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

[TanteStefana2]

I just did another "Tante Stefana's Updates" if anyone is interested.  Just a quick review of the things that have happened here, in Dash lately and where everything stands.

https://dashtalk.org/threads/tante-stefanas-sometimes-update.8242/

Hope you enjoy

[toknormal]

Well, i think we can say goodbye to the dump part of our latest rise to power for now, nice little rebound.
And if we manage to get things stable around 0.012,  it can be considered a pretty nice jump upwards all in all....

Yep, engine re-ignition in preparation for next stage burn.

1-hour chart diverging to upside, 2-hour correction approaching closure, plus.....



...the big grand-daddy finally awakes  

[qwizzie]

Any particular reason the Dash.org Domain Name budget proposal is showing up in red on dashvotetracker ?

http://dashvotetracker.com/


Edit : shouldn't the payment number be 4/4 for next superblock ? As the proposal itself ends 21st of april 2016 ?

[qwizzie]

i dont know why but i came across this one and i just had to share it with you guys :



It does remind me of someone, his name is like at the tip of my tongue ... but who .. who ?      
Oh darn, this is sooo frustrating  

[toknormal]

More coffee table reading for TanteStefana (2)  

Reaction form the crowd:

2mb was proposed as early as july 2015.

blockstream went on a political rally to say the proposals for 20mb, 8mb 4mb was too much.. totally over shadowing any talk of a 2mb.. then it started the next phase of politcal meandering. not talking about code at all but trash anyone that wants change and say they are corporations. while secretly it was blockstream that is the corporation with the controlled agenda after all.

we had debates about block size debunked because segwit+confidential pament codes would bloat blocks up to 4mb. so that blew blockstreams "2mb is bad" theory out of the water

we had debates about large blocks causing a dilution of full archival nodes debunked because in actual fact by blockstream offering no-witess mode and pruned mode many of the 6000 nodes wont be running in full archival mode.

we had the grace 5 month to implement code (february-july) theory debunked because blockstream released 3 different versions for core in 5 months so 1 version can easily be released in a couple months.

we had the grace period of 12 months debunked, because Luke JR (blockstream/core dev) and other devs thought it ok to put in a difficulty reduction hard fork with only 3 month grace(april-july).

so all in all there is no reason at all to not have the 2mb hard fork code in aprils release, with a 6month grace period.

if its there and people dont want it, it just wont get activated.. but if people want it and the code is not their, then its just a waste of time that will not benefit anyone. and if anyone was to make their own implementation that had it due to blockstream refusing it. then it would be blockstream causing a contention if the majority wanted to move to the 2mb buffer limit.

again having the code available but not activated allowing the community to decide if it activates or not is better then not having the code available and everyone begging the blockstream CEO to get his ass in gear

[mjsrs]

Any particular reason the Dash.org Domain Name budget proposal is showing up in red on dashvotetracker ?

http://dashvotetracker.com/


Edit : shouldn't the payment number be 4/4 for next superblock ? As the proposal itself ends 21st of april 2016 ?

I think it missed the first payment.
The correct information to show would be 3/4 because it was only payed 3 times as you can see in the explorer.
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/dash/address.dws?Xr122HobAmPTQV5qe9jHuwxVVFFCd6P4E3.htm

On the other side dash-cli is reporting all 4 payments were done because the code does not check if the payment was done. It only counts blocks.

{"Abstains":0,"BlockEnd":456940,"BlockStart":382168,"FeeHash":"f3233c0c55adbbcabff5c51d841c8c784e15e336882c3acce538bcb921bf9198","Hash":"54e800e5c462a9bbc905ef523058ec76fe6207bcbd547a4cc9d38587eb954728","IsEstablished":true,"IsValid":true,"IsValidReason":"","MonthlyPayment":2100.0,"Name":"dash-org","Nays":145,"PaymentAddress":"Xr122HobAmPTQV5qe9jHuwxVVFFCd6P4E3","Ratio":0.92152704,"RemainingPaymentCount":0,"TotalPayment":8400.0,"TotalPaymentCount":4,"URL":"www.dashwhale.org/p/dash-org","Yeas":1648,"fValid":true,"fixed_URL":"https://www.dashwhale.org/p/dash-org","timestamp":1457376751735}

[qwizzie]

thanks mjsrs, now that you mention it there was a certain month (december ?) when a payment was missed of a budget proposal due to a bug
so this all makes sense now. I think Dash update 12.1 will address it and untill then every budget proposal is manually verified to see if it is correctly
registered for pay-out.

