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

[Taylor05]

Anyone know the low and high price for 2014, 2015 and 2016?

I'd use this because it's daily at least. It doesn't include the true spike highs and lows, but should be pretty close.

https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/price-dash.html

[pille]

Tao asks: How can you avoid a Mt. Gox situation for your Dash?

http://youtu.be/40n6joIOkVg

The future is now. Use Exmo.

I did some tracking based on your exchange address and I'm pretty sure that

* This masternode is owned by you: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/dash/address.dws?XiW49wtg2p2nbKD8KPrJdqzP2Vch5MNd74.htm
* This wallet was previously owned by you, now unused: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/dash/address.dws?Xh2F7kU7zrQqedoki7qMmY78poEsb8ELwU.htm

I didn't use any fancy scripts to get this info. Imagine chainalysis trying to map the DASH blockchain. They would be able to extract much more info.

DASH, not that anonymous after all...

[TaoOfSaatoshi]

Dash on Exmo - Security AND mobility with InstantX
(Speed is Safety)
 
tx tao
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40n6joIOkVg&feature=youtu.be

Great Tao!

If someone of you have not the EXMO account you can use my refferal

https://exmo.com/?ref=228835

Till the end of march all the earnings from the fees goes to TAO - great video my friend

Thanks!

[TanteStefana2]

Anyone know the low and high price for 2014, 2015 and 2016?

OK, this is what I got off of coin market cap

2014  Low  Feb. 10, 2014  0.00041330 BTC  
2014  Low  Feb. 10, 2014  $0.265834
2014  High  May 19, 2014  0.01889618 BTC
2014  High  June 2, 2014  $12.22
2015  Low  December 14 2015  0.00579146 BTC
2015  Low  December 29  $1.86  
2015  High  March 23, 2015  0.01988543 BTC
2015  High  March 23, 2015  $5.03
2016  Low  January 4, 2016  0.00741509 BTC
2016  Low  January 12, 2016 $1.31
2016  High  January 18, 2016  0.01146713 BTC
2016  High  January 18, 2015  $4.52

The actual high in 2014 was around .027 yes?

No, at one point, there was a huge pump, I believe the number is correct.  Oh wait, yes I think you're right.  Unfortunately, it's not on the chart.  Maybe it's because it was just a quick peak and there is a minimum time period which is averaged out.  or else it's an average of all the exchanges at any one moment.  Not sure.

[TanteStefana2]

Anyone know the low and high price for 2014, 2015 and 2016?

I'd use this because it's daily at least. It doesn't include the true spike highs and lows, but should be pretty close.

https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/price-dash.html

OK, I added that info here:

2014  Low  Feb. 10, 2014  0.00041330 BTC   
2014  Low  Feb. 10, 2014  $0.265834
                    Feb. 26, 2014  $0.57  BitinfoCharts
2014  High  May 19, 2014  0.01889618 BTC
2014  High  June 2, 2014  $12.22
                     May 25, 2014  $14.09  BitInfoCharts
2015  Low  December 14 2015  0.00579146 BTC
2015  Low  December 29  $1.86
                    January 17, 2015 $1.17  BitInfoCharts
2015  High  March 23, 2015  0.01988543 BTC
2015  High  March 23, 2015  $5.03
                    March 25, 2015  $5.30  BitInfoCharts
2016  Low  January 4, 2016  0.00741509 BTC
2016  Low  January 12, 2016 $1.31
                    January 13, 2016  $2.94  BitinfoCharts
2016  High  January 18, 2016  0.01146713 BTC
2016  High  January 18, 2016  $4.52
                     January 22, 2016 $5.22

[Lebubar]

Tao asks: How can you avoid a Mt. Gox situation for your Dash?

http://youtu.be/40n6joIOkVg

The future is now. Use Exmo.

I did some tracking based on your exchange address and I'm pretty sure that

* This masternode is owned by you: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/dash/address.dws?XiW49wtg2p2nbKD8KPrJdqzP2Vch5MNd74.htm
* This wallet was previously owned by you, now unused: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/dash/address.dws?Xh2F7kU7zrQqedoki7qMmY78poEsb8ELwU.htm

I didn't use any fancy scripts to get this info. Imagine chainalysis trying to map the DASH blockchain. They would be able to extract much more info.

DASH, not that anonymous after all...

dnaleor you have potential:

[toknormal]

Anyone know the low and high price for 2014, 2015 and 2016?

