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

[toknormal]

I thought you might be referring to a Tesla Model 3 until I clicked the link! Aim high!

I was going to wait for "Brexit" before considering anything more ambitious 

[1714883339]

1714883339

[1714883339]

1714883339

[1714883339]

1714883339

[1714883339]

1714883339

[ddink7]

I thought you might be referring to a Tesla Model 3 until I clicked the link! Aim high!

I was going to wait for "Brexit" before considering anything more ambitious  

Good point!

I'm excited--just ordered my Trezor! I've been waiting for masternode commands to be supported, and now that is in testing, I figured it's time!

[ddink7]

snip

I think manipulation is an integral part of a free market. Every single crypto market has whales who control the price, even BTC. So these walls can be considered not only as "impenetrable price restriction" but also as a big player/investor wanting to buy or sell. They won't remain so impenetrable if BTC decides to move to $1000 or $100. They'll be either eaten or pulled.
[/quote]

True enough. Well, I've got my popcorn, curiously watching what happens between the two walls. There's 2657 Dash to the 0.013 buy wall, and 7424 Dash to the 0.015 sell wall. Bitcoin recovered from its dip yesterday and is still in a bull pennant. Let the games begin!

[WastedLTC]

I assume Apple is getting more relaxed with App submissions as there are many BTC and ETH wallets now in the store.   Do we have any plans to try and resubmit or we waiting on a later version?

Example:
Jaxx Bitcoin & Ethereum Wallet
By KryptoKit
https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=1084514516&mt=8

[toknormal]

Bitcoin recovered from its dip yesterday and is still in a bull pennant. Let the games begin!

Here's how I see things playing out:

1. There's been 7 years of Bitcoin "rights of passage" phase which has progressed successfully. Never been hacked, not gone to zero etc etc.

2. There's been about 3-4 years of Bitcoin competitors of every shape or size, none of which have made a significant dent in its marketcap but a small number (about 1%) of which manage to establish themselves as significant long term hedges

3. The market is diversifying into 3 sectors:

(3a) monetary assets
(3b) technology assets
(3c) venture capital funds

I'd place the "bearer token" cryptocurrencies like bitcoin and its clones in the monetary asset category and programmable smart-contract blockchains in the "technology asset" category, so I don't really see them as being in direct competition. I started messing about with Solidity the other day which is pretty damn cool, but as an investment it's more like discovering lego than gold.

Of the monetary assets, there are two clear zones of divergeance:

 - off chain, non-native evolution
 - on chain, native evolution

Clearly, whatever the relative merits of the 2 approaches, one is an obvious hedge for the other. Not only that - there are technical advantages of one over the other in all sorts of sectors which Dash is already benefiting from.

Unless, you take the view that cryptocurrency is a natural monopoly (like most of the people in BTC Core do) then Dash is perfectly placed to mop up much of the complimentary space to Bitcoin. So lets consider that question of "natural monopoly".

4. Will "network effect" lead to a dominant cryptocurrency ?

This is where my priorities probably diverge from many in the community regarding what "adoption" means for cryptographic assets. Many people don't see any difference between currencies and the underlying "monetary assets" that back them (if any). They see adoption as being the use of crypto in exchange for goods and services. I don't see it this way and I think people taking that view should ask themselves why goods and services prices are never denominated in gold or any other "deflationary asset".

The fact is, in a developed economy you need both deflationary and inflationary money because you need one to keep prices stable against varying liquidity requirements and another as a long term store of value. Usually the former is variable supply and the latter is fixed supply. So called "bearer token" assets like Dash are fixed supply relatively speaking. That means they're not so great for commerce or for denominating prices but they can be deployed in a core monetary role - as metals were in the last century.

Given that background, it follows that although network effect is a powerful element in boosting an asset's profile, it won't lead to one cryptocurrency dominating because at the "core monetary level" diversification is essential. Why are hedge funds called "hedge funds" ? Because they hold assets that have complimentary monetary properties. If one asset has a particularly pronounced characteristic, they buy another asset that goes in the opposite direction to hedge it.

Thats why Dash is in a very strong position now. While it inherits much of bitcoin's pedigree, its strategic priorities in the areas of scaling, privacy and governance perfectly compliment bitcoin's since these are all being addressed natively using the network's own nodes as opposed to non-natively using a third technological entity.