[TanteStefana2]

More coffee table reading for TanteStefana (2)  

Reaction form the crowd:

2mb was proposed as early as july 2015.

blockstream went on a political rally to say the proposals for 20mb, 8mb 4mb was too much.. totally over shadowing any talk of a 2mb.. then it started the next phase of politcal meandering. not talking about code at all but trash anyone that wants change and say they are corporations. while secretly it was blockstream that is the corporation with the controlled agenda after all.

we had debates about block size debunked because segwit+confidential pament codes would bloat blocks up to 4mb. so that blew blockstreams "2mb is bad" theory out of the water

we had debates about large blocks causing a dilution of full archival nodes debunked because in actual fact by blockstream offering no-witess mode and pruned mode many of the 6000 nodes wont be running in full archival mode.

we had the grace 5 month to implement code (february-july) theory debunked because blockstream released 3 different versions for core in 5 months so 1 version can easily be released in a couple months.

we had the grace period of 12 months debunked, because Luke JR (blockstream/core dev) and other devs thought it ok to put in a difficulty reduction hard fork with only 3 month grace(april-july).

so all in all there is no reason at all to not have the 2mb hard fork code in aprils release, with a 6month grace period.

if its there and people dont want it, it just wont get activated.. but if people want it and the code is not their, then its just a waste of time that will not benefit anyone. and if anyone was to make their own implementation that had it due to blockstream refusing it. then it would be blockstream causing a contention if the majority wanted to move to the 2mb buffer limit.

again having the code available but not activated allowing the community to decide if it activates or not is better then not having the code available and everyone begging the blockstream CEO to get his ass in gear

I think it's ultimately a question of higher fees.  They want people to stop using Bitcoin for small transactions and only use it for larger transactions with higher fees, but they just don't want to say it.  Bitcoin has been going that direction for a long time now, but nobody will out and out say that's the plan.

[TanteStefana2]

If anyone is interested if other people feel that economics can be used to deter sybil attacks, etc... check out this interview of Vlad Zamfir on the Daily Decrypt:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StMBdBfwn8c

He's designed the proof of stake system for Etherium and says by locking funds, he can make Proof of Stake secure.

[AlexGR]

I think it's ultimately a question of higher fees.  They want people to stop using Bitcoin for small transactions and only use it for larger transactions with higher fees, but they just don't want to say it.  Bitcoin has been going that direction for a long time now, but nobody will out and out say that's the plan.

Using bitcoin for larger transactions is the way bitcoin can be utilized best - because that's where the biggest savings are.

Here is an example:

You have ~250.000 txs per day.

Now, you can do 250.000 micropayments per day, averaging, say 1$. So that's 250.000 USD per day in volume.

What have you accomplished, in the larger scheme of things? Nothing. Your annual transaction volume is a pitiful 91 million dollars, while having a marketcap exceeding 6bn USD. You can't even justify your marketcap with microtxs.

Even at 2mb blocks or 4mb blocks, or 10mb blocks, you are still at 180mn / 360mn / 910mn usd per year - again you can't justify your marketcap. It has to deflate and lose value.

Now you get those 250.000 txs per day and you attach to them 600$ in avg value*.

Suddenly you are moving around 200mn USD per DAY or 73 BILLION PER YEAR.

At 2mb or 4mb, you are hitting 146bn to 292bn per year.

Now you are making an impact**. Now you are saving people of billions in fees that would have gone to the western unions, paypals and credit cards. You can't save people those billions by throwing away your advantage and doing microtransactions, buying coffees.


