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

[Minotaur26]

Bitcoin recently went through a halving, reducing block rewards by 50%. Was the hash rate reduced by 50% as a consequence? No.
The price allowed for the transactional security to remain the same or more.  This is because the block reward percentage on its own does not mean anything you have to take price into consideration. If price times reward percentage is bigger than mining cost people will mine. Even just perception of future value can drive mining even below cost for a certain period of time.

But in reality value creation is the only real driver, the price is not determined by mining costs it is determined by the market's perception of value or even perception of future value. So development and a self funding system can drive value up in a much more direct way than merely increasing cost of production. There is no specific reason why an asset price should be above its cost of production if the market does not think it adds value. So any distribution of rewards between mining, nodes and network investment that drives value creation will drive price up and mining hash rate too.

Dash with a different model than any other currency is at an all time high in mining hash rate, full nodes and with a budget system to execute its development road map without the need for third party financing. Dash has achieved true independence and Dash's future depends only on Dash and the market's perception of its future value.

[Lebubar]

Could not agree more, very well said as always.

Bitcoin recently went through a halving, reducing block rewards by 50%. Was the hash rate reduced by 50% as a consequence? No.
The price allowed for the transactional security to remain the same or more.  This is because the block reward percentage on its own does not mean anything you have to take price into consideration. If price times reward percentage is bigger than mining cost people will mine. Even just perception of future value can drive mining even below cost for a certain period of time.

But in reality value creation is the only real driver, the price is not determined by mining costs it is determined by the market's perception of value or even perception of future value. So development and a self funding system can drive value up in a much more direct way than merely increasing cost of production. There is no specific reason why an asset price should be above its cost of production if the market does not think it adds value. So any distribution of rewards between mining, nodes and network investment that drives value creation will drive price up and mining hash rate too.

Dash with a different model than any other currency is at an all time high in mining hash rate, full nodes and with a budget system to execute its development road map without the need for third party financing. Dash has achieved true independence and Dash's future depends only on Dash and the market's perception of its future value.

And don't forget more info about Dash development at the d10e:

http://dashpaymagazine.com/index.php/2016/07/13/dash-representation-d10e-san-francisco-2016/

[itscrazy]

The price is holding up very well considering the amount of sell pressure that is being generated by development funding etc. We all like to keep hold of our Dash but people gotta eat(!) so I'd expect a fair amount of Dash a month in sell supply just to fund various USD commitments. The fact that the price is remaining steady (and rising) suggests that for every Dash being spent on development we are seeing an increase in value to the project.

Who knows where the price will be over the next year, but one things for sure... Every ounce of development will keep adding value to the project... so over a 1-5 year period I'd expect Dash to keep steadily gaining in value.

Walter

What ! ? Eddufield is a beggar too ?

Has the fleecing of the noobs really become that easy ?

You are making an intuitive leap here that is inaccurate. Dash is a self-funding DAO, and a portion of the block rewards are allocated to fund budget proposals. Among these proposals are funding to hire developers, establish bounties, and issue deliverable-based contracts. The development happening now is directed toward Evolution, integrations, etc. This is what the above comment was referencing. Exactly zero Dash of the development proposals have been paid to Mr. Duffield, and he certainly isn't begging to anyone.

I guess it really is ! haha..

How is taxing the miners any different ? Beggars and government wannabes both always have their hands out waiting for more.

Its cryptofiat dumbasses like you that have helped the early adopters fuck the crypto movement. WTG !

A reallocation of the block reward is not the same thing as a tax. Economic forces ensure there is ALWAYS an equilibrium level of hash power that will be reached given a certain reward level. If the reward going to miners is 45% of the block reward, a certain amount of hashpower will result that covers the miners costs plus some market-defined level of expected return on capital. If the allocation to miners were increased to say 90% instead of 45% (just picking numbers to make the math easy), mining would become incredibly profitable at the current 45%-equilibrium hashrate and you would see a resulting rush of new investment in ASICs and buildings to house them and electricity to run them... in the end you would end up at a new equilibrium hash rate that was roughly 2x the current level, resulting in some tiny amount of incremental transactional security (e.g., from 99.999% secure to 99.9995% secure after 3 confirmations or something). EDIT: BUT, the expected economic return to the miners would be the same either way... at 90% you simply get twice as much hashrate as you would at 45%. It's simply a question of "how much hashrate should the network buy in order to ensure the desired level of transactional security?"

The beauty of this system is that the network can allocate resources towards activities other than mining... activities that provide more benefit than some insignificant amount of transactional security. For example, funding a code review, testers, or security-related bounties could improve security even more than more hash rate. Or more development resources might find some new way to secure transactions altogether, like InstantSend does. Or funding masternodes might strengthen the number of full nodes on the network and ensures they are professionally hosted. And these are all things that can improve security.

Now start thinking about all the other things that can be funded like marketing, research, business partnerships, integrations, work tools, development software, public relations... the list goes on. All of which provide benefits. Bitcoin's model (and virtually all coins) in which 100% of every block is directed toward only the need of transactional security (and worse, toward only one of many potential approaches to achieving that) is nothing short of stupidity. Even Satoshi recognized the needs for incentivized nodes, for example.

An analogy is imagine a world in which Visa (the first and largest credit card network for several years now) took all of its revenue and directed it ALL at transactional security. They bought the best firewalls, hired security experts, built their own private internet, hired armed guards to surround their datacenter, and generally went NUTS with anything security related. Sure, the network was really slow, it got saturated with transactions during peak periods, it wasn't very user friendly, and they didn't offer support. In order to pay a merchant, consumers had to learn how to use a long cryptographic "public key" that looked like a bunch of gibberish to your average Joe. But the network generally worked better than checks and was accepted at quite a few places and was SUPER secure. Meanwhile, they had no marketing, no PR, no business development, no sales force, no new services being developed, no customer service, and no legal department. Instead, they set up the Visa Foundation to handle that and asked the merchants and payment processors and end users to donate toward those things or perhaps do it on their behalf. Of course, the foundation was usually broke or close to it, so unfortunately, it wasn't that effective.

Meanwhile, a few years after Visa got started, a rival to Visa emerged called Mastercard. Mastercard started out pretty small, wasn't accepted anywhere and didn't have very many cardholders. But it did something Visa wasn't set up to do... it funded ALL its needs. They had a sales department, marketing department, legal department, customer service call center (once they had enough users), etc. They started rolling out new services like speedy transactions, increased transaction capacity, developed entirely new ways to secure transactions, made their product super user friendly, added a rewards program, and (gasp!) actually HELPED merchants get set up on the platform.

Naysayers of Mastercard pointed out how "insecure" their network was. They laughed that it wasn't accepted anywhere. They ridiculed that no one used it for much. They pointed out how puny their marketing budget was. Many, dubbed "Visa-maximalists" even scoffed at the idea that there could be more than one credit card payment network... after all, surely the confusion of TWO payment networks would only confuse customers and slow the adoption of this amazing new technology! And the idea that they want to PAY their developers directly and NOT through a donation-driven foundation? What are those guys over at Mastercard smoking anyways?!?!