It isn't a question of whether one is more technologically advanced than the other, it's a question of meeting the design objectives successfully so that the relevant market space can be well supported. In the blocksize debate, there was no "winner", contrary to what a lot of people are saying. It became clear to me that bitcoin could not fulfil its role to everyone's satisfaction no matter what direction it went in. That has always happened - markets diversify - and it's what will happen increasingly from now on IMO.
 

[ddink7]

Bitcoin recovered from its dip yesterday and is still in a bull pennant. Let the games begin!

Here's how I see things playing out:

1. There's been 7 years of Bitcoin "rights of passage" phase which has progressed successfully. Never been hacked, not gone to zero etc etc.

2. There's been about 3-4 years of Bitcoin competitors of every shape or size, none of which have made a significant dent in its marketcap but a small number (about 1%) of which manage to establish themselves as significant long term hedges

3. The market is diversifying into 3 sectors:

(3a) monetary assets
(3b) technology assets
(3c) venture capital funds

I'd place the "bearer token" cryptocurrencies like bitcoin and its clones in the monetary asset category and programmable smart-contract blockchains in the "technology asset" category, so I don't really see them as being in direct competition. I started messing about with Solidity the other day which is pretty damn cool, but as an investment it's more like discovering lego than gold.

Of the monetary assets, there are two clear zones of divergeance:

 - off chain, non-native evolution
 - on chain, native evolution

Clearly, whatever the relative merits of the 2 approaches, one is an obvious hedge for the other. Not only that - there are technical advantages of one over the other in all sorts of sectors which Dash is already benefiting from.

Unless, you take the view that cryptocurrency is a natural monopoly (like most of the people in BTC Core do) then Dash is perfectly placed to mop up the much of the complimentary space to Bitcoin. So lets consider that question of "natural monopoly".

4. Will "network effect" lead to a dominant cryptocurrency ?
This is where my priorities probably diverge from many in the community regarding what "adoption" means for cryptographic assets. Many people don't see any difference between currencies and the underlying "monetary assets" that back them (if any). They see adoption as being the use of crypto in exchange for goods and services. I don't see it this way and I think people taking that view should ask themselves why goods and services prices are never denominated in gold or any other "deflationary asset".

The fact is, in a developed economy you need both deflationary and inflationary money because you need one to keep prices stable against varying liquidity requirements and another as a long term store of value. Usually the former is variable supply and the latter is fixed supply. So called "bearer token" assets like Dash are fixed supply relatively speaking. That means they're not so great for commerce or for denominating prices but they can be deployed in a core monetary role - as metals were in the last century.

Given that background, it follows that although network effect is a powerful element in boosting an asset's profile, it won't lead to one cryptocurrency dominating because at the "core monetary level" diversification is essential. Why are hedge funds called "hedge funds" ? Because they hold assets that have complimentary monetary properties. If one asset has a particularly pronounced characteristic, they buy another asset that goes in the opposite direction to hedge it.

Thats why Dash is in a very strong position now. While it inherits much of bitcoins pedigree, its strategic priorities in the areas of scaling, privacy and governance perfectly compliment bitcoin's since these are all being addressed natively using the network's own nodes as opposed to non-natively using a third technological entity.

It isn't a question of whether one is more technologically advanced than the other, it's a question of meeting the design objectives successfully so that the relevant market space can be well supported. In the blocksize debate, there was no "winner", contrary to what a lot of people are saying. It became clear to me that bitcoin could not fulfil its role to everyone's satisfaction no matter what direction it went in. That has always happened - markets diversify - and it's what will happen increasingly from now on IMO.
 

Great read! I like the part about separating monetary assets from technology assets especially.

I think it's very interesting how much Bitcoiners are clamoring for sidechains. Whether they realize it or not, their "sidechains will kill altcoins" argument actually highlights one of Bitcoin's central flaws: slow innovation. The very fact that Bitcoiners want to add sidechains means that there are properties of altcoins that they consider valuable and want to be "a part of" Bitcoin.

[Minotaur26]

Bitcoin recovered from its dip yesterday and is still in a bull pennant. Let the games begin!

