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

[piebeyb]

Dash USD on exmo

interesting information I will see it soon EXMO, cheers

[Bridgewater]

Can the current implementation of Darksend mixing be considered a "trustless decentralized exchange?"  

[TanteStefana2]

Can the current implementation of Darksend mixing be considered a "trustless decentralized exchange?"  

Not really, nothing is ever actually exchanged.  Basically, you coins simply get a new "name" (or account number) and you do it the same time at least 2 other people do it, so that nobody can tell which two accounts share the "same" coin.  Your coins never leave your control.

[tungfa]

Very good show (as usual) pointing out centralisation of Core payments BTC vs Dash and others

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

[RomanL]

Electronic money system development in European Union by Daniel Wilusz is interesting:

Directive 2009/110/EC introduces quite liberal definition of electronic money which states that, “electronic money means electronically, including magnetically, stored monetary value as represented by a claim on the issuer which is issued on receipt of funds for the purpose of making payment transactions as defined in point 5 of Article 4 of Directive 2007/64/EC, and which is accepted by a natural or legal person other than the electronic money issuer.”

And than:

"From the technical point of view, this definition broadened the scope of electronic money systems architectures. Directive 2009/110/EC defines electronic money in the way that enables both token-based and account-based systems to operate, as it limits only the way the electronic money is stored (electronically or magnetically), without influencing the place of storage. In particular, European Authorities declare in the preamble of Directive 2009/110/EC that, “the definition of electronic money should cover electronic money whether it is held on a payment device in the electronic money holder’s possession or stored remotely at a server and managed by the electronic money holder through a specific account for electronic money.”

source: http://www.kti.ue.poznan.pl/sites/default/files/Wilusz_Legal_determinants_of_electronic_money_systems_development.pdf

[qwizzie]

Very good show (as usual) pointing out centralisation of Core payments BTC vs Dash and others

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

Great show from Amanda indeed, i really think her promoting Dash budget was (and still is) well spend there.  
Hell, you guys even managed to get Amanda to read outloud the whole f Dash Evolution white paper (although i'm not totally
sure a lost pokergame or something like that caused her to do that )
For those of you who postponed reading that white paper but still have this nagging little voice in your head urging you to read it once and for all :  

Dash's Evolution: 'The One True Bitcoin as Satoshi Envisioned It'?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfBAsxh6H50

poor girl must have been dreaming about shards and quorums at nights after that show , i know i have  
 

[qwizzie]

hello 0.01500, good to see you again old friend 

[tungfa]

hello 0.01500, good to see you again old friend 

somebody took their vitamines

[qwizzie]

hello 0.01500, good to see you again old friend 

somebody took their vitamines

thats some arty arts 

[stan.distortion]

Electronic money system development in European Union by Daniel Wilusz is interesting:

Directive 2009/110/EC introduces quite liberal definition of electronic money which states that, “electronic money means electronically, including magnetically, stored monetary value as represented by a claim on the issuer which is issued on receipt of funds for the purpose of making payment transactions as defined in point 5 of Article 4 of Directive 2007/64/EC, and which is accepted by a natural or legal person other than the electronic money issuer.”

And than:

"From the technical point of view, this definition broadened the scope of electronic money systems architectures. Directive 2009/110/EC defines electronic money in the way that enables both token-based and account-based systems to operate, as it limits only the way the electronic money is stored (electronically or magnetically), without influencing the place of storage. In particular, European Authorities declare in the preamble of Directive 2009/110/EC that, “the definition of electronic money should cover electronic money whether it is held on a payment device in the electronic money holder’s possession or stored remotely at a server and managed by the electronic money holder through a specific account for electronic money.”

source: http://www.kti.ue.poznan.pl/sites/default/files/Wilusz_Legal_determinants_of_electronic_money_systems_development.pdf

Ahh, but the thing about cryptocoins is... there are no coins. All the terms like "wallet", "send", receive", etc. they're all a bit misleading because nothing is actually stored or transferred, when you "receive" coins what you actually receiving is the ability to modify part of a distributed ledger using your private key.