This is the 1-Week Bitcoinwisdom dump from the old Cryptsy feed but it shows the maxes and mins on that exchange. (P.S. the range doesn't go back to early 2014 so that first low may not be right).

[eduffield]

Anyone know the low and high price for 2014, 2015 and 2016?

This is the 1-Week Bitcoinwisdom dump from the old Cryptsy feed but it shows the maxes and mins on that exchange. (P.S. the range doesn't go back to early 2014 so that first low may not be right).

Thanks!

[AlexGR]

Anyone know the low and high price for 2014, 2015 and 2016?

OK, this is what I got off of coin market cap

2014  Low  Feb. 10, 2014  0.00041330 BTC   
2014  Low  Feb. 10, 2014  $0.265834
2014  High  May 19, 2014  0.01889618 BTC
2014  High  June 2, 2014  $12.22
2015  Low  December 14 2015  0.00579146 BTC
2015  Low  December 29  $1.86 
2015  High  March 23, 2015  0.01988543 BTC
2015  High  March 23, 2015  $5.03
2016  Low  January 4, 2016  0.00741509 BTC
2016  Low  January 12, 2016 $1.31
2016  High  January 18, 2016  0.01146713 BTC
2016  High  January 18, 2015  $4.52

Coinmarketcap chart is unreliable because it lacks granularity.

Low was much lower and high was much higher for 2014.

Case in point (old post, commenting on CCEX prices):

DRK should be worth 0.01 BTC !!!

give it time :-)

its slowly going up on the exchange... it started really low 0.0000101, but just now they started to sell for 0.00005

...and as for high, it wasn't 0.018 in spring/summer '14.

[Chronikka]

And higher hashing power is more secure.  The higher the hash rate the harder it is for anyone to pull off a coup of the blockchain.

This is not correct. If you hand mining over from a decentralized system of tens of thousands of GPU miners to one ASIC manufacturer it does not increase the network security.

For this reason we need to change the hashing algorithm from time-to-time, so that no ASIC can be produced (ASIC production takes a lot of time).

Honestly, it's just not worth it.  In a few months, the same amount of time that it would take to find a new algorithm, if not longer, and implement it, Dash will be on Evolution.  With Evolution, transactions will be approved by Masternode Quorums and the hash will only be used to randomly group these Masternodes into quorums.  The miners will still include transactions into the blockchain, however, they will have no choice as to which transactions to include.  They must only include locked transactions that passed a Masternode Quorum first.  If they try to include anything else, it will be rejected by the Masternode network and the miner will lose the block.

It simply will become a new and infinitely more secure network soon enough.  So please don't fret.  Once this is in place, it won't matter if we only have one single miner.

I'm not sure this makes the network any more secure at all...in fact it could very well weaken it. There is still nothing to prevent somebody from creating a malicious masternode. In standard POW systems, you have to achieve some level of hashrate close to 50% to be able to do some significant damage. (its worth mentioning there is general misconception that you need 51% hash power but that simply guarantees the attack will succeed. You can successfully execute double spends with much less hash power than that).

As a typical POW network grows (i.e Bitcoin), the overall hashrate will grow. That means a major player wishing to disrupt Bitcoin has to spend more to pull off the attack. For example if the US government wanted to kill Bitcoin they might have to spend billions designing, manufacturing, and deploying enough asics rapidly to overtake the network. At a certain point (we might already be there) that becomes impossible. The amount of money they have to spend would be astronomical, and don't forget the network would continue to grow as they move toward deployment so maybe they get done and they still don't have enough hash power.

Now as for Masternodes....like I said earlier there is nothing to stop somebody from creating a "bad" masternode. So if you're a major player, like the US government, now all of a sudden you don't have to build and deploy any hardware at all. They can spend the same amount of money producing asics, but instead just buy Dash. Once they have enough, they set up their bad masternodes and start wrecking things. The Masternode system significantly reduces the amount effort it would take for a new player to overtake the network.

Some people might point out that there is a new masternode selection method that takes age into account. So what? A bad player isn't capable of bringing them online slowly? In fact it would actually make more sense that they take a little bit of time. If they accumulate Dash over time setting up masternodes as they go, everything looks fine. It could even be mistaken as a healthy network because the price will go up from the purchase of so much Dash and more nodes are going online which at first glance appear valid. At a certain point they just need to "flip the switch" on their bad masternodes and the network now belongs to them.