Here's how I see things playing out:

1. There's been 7 years of Bitcoin "rights of passage" phase which has progressed successfully. Never been hacked, not gone to zero etc etc.

2. There's been about 3-4 years of Bitcoin competitors of every shape or size, none of which have made a significant dent in its marketcap but a small number (about 1%) of which manage to establish themselves as significant long term hedges

3. The market is diversifying into 3 sectors:

(3a) monetary assets
(3b) technology assets
(3c) venture capital funds

I'd place the "bearer token" cryptocurrencies like bitcoin and its clones in the monetary asset category and programmable smart-contract blockchains in the "technology asset" category, so I don't really see them as being in direct competition. I started messing about with Solidity the other day which is pretty damn cool, but as an investment it's more like discovering lego than gold.

Of the monetary assets, there are two clear zones of divergeance:

 - off chain, non-native evolution
 - on chain, native evolution

Clearly, whatever the relative merits of the 2 approaches, one is an obvious hedge for the other. Not only that - there are technical advantages of one over the other in all sorts of sectors which Dash is already benefiting from.

Unless, you take the view that cryptocurrency is a natural monopoly (like most of the people in BTC Core do) then Dash is perfectly placed to mop up much of the complimentary space to Bitcoin. So lets consider that question of "natural monopoly".

4. Will "network effect" lead to a dominant cryptocurrency ?

This is where my priorities probably diverge from many in the community regarding what "adoption" means for cryptographic assets. Many people don't see any difference between currencies and the underlying "monetary assets" that back them (if any). They see adoption as being the use of crypto in exchange for goods and services. I don't see it this way and I think people taking that view should ask themselves why goods and services prices are never denominated in gold or any other "deflationary asset".

The fact is, in a developed economy you need both deflationary and inflationary money because you need one to keep prices stable against varying liquidity requirements and another as a long term store of value. Usually the former is variable supply and the latter is fixed supply. So called "bearer token" assets like Dash are fixed supply relatively speaking. That means they're not so great for commerce or for denominating prices but they can be deployed in a core monetary role - as metals were in the last century.

Given that background, it follows that although network effect is a powerful element in boosting an asset's profile, it won't lead to one cryptocurrency dominating because at the "core monetary level" diversification is essential. Why are hedge funds called "hedge funds" ? Because they hold assets that have complimentary monetary properties. If one asset has a particularly pronounced characteristic, they buy another asset that goes in the opposite direction to hedge it.

Thats why Dash is in a very strong position now. While it inherits much of bitcoin's pedigree, its strategic priorities in the areas of scaling, privacy and governance perfectly compliment bitcoin's since these are all being addressed natively using the network's own nodes as opposed to non-natively using a third technological entity.

It isn't a question of whether one is more technologically advanced than the other, it's a question of meeting the design objectives successfully so that the relevant market space can be well supported. In the blocksize debate, there was no "winner", contrary to what a lot of people are saying. It became clear to me that bitcoin could not fulfil its role to everyone's satisfaction no matter what direction it went in. That has always happened - markets diversify - and it's what will happen increasingly from now on IMO.
 

Thank you for your insight, very interesting. I would like to emphasize on something you said, in terms of adoption for me Dash has been playing the role of a store of value much more than a payment network.  I have been producing value in my professional life and storing this value in DASH instead of using a bank.  For me DASH masternodes have been more attractive than storing value in FIAT in a bank for a number of reasons is like a decentralized banking solution.

In most crypto assets the coins you keep in cold storage wont work for you in any way, in DASH you get to contribute to the network without risking your coins and get compensated for it. It works at the technological level producing a strong network of full nodes and it works at the financial level creating an attractive way to store value where each user controls their own funds and the network as a whole is full reserve as all the masternode collateral is provable and backing the value stored. This has come  to be for me as a user the best application of DASH technology so far to the point where I buy DASH just as a way to store money regardless of the price. It has already shown a lot more stability and organic growth than the average crypto asset.

[toknormal]

Whether they realize it or not, their "sidechains will kill altcoins" argument actually highlights one of Bitcoin's central flaws: slow innovation. The very fact that Bitcoiners want to add sidechains means that there are properties of altcoins that they consider valuable and want to be "a part of" Bitcoin.