Ok, pedantic argument but it does highlight the kind of problems caused in trying to build an economic system using a language originally developed for telling other monkies where to find the best fruit, that directive probably cost hundreds of extremely expensive hours to formulate and it's full of holes. What about machine to machine transactions, they don't count as payments? Common sense would suggest it would be up to the courts to establish how it's applied in areas it doesn't clearly cover but they seem just as confused by it all, calling crypto a commodity one day, a token the next, give them a few years and they'll probably come to the conclusion that crypto is a platypus.

How hard can it be? "if (balance > 0)... ", so simple yet put 100 lawyers on it for 100 years and they still wouldn't have an infallible definition.

EDIT: Wow, both the blue and the red pill, we is goin' quantum!!

[toknormal]

when you "receive" coins what you actually receiving is the ability to modify part of a distributed ledger using your private key

Great point, well put !

This is what I think as well. The legal system just isn't designed to deal with this. It requires legal entities the whole time and for a legal entity to be associated with property. Thats why we have banks - so that your state of credit or debt IS your money and that money is synonymous with your identity.

It has painted itself into a corner. Left a wide open goal. Satoshi quietly switched the points a few miles ahead of the state-managed financial juggernaut and sent it down a spur.

What happens if we are in the park, happily chatting watching our kids play....I scrawl out a bunch of numbers and letters in the sandpit for you that represents the private key to a blockchain address containing a million dollars worth of capital ?

Have I then "paid you" ? Are you then liable for $300k in tax ? What about all the other people who saw it but didn't know what it meant ?

Regulate that   

[kointrend]

Hi,
I have done a normal sent but no confirmation in about 45 min, wtf?
Thanks

edit_ strange, the coins are still in my adress but not in the wallet!

edit2_ got confirmation just now...wow almost 1hour! 

[CryptoBrother]

Hi,
I have done a normal sent but no confirmation in about 45 min, wtf?
Thanks

edit_ strange, the coins are still in my adress but not in the wallet!

edit2_ got confirmation just now...wow almost 1hour! 

Sometime all you need is a bit of patience. Especially with DASH

[Cryptorials]

I just watched that video of the evolution whitepaper and it made me wonder about one thing:

If miners receive transaction data from the masternodes and if transactions written to dashdrive are guaranteed to be included in a block, then does mining still perform a useful function and if so what is it exactly?

[Minotaur26]

I just watched that video of the evolution whitepaper and it made me wonder about one thing:

If miners receive transaction data from the masternodes and if transactions written to dashdrive are guaranteed to be included in a block, then does mining still perform a useful function and if so what is it exactly?

Under that model, the miners generate the random proof of work hashes that give security to the system. You just can't fake or manipulate the proof of work hash.  Quorum selection is based on the proof of work and coin age of masternode inputs. But remember that is still in early research and development, final implementation may differ from the original ideas.

[RomanL]

Ahh, but the thing about cryptocoins is... there are no coins. All the terms like "wallet", "send", receive", etc. they're all a bit misleading because nothing is actually stored or transferred, when you "receive" coins what you actually receiving is the ability to modify part of a distributed ledger using your private key.

Ok, pedantic argument but it does highlight the kind of problems caused in trying to build an economic system using a language originally developed for telling other monkies where to find the best fruit, that directive probably cost hundreds of extremely expensive hours to formulate and it's full of holes. What about machine to machine transactions, they don't count as payments? Common sense would suggest it would be up to the courts to establish how it's applied in areas it doesn't clearly cover but they seem just as confused by it all, calling crypto a commodity one day, a token the next, give them a few years and they'll probably come to the conclusion that crypto is a platypus.

How hard can it be? "if (balance > 0)... ", so simple yet put 100 lawyers on it for 100 years and they still wouldn't have an infallible definition.

EDIT: Wow, both the blue and the red pill, we is goin' quantum!!

