It's safe to say Darkcoin has left it's investors in the dark on this one.

More than 10 TIMES the amount of current supply (as a % comparison) was put into circulation in the first 8 hours than what was mined in the first 24 hours of litecoin's launch.

Hardly a comparable equivalent to use as an analogy. Laughable at best.

[bigrcanada]

A knack for rehashing old news... DASH was instamined..... Ohhhhh  

Best bit of good luck to ever happen to Crypto-Currency... It fuelled  us having full time developers.

I'm going to add that to my signature when I have a minute.  Lol

Edit:
Unlike our socialist trolls,  I firmly believe that one should be handsomely rewarded if the create something that is of value and utility.

To all the trolls out there... Don't like DASH.... Great,  create your own Utopian Crypto-Currency and may the best crytpo win.

[bigrcanada]

Dash was instamined... Old news  

Apologist.... Hahaha hardly... I'm owning it and I suggest DASH community does as well.  For the instamined mere value $400k value at that time and at today's value  still measly $3.5mil.  You couldn't build a building and equip it and staff it for that amount of money.  

You trolls are a joke.

[moocowmoo]

Regarding XCoin/DarkCoin/Dash's "instamine":

The plain and simple fact is that big hash on a new coin always causes trouble when the difficulty adjustment only occurs over very large block intervals and when that difficulty adjustment has a limited maximum multiplier per interval.

Litecoins launch had similar difficulty readjustment issues with similar minting results.



There is no scam here, only inherited bad models.

Wrong. Here is the math below for a apples to apples comparison of mintage vs time:

I said nothing about number of coins minted, only the difficulty adjustment in respect to block count.

It's not an analogy. It's a flaw that many, many coins share. Xcoin was not unique in this regard.

I like math too, let's do some:

litecoin has a 2.5 minute block target.
xcoin had a 5 minute block target

In 48 hours, 1152 blocks should occur for litecoin (48 * 60 / 2.5) and
In 48 hours, 576 blocks should occur for xcoin (48 * 60 / 5)

In the first 48 hours of litecoin (2011-10-13 02:59:41 -> 2011-10-15 02:55:24), 10897 blocks were minted.

In the first 48 hours of xcoin (2014-01-19 03:54:41 -> 2014-01-21 03:54:46), 5055 blocks were minted.

Both of these values are WELL ABOVE the intended minting rates.

litecoin was 945% over target
xcoin was 877% over target

This is the only point I made in the original post:  That the difficulty adjustment of both coins was insufficient.

--

More than 10 TIMES the amount of current supply (as a % comparison) was put into circulation in the first 8 hours than what was mined in the first 24 hours of litecoin's launch.

Considering xcoins max block subsidy was 500 and litecoins was 50 that makes sense.

The difficulty algorithm "int64 nSubsidy = (1111 / (pow((dDiff+1),2)))" would have clamped that down but the difficulty didn't raise fast enough (see point #1) to restrict total minting to more reasonable levels.

These are the facts. Code doesn't lie.