Absolutely.

Although sidechains are interesting technologically, they highlight the design conflicts that arise when you try to impose a technology solution to a monetary problem. For example, confidential transactions does let you cover the tracks of a particular transaction when seen from a granular perspective. But what impact does it have at a holistic monetary level ? An adverse one - majorly so - because in trying to solve a privacy problem it creates a huge fungibility problem. The logic of it is similar to washing your clothes in an acid bath to remove a coffee stain.

Take the Lightning network. Possibly good - and I hope it will drive Bitcoin to new highs once all the current shenanigans with halving etc are out of the way. But again, monetarily it's structured like a dinosaur with distinct trading and clearing layers. It may also be exactly what bitcoin DOESN'T need because Visa et al already have a perfectly good trading layer that's far more developed both functionally and commercially than Lightning.

So bitcoin has unwittingly wandered onto fiat's lawn of where it's weakest and abandoned the objective of native value, scaling, mobility and anonymity where it was strongest.

in terms of adoption for me Dash has been playing the role of a store of value much more than a payment network.  I have been producing value in my professional life and storing this value in DASH instead of using a bank.

Indeed. Just to clarify - I'm not saying the community shouldn't pursue adoption opportunities where payment networks are concerned because it all helps to consolidate Dash's brand as a montary asset. I'm just saying that long term we need to see that trading currencies such as fiat are just an arbitrary denomination for the trade. You are not actually exchanging a lump of gold when buying something off Amazon. What we call "currency" is just an agreed unit with which to denominate the value of the good.

On the other hand, with monetary assets such as Bitcoin & Dash, you are actually exchanging a "lump of gold" and I don't ever see that as becoming the norm for mass commercial activity. SQL servers do it far faster and with far more versatility. Also, you need to have some kind of liquidity or "fractional reserve" characteristic to keep prices stable. (Which is why I see the Lightning Network as playing to Bitcoin's weakness and Visa's strength. On the other hand, it may let Bitcoin be used on a more industrial scale. Lets see).

Things are definitely going to get interesting from here.

[qwizzie]

The more limitations you put on a character, often times the better a character you'll make them, the more interesting the story becomes
because the character can't simply wave a hand and make something happen. They have to work within the framework.
- Brandon Sanderson
 
Now we all know ariel is a character we created to entertain us here on this forum and for the most part that worked out really well but nonetheless
i would like to implore on all of you to avoid putting too much limitations and stress on ariel so it doesn't end up outgrowing its character.
Luckily for us ariel doesn't know its a character and therefore limited to work from within the framework, this gives us a clear advantage...

To ariel : you are doing a fine job my son, carry on...

[qwizzie]

Whether they realize it or not, their "sidechains will kill altcoins" argument actually highlights one of Bitcoin's central flaws: slow innovation. The very fact that Bitcoiners want to add sidechains means that there are properties of altcoins that they consider valuable and want to be "a part of" Bitcoin.

Absolutely.

Although sidechains are interesting technologically, they highlight the design conflicts that arise when you try to impose a technology solution to a monetary problem. For example, confidential transactions does let you cover the tracks of a particular transaction when seen from a granular perspective. But what impact does it have at a holistic monetary level ? An adverse one - majorly so - because in trying to solve a privacy problem it creates a huge fungibility problem. The logic of it is similar to washing your clothes in an acid bath to remove a coffee stain.

Take the Lightning network. Possibly good - and I hope it will drive Bitcoin to new highs once all the current shenanigans with halving etc are out of the way. But again, monetarily it's structured like a dinosaur with distinct trading and clearing layers. It may also be exactly what bitcoin DOESN'T need because Visa et al already have a perfectly good trading layer that's far more developed both functionally and commercially than Lightning.

So bitcoin has unwittingly wandered onto fiat's lawn of where it's weakest and abandoned the objective of native value, scaling, mobility and anonymity where it was strongest.

in terms of adoption for me Dash has been playing the role of a store of value much more than a payment network.  I have been producing value in my professional life and storing this value in DASH instead of using a bank.

