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

[TanteStefana2]

Actually we are 0.7% of Bitcoin's market cap, or about 1/142.

I make it 0.28% (1/358)

Easiest way to remember it is it's just under 3 thousandths.

So Dash has about 240X more nodes per market cap than Bitcoin.  Nice.

I will comment on security by miners.  The amount of hashpower(electricity) is proportional to the marketcap(coin price).  As Dash price goes up, it is more profitable to mine and more security/miners will be added to the network.  The Bitcoin network has about $1,280,000/day in security by miners, Dash has $10,500/day in security.  This doesn't include the cost to acquire the miners either which is about 500x the 1 day electric cost.  So an attacker would need $640,000,000(1/8 of marketcap) just to get close to 50%, and Dash $5,000,000(1/3 of the marketcap).

That does raise the question, if Dash takes off and matches the BTC marketcap now, how much would be spent on miners/security.  The answer is $3,759,000/day.  We could reduce the miner share of blockrewards so that millions/day are not just thrown at electricity to power miners.  This isn't just an ASIC will solve it problem either.  Even with ASICs, eventually more ASICs would be added to use the same electric usage as the value of coins produced.  And maybe with a $5 billion marketcap a $3.8 million electric bill is the right amount.  Personally, I think it would be be more beneficial to move some miners % at that point to the budget and vote on projects for the community.

Disclaimers:  No ASICs are availabe for Dash, nor do I expect them soon.  Actual mining electric cost will be less than the value of coins mined to allow for a profit.

Eventually, the miners will come up with the hashes that are used to build the quorums, but will have no control over what is included in the blockchain, thus eliminating the > 50% hash attack vector.  The double layer of hash and quorums will be infinitely more secure than POW alone.  I don't know how that will play out in hash rate/rewards, but I do see that when ASICs come online, it won't be a threat like it was for Bitcoin and Litecoin, etc... It'll just be a change.

I do see an issue though.  Who will set the rates for inclusion into the blockchain?  With a flexible block size and a network that is paid to store the blockchain in a distributed manner, does it matter?  Do we need fees?  Hummmm?

I guess we do, because no matter how much traffic the network can take, it should have a way to reduce unnecessary spam.  But If this is somewhat how it'll go, I wonder if the fee will now be set by the MN quorums?  Also, the blocks will get to be huge, and I remember reading that China's miners can't package up a block fast enough because of their limited bandwidth.  So question is, will this become a problem?

Wow, the more I think about this, the more I see what a challenge all this is

[1714868319]

1714868319

[1714868319]

1714868319

[Solarminer]

Actually we are 0.7% of Bitcoin's market cap, or about 1/142.

I make it 0.28% (1/358)

Easiest way to remember it is it's just under 3 thousandths.

So Dash has about 240X more nodes per market cap than Bitcoin.  Nice.

I will comment on security by miners.  The amount of hashpower(electricity) is proportional to the marketcap(coin price).  As Dash price goes up, it is more profitable to mine and more security/miners will be added to the network.  The Bitcoin network has about $1,280,000/day in security by miners, Dash has $10,500/day in security.  This doesn't include the cost to acquire the miners either which is about 500x the 1 day electric cost.  So an attacker would need $640,000,000(1/8 of marketcap) just to get close to 50%, and Dash $5,000,000(1/3 of the marketcap).

That does raise the question, if Dash takes off and matches the BTC marketcap now, how much would be spent on miners/security.  The answer is $3,759,000/day.  We could reduce the miner share of blockrewards so that millions/day are not just thrown at electricity to power miners.  This isn't just an ASIC will solve it problem either.  Even with ASICs, eventually more ASICs would be added to use the same electric usage as the value of coins produced.  And maybe with a $5 billion marketcap a $3.8 million electric bill is the right amount.  Personally, I think it would be be more beneficial to move some miners % at that point to the budget and vote on projects for the community.

Disclaimers:  No ASICs are availabe for Dash, nor do I expect them soon.  Actual mining electric cost will be less than the value of coins mined to allow for a profit.

Eventually, the miners will come up with the hashes that are used to build the quorums, but will have no control over what is included in the blockchain, thus eliminating the > 50% hash attack vector.  The double layer of hash and quorums will be infinitely more secure than POW alone.  I don't know how that will play out in hash rate/rewards, but I do see that when ASICs come online, it won't be a threat like it was for Bitcoin and Litecoin, etc... It'll just be a change.