[BrainShutdown]

And higher hashing power is more secure.  The higher the hash rate the harder it is for anyone to pull off a coup of the blockchain.

This is not correct. If you hand mining over from a decentralized system of tens of thousands of GPU miners to one ASIC manufacturer it does not increase the network security.

For this reason we need to change the hashing algorithm from time-to-time, so that no ASIC can be produced (ASIC production takes a lot of time).

Honestly, it's just not worth it.  In a few months, the same amount of time that it would take to find a new algorithm, if not longer, and implement it, Dash will be on Evolution.  With Evolution, transactions will be approved by Masternode Quorums and the hash will only be used to randomly group these Masternodes into quorums.  The miners will still include transactions into the blockchain, however, they will have no choice as to which transactions to include.  They must only include locked transactions that passed a Masternode Quorum first.  If they try to include anything else, it will be rejected by the Masternode network and the miner will lose the block.

It simply will become a new and infinitely more secure network soon enough.  So please don't fret.  Once this is in place, it won't matter if we only have one single miner.

I'm not sure this makes the network any more secure at all...in fact it could very well weaken it. There is still nothing to prevent somebody from creating a malicious masternode. In standard POW systems, you have to achieve some level of hashrate close to 50% to be able to do some significant damage. (its worth mentioning there is general misconception that you need 51% hash power but that simply guarantees the attack will succeed. You can successfully execute double spends with much less hash power than that).

As a typical POW network grows (i.e Bitcoin), the overall hashrate will grow. That means a major player wishing to disrupt Bitcoin has to spend more to pull off the attack. For example if the US government wanted to kill Bitcoin they might have to spend billions designing, manufacturing, and deploying enough asics rapidly to overtake the network. At a certain point (we might already be there) that becomes impossible. The amount of money they have to spend would be astronomical, and don't forget the network would continue to grow as they move toward deployment so maybe they get done and they still don't have enough hash power.

Now as for Masternodes....like I said earlier there is nothing to stop somebody from creating a "bad" masternode. So if you're a major player, like the US government, now all of a sudden you don't have to build and deploy any hardware at all. They can spend the same amount of money producing asics, but instead just buy Dash. Once they have enough, they set up their bad masternodes and start wrecking things. The Masternode system significantly reduces the amount effort it would take for a new player to overtake the network.

Some people might point out that there is a new masternode selection method that takes age into account. So what? A bad player isn't capable of bringing them online slowly? In fact it would actually make more sense that they take a little bit of time. If they accumulate Dash over time setting up masternodes as they go, everything looks fine. It could even be mistaken as a healthy network because the price will go up from the purchase of so much Dash and more nodes are going online which at first glance appear valid. At a certain point they just need to "flip the switch" on their bad masternodes and the network now belongs to them.

To take over bitcoin the "bad guy" only needs to take over 2 or 3 pools... so you where saying...?

[Chronikka]

And higher hashing power is more secure.  The higher the hash rate the harder it is for anyone to pull off a coup of the blockchain.

This is not correct. If you hand mining over from a decentralized system of tens of thousands of GPU miners to one ASIC manufacturer it does not increase the network security.

For this reason we need to change the hashing algorithm from time-to-time, so that no ASIC can be produced (ASIC production takes a lot of time).

Honestly, it's just not worth it.  In a few months, the same amount of time that it would take to find a new algorithm, if not longer, and implement it, Dash will be on Evolution.  With Evolution, transactions will be approved by Masternode Quorums and the hash will only be used to randomly group these Masternodes into quorums.  The miners will still include transactions into the blockchain, however, they will have no choice as to which transactions to include.  They must only include locked transactions that passed a Masternode Quorum first.  If they try to include anything else, it will be rejected by the Masternode network and the miner will lose the block.

It simply will become a new and infinitely more secure network soon enough.  So please don't fret.  Once this is in place, it won't matter if we only have one single miner.

I'm not sure this makes the network any more secure at all...in fact it could very well weaken it. There is still nothing to prevent somebody from creating a malicious masternode. In standard POW systems, you have to achieve some level of hashrate close to 50% to be able to do some significant damage. (its worth mentioning there is general misconception that you need 51% hash power but that simply guarantees the attack will succeed. You can successfully execute double spends with much less hash power than that).