Which network do you think survives in this scenario long term? Which one will be forced to adapt or will inevitably fail? In hindsight, it will be blindingly obvious which network should have won all along and how stupid Visa's approach was. When you put the scenario we live in RIGHT NOW in terms of two credit card networks, it suddenly becomes obvious what the better approach for a payment network is, and which project will win and which will fail (or be forced into adaptation). But for some reason, people have their blinders on simply because the underlying technology is different. Why!?!? I don't get how the digital currency world has not woken up to this fact yet.

Give us a few years, then come back and tell us whether we were the "dumbasses".

Amazing write up Ryan, well said!

[TanteStefana2]

Nice steady rise for DASH in the market lately, it's still following that long term trend.  

Im betting $10-$15 new stable range post d10e.

Then as dev ramps up and more services come onboard $15-$30 by years end.

Evolution release next year $40-$80

Isn't the first public beta of Evolution scheduled for summer of 2018?

https://github.com/evan82/dash-roadmap

That was written before the core team decided they could break up the pieces and send some out for bit.  There has already been money set aside in the budget system to hire C++ programmers, as well as Java, I think, etc... and they hope to speed up that schedule a lot.

[stealth923]

Nice steady rise for DASH in the market lately, it's still following that long term trend.  

Im betting $10-$15 new stable range post d10e.

Then as dev ramps up and more services come onboard $15-$30 by years end.

Evolution release next year $40-$80

Isn't the first public beta of Evolution scheduled for summer of 2018?

https://github.com/evan82/dash-roadmap

That was written before the core team decided they could break up the pieces and send some out for bit.  There has already been money set aside in the budget system to hire C++ programmers, as well as Java, I think, etc... and they hope to speed up that schedule a lot.

Precisely why I said next year

[Hippie Tech]

The price is holding up very well considering the amount of sell pressure that is being generated by development funding etc. We all like to keep hold of our Dash but people gotta eat(!) so I'd expect a fair amount of Dash a month in sell supply just to fund various USD commitments. The fact that the price is remaining steady (and rising) suggests that for every Dash being spent on development we are seeing an increase in value to the project.

Who knows where the price will be over the next year, but one things for sure... Every ounce of development will keep adding value to the project... so over a 1-5 year period I'd expect Dash to keep steadily gaining in value.

Walter

What ! ? Eddufield is a beggar too ?

Has the fleecing of the noobs really become that easy ?

You are making an intuitive leap here that is inaccurate. Dash is a self-funding DAO, and a portion of the block rewards are allocated to fund budget proposals. Among these proposals are funding to hire developers, establish bounties, and issue deliverable-based contracts. The development happening now is directed toward Evolution, integrations, etc. This is what the above comment was referencing. Exactly zero Dash of the development proposals have been paid to Mr. Duffield, and he certainly isn't begging to anyone.

I guess it really is ! haha..

How is taxing the miners any different ? Beggars and government wannabes both always have their hands out waiting for more.

Its cryptofiat dumbasses like you that have helped the early adopters fuck the crypto movement. WTG !

A reallocation of the block reward is not the same thing as a tax. Economic forces ensure there is ALWAYS an equilibrium level of hash power that will be reached given a certain reward level. If the reward going to miners is 45% of the block reward, a certain amount of hashpower will result that covers the miners costs plus some market-defined level of expected return on capital. If the allocation to miners were increased to say 90% instead of 45% (just picking numbers to make the math easy), mining would become incredibly profitable at the current 45%-equilibrium hashrate and you would see a resulting rush of new investment in ASICs and buildings to house them and electricity to run them... in the end you would end up at a new equilibrium hash rate that was roughly 2x the current level, resulting in some tiny amount of incremental transactional security (e.g., from 99.999% secure to 99.9995% secure after 3 confirmations or something). EDIT: BUT, the expected economic return to the miners would be the same either way... at 90% you simply get twice as much hashrate as you would at 45%. It's simply a question of "how much hashrate should the network buy in order to ensure the desired level of transactional security?"

The beauty of this system is that the network can allocate resources towards activities other than mining... activities that provide more benefit than some insignificant amount of transactional security. For example, funding a code review, testers, or security-related bounties could improve security even more than more hash rate. Or more development resources might find some new way to secure transactions altogether, like InstantSend does. Or funding masternodes might strengthen the number of full nodes on the network and ensures they are professionally hosted. And these are all things that can improve security.

Now start thinking about all the other things that can be funded like marketing, research, business partnerships, integrations, work tools, development software, public relations... the list goes on. All of which provide benefits. Bitcoin's model (and virtually all coins) in which 100% of every block is directed toward only the need of transactional security (and worse, toward only one of many potential approaches to achieving that) is nothing short of stupidity. Even Satoshi recognized the needs for incentivized nodes, for example.

An analogy is imagine a world in which Visa (the first and largest credit card network for several years now) took all of its revenue and directed it ALL at transactional security. They bought the best firewalls, hired security experts, built their own private internet, hired armed guards to surround their datacenter, and generally went NUTS with anything security related. Sure, the network was really slow, it got saturated with transactions during peak periods, it wasn't very user friendly, and they didn't offer support. In order to pay a merchant, consumers had to learn how to use a long cryptographic "public key" that looked like a bunch of gibberish to your average Joe. But the network generally worked better than checks and was accepted at quite a few places and was SUPER secure. Meanwhile, they had no marketing, no PR, no business development, no sales force, no new services being developed, no customer service, and no legal department. Instead, they set up the Visa Foundation to handle that and asked the merchants and payment processors and end users to donate toward those things or perhaps do it on their behalf. Of course, the foundation was usually broke or close to it, so unfortunately, it wasn't that effective.

Meanwhile, a few years after Visa got started, a rival to Visa emerged called Mastercard. Mastercard started out pretty small, wasn't accepted anywhere and didn't have very many cardholders. But it did something Visa wasn't set up to do... it funded ALL its needs. They had a sales department, marketing department, legal department, customer service call center (once they had enough users), etc. They started rolling out new services like speedy transactions, increased transaction capacity, developed entirely new ways to secure transactions, made their product super user friendly, added a rewards program, and (gasp!) actually HELPED merchants get set up on the platform.

Naysayers of Mastercard pointed out how "insecure" their network was. They laughed that it wasn't accepted anywhere. They ridiculed that no one used it for much. They pointed out how puny their marketing budget was. Many, dubbed "Visa-maximalists" even scoffed at the idea that there could be more than one credit card payment network... after all, surely the confusion of TWO payment networks would only confuse customers and slow the adoption of this amazing new technology! And the idea that they want to PAY their developers directly and NOT through a donation-driven foundation? What are those guys over at Mastercard smoking anyways?!?!

Which network do you think survives in this scenario long term? Which one will be forced to adapt or will inevitably fail? In hindsight, it will be blindingly obvious which network should have won all along and how stupid Visa's approach was. When you put the scenario we live in RIGHT NOW in terms of two credit card networks, it suddenly becomes obvious what the better approach for a payment network is, and which project will win and which will fail (or be forced into adaptation). But for some reason, people have their blinders on simply because the underlying technology is different. Why!?!? I don't get how the digital currency world has not woken up to this fact yet.

Give us a few years, then come back and tell us whether we were the "dumbasses".

Amazing write up Ryan, well said!

Yop. Anyone who can kiss eduNOOB's ass for that long without coming up for air, must really know what they are talking about.