Indeed. Just to clarify - I'm not saying the community shouldn't pursue adoption opportunities where payment networks are concerned because it all helps to consolidate Dash's brand as a montary asset. I'm just saying that long term we need to see that trading currencies such as fiat are just an arbitrary denomination for the trade. You are not actually exchanging a lump of gold when buying something off Amazon. What we call "currency" is just an agreed unit with which to denominate the value of the good.

On the other hand, with monetary assets such as Bitcoin & Dash, you are actually exchanging a "lump of gold" and I don't ever see that as becoming the norm for mass commercial activity. SQL servers do it far faster and with far more versatility. Also, you need to have some kind of liquidity or "fractional reserve" characteristic to keep prices stable. (Which is why I see the Lightning Network as playing to Bitcoin's weakness and Visa's strength. On the other hand, it may let Bitcoin be used on a more industrial scale. Lets see).

Things are definitely going to get interesting from here.

edit : dont worry, i removed the chinese curse part
edit : eh, at least i think i did 

[iCEBREAKER]

Although sidechains are interesting technologically, they highlight the design conflicts that arise when you try to impose a technology solution to a monetary problem. For example, confidential transactions does let you cover the tracks of a particular transaction when seen from a granular perspective. But what impact does it have at a holistic monetary level ? An adverse one - majorly so - because in trying to solve a privacy problem it creates a huge fungibility problem. The logic of it is similar to washing your clothes in an acid bath to remove a coffee stain.

Dash can't support sidechains or Lightning, so now you need to tell us how bad they are.

Sour grapes, right?

"Holistic monetary level" is code for "toknormal's witless nattering and navel gazing."

FYI, fixing Bitcoin's fungibility problem automatically fixes privacy as a side benefit.

And scaling by using a layered approach is how good engineering works, not a "design conflict."

Cite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suite

Internet protocol suite

Application layer

Transport layer

Internet layer

Link layer

Can you imagine if Duffield had designed the internet, and all those layers were stuffed into the same bloated MasterProtocol?   

[toknormal]

Dash can't support sidechains or Lightning

I think thats the whole point.

FYI, fixing Bitcoin's fungibility problem automatically fixes privacy as a side benefit.

And FYI, you don't fix a "fungibility problem" by making coins less like each other, you fix it by making them more like each other. So following your logic, consider Bitcoin's privacy "unfixed" as a side benefit  

And scaling by using a layered approach is how good engineering works

Indeed. But it's not how "good money" works. So there is a design conflict.

Application layer

Transport layer

Internet layer

Link layer[/center]

Looks exciting, for you. But gold has only 1 monetary "layer". Grain has only 1 monetary "layer". Silk has only 1 monetary "layer". Every form of base monetary asset that ever existed only had only 1 monetary "layer", regardless of the fact that myopic techno-trainspotters can't tell the difference between an information transport network and a monetary medium.

So whatever the lightning network's technical benefits, it is not part of Bitcoin's "monetary layer" and cannot be considered a "layer 2" in any other respect than a technical one which is why it's now starting to play to its own weaknesses and Visa's strengths.

Can you imagine if Duffield had designed the internet, and all those layers were stuffed into the same bloated MasterProtocol?  

But he's not designing the internet. He's designing a monetary medium and doing so using monetary priorities. I know the subtle distinction is lost on the myopic techno-trainspotter species which is why you often see them posting network protocol stacks instead of monetary legacy in support of their arguments, but it exists all the same  

[arielbit]

The more limitations you put on a character, often times the better a character you'll make them, the more interesting the story becomes
because the character can't simply wave a hand and make something happen. They have to work within the framework.
- Brandon Sanderson
 
Now we all know ariel is a character we created to entertain us here on this forum and for the most part that worked out really well but nonetheless
i would like to implore on all of you to avoid putting too much limitations and stress on ariel so it doesn't end up outgrowing its character.
Luckily for us ariel doesn't know its a character and therefore limited to work from within the framework, this gives us a clear advantage...

To ariel : you are doing a fine job my son, carry on...

no problem buddy..you are welcome

i have my characters here though https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1282836.0 this gives us a clear advantage to take a step back and rethink the crap that is coming out of the mouths of these characters.

[TaoOfSaatoshi]

Bitcoin recovered from its dip yesterday and is still in a bull pennant. Let the games begin!

