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

[tungfa]

3455 masternodes - new ATH

http://178.254.18.153/~pub/Darkcoin/masternodes.html

Nice !
thats what i call centralised 

[Sub-Ether]

3455 masternodes - new ATH
http://178.254.18.153/~pub/Darkcoin/masternodes.html

Nice !
thats what i call centralised  

More precisely, semi-centralized,
So if semi-centralized is 37 countries, how many does it take to be fully decentralized ?

''The VC Dash (formerly Darkcoin) has a hybrid structure where anonymity is guaranteed
by a semi-centralized architecture''

~~Rand Corporation~~

[ToScA-]

Hi!

How do I stake this coin?

Thanks!

[stan.distortion]

How to make DASH look good in a few simple steps.

1 - Continue development of Evolution.
2 - Continue to shun anything that ice's favorite dev (Peter Todd) thows out there.
3 - When posting an image, be sure to laugh at tinypic making you type icebreaker



Every day that goes by, DASH looks better and better.  Every day Bitcoin looks worse.

BEHOLD:

Wtf?! That's fscking sabotage, it drastically alters a high percentage of existing uses and needs to be reverted immediately and Peter Todds commit access revoked. Ffs, that effects way more users than a change of block size would and the main "feature" seems to be allowing bidding wars to be included in bloated blocks.

Should've known there was something dodgy about that guy when the unwelcome guests here in this thread where quoting him endlessly, the cancer's running deep in Bitcoin but every problem can be seen as an opportunity and Dash will come up with defences against this kind of BS, commits by consensus should stop this shit dead in its tracks.

[pille]

Hi!

How do I stake this coin?

Thanks!

There is no stake in the traditional sense. But can earn interest (currently 14% p.a.) for running a masternode (1000 Dash required). https://dashpay.atlassian.net/wiki/display/DOC/Masternode+guides

[eduffield]

How to make DASH look good in a few simple steps.

1 - Continue development of Evolution.
2 - Continue to shun anything that ice's favorite dev (Peter Todd) thows out there.
3 - When posting an image, be sure to laugh at tinypic making you type icebreaker



Every day that goes by, DASH looks better and better.  Every day Bitcoin looks worse.

BEHOLD:

Wtf?! That's fscking sabotage, it drastically alters a high percentage of existing uses and needs to be reverted immediately and Peter Todds commit access revoked. Ffs, that effects way more users than a change of block size would and the main "feature" seems to be allowing bidding wars to be included in bloated blocks.

Should've known there was something dodgy about that guy when the unwelcome guests here in this thread where quoting him endlessly, the cancer's running deep in Bitcoin but every problem can be seen as an opportunity and Dash will come up with defences against this kind of BS, commits by consensus should stop this shit dead in its tracks.

Every day that goes by proves that the world actually needs Dash. This space needs a project that proves you can govern and fund one of these projects with no centralization, support instant transactions and scales without centralizing the full nodes around a few large companies (which is also happening in BTC). BTC and Dash are really going in separate directions and I think we should start being careful about what we merge upstream; I'm definitely not merging RBF.

[toknormal]

Out of curiosity, how does RBF "murder" 0-conf transactions ?

P.S. Non-articulated protocols. The internet already binned them 50 years ago so no-one needs to be surprised. You can't fix one thing without screwing another. Elephant in the room.

Can't fix capacity without screwing with blocksize.
Can't fix anonymity without screwing with  transparency.
Can't fix speed without screwing with confirmations.

[Sub-Ether]

Out of curiosity, how does RBF "murder" 0-conf transactions ?