I do see an issue though.  Who will set the rates for inclusion into the blockchain?  With a flexible block size and a network that is paid to store the blockchain in a distributed manner, does it matter?  Do we need fees?  Hummmm?

I guess we do, because no matter how much traffic the network can take, it should have a way to reduce unnecessary spam.  But If this is somewhat how it'll go, I wonder if the fee will now be set by the MN quorums?  Also, the blocks will get to be huge, and I remember reading that China's miners can't package up a block fast enough because of their limited bandwidth.  So question is, will this become a problem?

Wow, the more I think about this, the more I see what a challenge all this is

Miners still need to validate transactions that go in a block.  If the masternodes order and lock every transaction, there is very little way to game a system like this.  Also the 45% block reward for miners could probably be reduced to 5% and still maintain security.  Now there is a remaining 40% of block rewards that can be used for something more useful than paying electric bills.  With a low mining reward there will probably not be a market to produce and X11 ASIC either.

Evan has said the fees are moving to the merchant/receiver end - so maybe it is still per transaction.

I haven't heard of china miners not being able to package blocks.  Some miners are not validating the transactions in a block, it gives them a few second edge on each block and usually will work.  If another pool or wallet rejects a block, then those miners not validating lose that block.

It is fun to speculate on the evolution revolution.

[toknormal]

I wonder why iCEBREAKER would delete this post from his self moderated thread ?.....

************************************ DELETED POST ************************************

Although it's possibly true that Dash's beginnings will 'follow it around', this isn't going to prevent people from investing in it, for two reasons:

[1] - the developer didn't slope off and leave the project. He stuck with it - now for nearly 2 years and no sign of stopping - and produced one of the most fundamental innovations in crypto by articulating the blockchain protocol while leaving it decentralised

[2] - the market for wider (mass) adoption isn't a few readers on bitcointalk, it's the uninitiated public 'out there' to whom the whole of crypto is "instamined". Ask any of them if they think bitcoin's distribution is "fair" - I have and the answer's always the same

On that second point, the reason it is so is that miners don't hold their supply - they dump it into markets where the holdings get consolidated. There are even services telling you which coins to mine-to-dump right now. So, even though I wasn't there at the start, Dash's beginnings didn't affect me and they don't now. I do not regard them as unethical, or even a 'handicap' because I'm not investing in the past, I'm investing in the future and whatever its beginnings there is no alternative to Dash - there's only the one. It's unique.

Thats the reason it's retained its relative marketcap no matter what amount of mundane troll droning goes on in the background from people who claim their noses are out of joint over the launch. Charlie Lee says that Dash's early beginnings make it "difficult to support". Well I can understand such a remark coming from him and it's probably well founded from a coin dev's point of view. But I am an investor and have different priorities, as will every other investor who comes after me.

The merits of the work currently going on in Dash and its potential to further distinguish its market presence now far outweigh the coin supply issues at launch and will only continue to grow in dominance.

As for its 'technology', it has the right technology for the job it's doing which is to address three principle monetary shortfalls while retaining its inheritance of bitcoin's public blockchain protocol:

[1] - the ability of crypto to function as a new form of electronic cash by supporting near instant confirmations

[2] - the ability of crypto to function as a new form of electronic cash by supporting near perfect fungibility

[3] - the ability of crypto to function as a new form of electronic cash by supporting near perfect transparency and accountability

Whatever the shortfalls in Darksend right now and other areas of Dash's performance, it keeps getting closer to those monetary objectives with every 6 months of new revisions. That is progress which is declared and delivered rather than just talked about which is why most of Dash's core investors stick with it.

Bitcoin is not getting closer to thes objectives. Bitcoin 2.0 coins are targeting all kinds of other services aside from currency, and Cryptonote simply picked the wrong monetary model - a credit one instead of a cash one - on which to base its privacy properties which is why it's heading rapidly into oblivion before they can even get to first base in terms of user-oriented adoption tools.

So that leaves Dash as the closest true competitor which inherits bitcoin's codebase while offering a radical and successful alternative approach. It DOES massively improve confirmation time. It DOES resolve the fungibility issue and it DOES maintain bitcoin's level of transparency and accountability.

Having achieved those objectives at all is pretty outstanding. Dash now has the luxury of time with which to improve and consolidate the manner on HOW it achieves them.

Thats what people are going to be investing in from now on.