* That's around how much we are doing right now, on avg, per tx: Currently ~250k txs can generate ~150-230mn USD per day in transaction volume. That's outputs minus change. https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume-usd?timespan=30days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

Some days it peaks to >800$ per tx - and in a few years we might be seeing averages in the tens of thousands - meaning that BTC will be able to pull annual transaction volumes in the trillions of USD - contrary to the propaganda that BTC can't scale (since value per transaction CAN scale 5-10-100x with no technological issues). Keep in mind that our current 600-800$/tx is currently done while fees for first block inclusion are typically at an extremely low 0.04$ to 0.06$ and while dust movement is still going on in the network because it is economically ...viable. Also keep in mind that western unions, paypals, banks, charge tens of dollars for moving around, say, 500 or 1000$ around the globe. A 250$ payment received through paypal cost me 20$ in paypal and bank fees and a western union transfer of 180$, cost me 25$. And people are complaining that BTC is ...expensive, or that it's excluding them. You have to lol pretty hard when you get a reality calibration versus the legacy payment systems.


** For comparison purposes:

Western Union[1] does 85bn in moving funds between customers and paypal[2] does ~230bn per year.

1. http://ir.westernunion.com/News/Press-Releases/Press-Release-Details/2016/Western-Union-Cross-Border-Platform-Connects-Consumers-to-over-One-Billion-Bank-Accounts/default.aspx

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PayPal

[toknormal]

Using bitcoin for larger transactions is the way bitcoin can be utilized best - because that's where the biggest savings are....You can't save people those billions by throwing away your advantage and doing microtransactions, buying coffees.

I think that's why core are not wanting to rush to change the blocksize - they want to push up the fees and thats exactly what's happening. They see the Lightning network as funnelling all the microtransaction stuff into bucket-size transactions to be cleared on the blockchain.

That whole approach to scaling wasn't really part of the bitcoin vision I don't think and it's become a bit of a mish-mash - Satoshi vision of electronic cash now being shoe-horned into Western Union.

There is however a coin which was designed from the ground up to function natively as AlexGR describes. It's called Peercoin ("Power PC"), designed by Sony King who seems to me to be a proper monetary thinker who embraces visions of monetary diversity & specialisation rather than shunning them. That blockchain has high transaction fees built into it from the start and was intended as a "trunk transport mechanism" for high value payments with spam-mitigation features built right into the protocol. (See "Transaction Fees" section here, for example).

The Peercoin Whitepaper is also a very interesting read because it describes a simple but powerful technology that picked itself a monetary role and stuck to it. It's job was to transmit high value payloads, protect them well and not do much else. Thats the beauty of not having to be everything to everyone. If you accept that we're going to live in an ecosystem of alt-coins (which "core" cannot), then you can relax,  focus on one thing and just be the best at it  

[Solarminer]

Using bitcoin for larger transactions is the way bitcoin can be utilized best - because that's where the biggest savings are....You can't save people those billions by throwing away your advantage and doing microtransactions, buying coffees.

I think that's why core are not wanting to rush to change the blocksize - they want to push up the fees and thats exactly what's happening. They see the Lightning network as funnelling all the microtransaction stuff into bucket-size transactions to be cleared on the blockchain.

That whole approach to scaling wasn't really part of the bitcoin vision I don't think and it's become a bit of a mish-mash - Satoshi vision of electronic cash now being shoe-horned into Western Union.

Let's look at what the fees for Bitcoin need to be to maintain the same network when the block rewards stop.

1 block(25 bitcoins) created every 10 minutes.
For each minute, 2.5 bitcoins are created X $400/bitcoin = $1000/minute.
So every minute $1000 in fees needs to come from transactions (instead of the block rewards today)
Using 5 transactions/sec as maximum speed.  We have 300 transactions each minute.
$1000/300 transactions = $3.33 per transaction.