As a typical POW network grows (i.e Bitcoin), the overall hashrate will grow. That means a major player wishing to disrupt Bitcoin has to spend more to pull off the attack. For example if the US government wanted to kill Bitcoin they might have to spend billions designing, manufacturing, and deploying enough asics rapidly to overtake the network. At a certain point (we might already be there) that becomes impossible. The amount of money they have to spend would be astronomical, and don't forget the network would continue to grow as they move toward deployment so maybe they get done and they still don't have enough hash power.

Now as for Masternodes....like I said earlier there is nothing to stop somebody from creating a "bad" masternode. So if you're a major player, like the US government, now all of a sudden you don't have to build and deploy any hardware at all. They can spend the same amount of money producing asics, but instead just buy Dash. Once they have enough, they set up their bad masternodes and start wrecking things. The Masternode system significantly reduces the amount effort it would take for a new player to overtake the network.

Some people might point out that there is a new masternode selection method that takes age into account. So what? A bad player isn't capable of bringing them online slowly? In fact it would actually make more sense that they take a little bit of time. If they accumulate Dash over time setting up masternodes as they go, everything looks fine. It could even be mistaken as a healthy network because the price will go up from the purchase of so much Dash and more nodes are going online which at first glance appear valid. At a certain point they just need to "flip the switch" on their bad masternodes and the network now belongs to them.

To take over bitcoin the "bad guy" only needs to take over 2 or 3 pools... so you where saying...?

And why can't the same person bribe 2-3 of the largest masternode holders? Its the exact same thing. My point was about new players entering and trying to bring it down.  

[BrainShutdown]

And higher hashing power is more secure.  The higher the hash rate the harder it is for anyone to pull off a coup of the blockchain.

This is not correct. If you hand mining over from a decentralized system of tens of thousands of GPU miners to one ASIC manufacturer it does not increase the network security.

For this reason we need to change the hashing algorithm from time-to-time, so that no ASIC can be produced (ASIC production takes a lot of time).

Honestly, it's just not worth it.  In a few months, the same amount of time that it would take to find a new algorithm, if not longer, and implement it, Dash will be on Evolution.  With Evolution, transactions will be approved by Masternode Quorums and the hash will only be used to randomly group these Masternodes into quorums.  The miners will still include transactions into the blockchain, however, they will have no choice as to which transactions to include.  They must only include locked transactions that passed a Masternode Quorum first.  If they try to include anything else, it will be rejected by the Masternode network and the miner will lose the block.

It simply will become a new and infinitely more secure network soon enough.  So please don't fret.  Once this is in place, it won't matter if we only have one single miner.

I'm not sure this makes the network any more secure at all...in fact it could very well weaken it. There is still nothing to prevent somebody from creating a malicious masternode. In standard POW systems, you have to achieve some level of hashrate close to 50% to be able to do some significant damage. (its worth mentioning there is general misconception that you need 51% hash power but that simply guarantees the attack will succeed. You can successfully execute double spends with much less hash power than that).

As a typical POW network grows (i.e Bitcoin), the overall hashrate will grow. That means a major player wishing to disrupt Bitcoin has to spend more to pull off the attack. For example if the US government wanted to kill Bitcoin they might have to spend billions designing, manufacturing, and deploying enough asics rapidly to overtake the network. At a certain point (we might already be there) that becomes impossible. The amount of money they have to spend would be astronomical, and don't forget the network would continue to grow as they move toward deployment so maybe they get done and they still don't have enough hash power.

Now as for Masternodes....like I said earlier there is nothing to stop somebody from creating a "bad" masternode. So if you're a major player, like the US government, now all of a sudden you don't have to build and deploy any hardware at all. They can spend the same amount of money producing asics, but instead just buy Dash. Once they have enough, they set up their bad masternodes and start wrecking things. The Masternode system significantly reduces the amount effort it would take for a new player to overtake the network.

Some people might point out that there is a new masternode selection method that takes age into account. So what? A bad player isn't capable of bringing them online slowly? In fact it would actually make more sense that they take a little bit of time. If they accumulate Dash over time setting up masternodes as they go, everything looks fine. It could even be mistaken as a healthy network because the price will go up from the purchase of so much Dash and more nodes are going online which at first glance appear valid. At a certain point they just need to "flip the switch" on their bad masternodes and the network now belongs to them.

To take over bitcoin the "bad guy" only needs to take over 2 or 3 pools... so you where saying...?

And why can't the same person bribe 2-3 of the largest masternode holders? Its the exact same thing. My point was about new players entering and trying to bring it down.  