Here's how I see things playing out:

1. There's been 7 years of Bitcoin "rights of passage" phase which has progressed successfully. Never been hacked, not gone to zero etc etc.

2. There's been about 3-4 years of Bitcoin competitors of every shape or size, none of which have made a significant dent in its marketcap but a small number (about 1%) of which manage to establish themselves as significant long term hedges

3. The market is diversifying into 3 sectors:

(3a) monetary assets
(3b) technology assets
(3c) venture capital funds

I'd place the "bearer token" cryptocurrencies like bitcoin and its clones in the monetary asset category and programmable smart-contract blockchains in the "technology asset" category, so I don't really see them as being in direct competition. I started messing about with Solidity the other day which is pretty damn cool, but as an investment it's more like discovering lego than gold.

Of the monetary assets, there are two clear zones of divergeance:

 - off chain, non-native evolution
 - on chain, native evolution

Clearly, whatever the relative merits of the 2 approaches, one is an obvious hedge for the other. Not only that - there are technical advantages of one over the other in all sorts of sectors which Dash is already benefiting from.

Unless, you take the view that cryptocurrency is a natural monopoly (like most of the people in BTC Core do) then Dash is perfectly placed to mop up much of the complimentary space to Bitcoin. So lets consider that question of "natural monopoly".

4. Will "network effect" lead to a dominant cryptocurrency ?

This is where my priorities probably diverge from many in the community regarding what "adoption" means for cryptographic assets. Many people don't see any difference between currencies and the underlying "monetary assets" that back them (if any). They see adoption as being the use of crypto in exchange for goods and services. I don't see it this way and I think people taking that view should ask themselves why goods and services prices are never denominated in gold or any other "deflationary asset".

The fact is, in a developed economy you need both deflationary and inflationary money because you need one to keep prices stable against varying liquidity requirements and another as a long term store of value. Usually the former is variable supply and the latter is fixed supply. So called "bearer token" assets like Dash are fixed supply relatively speaking. That means they're not so great for commerce or for denominating prices but they can be deployed in a core monetary role - as metals were in the last century.

Given that background, it follows that although network effect is a powerful element in boosting an asset's profile, it won't lead to one cryptocurrency dominating because at the "core monetary level" diversification is essential. Why are hedge funds called "hedge funds" ? Because they hold assets that have complimentary monetary properties. If one asset has a particularly pronounced characteristic, they buy another asset that goes in the opposite direction to hedge it.

Thats why Dash is in a very strong position now. While it inherits much of bitcoin's pedigree, its strategic priorities in the areas of scaling, privacy and governance perfectly compliment bitcoin's since these are all being addressed natively using the network's own nodes as opposed to non-natively using a third technological entity.

It isn't a question of whether one is more technologically advanced than the other, it's a question of meeting the design objectives successfully so that the relevant market space can be well supported. In the blocksize debate, there was no "winner", contrary to what a lot of people are saying. It became clear to me that bitcoin could not fulfil its role to everyone's satisfaction no matter what direction it went in. That has always happened - markets diversify - and it's what will happen increasingly from now on IMO.
 

Nice. Worthy of a new Tek Tok!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1433982.msg15132667#msg15132667

#DashNation #IoM

[TanteStefana2]

Whether they realize it or not, their "sidechains will kill altcoins" argument actually highlights one of Bitcoin's central flaws: slow innovation. The very fact that Bitcoiners want to add sidechains means that there are properties of altcoins that they consider valuable and want to be "a part of" Bitcoin.

Absolutely.

Although sidechains are interesting technologically, they highlight the design conflicts that arise when you try to impose a technology solution to a monetary problem. For example, confidential transactions does let you cover the tracks of a particular transaction when seen from a granular perspective. But what impact does it have at a holistic monetary level ? An adverse one - majorly so - because in trying to solve a privacy problem it creates a huge fungibility problem. The logic of it is similar to washing your clothes in an acid bath to remove a coffee stain.

Take the Lightning network. Possibly good - and I hope it will drive Bitcoin to new highs once all the current shenanigans with halving etc are out of the way. But again, monetarily it's structured like a dinosaur with distinct trading and clearing layers. It may also be exactly what bitcoin DOESN'T need because Visa et al already have a perfectly good trading layer that's far more developed both functionally and commercially than Lightning.