Where is the paragraph which details the 14 1.9 million coin easymine and/or the reward manipulation(s) and/or the de-optimized mining software and/or the "x11 is gpu only" disinfo ? hmmm ?

[MasterMined710]

Mustangs on Monero Mountain

sounds like a gay porn film, not that there's anything wrong with that 

preying on gambling addicts' life savings.

lol, what happens at brokeback mustang monero mountain stays at brokeback mustang monero mountain.

isn't your coin solely funded by a official monero dice gambling site, facepalm.

@TheDashGuy, PM me

funny how a real life scammer like you has the nerve to talk bad about members of the DASH community. how about you instead try and break instantX/instantsend or deanonymize this transaction....

ICEBREAKER, long time no see! Maybe you could help me with a little problem I'm having:

Dash De-anonymization Contest

Icebreaker and other trolleros: I have donated $1 to Monero's development team. I sent 0.25 Dash (TX ID: 59d51690d4b56ddbf1e393fa8d3a49bcfc3247f270f36be3b6ee411802666cba-000) to shapeshift.io, which converted it to Bitcoin and sent it to the official Monero donation address listed at https://getmonero.org/getting-started/donate/.

I challenge you to de-anonymize this transaction. To make it just a little easier, I only used four rounds of Darksend, so it's exponentially less private than it would be with the maximum eight rounds.

Please tell me what address this transaction originated from.

Cheers!

 

[Macno]

The price is holding up very well considering the amount of sell pressure that is being generated by development funding etc. We all like to keep hold of our Dash but people gotta eat(!) so I'd expect a fair amount of Dash a month in sell supply just to fund various USD commitments. The fact that the price is remaining steady (and rising) suggests that for every Dash being spent on development we are seeing an increase in value to the project.

Who knows where the price will be over the next year, but one things for sure... Every ounce of development will keep adding value to the project... so over a 1-5 year period I'd expect Dash to keep steadily gaining in value.

Walter

What ! ? Eddufield is a beggar too ?

Has the fleecing of the noobs really become that easy ?

You are making an intuitive leap here that is inaccurate. Dash is a self-funding DAO, and a portion of the block rewards are allocated to fund budget proposals. Among these proposals are funding to hire developers, establish bounties, and issue deliverable-based contracts. The development happening now is directed toward Evolution, integrations, etc. This is what the above comment was referencing. Exactly zero Dash of the development proposals have been paid to Mr. Duffield, and he certainly isn't begging to anyone.

I guess it really is ! haha..

How is taxing the miners any different ? Beggars and government wannabes both always have their hands out waiting for more.

Its cryptofiat dumbasses like you that have helped the early adopters fuck the crypto movement. WTG !

A reallocation of the block reward is not the same thing as a tax. Economic forces ensure there is ALWAYS an equilibrium level of hash power that will be reached given a certain reward level. If the reward going to miners is 45% of the block reward, a certain amount of hashpower will result that covers the miners costs plus some market-defined level of expected return on capital. If the allocation to miners were increased to say 90% instead of 45% (just picking numbers to make the math easy), mining would become incredibly profitable at the current 45%-equilibrium hashrate and you would see a resulting rush of new investment in ASICs and buildings to house them and electricity to run them... in the end you would end up at a new equilibrium hash rate that was roughly 2x the current level, resulting in some tiny amount of incremental transactional security (e.g., from 99.999% secure to 99.9995% secure after 3 confirmations or something). EDIT: BUT, the expected economic return to the miners would be the same either way... at 90% you simply get twice as much hashrate as you would at 45%. It's simply a question of "how much hashrate should the network buy in order to ensure the desired level of transactional security?"

The beauty of this system is that the network can allocate resources towards activities other than mining... activities that provide more benefit than some insignificant amount of transactional security. For example, funding a code review, testers, or security-related bounties could improve security even more than more hash rate. Or more development resources might find some new way to secure transactions altogether, like InstantSend does. Or funding masternodes might strengthen the number of full nodes on the network and ensures they are professionally hosted. And these are all things that can improve security.

Now start thinking about all the other things that can be funded like marketing, research, business partnerships, integrations, work tools, development software, public relations... the list goes on. All of which provide benefits. Bitcoin's model (and virtually all coins) in which 100% of every block is directed toward only the need of transactional security (and worse, toward only one of many potential approaches to achieving that) is nothing short of stupidity. Even Satoshi recognized the needs for incentivized nodes, for example.

An analogy is imagine a world in which Visa (the first and largest credit card network for several years now) took all of its revenue and directed it ALL at transactional security. They bought the best firewalls, hired security experts, built their own private internet, hired armed guards to surround their datacenter, and generally went NUTS with anything security related. Sure, the network was really slow, it got saturated with transactions during peak periods, it wasn't very user friendly, and they didn't offer support. In order to pay a merchant, consumers had to learn how to use a long cryptographic "public key" that looked like a bunch of gibberish to your average Joe. But the network generally worked better than checks and was accepted at quite a few places and was SUPER secure. Meanwhile, they had no marketing, no PR, no business development, no sales force, no new services being developed, no customer service, and no legal department. Instead, they set up the Visa Foundation to handle that and asked the merchants and payment processors and end users to donate toward those things or perhaps do it on their behalf. Of course, the foundation was usually broke or close to it, so unfortunately, it wasn't that effective.

Meanwhile, a few years after Visa got started, a rival to Visa emerged called Mastercard. Mastercard started out pretty small, wasn't accepted anywhere and didn't have very many cardholders. But it did something Visa wasn't set up to do... it funded ALL its needs. They had a sales department, marketing department, legal department, customer service call center (once they had enough users), etc. They started rolling out new services like speedy transactions, increased transaction capacity, developed entirely new ways to secure transactions, made their product super user friendly, added a rewards program, and (gasp!) actually HELPED merchants get set up on the platform.

Naysayers of Mastercard pointed out how "insecure" their network was. They laughed that it wasn't accepted anywhere. They ridiculed that no one used it for much. They pointed out how puny their marketing budget was. Many, dubbed "Visa-maximalists" even scoffed at the idea that there could be more than one credit card payment network... after all, surely the confusion of TWO payment networks would only confuse customers and slow the adoption of this amazing new technology! And the idea that they want to PAY their developers directly and NOT through a donation-driven foundation? What are those guys over at Mastercard smoking anyways?!?!

Which network do you think survives in this scenario long term? Which one will be forced to adapt or will inevitably fail? In hindsight, it will be blindingly obvious which network should have won all along and how stupid Visa's approach was. When you put the scenario we live in RIGHT NOW in terms of two credit card networks, it suddenly becomes obvious what the better approach for a payment network is, and which project will win and which will fail (or be forced into adaptation). But for some reason, people have their blinders on simply because the underlying technology is different. Why!?!? I don't get how the digital currency world has not woken up to this fact yet.

Give us a few years, then come back and tell us whether we were the "dumbasses".

You should post that on Steemit. Brilliant!

[Minotaur26]

John Bush of SovereignBTC and Brave New Books is proposing to go on road trip with his family representing Dash in a series of meet-ups and libertarian events. Please read his pre-proposal discussion thread and provide feedback on how he could do it.