Because I believe, in case of dash, market forces will make large holders less probable in the future. In bitcoin will reinforce mining concentration just like we're seeing

[Lebubar]

And higher hashing power is more secure.  The higher the hash rate the harder it is for anyone to pull off a coup of the blockchain.

This is not correct. If you hand mining over from a decentralized system of tens of thousands of GPU miners to one ASIC manufacturer it does not increase the network security.

For this reason we need to change the hashing algorithm from time-to-time, so that no ASIC can be produced (ASIC production takes a lot of time).

Honestly, it's just not worth it.  In a few months, the same amount of time that it would take to find a new algorithm, if not longer, and implement it, Dash will be on Evolution.  With Evolution, transactions will be approved by Masternode Quorums and the hash will only be used to randomly group these Masternodes into quorums.  The miners will still include transactions into the blockchain, however, they will have no choice as to which transactions to include.  They must only include locked transactions that passed a Masternode Quorum first.  If they try to include anything else, it will be rejected by the Masternode network and the miner will lose the block.

It simply will become a new and infinitely more secure network soon enough.  So please don't fret.  Once this is in place, it won't matter if we only have one single miner.

I'm not sure this makes the network any more secure at all...in fact it could very well weaken it. There is still nothing to prevent somebody from creating a malicious masternode. In standard POW systems, you have to achieve some level of hashrate close to 50% to be able to do some significant damage. (its worth mentioning there is general misconception that you need 51% hash power but that simply guarantees the attack will succeed. You can successfully execute double spends with much less hash power than that).

As a typical POW network grows (i.e Bitcoin), the overall hashrate will grow. That means a major player wishing to disrupt Bitcoin has to spend more to pull off the attack. For example if the US government wanted to kill Bitcoin they might have to spend billions designing, manufacturing, and deploying enough asics rapidly to overtake the network. At a certain point (we might already be there) that becomes impossible. The amount of money they have to spend would be astronomical, and don't forget the network would continue to grow as they move toward deployment so maybe they get done and they still don't have enough hash power.

Now as for Masternodes....like I said earlier there is nothing to stop somebody from creating a "bad" masternode. So if you're a major player, like the US government, now all of a sudden you don't have to build and deploy any hardware at all. They can spend the same amount of money producing asics, but instead just buy Dash. Once they have enough, they set up their bad masternodes and start wrecking things. The Masternode system significantly reduces the amount effort it would take for a new player to overtake the network.

Some people might point out that there is a new masternode selection method that takes age into account. So what? A bad player isn't capable of bringing them online slowly? In fact it would actually make more sense that they take a little bit of time. If they accumulate Dash over time setting up masternodes as they go, everything looks fine. It could even be mistaken as a healthy network because the price will go up from the purchase of so much Dash and more nodes are going online which at first glance appear valid. At a certain point they just need to "flip the switch" on their bad masternodes and the network now belongs to them.

To take over bitcoin the "bad guy" only needs to take over 2 or 3 pools... so you where saying...?

And why can't the same person bribe 2-3 of the largest masternode holders? Its the exact same thing. My point was about new players entering and trying to bring it down.  

Because I believe, in case of dash, market forces will make large holders less probable in the future. In bitcoin will reinforce concentration just like were seeing

With 51% of MN you can do nothing. (MN are choosen randomly, and will probably be in differents "category" (old MN 2014-2015, newer 2015-2016, etc or something like this)

....
Oh maybe yes, you can make pass every budget you want (I think you'll need 55% +1 do to this)...

[ddink7]

And higher hashing power is more secure.  The higher the hash rate the harder it is for anyone to pull off a coup of the blockchain.

This is not correct. If you hand mining over from a decentralized system of tens of thousands of GPU miners to one ASIC manufacturer it does not increase the network security.

For this reason we need to change the hashing algorithm from time-to-time, so that no ASIC can be produced (ASIC production takes a lot of time).

Honestly, it's just not worth it.  In a few months, the same amount of time that it would take to find a new algorithm, if not longer, and implement it, Dash will be on Evolution.  With Evolution, transactions will be approved by Masternode Quorums and the hash will only be used to randomly group these Masternodes into quorums.  The miners will still include transactions into the blockchain, however, they will have no choice as to which transactions to include.  They must only include locked transactions that passed a Masternode Quorum first.  If they try to include anything else, it will be rejected by the Masternode network and the miner will lose the block.