The bitcoin transaction fee will get to this $3.33 fee eventually (assuming 1mb blocks, and electricity spent on mining is the same)

Let's say a credit card transaction fee is 3%.  So a $100 transaction is actually cheaper with a credit card than with a $3.33 fee.  The crossover point is $111.

What does this mean?
Microtransactions would now to be in the $100+ range.  This takes out all the slock.it, microdonations, tip bots, etc.
Pretty much eliminates point of sale purchases and puts Bitpay out of business.

Can you see the problem?  All these companies were setup with the idea with low fees and mass adoption.  It is an existential problem. Bitcoin exists with low fees and mass adoption, but with mass adoption will incur high fees...

What would bitcoin eventually be useful for?  Bank wires/western union - maybe.  I don't see this ending well for bitcoin without increasing the block size.

Or the other way to look at Bitcoin is if the maximum fee people want is 5 cents, which is $150 in transactions every 10 minutes.  So there will only be about .375 bitcoins instead of 25 bitcoins in fees.  So the network drops to 1.5% of what it is today, ouch!

[AlexGR]

As far as I know, there is no dev team (core or classic or unlimited or whatever) that has a plan that says "1mbforevah", so it's not like fees will always be in relation to a 1mb block.

I think that's why core are not wanting to rush to change the blocksize - they want to push up the fees and thats exactly what's happening. They see the Lightning network as funnelling all the microtransaction stuff into bucket-size transactions to be cleared on the blockchain.

That whole approach to scaling wasn't really part of the bitcoin vision I don't think and it's become a bit of a mish-mash - Satoshi vision of electronic cash now being shoe-horned into Western Union.

Long-term vision can differ from short-term. Satoshi did say that bitcoin wasn't suitable for microtransactions (at least not without an aggregating mechanism), but he was sure that it would be in the future. Seeing that tech went 1000x in ram, hd, network, cpu etc from 1995 to 2015, I'd say his certainty is well founded.

[tungfa]

TDD - "hashocracy" vs others

A basic network of proof-of-work miners -- a "hashocracy" -- is the governance model of Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, Dogecoin, & Monero. There are two other networks, however, which are evolving and/or overhauling the hashocracy model: Dash & Bitshares.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQGlcLFhwE0

[Solarminer]

TDD - "hashocracy" vs others

A basic network of proof-of-work miners -- a "hashocracy" -- is the governance model of Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, Dogecoin, & Monero. There are two other networks, however, which are evolving and/or overhauling the hashocracy model: Dash & Bitshares.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQGlcLFhwE0

Amanda says we are a mix of meritocracy and hashocracy.  I think we need a new name.  Investocracy.  The masternode 'investors' make the decisions. 

It certainly isn't from achievements that the proposals get voted in....unless we consider the 1000 question dashtalk proposal threads a skill course in nerves and charisma that is awarded with a winning budget proposal.

[TanteStefana2]

What is the strategy?

There is a 3700 sell wall on polo for the lowest amount (0.0104~) Do they really need to sell?  Or are they trying to lower the price?  Or is there a strategy for something here?  Just curious, it looks so strange???



If they need to sell, why don't they sell into the nearby buys?  Or are they hoping that people will sell lower, just below where they put the wall?

I think it's working   The price is going down.

[toknormal]

There is a 3700 sell wall on polo for the lowest amount (0.0104~) Do they really need to sell?

Tante - order books don't usually tell you anything about where the price is going.

A large sellwall right at the bottom of the asks can be a whale wanting in just as much as someone wanting out. Also, if the market thinks there's a move down at foot, you often get a rebalancing of the order book towards the bids and if they think there's a move up you get a rebalancing towards asks. That's because people want to catch 'fat fingered' orders that momentarily distort the price off its equilibrium so they can make a quick sell/buy and take immediate profits.

So people say "oh look !, huge amount of bids". That can actually mean just the opposite of what they think it does - i.e. the market thinks the price is coming down. Or they say "oh look, huge amount of asks" - that can mean that the market thinks the price is going to rise and it's an opportunity for a profit take.