So bitcoin has unwittingly wandered onto fiat's lawn of where it's weakest and abandoned the objective of native value, scaling, mobility and anonymity where it was strongest.

in terms of adoption for me Dash has been playing the role of a store of value much more than a payment network.  I have been producing value in my professional life and storing this value in DASH instead of using a bank.

Indeed. Just to clarify - I'm not saying the community shouldn't pursue adoption opportunities where payment networks are concerned because it all helps to consolidate Dash's brand as a montary asset. I'm just saying that long term we need to see that trading currencies such as fiat are just an arbitrary denomination for the trade. You are not actually exchanging a lump of gold when buying something off Amazon. What we call "currency" is just an agreed unit with which to denominate the value of the good.

On the other hand, with monetary assets such as Bitcoin & Dash, you are actually exchanging a "lump of gold" and I don't ever see that as becoming the norm for mass commercial activity. SQL servers do it far faster and with far more versatility. Also, you need to have some kind of liquidity or "fractional reserve" characteristic to keep prices stable. (Which is why I see the Lightning Network as playing to Bitcoin's weakness and Visa's strength. On the other hand, it may let Bitcoin be used on a more industrial scale. Lets see).

Things are definitely going to get interesting from here.

I just wanted to add my thoughts on this.  I think you two are correct that Dash and Bitcoin, etc... are acting as a store of value at the moment, but I think that in the future, as people join the network, the price will stabilize - and Dash will become more and more useful as a currency.  What's really cool is that Dash is a store of value AND a currency/service that can service individuals or multi-national companies / trade.  Bitcoin, of course, can transfer larger values than Dash, but will it's network be as healthy and fast as Dash, thus as useful in 10, 15, 20 years?  Honestly, I don't think so.  I think Dash will remain at the head of the curve and thus eventually surpass Bitcoin.  Frankly, though we're only #6 on the marketcap index, we have no competition.

Dash is a very liquid store of value in smaller amounts now, but in the future, at a proper marketcap (which needs to be far larger than even Bitcoin's market cap) it will be a super liquid store of value

[iCEBREAKER]

Can you imagine if Duffield had designed the internet, and all those layers were stuffed into the same bloated MasterProtocol?  

But he's not designing the internet. He's designing a monetary medium and doing so using monetary priorities. I know the subtle distinction is lost on the myopic techno-trainspotter species which is why you often see them posting network protocol stacks instead of monetary legacy in support of their arguments, but it exists all the same  

The modality of Duffcoin's "monetary medium" is digital and the context is networked; the (digital, networked) resemblance to the internet is uncanny.

Thus the principles of sound software design (an extension of electrical engineering's discrete logic discipline) come to the fore.

You truly believe Duffield will succeed where XT and Klassik failed at "piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset?"

[toknormal]

You truly believe Duffield will succeed where XT and Klassik failed at "piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset?"

See ? You're already warming to my point of view 

For someone who thinks the way to make blockchains more valuable is to make them invisible, thats progress 

[iCEBREAKER]

You truly believe Duffield will succeed where XT and Klassik failed at "piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset?"

See ? You're already warming to my point of view 

For someone who thinks the way to make blockchains more valuable is to make them invisible, thats progress 

I'll take that as an affirmation you are an actual, in the wild, Dash Maximalist.

Using zero-knowledge proofs and homomorphic functions (ring signatures and stealth addresses) to give users the power to configure their own visible/invisible blockchain settings is a significant advancement in the evolution of economic sovereignty.

OTOH, Dash's bad crypto (broken/rebranded CoinJoin + broken/rebranded GreenAddress) and snake oil (HYIP) marketing make me depressed about the state of humanity.

[110110101]

Bitcoin recovered from its dip yesterday and is still in a bull pennant. Let the games begin!

Here's how I see things playing out:

1. There's been 7 years of Bitcoin "rights of passage" phase which has progressed successfully. Never been hacked, not gone to zero etc etc.