[Lukas_Jackson]

Everyone cares about Dash.
I like it a lot 

[toknormal]

Charlie Lee (who, whatever you think of Litecoin, is well known and influential) was talking about how the instamine holds Dash back

But it doesn't 'hold it back'.

It has fought off every would be competitor there's been for nearly two years. (From X-Coin, Cloakcoin, Vericoin, Cryptonote, you name it - they all came here trolling all year long and saying "Drk/Dash will be gone in a month" now that <replace-with-your-coin-of-choice> is here).

Instead it became the third largest marketcap pure-currency crypto in the world.

It's been able to directly address and enhance monetary deficiencies in crypto rather than indirectly.

It is the only articulated blockchain protocol coin outside of distant clones like crave and as such has been able to lever that technology to incentivise and grow the network, start a decentralised governance protocol and acheive unsurpassed transaction performance for a proof of work blockchain.

It has a highly organised, focused and structured development effort which delivers and a roadmap to match.

...if thats what people call being "held back" then the rest of crypto's in shackles.

[Solarminer]

I found a release that coinify is accepting 16 different cryptos.  I don't think it is a coincidence they are not picking up Dash.  Here is the link to the news brief.
https://news.coinify.com/coinify-merchants-can-now-accept-16-blockchain-currencies/

Check out the fine print under the coins they choose.
* An important criteria in the selection of supported currencies has been that they all maintain a high standard of transactional transparency. We reserve the right to alter this list in case of any currency no longer fits this criteria.

Are they trying to avoiding drug/gun smuggling by choosing only the trackable coins?  Maybe they get a kickback from DEA or ATF on any drug/gun busts.

Are merchants scared to accept cash because someone could have been associated with something illegal?  No.  Why care about the anonymity with crypto?  If anything I would want to refuse the trackable currency because the government could confiscate it based on history they find searching the blockchain.

[toknormal]

* An important criteria in the selection of supported currencies has been that they all maintain a high standard of transactional transparency

Thats hilarious.

All cryptocurrencies are anonymous. You can't have a high degree of "transactional transparency" unless you stamp people's names on the addresses.

[smooth]

Charlie Lee (who, whatever you think of Litecoin, is well known and influential) was talking about how the instamine holds Dash back

But it doesn't 'hold it back'.

Argue it with Charlie Lee, not me. He does how many speaking engagements a year? I do...somewhat less.

It is certainly relevant when someone of that visibility states it to be the case, whether you agree with him or not.

[noah tall]

UN privacy head slams 'worse than scary' UK surveillance bill

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/10/un_privacy_head_slams_uk_surveillance_bill/

"Giving a presentation at an open forum on the Right to Privacy in The Digital Age...he argued, "we need to do something about protecting privacy"

DASH Evolution can't get here soon enough.

[dnaleor]

Actually we are 0.7% of Bitcoin's market cap, or about 1/142.

I make it 0.28% (1/358)

Easiest way to remember it is it's just under 3 thousandths.

So Dash has about 240X more nodes per market cap than Bitcoin.  Nice.

I will comment on security by miners.  The amount of hashpower(electricity) is proportional to the marketcap(coin price).  As Dash price goes up, it is more profitable to mine and more security/miners will be added to the network.  The Bitcoin network has about $1,280,000/day in security by miners, Dash has $10,500/day in security.  This doesn't include the cost to acquire the miners either which is about 500x the 1 day electric cost.  So an attacker would need $640,000,000(1/8 of marketcap) just to get close to 50%, and Dash $5,000,000(1/3 of the marketcap).

That does raise the question, if Dash takes off and matches the BTC marketcap now, how much would be spent on miners/security.  The answer is $3,759,000/day.  We could reduce the miner share of blockrewards so that millions/day are not just thrown at electricity to power miners.  This isn't just an ASIC will solve it problem either.  Even with ASICs, eventually more ASICs would be added to use the same electric usage as the value of coins produced.  And maybe with a $5 billion marketcap a $3.8 million electric bill is the right amount.  Personally, I think it would be be more beneficial to move some miners % at that point to the budget and vote on projects for the community.

Disclaimers:  No ASICs are availabe for Dash, nor do I expect them soon.  Actual mining electric cost will be less than the value of coins mined to allow for a profit.

Eventually, the miners will come up with the hashes that are used to build the quorums, but will have no control over what is included in the blockchain, thus eliminating the > 50% hash attack vector.  The double layer of hash and quorums will be infinitely more secure than POW alone.  I don't know how that will play out in hash rate/rewards, but I do see that when ASICs come online, it won't be a threat like it was for Bitcoin and Litecoin, etc... It'll just be a change.