I think this is a great initiative, we love to see true libertarians like John get actively involved promoting Dash.

https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/pre-proposal-dash-across-america-crypto-only-promotional-road-trip.9751/#post-99448

[Lebubar]

Make your home work, troll is obvious since first post.

Which 14 millions??  End of February 2014 the value of those coins was less than couples of BTC,  who give value to those coins? So GFY  .

[Hippie Tech]

The price is holding up very well considering the amount of sell pressure that is being generated by development funding etc. We all like to keep hold of our Dash but people gotta eat(!) so I'd expect a fair amount of Dash a month in sell supply just to fund various USD commitments. The fact that the price is remaining steady (and rising) suggests that for every Dash being spent on development we are seeing an increase in value to the project.

Who knows where the price will be over the next year, but one things for sure... Every ounce of development will keep adding value to the project... so over a 1-5 year period I'd expect Dash to keep steadily gaining in value.

Walter

What ! ? Eddufield is a beggar too ?

Has the fleecing of the noobs really become that easy ?

You are making an intuitive leap here that is inaccurate. Dash is a self-funding DAO, and a portion of the block rewards are allocated to fund budget proposals. Among these proposals are funding to hire developers, establish bounties, and issue deliverable-based contracts. The development happening now is directed toward Evolution, integrations, etc. This is what the above comment was referencing. Exactly zero Dash of the development proposals have been paid to Mr. Duffield, and he certainly isn't begging to anyone.

I guess it really is ! haha..

How is taxing the miners any different ? Beggars and government wannabes both always have their hands out waiting for more.

Its cryptofiat dumbasses like you that have helped the early adopters fuck the crypto movement. WTG !

A reallocation of the block reward is not the same thing as a tax. Economic forces ensure there is ALWAYS an equilibrium level of hash power that will be reached given a certain reward level. If the reward going to miners is 45% of the block reward, a certain amount of hashpower will result that covers the miners costs plus some market-defined level of expected return on capital. If the allocation to miners were increased to say 90% instead of 45% (just picking numbers to make the math easy), mining would become incredibly profitable at the current 45%-equilibrium hashrate and you would see a resulting rush of new investment in ASICs and buildings to house them and electricity to run them... in the end you would end up at a new equilibrium hash rate that was roughly 2x the current level, resulting in some tiny amount of incremental transactional security (e.g., from 99.999% secure to 99.9995% secure after 3 confirmations or something). EDIT: BUT, the expected economic return to the miners would be the same either way... at 90% you simply get twice as much hashrate as you would at 45%. It's simply a question of "how much hashrate should the network buy in order to ensure the desired level of transactional security?"

The beauty of this system is that the network can allocate resources towards activities other than mining... activities that provide more benefit than some insignificant amount of transactional security. For example, funding a code review, testers, or security-related bounties could improve security even more than more hash rate. Or more development resources might find some new way to secure transactions altogether, like InstantSend does. Or funding masternodes might strengthen the number of full nodes on the network and ensures they are professionally hosted. And these are all things that can improve security.

Now start thinking about all the other things that can be funded like marketing, research, business partnerships, integrations, work tools, development software, public relations... the list goes on. All of which provide benefits. Bitcoin's model (and virtually all coins) in which 100% of every block is directed toward only the need of transactional security (and worse, toward only one of many potential approaches to achieving that) is nothing short of stupidity. Even Satoshi recognized the needs for incentivized nodes, for example.

An analogy is imagine a world in which Visa (the first and largest credit card network for several years now) took all of its revenue and directed it ALL at transactional security. They bought the best firewalls, hired security experts, built their own private internet, hired armed guards to surround their datacenter, and generally went NUTS with anything security related. Sure, the network was really slow, it got saturated with transactions during peak periods, it wasn't very user friendly, and they didn't offer support. In order to pay a merchant, consumers had to learn how to use a long cryptographic "public key" that looked like a bunch of gibberish to your average Joe. But the network generally worked better than checks and was accepted at quite a few places and was SUPER secure. Meanwhile, they had no marketing, no PR, no business development, no sales force, no new services being developed, no customer service, and no legal department. Instead, they set up the Visa Foundation to handle that and asked the merchants and payment processors and end users to donate toward those things or perhaps do it on their behalf. Of course, the foundation was usually broke or close to it, so unfortunately, it wasn't that effective.

Meanwhile, a few years after Visa got started, a rival to Visa emerged called Mastercard. Mastercard started out pretty small, wasn't accepted anywhere and didn't have very many cardholders. But it did something Visa wasn't set up to do... it funded ALL its needs. They had a sales department, marketing department, legal department, customer service call center (once they had enough users), etc. They started rolling out new services like speedy transactions, increased transaction capacity, developed entirely new ways to secure transactions, made their product super user friendly, added a rewards program, and (gasp!) actually HELPED merchants get set up on the platform.

Naysayers of Mastercard pointed out how "insecure" their network was. They laughed that it wasn't accepted anywhere. They ridiculed that no one used it for much. They pointed out how puny their marketing budget was. Many, dubbed "Visa-maximalists" even scoffed at the idea that there could be more than one credit card payment network... after all, surely the confusion of TWO payment networks would only confuse customers and slow the adoption of this amazing new technology! And the idea that they want to PAY their developers directly and NOT through a donation-driven foundation? What are those guys over at Mastercard smoking anyways?!?!

Which network do you think survives in this scenario long term? Which one will be forced to adapt or will inevitably fail? In hindsight, it will be blindingly obvious which network should have won all along and how stupid Visa's approach was. When you put the scenario we live in RIGHT NOW in terms of two credit card networks, it suddenly becomes obvious what the better approach for a payment network is, and which project will win and which will fail (or be forced into adaptation). But for some reason, people have their blinders on simply because the underlying technology is different. Why!?!? I don't get how the digital currency world has not woken up to this fact yet.

Give us a few years, then come back and tell us whether we were the "dumbasses".

Amazing write up Ryan, well said!

Yop. Anyone who can kiss eduNOOB's ass for that long without coming up for air, must really know what they are talking about.

Where is the paragraph which details the 14? 1.9 million coin easymine and/or the reward manipulation(s) and/or the de-optimized mining software and/or the "x11 is gpu only" disinfo ? hmmm ?

Make your home work, troll is obvious since first post.

Which 14 millions??  End of February 2014 the value of those coins was less than couples of BTC,  who give value to those coins? So GFY  .

I knew I was off lol...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash_(cryptocurrency)#Launch

Within the first hour of launch, approximately 500,000 coins were mined, followed by another 1,000,000 coins in the next 7 hours and finally another 400,000 in 36 hours. All told 1.9 million coins were mined in 48 hours, or approximately 32% of the current supply (as of October 2015) of approximately 5.9 million, generating controversy regarding the initial distribution of coins. According to Duffield, this was the result of an error in the code "which incorrectly converted the difficulty, then tried using a corrupt value to calculate the subsidy, causing the instamine".

When did you guys make up that coding error excuse ? This is the first I've heard of it.

If there really was an coding error, why didn't he simply just do a relaunch ?

Could it be that he is just another craptsy/ early adopter insider who doesn't give a flying fuck about a fair launch ?

Lets ties those loose ends together shall we ?