2. There's been about 3-4 years of Bitcoin competitors of every shape or size, none of which have made a significant dent in its marketcap but a small number (about 1%) of which manage to establish themselves as significant long term hedges

3. The market is diversifying into 3 sectors:

(3a) monetary assets
(3b) technology assets
(3c) venture capital funds

I'd place the "bearer token" cryptocurrencies like bitcoin and its clones in the monetary asset category and programmable smart-contract blockchains in the "technology asset" category, so I don't really see them as being in direct competition. I started messing about with Solidity the other day which is pretty damn cool, but as an investment it's more like discovering lego than gold.

Of the monetary assets, there are two clear zones of divergeance:

 - off chain, non-native evolution
 - on chain, native evolution

Clearly, whatever the relative merits of the 2 approaches, one is an obvious hedge for the other. Not only that - there are technical advantages of one over the other in all sorts of sectors which Dash is already benefiting from.

Unless, you take the view that cryptocurrency is a natural monopoly (like most of the people in BTC Core do) then Dash is perfectly placed to mop up much of the complimentary space to Bitcoin. So lets consider that question of "natural monopoly".

4. Will "network effect" lead to a dominant cryptocurrency ?

This is where my priorities probably diverge from many in the community regarding what "adoption" means for cryptographic assets. Many people don't see any difference between currencies and the underlying "monetary assets" that back them (if any). They see adoption as being the use of crypto in exchange for goods and services. I don't see it this way and I think people taking that view should ask themselves why goods and services prices are never denominated in gold or any other "deflationary asset".

The fact is, in a developed economy you need both deflationary and inflationary money because you need one to keep prices stable against varying liquidity requirements and another as a long term store of value. Usually the former is variable supply and the latter is fixed supply. So called "bearer token" assets like Dash are fixed supply relatively speaking. That means they're not so great for commerce or for denominating prices but they can be deployed in a core monetary role - as metals were in the last century.

Given that background, it follows that although network effect is a powerful element in boosting an asset's profile, it won't lead to one cryptocurrency dominating because at the "core monetary level" diversification is essential. Why are hedge funds called "hedge funds" ? Because they hold assets that have complimentary monetary properties. If one asset has a particularly pronounced characteristic, they buy another asset that goes in the opposite direction to hedge it.

Thats why Dash is in a very strong position now. While it inherits much of bitcoin's pedigree, its strategic priorities in the areas of scaling, privacy and governance perfectly compliment bitcoin's since these are all being addressed natively using the network's own nodes as opposed to non-natively using a third technological entity.

It isn't a question of whether one is more technologically advanced than the other, it's a question of meeting the design objectives successfully so that the relevant market space can be well supported. In the blocksize debate, there was no "winner", contrary to what a lot of people are saying. It became clear to me that bitcoin could not fulfil its role to everyone's satisfaction no matter what direction it went in. That has always happened - markets diversify - and it's what will happen increasingly from now on IMO.
 

Very informative and interesting reading @Toknormal.
I agree that Bitcoin will have great difficulties evolving into a super asset that will fulfill everyone's wishes and requirements. Just see how hard it has been to reach consensus regarding SegWit and the block size debacle. Other technologies will need to be added to Bitcoin if it is to evolve. As we have seen with Dash, the two tiered network is a great strength that evolves into supplying the Dash platform with many important features.

[toknormal]

Using zero-knowledge proofs and homomorphic functions….is a significant advancement in the evolution of economic sovereignty.

No it isn't. It's fodder for clueless nerds and has nothing to do with "economic sovereignty" which stems from 2 things:

1. a universal consensus over the tradeability of a good
2. a market participant's independent control over it

In other words, aforementioned technologies ditch the one thing that unbacked money needs: public consensus endorsement, in favour of the one thing it doesn't: obscurity. You're confusing anonymity of monetary tokens with privacy of monetary accounts of such.

OTOH, Dash's bad crypto (broken/rebranded CoinJoin + broken/rebranded GreenAddress) and snake oil (HYIP) marketing make me depressed about the state of humanity.

It's not Dash that's making you depressed, it's your misplaced idea of what constitutes a sound solution and conflation of associated characteristics such as obfuscation with fungibility, privacy with anonymity, cash money with credit money and centralisation with articulated protocols.

Cheer up though - at least you've a choice. There's something for everyone in the market - even for those who share your aberrant perspective on the veracity of "obscured" monetary assets