I do see an issue though.  Who will set the rates for inclusion into the blockchain?  With a flexible block size and a network that is paid to store the blockchain in a distributed manner, does it matter?  Do we need fees?  Hummmm?

I guess we do, because no matter how much traffic the network can take, it should have a way to reduce unnecessary spam.  But If this is somewhat how it'll go, I wonder if the fee will now be set by the MN quorums?  Also, the blocks will get to be huge, and I remember reading that China's miners can't package up a block fast enough because of their limited bandwidth.  So question is, will this become a problem?

Wow, the more I think about this, the more I see what a challenge all this is

Miners still need to validate transactions that go in a block.  If the masternodes order and lock every transaction, there is very little way to game a system like this.  Also the 45% block reward for miners could probably be reduced to 5% and still maintain security.  Now there is a remaining 40% of block rewards that can be used for something more useful than paying electric bills.  With a low mining reward there will probably not be a market to produce and X11 ASIC either.

Evan has said the fees are moving to the merchant/receiver end - so maybe it is still per transaction.

I haven't heard of china miners not being able to package blocks.  Some miners are not validating the transactions in a block, it gives them a few second edge on each block and usually will work.  If another pool or wallet rejects a block, then those miners not validating lose that block.

It is fun to speculate on the evolution revolution.

So if these masternode quorums are assumed to be safe and miners don't have any power on what is included in the blockchain, why not eliminate the X11 DASH mining completely?

As far as I understand miners only choose the quorums. They have no other purpose. Miners are only used as a kind of "independent oracle".

That task can be done using some other external oracle, you don't need to mine a separate blockchain for that.
Maybe use the bitcoin block hashes for this? Hash rate is bigger, so this is very safe.

I don't think DASH needs PoW if masternode quorums are as safe as you guys tell us they are.
Let the Masternodes write the blockchain and double the payments for masternode rewards (90%) and dev (10%) fund!

[BusterNutBag]

Actually we are 0.7% of Bitcoin's market cap, or about 1/142.

I make it 0.28% (1/358)

Easiest way to remember it is it's just under 3 thousandths.

So Dash has about 240X more nodes per market cap than Bitcoin.  Nice.

I will comment on security by miners.  The amount of hashpower(electricity) is proportional to the marketcap(coin price).  As Dash price goes up, it is more profitable to mine and more security/miners will be added to the network.  The Bitcoin network has about $1,280,000/day in security by miners, Dash has $10,500/day in security.  This doesn't include the cost to acquire the miners either which is about 500x the 1 day electric cost.  So an attacker would need $640,000,000(1/8 of marketcap) just to get close to 50%, and Dash $5,000,000(1/3 of the marketcap).

That does raise the question, if Dash takes off and matches the BTC marketcap now, how much would be spent on miners/security.  The answer is $3,759,000/day.  We could reduce the miner share of blockrewards so that millions/day are not just thrown at electricity to power miners.  This isn't just an ASIC will solve it problem either.  Even with ASICs, eventually more ASICs would be added to use the same electric usage as the value of coins produced.  And maybe with a $5 billion marketcap a $3.8 million electric bill is the right amount.  Personally, I think it would be be more beneficial to move some miners % at that point to the budget and vote on projects for the community.

Disclaimers:  No ASICs are availabe for Dash, nor do I expect them soon.  Actual mining electric cost will be less than the value of coins mined to allow for a profit.

Eventually, the miners will come up with the hashes that are used to build the quorums, but will have no control over what is included in the blockchain, thus eliminating the > 50% hash attack vector.  The double layer of hash and quorums will be infinitely more secure than POW alone.  I don't know how that will play out in hash rate/rewards, but I do see that when ASICs come online, it won't be a threat like it was for Bitcoin and Litecoin, etc... It'll just be a change.

I do see an issue though.  Who will set the rates for inclusion into the blockchain?  With a flexible block size and a network that is paid to store the blockchain in a distributed manner, does it matter?  Do we need fees?  Hummmm?

I guess we do, because no matter how much traffic the network can take, it should have a way to reduce unnecessary spam.  But If this is somewhat how it'll go, I wonder if the fee will now be set by the MN quorums?  Also, the blocks will get to be huge, and I remember reading that China's miners can't package up a block fast enough because of their limited bandwidth.  So question is, will this become a problem?