EDIT

I see you ! BigVern and/or muddafudda and/or Horus and/or Crestington.

[toknormal]

it's definitely not "[residing] in a single address". The whole point of mixing coins would be ruined if they'd be put all back together into one single address after mixing. They remain mixed the entire time...

The whole idea of "breaking" anonymity is notionally a nonsense anyway. All cryptocurrency is anonymous in the way that credit money isn't because credit money can’t even exist without a specified 'account holder’ (who’s state of debt or credit represents the ‘money’). Distinctly, blockchain balances exist independently of owners, so by definition one is not "breaking" any anonymity by tracing a transaction from one address to another.

Obscured blockchains have adopted a “credit-money” privacy model because their design philosophy tends to identify an address with a “monetary account”. This is their glaring flaw. Cryptocurrency is not an account of anything because as a monetary unit it is unbacked. Consequently, it’s a commodity in its own right - albeit an electronic one, but that was the whole point behind the invention of bitcoin.

The appropriate “privacy” model is therefore a cash one, not a credit one. What counts is making the balance at each address as indistinct from the balance at any other address as possible, which is why Dash has prioritised its monetary objectives accordingly.

Blockchains are public by nature. The phrase “public-private key cryptography” tells you all you need to know about the appropriate context for obfuscation - i.e. the problem has already been dealt with. You do not go trying to “re-solve” it by obfuscating the public key and turning it back into a private address because you’d then be denying the very basis of why that technology was invented.

The “holy grail” of blockchain based money is therefore to implement optimal fungibility in a public blockchain who’s discrete spendable balances remain under private control. That gives you “cash” rather than an “account of cash” which is what’s needed to acquire a public consensus around its monetary veracity.

It also gives you the precise design priorities behind Dash as a cryptocurrency.

[qwizzie]

Great, now we have trolls that not only manage to bring back boring old thrown in this thread pretty much every two pages instamine accusations tied together with
personal attacks on Dash's lead developer, but they are appearently also seeing things  

Maybe they can see this : you pretty much failed as troll but thank you for bumping our ANN thread


 

[Taylor05]

The price is holding up very well considering the amount of sell pressure that is being generated by development funding etc. We all like to keep hold of our Dash but people gotta eat(!) so I'd expect a fair amount of Dash a month in sell supply just to fund various USD commitments. The fact that the price is remaining steady (and rising) suggests that for every Dash being spent on development we are seeing an increase in value to the project.

Who knows where the price will be over the next year, but one things for sure... Every ounce of development will keep adding value to the project... so over a 1-5 year period I'd expect Dash to keep steadily gaining in value.

Walter

What ! ? Eddufield is a beggar too ?

Has the fleecing of the noobs really become that easy ?

You are making an intuitive leap here that is inaccurate. Dash is a self-funding DAO, and a portion of the block rewards are allocated to fund budget proposals. Among these proposals are funding to hire developers, establish bounties, and issue deliverable-based contracts. The development happening now is directed toward Evolution, integrations, etc. This is what the above comment was referencing. Exactly zero Dash of the development proposals have been paid to Mr. Duffield, and he certainly isn't begging to anyone.

I guess it really is ! haha..

How is taxing the miners any different ? Beggars and government wannabes both always have their hands out waiting for more.

Its cryptofiat dumbasses like you that have helped the early adopters fuck the crypto movement. WTG !

A reallocation of the block reward is not the same thing as a tax. Economic forces ensure there is ALWAYS an equilibrium level of hash power that will be reached given a certain reward level. If the reward going to miners is 45% of the block reward, a certain amount of hashpower will result that covers the miners costs plus some market-defined level of expected return on capital. If the allocation to miners were increased to say 90% instead of 45% (just picking numbers to make the math easy), mining would become incredibly profitable at the current 45%-equilibrium hashrate and you would see a resulting rush of new investment in ASICs and buildings to house them and electricity to run them... in the end you would end up at a new equilibrium hash rate that was roughly 2x the current level, resulting in some tiny amount of incremental transactional security (e.g., from 99.999% secure to 99.9995% secure after 3 confirmations or something). EDIT: BUT, the expected economic return to the miners would be the same either way... at 90% you simply get twice as much hashrate as you would at 45%. It's simply a question of "how much hashrate should the network buy in order to ensure the desired level of transactional security?"

The beauty of this system is that the network can allocate resources towards activities other than mining... activities that provide more benefit than some insignificant amount of transactional security. For example, funding a code review, testers, or security-related bounties could improve security even more than more hash rate. Or more development resources might find some new way to secure transactions altogether, like InstantSend does. Or funding masternodes might strengthen the number of full nodes on the network and ensures they are professionally hosted. And these are all things that can improve security.

Now start thinking about all the other things that can be funded like marketing, research, business partnerships, integrations, work tools, development software, public relations... the list goes on. All of which provide benefits. Bitcoin's model (and virtually all coins) in which 100% of every block is directed toward only the need of transactional security (and worse, toward only one of many potential approaches to achieving that) is nothing short of stupidity. Even Satoshi recognized the needs for incentivized nodes, for example.

An analogy is imagine a world in which Visa (the first and largest credit card network for several years now) took all of its revenue and directed it ALL at transactional security. They bought the best firewalls, hired security experts, built their own private internet, hired armed guards to surround their datacenter, and generally went NUTS with anything security related. Sure, the network was really slow, it got saturated with transactions during peak periods, it wasn't very user friendly, and they didn't offer support. In order to pay a merchant, consumers had to learn how to use a long cryptographic "public key" that looked like a bunch of gibberish to your average Joe. But the network generally worked better than checks and was accepted at quite a few places and was SUPER secure. Meanwhile, they had no marketing, no PR, no business development, no sales force, no new services being developed, no customer service, and no legal department. Instead, they set up the Visa Foundation to handle that and asked the merchants and payment processors and end users to donate toward those things or perhaps do it on their behalf. Of course, the foundation was usually broke or close to it, so unfortunately, it wasn't that effective.

Meanwhile, a few years after Visa got started, a rival to Visa emerged called Mastercard. Mastercard started out pretty small, wasn't accepted anywhere and didn't have very many cardholders. But it did something Visa wasn't set up to do... it funded ALL its needs. They had a sales department, marketing department, legal department, customer service call center (once they had enough users), etc. They started rolling out new services like speedy transactions, increased transaction capacity, developed entirely new ways to secure transactions, made their product super user friendly, added a rewards program, and (gasp!) actually HELPED merchants get set up on the platform.

Naysayers of Mastercard pointed out how "insecure" their network was. They laughed that it wasn't accepted anywhere. They ridiculed that no one used it for much. They pointed out how puny their marketing budget was. Many, dubbed "Visa-maximalists" even scoffed at the idea that there could be more than one credit card payment network... after all, surely the confusion of TWO payment networks would only confuse customers and slow the adoption of this amazing new technology! And the idea that they want to PAY their developers directly and NOT through a donation-driven foundation? What are those guys over at Mastercard smoking anyways?!?!