TPTB will have hard time defining and / or defeating crypto-currencies.

The legislation defines them as personal use assets, so crypto transactions are akin to barter arrangements. For the tax purposes, virtual currency is treated as property for U.S. Federal Tax Purposes.” In Germany, Bitcoin (and other cryptos) is "private money" which can be used in "multilateral clearing circles.”

Nick Szabo used Chaumian protocol to coin a "digital bearer certificate" term, incorporating digital cash and distributed capabilities (secure distributed object references). It was in 1997.

source: http://szabo.best.vwh.net/bearer_contracts.html

[ddink7]

When is eth going to go into freefall? It keeps defying gravity...

[stan.distortion]

When is eth going to go into freefall? It keeps defying gravity...

"Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.". Easy to underestimate the markets capacity for madness, these are the folks who thought tulips where a great idea back in the day so heaven only knows how long they'll think network usage tokens are a currency :/

[RomanL]

This is what I think as well. The legal system just isn't designed to deal with this. It requires legal entities the whole time and for a legal entity to be associated with property. Thats why we have banks - so that your state of credit or debt IS your money and that money is synonymous with your identity.

It has painted itself into a corner. Left a wide open goal. Satoshi quietly switched the points a few miles ahead of the state-managed financial juggernaut and sent it down a spur.

What happens if we are in the park, happily chatting watching our kids play....I scrawl out a bunch of numbers and letters in the sandpit for you that represents the private key to a blockchain address containing a million dollars worth of capital ?

Have I then "paid you" ? Are you then liable for $300k in tax ? What about all the other people who saw it but didn't know what it meant ?

Regulate that  

But they are already defining crypto as properties, as the IRS Virtual Currency Guidance states. http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/IRS-Virtual-Currency-Guidance

I realize it has been easier to kill Gaddafi and ravage Libya so the "gold dinar" would not have been adopted in Africa as replacement for the U.S. dollar (he wanted to trade oil only in "gold dinars" bypassing the mighty buck and its colonial properties and have therefore paid the price), than to destroy decentralized, spread all over the world arcane property, but I am wary of "them."

They might also try to co-opt the crypto space and suck it into their financial crime cartel shenanigans. It is too early to tell but it does seem we have a fighting chance this time.

[stan.distortion]

...
TPTB will have hard time defining and / or defeating crypto-currencies.

The legislation defines them as personal use assets, so crypto transactions are akin to barter arrangements. For the tax purposes, virtual currency is treated as property for U.S. Federal Tax Purposes.” In Germany, Bitcoin (and other cryptos) is "private money" which can be used in "multilateral clearing circles.”

Nick Szabo used Chaumian protocol to coin a "digital bearer certificate" term, incorporating digital cash and distributed capabilities (secure distributed object references). It was in 1997.

source: http://szabo.best.vwh.net/bearer_contracts.html

Yeah, the the language can get pretty damn sophisticated but if page after page of definitions and sub-definitions are used to box scenarios in until they can be considered infallible there's still the issue of enforcement. Just as you say with Libya, tptb can go to extreme lengths to get their way, will they go as far as creating a scenario to justify crippling global communications? I honestly don't know but it's not inconceivable and that honestly scares me as it's hard to come up with a peaceful scenario for that and what do a few million lives matter when the stakes are power?

But that's getting a bit ahead of the point, laws are only relevant where they can be applied and the law knows its limitations and knows that trying to extend its reach too far can bring its legitimacy into question. Trying to enforce authority on something like crypto is extremely risky, if its something people want then even the very best case scenario is heavily tarnished with fascism and as crypto is ever evolving it's far more likely to end in humiliation.

There was once a little company that thought they could take on open source in the courtroom called SCO. Well, not such a little company actually, quite a big company, back in their hayday they probably had somewhere around the same kind of market and share as Oracle has now. They tried to claim rights to Linux but couldn't win that battle and they had Microsofts might behind them, it wiped them out.