Eric Voorhees knows a thing or two,
https://shapeshift.io/site/blog/2015/12/01/note-ceo-erik-voorhees-appeal-zero-conf

''This means that if zero-conf is effectively destroyed – by RBF or any other mechanism in the future – that segment of business will shrink or go away. We can debate how big that segment is, but be careful with your assumptions. More important than any single business today, is the “unseen” business which will never happen tomorrow, because zero-conf was destroyed – nobody being permitted, ever again, to take on the risk of this useful tool. ''

Some background on RBF

 ''RBF is a modification to Bitcoin confirmation handling, in which transactions currently in the mempool (ie – not yet confirmed) can be replaced by a subsequent double-spend transaction if that 2nd transaction has a higher fee. Put simply, before RBF, if you double-spent two transactions, miners would usually ignore the second one, because they operate on a “first seen” principle. Thus the first seen transaction is “probably going to confirm.” With RBF, however, when a double-spend occurs, the one with the highest fee is the one confirmed. Thus the first seen transaction is somewhat meaningless.''

[toknormal]

With RBF, however, when a double-spend occurs, the one with the highest fee is the one confirmed. Thus the first seen transaction is somewhat meaningless.''

So RBF is basically a queue-jumping technology ?

Speedy boarding ?

Priority boarding ?

[dazbarlby]

DASH owes a lot to Bitcoin but unfortunately the RBF debate highlights how much of a mess Bitcoin is in. Fortunately it also highlights how good of a position DASH is in. The RBF debate will surely help to draw more people from Bitcoin after the DASH Evolution event in January.

Next year we will be able to make thousands of anonymous, instantly confirmed transactions every second, while Bitcoin will probably still be debating this and holding itself back as usual.

[Sub-Ether]

With RBF, however, when a double-spend occurs, the one with the highest fee is the one confirmed. Thus the first seen transaction is somewhat meaningless.''

So RBF is basically a queue-jumping technology ?

looks like it, so you can queue jump your own transaction using a higher fee even though its a younger transaction.
Sounds messy, what happened to block confirmations and POW, like Eric Voorhees says is it even necessary?

[toknormal]

With RBF, however, when a double-spend occurs, the one with the highest fee is the one confirmed. Thus the first seen transaction is somewhat meaningless.''

So RBF is basically a queue-jumping technology ?

Speedy boarding ?

Priority boarding ?

Ah ! On reading more I realise it's more than just "Speedy Boarding".

It's arrive late for the flight and bounce who-ever you want out of their seat so you can have it !

It's pay the merchant $1600 for a new Plasma TV, then once you've walked out of the shop with it, cancel and redo the payment for only $1

Excellent thinking ! Good for customers wanting cheap stuff at least  

Also, clearly good for confidence in the bitcoin system generally. By comparison, MT Gox was an endorsement. (No blockchain corruption occurred).

[AlexGR]

With RBF, however, when a double-spend occurs, the one with the highest fee is the one confirmed. Thus the first seen transaction is somewhat meaningless.''

So RBF is basically a queue-jumping technology ?

Speedy boarding ?

Priority boarding ?

Ah ! On reading more I realise it's more than just "Speedy Boarding".

It's arrive late for the flight and bounce who-ever you want out of their seat so you can have it !

It's pay the merchant $1600 for a new Plasma TV, then once you've walked out of the shop with it, cancel and redo the payment for only $1

Excellent thinking ! Good for customers wanting cheap stuff at least  

Also, clearly good for confidence in the bitcoin system generally. By comparison, MT Gox was an endorsement. (No blockchain corruption occurred).

In theory (algorithmically) it should be possible to just increase the fee for faster processing, if, say, you made an error and sent a very low or zero fee tx and want it to process faster rather than taking hours. The coder would simply allow use of RBF *IF* all the other transaction details match the first one, except the fee.

If you have a different payment address so that you try to "steal" from a 0-conf payment processor => it won't work
If you try to make the amount smaller => it won't work
if you want to raise the fee => it'll work.

...unless there is some kind of issue I'm unaware of that prevents this kind of system.

[toknormal]

In theory (algorithmically) it should be possible to just increase the fee for faster processing, if, say, you made an error and sent a very low or zero fee tx and want it to process faster rather than taking hours. The coder would simply allow use of RBF *IF* all the other transaction details match the first one, except the fee.