Which network do you think survives in this scenario long term? Which one will be forced to adapt or will inevitably fail? In hindsight, it will be blindingly obvious which network should have won all along and how stupid Visa's approach was. When you put the scenario we live in RIGHT NOW in terms of two credit card networks, it suddenly becomes obvious what the better approach for a payment network is, and which project will win and which will fail (or be forced into adaptation). But for some reason, people have their blinders on simply because the underlying technology is different. Why!?!? I don't get how the digital currency world has not woken up to this fact yet.

Give us a few years, then come back and tell us whether we were the "dumbasses".

Amazing write up Ryan, well said!

Yop. Anyone who can kiss eduNOOB's ass for that long without coming up for air, must really know what they are talking about.

Where is the paragraph which details the 14 1.9 million coin easymine and/or the reward manipulation(s) and/or the de-optimized mining software and/or the "x11 is gpu only" disinfo ? hmmm ?

I do know what I'm talking about. I have an MBA with a concentration in Finance and Economics from a top 10 business school, became an associate partner at a worldwide management consulting firm which is widely considered the most prestigious in the industry where I served financial services clients, and most recently led the research and due diligence for the payments sector at a $20 billion investment firm. I am now sought by payments startups to help them with strategy and market positioning. So I'm actually a leading expert in the payments segment.

The paragraph on the "easymine" was not included because you didn't ask about it. But since you are asking now, here is my previous write-up on the subject (updated slightly since the initial post last October).

Let's do some simple math to see whether the early mining data aligns with Evan's claims. Let's assume that Evan (or his colleague) were the ONLY miners for the first 500 blocks (that's the worst case scenario... you can't assume he mined more than 100%). If we simply determine the network hash rate for the first 100 blocks (using the networkhashps command in the Dash wallet), you can see that there was only 12.6kh/s... however, there is a delay between the genesis block and the first "mined" block. If you exclude the genesis block, the hashrate was about 395kh/s. This is probably his hashrate, but let's be conservative and assume it took time to get everything going. From blocks 100-500 the average jumps to 711.2kh/s and appears pretty steady that whole time. Let's assume that this 711.2kh/s is Evan and his friends. They would have gotten about 245,000 of the first 250,000 coins mined (through block 500).

By block 500, things start to change. A few other miners are clearly joining them by this point, but assuming the 711 of the 895 kh/s were theirs from block 500-600, then they still got 79% of those blocks too (worth about 40,000 Dash). If you repeat this process to figure out the share of each block of 100 they got, you get something like the following:

EDIT: The coin start and coin finish are the beginning total coins in circulation and ending coins in circulation for each set of 100 blocks... so the difference is how many were created for each 100 block section... multiply that by the dev's share and you can see where I get the numbers from.


http://imgur.com/Se5USkw

Each row represents 100 blocks. As you can see, by about block 1,000, the hashrate was up dramatically... this is consistent with posts on Bitcointalk of many other miners saying they were up and running. There are a couple of points at which network hash drops, consistent with the fact that a couple of bug fixes went out which probably caused Evan and other miners to stop mining for a brief time to update. By block 2300, Evan and Co's share was probably less than 1% of the network hash rate, by which time these estimates would put them at about 511k coins. After that, there is little chance they got a decent share... maybe another 6,000 coins for the next 1,000 blocks, but basically the party was over by then, so to speak. So if you assume they got about 518k coins by the time they were consistently getting less than 1% of the coins, that represents 7.8% of the current number of coins in circulation... which is very consistent with the statements from Evan that "all of the founders" hold less than 10% of the supply combined as of early 2015 (when the available supply was much lower than even now).

Also, these assumptions are generous to the "instamine" crowd for several reasons:

1) It assumes that Evan was the ONLY miner for the first 500 blocks, which we know isn't true. There was at least one other developer at that time, I believe a friend of Evan's who sold out in the first few months... so the "instamine" would have been split at least between two people
2) It assumes no one else besides those two were mining for the first 500 blocks (which may be the case... we'll never know, but I make this assumption in the interests of being conservative)
3) It assumes that Evan and Co had absolutely no down time for updating their miners when bug fixes came out, which is impossible... any downtime would reduce these assumptions
4) It assumes that once huge amounts of mining power joined beginning at block 500 that Evan didn't start experiencing an elevated level of rejects... this is unlikely as well since blocks were being created so rapidly at that time - literally seconds apart on average - that he and many others reported rejects, getting on wrong chains, having to reset, etc. Evan would have no way to be immune to these issues caused by the rapid creation of the blocks and network latency, so the true "networkhashps" is clearly understated during that period because many blocks were rejected and not counted. This means that my calculations overstate the share of blocks he would have been getting at that time.
5) It assumes that he never sold any Dash

Based on the data, I see no reason to disbelieve Evan and the stated amount of coin that he has. In fact, the data seems to support everything he's said.

As far as the code itself goes, there was no crippled miner (I think you are thinking of Monero). The code that set the mining reward and difficulty was inherited from Litecoin's code and limited the rate that the difficulty and mining reward would change. There is no evidence that it was intentionally planted there, so I tend to believe that Evan just wasn't aware of every line in Litecoin's code when he forked it. Also, Evan never claimed that X11 was GPU only forever. He said it would be ASIC resistant for at least two years, with the intent to follow the same adoption path as Bitcoin (wide distribution through mining, then ASICs later on). That is exactly what happened. No broken promises there. As for why no relaunch or no airdrop of coins or whatever to fix it? All those options were discussed by the community at the time. The community decided those were bad ideas... read the forums from those early days. It was already trading on exchanges and it would have been unfair to those who had purchased coins instead of mining them to reset.

If you want professional discourse and really seek information, I'm happy to provide it. However, this is my last response to you unless you drop loaded language, name calling, swearing, and other unprofessional behavior. Last chance to avoid the ignore button. Actually, I mainly posted here despite your behavior for the benefit of other forum readers... you are spreading misinformation that originated from forum trolls.

[Hippie Tech]

Also.....................

Who runs this site?

http:// dashwisdom. com/

Is not displaying any data

It won't allow the virus scanners full access to the website. Only 1 file ? What about the others ?

https://quttera.com/detailed_report/dashwisdom.com

[iCEBREAKER]

what the message is you're trying to bring across?

The message:

Duffield's advertisement of "8-15% return on your money in the bank" is tacky and economically impossible.  (If it was real, capital would flood into the rare opportunity and drive rates down to market levels).


D10E should not allow the Dash Ponzi to turn their conference into a Get Rich Quick seminar.

Why would it be tacky and economically impossible?

You really don't know what's tacky about Get Rich Quick seminars?  Wow.  Just wow.

It's tacky to take advantage of unsophisticated/unaccredited rubes potential investors by throwing around big figures like "8-15%" to put dollar signs in their eyes.

I already told you why it's economically impossible, but you didn't quote that explanation.

Here it is again:

If [a business opportunity safely providing above-market gains] was real, capital would flood into the rare opportunity and drive rates down to market levels.

Did you ever take Econ 1?  The excess profit curbing feature of marginalism is usually covered first in high school, then more thoroughly in university.

Perhaps, like TheDashGuy, you dropped out before they covered all that confusing "supply and demand" stuff.   

OK, now let's look forward to more giant pictures of the Dash roadmap and Golden Gate Bridge and other shitty stock images, because forum sliding is such a great way to get people excited about Dash and its Giant Instamine!

[toknormal]

I already told you why it's economically impossible, but you didn't quote that explanation.