It simply will become a new and infinitely more secure network soon enough.  So please don't fret.  Once this is in place, it won't matter if we only have one single miner.

I'm not sure this makes the network any more secure at all...in fact it could very well weaken it. There is still nothing to prevent somebody from creating a malicious masternode. In standard POW systems, you have to achieve some level of hashrate close to 50% to be able to do some significant damage. (its worth mentioning there is general misconception that you need 51% hash power but that simply guarantees the attack will succeed. You can successfully execute double spends with much less hash power than that).

As a typical POW network grows (i.e Bitcoin), the overall hashrate will grow. That means a major player wishing to disrupt Bitcoin has to spend more to pull off the attack. For example if the US government wanted to kill Bitcoin they might have to spend billions designing, manufacturing, and deploying enough asics rapidly to overtake the network. At a certain point (we might already be there) that becomes impossible. The amount of money they have to spend would be astronomical, and don't forget the network would continue to grow as they move toward deployment so maybe they get done and they still don't have enough hash power.

Now as for Masternodes....like I said earlier there is nothing to stop somebody from creating a "bad" masternode. So if you're a major player, like the US government, now all of a sudden you don't have to build and deploy any hardware at all. They can spend the same amount of money producing asics, but instead just buy Dash. Once they have enough, they set up their bad masternodes and start wrecking things. The Masternode system significantly reduces the amount effort it would take for a new player to overtake the network.

Some people might point out that there is a new masternode selection method that takes age into account. So what? A bad player isn't capable of bringing them online slowly? In fact it would actually make more sense that they take a little bit of time. If they accumulate Dash over time setting up masternodes as they go, everything looks fine. It could even be mistaken as a healthy network because the price will go up from the purchase of so much Dash and more nodes are going online which at first glance appear valid. At a certain point they just need to "flip the switch" on their bad masternodes and the network now belongs to them.

To take over bitcoin the "bad guy" only needs to take over 2 or 3 pools... so you where saying...?

And why can't the same person bribe 2-3 of the largest masternode holders? Its the exact same thing. My point was about new players entering and trying to bring it down.  

It has to do with incentives.

The biggest Dash pool makes what, a few hundred thousand dollars a year? Maybe a million? Collusion would be relatively inexpensive, because other than future lost profits, they don't have any skin in the game. Masternode owners do have skin in the game; if they somehow are bribed to allow malicious transactions to go through, they lose a possibly significant portion of their net worth.

Lose future revenue from a pool? Or lose my entire (significant, if you are talking about the biggest holders) investment? Which is the bigger disincentive.

P.S. For what it's worth, I hope the government does start buying Dash and creating malicious masternodes. By the time they were in a position to mount a successful attack, they would have driven the price of Dash into the hundreds of dollars per coin, if not more. I could retire rich!

Not only that, but Evan could always fork Dash to Dash2 and restart the blockchain. Then the government has to attack that currency next...and then Dash3....and Dash4...

[TanteStefana2]

And higher hashing power is more secure.  The higher the hash rate the harder it is for anyone to pull off a coup of the blockchain.

This is not correct. If you hand mining over from a decentralized system of tens of thousands of GPU miners to one ASIC manufacturer it does not increase the network security.

For this reason we need to change the hashing algorithm from time-to-time, so that no ASIC can be produced (ASIC production takes a lot of time).

Honestly, it's just not worth it.  In a few months, the same amount of time that it would take to find a new algorithm, if not longer, and implement it, Dash will be on Evolution.  With Evolution, transactions will be approved by Masternode Quorums and the hash will only be used to randomly group these Masternodes into quorums.  The miners will still include transactions into the blockchain, however, they will have no choice as to which transactions to include.  They must only include locked transactions that passed a Masternode Quorum first.  If they try to include anything else, it will be rejected by the Masternode network and the miner will lose the block.

It simply will become a new and infinitely more secure network soon enough.  So please don't fret.  Once this is in place, it won't matter if we only have one single miner.

I'm not sure this makes the network any more secure at all...in fact it could very well weaken it. There is still nothing to prevent somebody from creating a malicious masternode. In standard POW systems, you have to achieve some level of hashrate close to 50% to be able to do some significant damage. (its worth mentioning there is general misconception that you need 51% hash power but that simply guarantees the attack will succeed. You can successfully execute double spends with much less hash power than that).