The only orders people need to worry about are the ones that don't appear in the order book. Any big orders that get posted in broad daylight in the full public glare are usually there to make you think the opposite of what the trader actually wants.

I never take a blind bit of notice of order books any more although clearly, some of them are genuine. It's just knowing which ones are and which ones aren't and what the trader is thinking that's the problem with interpreting them  

[TanteStefana2]

There is a 3700 sell wall on polo for the lowest amount (0.0104~) Do they really need to sell?

Tante - order books never tell you anything about where the price is going.

A large sellwall right at the bottom of the asks can be someone a whale wanting in just as much as someone wanting out. Also, if the market thinks there's a move down at foot, you often get a rebalancing of the order book towards the bids and if they think there's a move up you get a rebalancing towards asks. That's because people want to catch 'fat fingered' orders that momentarily distort the price off its equilibrium so they can make a quick sell/buy and take immediate profits.

So people say "oh look !, huge amount of bids". That can actually mean just the opposite of what they think it does - i.e. the market thinks the price is coming down. Or they say "oh look, huge amount of asks" - that can mean that the market thinks the price is going to rise and it's an opportunity for a profit take.

The only orders people need to worry about are the ones that don't appear in the order book. Any big orders that posted in broad daylight in the full public glare are usually there to make you think the opposite of what the trader actually wants.

I never take a blind bit of notice of order books any more.

I knew you'd come in and verify my suspicions, thanks

[toknormal]

I knew you'd come in and verify my suspicions, thanks

Don't worry, the charts are largely bullish, specially at this price level. A large amount of correction has been worked through in the last 2 months. Also, do you see the linear nature of the decline of the last few days ? No regular cyclical patterns like the ocean waves ?

That's often caused by shorting. Poloniex margin trading allows people to borrow Dash and sell it into the market in order to buy back at a lower level. (Or borrow BTC to buy). Instead of natural cycles you get them more V shaped, so a straight decline and then a rapid springback. We saw the same thing on the rise - a very straight up revaluation which can also be caused by leveraged buying.

We're now into slightly dangerous territory for the shorters because it's approaching a 65% retrace and they can get caught with their pants down if they don't cover (buy back their loaned Dash) in time. They can't really push it down much further without increasing the risk exponentially. The problem for the shorters though is finding sufficient liquidity to cover within their spread (the difference between the price they sold and the price that they buy back).

One way to generate more liquidity artificially is to place a big sellwall and hope that you scare someone into placing another sellwall in front of you. You then cover into their wall, simultaneously remove your own and walk away with a big cigar. It's a risky strategy though which is why you see these types of walls only appear for a few minutes at a time as kind of "phantom scarecrows".

Thats why I thought your 3727 sellwall might be such a tactic - if so it's starting to work for the shorter since liquidity is now building in front of them. (It may also be genuine - who knows, but I can think of more optimal ways to offload 3k Dash than to stick the whole lot on  the bottom of the asks in the middle of a 4-hour correction cycle).



Some coins get margin traded more than others and some - like XMR for example - get the margin traded to death (and back to life !!) which is why you get these huge peaks and troughs apparently out of nowhere on absolutely no news. It isn't people deciding mathematically entrusted privacy is the next greatest thing since sliced bread, it's traders watching charts in a high liquidity market. They could be trading bottle tops for all they care and are trying to accumulate BTC. Dash market tends to be less liquid but it doesn't stop the speculators when they smell blood in either direction  

P.S. The fact that Dash has it's own "reserve market" that pays a return on holdings also helps insulate it from margin trading in theory cos there's less supply to liquidity markets on the exchange.

[AlexGR]

My experience with daytrading dash is unique compared to all other alts. It's the only coin that I never worry about when a trade slips in price. The theory is buy low, sell high, rinse-repeat. However if you make a buy and the price slides down, then you are left with the coins and you are not making profit. But that's a bonus with dash: You just have more dash... So, in a way, whichever way the market goes, I'm comfortable either making profit or having more dash Win-win...