Wow, the more I think about this, the more I see what a challenge all this is

Miners still need to validate transactions that go in a block.  If the masternodes order and lock every transaction, there is very little way to game a system like this.  Also the 45% block reward for miners could probably be reduced to 5% and still maintain security.  Now there is a remaining 40% of block rewards that can be used for something more useful than paying electric bills.  With a low mining reward there will probably not be a market to produce and X11 ASIC either.

Evan has said the fees are moving to the merchant/receiver end - so maybe it is still per transaction.

I haven't heard of china miners not being able to package blocks.  Some miners are not validating the transactions in a block, it gives them a few second edge on each block and usually will work.  If another pool or wallet rejects a block, then those miners not validating lose that block.

It is fun to speculate on the evolution revolution.

So if these masternode quorums are assumed to be safe and miners don't have any power on what is included in the blockchain, why not eliminate the X11 DASH mining completely?

As far as I understand miners only choose the quorums. They have no other purpose. Miners are only used as a kind of "independent oracle".

That task can be done using some other external oracle, you don't need to mine a separate blockchain for that.
Maybe use the bitcoin block hashes for this? Hash rate is bigger, so this is very safe.

I don't think DASH needs PoW if masternode quorums are as safe as you guys tell us they are.
Let the Masternodes write the blockchain and double the payments for masternode rewards (90%) and dev (10%) fund!

I thought you knew how crypto worked...
DASH is and will always be a POW...
Miners will always be with DASH....

[noah tall]

...you guys...

We guys were doing fine without you.  Please go home.

[BusterNutBag]

wow

BTC is down to 310USD
DASH @ 0.0751

[TanteStefana2]

So if these masternode quorums are assumed to be safe and miners don't have any power on what is included in the blockchain, why not eliminate the X11 DASH mining completely?

As far as I understand miners only choose the quorums. They have no other purpose. Miners are only used as a kind of "independent oracle".

That task can be done using some other external oracle, you don't need to mine a separate blockchain for that.
Maybe use the bitcoin block hashes for this? Hash rate is bigger, so this is very safe.

I don't think DASH needs PoW if masternode quorums are as safe as you guys tell us they are.
Let the Masternodes write the blockchain and double the payments for masternode rewards (90%) and dev (10%) fund!

I normally wouldn't talk to you, but since you were quoted and this could be a valid question, though I suspect you know the answer, I'll answer.

The POW hash is what is used to select the Masternode Quorums.  The miners also "write" the block onto the chain.  It's really simple, complementary and still needed.

[dnaleor]

So if these masternode quorums are assumed to be safe and miners don't have any power on what is included in the blockchain, why not eliminate the X11 DASH mining completely?

As far as I understand miners only choose the quorums. They have no other purpose. Miners are only used as a kind of "independent oracle".

That task can be done using some other external oracle, you don't need to mine a separate blockchain for that.
Maybe use the bitcoin block hashes for this? Hash rate is bigger, so this is very safe.

I don't think DASH needs PoW if masternode quorums are as safe as you guys tell us they are.
Let the Masternodes write the blockchain and double the payments for masternode rewards (90%) and dev (10%) fund!

I normally wouldn't talk to you, but since you were quoted and this could be a valid question, though I suspect you know the answer, I'll answer.

The POW hash is what is used to select the Masternode Quorums.  The miners also "write" the block onto the chain.  It's really simple, complementary and still needed.

Why can't masternodes write the transactions in some kind of blockchain database?
After all, InstantX is safe, no?

The oracle used for selecting the quorums can be anything... Bitcoin block hashes, DASH block hashes or even some university publishing real-time timestamps of radioactive decay.

[flailing Junk]

I can't help you with that, couldn't remember that evan told more details about that. We have to be patient I guess. There is still a danger of ideas getting stolen.

Ok. I don't mind it being secret. I just want to make sure i have whatever information is public.   

[noah tall]

Why can't

[flailing Junk]

Anyone know if evolution or the current 2nd tier could support a default "mining pool" so we can eliminate the threat of mining pool centralization?

[Solarminer]

Anyone know if evolution or the current 2nd tier could support a default "mining pool" so we can eliminate the threat of mining pool centralization?

Just join a P2P Pool node or start your own node.

[Bitock]

Hi! Where can I download cpu miner (win) for DASH? Help, please!