As a typical POW network grows (i.e Bitcoin), the overall hashrate will grow. That means a major player wishing to disrupt Bitcoin has to spend more to pull off the attack. For example if the US government wanted to kill Bitcoin they might have to spend billions designing, manufacturing, and deploying enough asics rapidly to overtake the network. At a certain point (we might already be there) that becomes impossible. The amount of money they have to spend would be astronomical, and don't forget the network would continue to grow as they move toward deployment so maybe they get done and they still don't have enough hash power.

Now as for Masternodes....like I said earlier there is nothing to stop somebody from creating a "bad" masternode. So if you're a major player, like the US government, now all of a sudden you don't have to build and deploy any hardware at all. They can spend the same amount of money producing asics, but instead just buy Dash. Once they have enough, they set up their bad masternodes and start wrecking things. The Masternode system significantly reduces the amount effort it would take for a new player to overtake the network.

Some people might point out that there is a new masternode selection method that takes age into account. So what? A bad player isn't capable of bringing them online slowly? In fact it would actually make more sense that they take a little bit of time. If they accumulate Dash over time setting up masternodes as they go, everything looks fine. It could even be mistaken as a healthy network because the price will go up from the purchase of so much Dash and more nodes are going online which at first glance appear valid. At a certain point they just need to "flip the switch" on their bad masternodes and the network now belongs to them.

To take over bitcoin the "bad guy" only needs to take over 2 or 3 pools... so you where saying...?

And why can't the same person bribe 2-3 of the largest masternode holders? Its the exact same thing. My point was about new players entering and trying to bring it down.  

It has to do with incentives.

The biggest Dash pool makes what, a few hundred thousand dollars a year? Maybe a million? Collusion would be relatively inexpensive, because other than future lost profits, they don't have any skin in the game. Masternode owners do have skin in the game; if they somehow are bribed to allow malicious transactions to go through, they lose a possibly significant portion of their net worth.

Lose future revenue from a pool? Or lose my entire (significant, if you are talking about the biggest holders) investment? Which is the bigger disincentive.

P.S. For what it's worth, I hope the government does start buying Dash and creating malicious masternodes. By the time they were in a position to mount a successful attack, they would have driven the price of Dash into the hundreds of dollars per coin, if not more. I could retire rich!

Not only that, but Evan could always fork Dash to Dash2 and restart the blockchain. Then the government has to attack that currency next...and then Dash3....and Dash4...

And none of this mentions the improbability of gaining access to and corrupting all 10 masternodes in a quorum.  It only takes 1 to screw up any chance.

[Chronikka]

And higher hashing power is more secure.  The higher the hash rate the harder it is for anyone to pull off a coup of the blockchain.

This is not correct. If you hand mining over from a decentralized system of tens of thousands of GPU miners to one ASIC manufacturer it does not increase the network security.

For this reason we need to change the hashing algorithm from time-to-time, so that no ASIC can be produced (ASIC production takes a lot of time).

Honestly, it's just not worth it.  In a few months, the same amount of time that it would take to find a new algorithm, if not longer, and implement it, Dash will be on Evolution.  With Evolution, transactions will be approved by Masternode Quorums and the hash will only be used to randomly group these Masternodes into quorums.  The miners will still include transactions into the blockchain, however, they will have no choice as to which transactions to include.  They must only include locked transactions that passed a Masternode Quorum first.  If they try to include anything else, it will be rejected by the Masternode network and the miner will lose the block.

It simply will become a new and infinitely more secure network soon enough.  So please don't fret.  Once this is in place, it won't matter if we only have one single miner.

I'm not sure this makes the network any more secure at all...in fact it could very well weaken it. There is still nothing to prevent somebody from creating a malicious masternode. In standard POW systems, you have to achieve some level of hashrate close to 50% to be able to do some significant damage. (its worth mentioning there is general misconception that you need 51% hash power but that simply guarantees the attack will succeed. You can successfully execute double spends with much less hash power than that).

As a typical POW network grows (i.e Bitcoin), the overall hashrate will grow. That means a major player wishing to disrupt Bitcoin has to spend more to pull off the attack. For example if the US government wanted to kill Bitcoin they might have to spend billions designing, manufacturing, and deploying enough asics rapidly to overtake the network. At a certain point (we might already be there) that becomes impossible. The amount of money they have to spend would be astronomical, and don't forget the network would continue to grow as they move toward deployment so maybe they get done and they still don't have enough hash power.