Thats the thin end of a huge wedge I think. When you start making double spends possible AND conditional upon a rule base then the rule base itself exposes a huge attack vector. The problem isn't lack of rules, it's the lack of an alternate protocol than supports the primary protocol where it's weak.

Will post a "picture" in a minute  

[noah tall]

RBF

So RBF is basically

RBF

Look, it's really quite simple.  More Fees + Higher Fees = Happy Blockstream

[toknormal]

Here's the problem mono-tiered protocols have (and why there are almost none in existence amongst network protocols).

Also why bitcoin has problems trying to be both a cash medium AND a settlement layer.

Those design objectives have conflicting priorities. The reason almost ALL logic protocols have some kind of articulation is because almost ALL design objectives have conflicting priorities. (If not, they deploy complimentary technologies and a horrible interface to "get the job done", e.g. SQL's strength was its versatility. Its weakness was programmability, so Microsoft created an abstracted object layer to articulate the two. Bitcoin+Lightning is another example or Bitcoin+Sidechains).

If you can get that articulation integrated in the same protocol you will have a much more powerful, secure and complete solution. (Athough it may not result in the biggest economy as I related in an earlier post. A lot of people make a lot of money from fixing problems in sh*t designs).





(In Dash, the green triangle is supported by InstantX of course, its complimentary protocol to the mining protocol which serves as the primary as far as confirmations go).

[stan.distortion]

...
Every day that goes by proves that the world actually needs Dash. This space needs a project that proves you can govern and fund one of these projects with no centralization, support instant transactions and scales without centralizing the full nodes around a few large companies (which is also happening in BTC). BTC and Dash are really going in separate directions and I think we should start being careful about what we merge upstream; I'm definitely not merging RBF.

Good to hear. There's some sense in it, it clears up a messy part of the way transactions work but just putting it in like this... it should have had months of high-profile notification so businesses could prepare, bitpay, shapeshift, they're just two that have been put at risk by it and there's countless more. The majority consent for changes to Dashes code makes more sense now than ever and knowing the devs are looking out for this kind of thing and guarding against it is a great source of confidence, cheers.

[HappyComplex]

Is RBF actually getting implemented into bitcoin?

If so, it seems like this will force people who need faster than 10 minute transactions to switch to altcoins.

[noah tall]

Is RBF actually getting implemented into bitcoin?

If so, it seems like this will force people who need faster than 10 minute transactions to switch to altcoins.

Their plan is to force people into using sidechains, which sound better.  Side > Alt.  Blockstream, Lightening, etc are going to make "them" more money.

stupid

[TaoOfSaatoshi]

How to make DASH look good in a few simple steps.

1 - Continue development of Evolution.
2 - Continue to shun anything that ice's favorite dev (Peter Todd) thows out there.
3 - When posting an image, be sure to laugh at tinypic making you type icebreaker



Every day that goes by, DASH looks better and better.  Every day Bitcoin looks worse.

BEHOLD:

Wtf?! That's fscking sabotage, it drastically alters a high percentage of existing uses and needs to be reverted immediately and Peter Todds commit access revoked. Ffs, that effects way more users than a change of block size would and the main "feature" seems to be allowing bidding wars to be included in bloated blocks.

Should've known there was something dodgy about that guy when the unwelcome guests here in this thread where quoting him endlessly, the cancer's running deep in Bitcoin but every problem can be seen as an opportunity and Dash will come up with defences against this kind of BS, commits by consensus should stop this shit dead in its tracks.

Every day that goes by proves that the world actually needs Dash. This space needs a project that proves you can govern and fund one of these projects with no centralization, support instant transactions and scales without centralizing the full nodes around a few large companies (which is also happening in BTC). BTC and Dash are really going in separate directions and I think we should start being careful about what we merge upstream; I'm definitely not merging RBF.

That's awesome to hear. Our approach to scalability will be appealing to more users.

https://twitter.com/taoofsatoshi/status/679380666610540545