Better tell owners of these investments then since I don't think they read your explanation either  

Anglo American (Yield: 15.3%)
BHP Billton (Yield: 11.6%)
Glencore (Yield: 11.4%)
Vedanta Resources (Yield: 10.6%)
Amec Foster Wheeler (Yield: 10.4%)
Standard Chartered (Yield: 9.8%)
Rio Tinto (Yield: 8.1%)
Royal Dutch Shell (Yield: 8.1%)
Aberdeen Asset Management (Yield: 8%)

In economic theory, supernormal profits are unsustainable - that is true. But thats long run market behaviour and in the case of an asset like Dash would take the form of competing cryptocurrencies implementing a similar investment / revenue model. Even then, the dilution of gains would only manifest itself in dollar terms since the yield on a given principle (measured in Dash) is fixed.

Bring 'em on !!  

[bigrcanada1]

The price is holding up very well considering the amount of sell pressure that is being generated by development funding etc. We all like to keep hold of our Dash but people gotta eat(!) so I'd expect a fair amount of Dash a month in sell supply just to fund various USD commitments. The fact that the price is remaining steady (and rising) suggests that for every Dash being spent on development we are seeing an increase in value to the project.

Who knows where the price will be over the next year, but one things for sure... Every ounce of development will keep adding value to the project... so over a 1-5 year period I'd expect Dash to keep steadily gaining in value.

Walter

What ! ? Eddufield is a beggar too ?

Has the fleecing of the noobs really become that easy ?

You are making an intuitive leap here that is inaccurate. Dash is a self-funding DAO, and a portion of the block rewards are allocated to fund budget proposals. Among these proposals are funding to hire developers, establish bounties, and issue deliverable-based contracts. The development happening now is directed toward Evolution, integrations, etc. This is what the above comment was referencing. Exactly zero Dash of the development proposals have been paid to Mr. Duffield, and he certainly isn't begging to anyone.

I guess it really is ! haha..

How is taxing the miners any different ? Beggars and government wannabes both always have their hands out waiting for more.

Its cryptofiat dumbasses like you that have helped the early adopters fuck the crypto movement. WTG !

A reallocation of the block reward is not the same thing as a tax. Economic forces ensure there is ALWAYS an equilibrium level of hash power that will be reached given a certain reward level. If the reward going to miners is 45% of the block reward, a certain amount of hashpower will result that covers the miners costs plus some market-defined level of expected return on capital. If the allocation to miners were increased to say 90% instead of 45% (just picking numbers to make the math easy), mining would become incredibly profitable at the current 45%-equilibrium hashrate and you would see a resulting rush of new investment in ASICs and buildings to house them and electricity to run them... in the end you would end up at a new equilibrium hash rate that was roughly 2x the current level, resulting in some tiny amount of incremental transactional security (e.g., from 99.999% secure to 99.9995% secure after 3 confirmations or something). EDIT: BUT, the expected economic return to the miners would be the same either way... at 90% you simply get twice as much hashrate as you would at 45%. It's simply a question of "how much hashrate should the network buy in order to ensure the desired level of transactional security?"

The beauty of this system is that the network can allocate resources towards activities other than mining... activities that provide more benefit than some insignificant amount of transactional security. For example, funding a code review, testers, or security-related bounties could improve security even more than more hash rate. Or more development resources might find some new way to secure transactions altogether, like InstantSend does. Or funding masternodes might strengthen the number of full nodes on the network and ensures they are professionally hosted. And these are all things that can improve security.

Now start thinking about all the other things that can be funded like marketing, research, business partnerships, integrations, work tools, development software, public relations... the list goes on. All of which provide benefits. Bitcoin's model (and virtually all coins) in which 100% of every block is directed toward only the need of transactional security (and worse, toward only one of many potential approaches to achieving that) is nothing short of stupidity. Even Satoshi recognized the needs for incentivized nodes, for example.

An analogy is imagine a world in which Visa (the first and largest credit card network for several years now) took all of its revenue and directed it ALL at transactional security. They bought the best firewalls, hired security experts, built their own private internet, hired armed guards to surround their datacenter, and generally went NUTS with anything security related. Sure, the network was really slow, it got saturated with transactions during peak periods, it wasn't very user friendly, and they didn't offer support. In order to pay a merchant, consumers had to learn how to use a long cryptographic "public key" that looked like a bunch of gibberish to your average Joe. But the network generally worked better than checks and was accepted at quite a few places and was SUPER secure. Meanwhile, they had no marketing, no PR, no business development, no sales force, no new services being developed, no customer service, and no legal department. Instead, they set up the Visa Foundation to handle that and asked the merchants and payment processors and end users to donate toward those things or perhaps do it on their behalf. Of course, the foundation was usually broke or close to it, so unfortunately, it wasn't that effective.

Meanwhile, a few years after Visa got started, a rival to Visa emerged called Mastercard. Mastercard started out pretty small, wasn't accepted anywhere and didn't have very many cardholders. But it did something Visa wasn't set up to do... it funded ALL its needs. They had a sales department, marketing department, legal department, customer service call center (once they had enough users), etc. They started rolling out new services like speedy transactions, increased transaction capacity, developed entirely new ways to secure transactions, made their product super user friendly, added a rewards program, and (gasp!) actually HELPED merchants get set up on the platform.

Naysayers of Mastercard pointed out how "insecure" their network was. They laughed that it wasn't accepted anywhere. They ridiculed that no one used it for much. They pointed out how puny their marketing budget was. Many, dubbed "Visa-maximalists" even scoffed at the idea that there could be more than one credit card payment network... after all, surely the confusion of TWO payment networks would only confuse customers and slow the adoption of this amazing new technology! And the idea that they want to PAY their developers directly and NOT through a donation-driven foundation? What are those guys over at Mastercard smoking anyways?!?!

Which network do you think survives in this scenario long term? Which one will be forced to adapt or will inevitably fail? In hindsight, it will be blindingly obvious which network should have won all along and how stupid Visa's approach was. When you put the scenario we live in RIGHT NOW in terms of two credit card networks, it suddenly becomes obvious what the better approach for a payment network is, and which project will win and which will fail (or be forced into adaptation). But for some reason, people have their blinders on simply because the underlying technology is different. Why!?!? I don't get how the digital currency world has not woken up to this fact yet.

Give us a few years, then come back and tell us whether we were the "dumbasses".

Amazing write up Ryan, well said!

Yop. Anyone who can kiss eduNOOB's ass for that long without coming up for air, must really know what they are talking about.

Where is the paragraph which details the 14 1.9 million coin easymine and/or the reward manipulation(s) and/or the de-optimized mining software and/or the "x11 is gpu only" disinfo ? hmmm ?

I do know what I'm talking about. I have an MBA with a concentration in Finance and Economics from a top 10 business school, became an associate partner at a worldwide management consulting firm which is widely considered the most prestigious in the industry where I served financial services clients, and most recently led the research and due diligence for the payments sector at a $20 billion investment firm. I am now sought by payments startups to help them with strategy and market positioning. So I'm actually a leading expert in the payments segment.

The paragraph on the "easymine" was not included because you didn't ask about it. But since you are asking now, here is my previous write-up on the subject (updated slightly since the initial post last October).