Now as for Masternodes....like I said earlier there is nothing to stop somebody from creating a "bad" masternode. So if you're a major player, like the US government, now all of a sudden you don't have to build and deploy any hardware at all. They can spend the same amount of money producing asics, but instead just buy Dash. Once they have enough, they set up their bad masternodes and start wrecking things. The Masternode system significantly reduces the amount effort it would take for a new player to overtake the network.

Some people might point out that there is a new masternode selection method that takes age into account. So what? A bad player isn't capable of bringing them online slowly? In fact it would actually make more sense that they take a little bit of time. If they accumulate Dash over time setting up masternodes as they go, everything looks fine. It could even be mistaken as a healthy network because the price will go up from the purchase of so much Dash and more nodes are going online which at first glance appear valid. At a certain point they just need to "flip the switch" on their bad masternodes and the network now belongs to them.

To take over bitcoin the "bad guy" only needs to take over 2 or 3 pools... so you where saying...?

And why can't the same person bribe 2-3 of the largest masternode holders? Its the exact same thing. My point was about new players entering and trying to bring it down.  

It has to do with incentives.

The biggest Dash pool makes what, a few hundred thousand dollars a year? Maybe a million? Collusion would be relatively inexpensive, because other than future lost profits, they don't have any skin in the game. Masternode owners do have skin in the game; if they somehow are bribed to allow malicious transactions to go through, they lose a possibly significant portion of their net worth.

Lose future revenue from a pool? Or lose my entire (significant, if you are talking about the biggest holders) investment? Which is the bigger disincentive.

P.S. For what it's worth, I hope the government does start buying Dash and creating malicious masternodes. By the time they were in a position to mount a successful attack, they would have driven the price of Dash into the hundreds of dollars per coin, if not more. I could retire rich!

Not only that, but Evan could always fork Dash to Dash2 and restart the blockchain. Then the government has to attack that currency next...and then Dash3....and Dash4...

And none of this mentions the improbability of gaining access to and corrupting all 10 masternodes in a quorum.  It only takes 1 to screw up any chance.

It also can be complete luck that you own all 10 in a quorom and have only a fraction of the total. The system is designed to pick masternodes at random, there is no reason you can't get lucky. The same reason a person with minimal hash power can execute a double spend in Bitcoin. This was my point from the beginning. I'm not trying to attack the masternode network I'm simply saying that the idea of it being "infinitely more secure" compared to a typical POW system is just not true.

As far as economic incentive, is a million dollars really that much? If a government comes to you and says here have $10 million in cash you wouldn't hand over your masternodes? What about $50 million? I sure would. There are plenty of other cryptos to get behind. The entire marketcap of Dash is less than $25 million as we speak. The attack I've described would be trivial for somebody with a little bit of cash and motivation.

[DaveyJones]

As far as economic incentive, is a million dollars really that much? If a government comes to you and says here have $10 million in cash you wouldn't hand over your masternodes? What about $50 million? I sure would. There are plenty of other cryptos to get behind. The entire marketcap of Dash is less than $25 million as we speak. The attack I've described would be trivial for somebody with a little bit of cash and motivation.

And if we are talking about governments... many MN are hosted on Clouds or larger VPN i assume... they would not even need to buy the DASH... just get control over the servers the MN is hosted.

[Fatov]

As far as economic incentive, is a million dollars really that much? If a government comes to you and says here have $10 million in cash you wouldn't hand over your masternodes? What about $50 million? I sure would. There are plenty of other cryptos to get behind. The entire marketcap of Dash is less than $25 million as we speak. The attack I've described would be trivial for somebody with a little bit of cash and motivation.

And if we are talking about governments... many MN are hosted on Clouds or larger VPN i assume... they would not even need to buy the DASH... just get control over the servers the MN is hosted.

It could be solved obfuscating MN (code) and ip (Tor)

[Chronikka]

As far as economic incentive, is a million dollars really that much? If a government comes to you and says here have $10 million in cash you wouldn't hand over your masternodes? What about $50 million? I sure would. There are plenty of other cryptos to get behind. The entire marketcap of Dash is less than $25 million as we speak. The attack I've described would be trivial for somebody with a little bit of cash and motivation.

And if we are talking about governments... many MN are hosted on Clouds or larger VPN i assume... they would not even need to buy the DASH... just get control over the servers the MN is hosted.

Or DDOS them to reduce the total on the network, which would be easier.

Edit - albeit not as effective. Obviously if they can simply take them over that would be more effective