Let's do some simple math to see whether the early mining data aligns with Evan's claims. Let's assume that Evan (or his colleague) were the ONLY miners for the first 500 blocks (that's the worst case scenario... you can't assume he mined more than 100%). If we simply determine the network hash rate for the first 100 blocks (using the networkhashps command in the Dash wallet), you can see that there was only 12.6kh/s... however, there is a delay between the genesis block and the first "mined" block. If you exclude the genesis block, the hashrate was about 395kh/s. This is probably his hashrate, but let's be conservative and assume it took time to get everything going. From blocks 100-500 the average jumps to 711.2kh/s and appears pretty steady that whole time. Let's assume that this 711.2kh/s is Evan and his friends. They would have gotten about 245,000 of the first 250,000 coins mined (through block 500).

By block 500, things start to change. A few other miners are clearly joining them by this point, but assuming the 711 of the 895 kh/s were theirs from block 500-600, then they still got 79% of those blocks too (worth about 40,000 Dash). If you repeat this process to figure out the share of each block of 100 they got, you get something like the following:

EDIT: The coin start and coin finish are the beginning total coins in circulation and ending coins in circulation for each set of 100 blocks... so the difference is how many were created for each 100 block section... multiply that by the dev's share and you can see where I get the numbers from.


http://imgur.com/Se5USkw

Each row represents 100 blocks. As you can see, by about block 1,000, the hashrate was up dramatically... this is consistent with posts on Bitcointalk of many other miners saying they were up and running. There are a couple of points at which network hash drops, consistent with the fact that a couple of bug fixes went out which probably caused Evan and other miners to stop mining for a brief time to update. By block 2300, Evan and Co's share was probably less than 1% of the network hash rate, by which time these estimates would put them at about 511k coins. After that, there is little chance they got a decent share... maybe another 6,000 coins for the next 1,000 blocks, but basically the party was over by then, so to speak. So if you assume they got about 518k coins by the time they were consistently getting less than 1% of the coins, that represents 7.8% of the current number of coins in circulation... which is very consistent with the statements from Evan that "all of the founders" hold less than 10% of the supply combined as of early 2015 (when the available supply was much lower than even now).

Also, these assumptions are generous to the "instamine" crowd for several reasons:

1) It assumes that Evan was the ONLY miner for the first 500 blocks, which we know isn't true. There was at least one other developer at that time, I believe a friend of Evan's who sold out in the first few months... so the "instamine" would have been split at least between two people
2) It assumes no one else besides those two were mining for the first 500 blocks (which may be the case... we'll never know, but I make this assumption in the interests of being conservative)
3) It assumes that Evan and Co had absolutely no down time for updating their miners when bug fixes came out, which is impossible... any downtime would reduce these assumptions
4) It assumes that once huge amounts of mining power joined beginning at block 500 that Evan didn't start experiencing an elevated level of rejects... this is unlikely as well since blocks were being created so rapidly at that time - literally seconds apart on average - that he and many others reported rejects, getting on wrong chains, having to reset, etc. Evan would have no way to be immune to these issues caused by the rapid creation of the blocks and network latency, so the true "networkhashps" is clearly understated during that period because many blocks were rejected and not counted. This means that my calculations overstate the share of blocks he would have been getting at that time.
5) It assumes that he never sold any Dash

Based on the data, I see no reason to disbelieve Evan and the stated amount of coin that he has. In fact, the data seems to support everything he's said.

As far as the code itself goes, there was no crippled miner (I think you are thinking of Monero). The code that set the mining reward and difficulty was inherited from Litecoin's code and limited the rate that the difficulty and mining reward would change. There is no evidence that it was intentionally planted there, so I tend to believe that Evan just wasn't aware of every line in Litecoin's code when he forked it. Also, Evan never claimed that X11 was GPU only forever. He said it would be ASIC resistant for at least two years, with the intent to follow the same adoption path as Bitcoin (wide distribution through mining, then ASICs later on). That is exactly what happened. No broken promises there. As for why no relaunch or no airdrop of coins or whatever to fix it? All those options were discussed by the community at the time. The community decided those were bad ideas... read the forums from those early days. It was already trading on exchanges and it would have been unfair to those who had purchased coins instead of mining them to reset.

If you want professional discourse and really seek information, I'm happy to provide it. However, this is my last response to you unless you drop loaded language, name calling, swearing, and other unprofessional behavior. Last chance to avoid the ignore button. Actually, I mainly posted here despite your behavior for the benefit of other forum readers... you are spreading misinformation that originated from forum trolls.

Great post Taylor.   I remember vividly trying to get all my miners up at that time trying to get in.

[elishagh1]

Dash Masternode Counts Soar: 4000 and Beyond - DashPay Magazine
http://dashpaymagazine.com/index.php/2016/07/17/dash-masternode-counts-soar-4000-beyond/

[iCEBREAKER]

I already told you why it's economically impossible, but you didn't quote that explanation.

Better tell owners of these investments then since I don't think they read your explanation either  

Anglo American (Yield: 15.3%)
BHP Billton (Yield: 11.6%)
Glencore (Yield: 11.4%)
Vedanta Resources (Yield: 10.6%)
Amec Foster Wheeler (Yield: 10.4%)
Standard Chartered (Yield: 9.8%)
Rio Tinto (Yield: 8.1%)
Royal Dutch Shell (Yield: 8.1%)
Aberdeen Asset Management (Yield: 8%)

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-texas-sharpshooter

Some investments will by definition out-perform while others under-perform.  Duh.  Variance is a thing.

It would be impossible for all stocks to underperform, because that would change the benchmark.  Again, duh.

I didn't claim the zero-marginal-profit equilibrium is attained instantly.  Do you know what the terms "friction" and "incomplete information" mean in economics?

Those stocks you listed?  They do well some years, which you've cherry-picked, and worse other years.

You have to take your money out of the bank to gain exposure to those stocks, in contrast to the snake oil claims of Evan Scamfield.

The interesting thing is they exhaustively disclose the potential risks to investors, rather than advertise in advance blanket claims of ""8-15% return on your money in the bank."

Evan Scamfield makes no such legally required disclosures in his get-rich-quick MLM HYIP marketing.  And you don't bat an eye, just like a OneCoin pumper.

The only way to avoid such disclosure is to be privately owned, which contradicts Dash's pretense of being a DAO.

http://www.inc.com/encyclopedia/sec-disclosure-laws-and-regulations.html

Small businesses and other enterprises that are privately owned may shield information from public knowledge and determine for themselves who needs to know specific types of information. Companies that are publicly owned, on the other hand, are subject to detailed disclosure laws about their financial condition, operating results, management compensation, and other areas of their business. While these disclosure obligations are primarily linked with large publicly traded companies, many smaller companies choose to raise capital by making shares in the company available to investors. In such instances, the small business is subject to many of the same disclosure laws that apply to large corporations. Disclosure laws and regulations are monitored and enforced by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

All of the SEC's disclosure requirements have statutory authority, and these rules and regulations are subject to changes and amendments over time.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/229.305

17 CFR 229.305 - (Item 305) Quantitative and qualitative disclosures about market risk.

http://www.sec.gov/investor/alerts/bulletin-formadv.htm