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

[splawik21]

Hello, can anyone here tell me when did RC3 come? I know it's somewhere in 2014. "Trying to Submit my claim to Cryptsy settlement" 

https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/rc3-hard-fork-on-june-20th.1241/

[1714115936]

1714115936

[1714115936]

1714115936

[1714115936]

1714115936

[1714115936]

1714115936

[1714115936]

1714115936

[qwizzie]

Any news on the Dash Budget Proposal Vote Tracker getting functional again with v12.1 ?

link : http://dashvotetracker.com/

[afbitcoins]

It is strongly recommended that everybody update to the latest version 12.0.2 as well as the latest sentinel.  Moocowmoo's Dashman makes this very quick and easy. The sooner most of the network is on 12.0.2 the earlier enforcement can be reenabled. It will be nice to get InstantSend back and not have to worry about the off-chance of a greedy miner not paying one of my nodes.

https://github.com/moocowmoo/dashman

For those of you that are hands on, like me, all I had to do was update dashd and dash-cli by the usual method you use, and as for sentinel, it's very simple.  cd into your sentinel folder, wherever it is, and issue the command: git pull

It should download and merge everything you need into your sentinel.  You are finished.  Just restart dashd, no reindex required.

Thanks

[UdjinM6]

Any news on the Dash Budget Proposal Vote Tracker getting functional again with v12.1 ?

link : http://dashvotetracker.com/

You can use ninja's version instead/for now https://www.dashninja.pl/governance.html

[dnaleor]

Simply beautiful:



(thanks to Raptor73!)

toknormal style

This clearly shows the lack of understanding how Monero works. I'll assume it's just an IQ problem, if not you're just FUDding.

Monero transactions can be proved by both the sender and the receiver.

When the receiver claims that he did not receive the money, 2 things can happen.
1) either the receiver discloses his viewkey. This will result in everybody being able to check if the money did arrive or not.
2) the receiver doesn't want to disclose his viewkey for privacy reasons, and asks for the sender to disclose the transaction private key. This key can prove an outgoing payment from a certain address on a transaction per transaction basis. The sender won't lose privacy when he does this, except for this one transaction.

So the quoted statement is BS.

[dnaleor]

And it's not Monero's fault that those AB users don't know how to use it....that guys an idiot or a lier either way he's not worth my time.

Are you serious ?

This has nothing to do with 'faulty users'. By any satisfactory auditory definition, a transaction is successful when one address balance has been depleted and another credited. (I realise there are other ‘geeky’ definitions that involve transaction IDs but thats not what matters to users and it's not what would matter to any self respecting professional auditor who had to endorse the value of an address balance as a whole rather than a collection of 'discretely verified TX ID's').

In the abscence of a trusted 3rd party arbitor, you therefore need to see the movements at both address balances. The sending and receiving.

Furthermore, the parties that need to see it are:

1. The sending participating party (to verify they’re liability is cancelled)
2. The receiving participating party (for obvious reasons)
3. Non-participating keyholders (because they are exposed to the value of the blockchain based asset and have an interest in the public confidence of the blockchain integrity)
4. Non-participating, non-keyholders (because they are expected to supply goods, services and other currencies in support of your blockchain asset's exchange rate).

You would not want to eat a piece of fruit out of a bowl of rotten apples, even if one of them looked ok. In Bitcoin (and Dash for that matter), everyone sees the whole fruitbowl and everyone has access to the same information without condition or recourse to a third party.

The reason Bitcoin’s blockchain is anonymous but transparent is because there IS no 3rd party arbitor to resolve disputes. Blockchain transparency therefore makes the asset resistant to confidence attacks through rumour, dispute, aspersion and theft. It also gives transacting parties huge protection by supporting the interests of veracity in anecdotal accounts of failed transfers, whether they be due to mis-addressed funds, lack of confirmations, deception, hacks or otherwise.

The problem with the Cryptonote approach (who’s original conception was intended to support trusted party backed ‘credit money’ anyway b.t.w.) is that the participating parties are *on their own* mate. Nobody can see a thing and they’re each dependent on the other’s co-operation for verifying the transaction. If Poloniex say my deposit ‘went through’ and no funds turn up and don’t supply me a TXID or viewkey I’m stuffed. Nor do I have recourse to “the rest of the world”. Take a look at the last 6 years of Bitcoin forums. They’re littered with discussions about addresses, transactions where something went, where it didn’t go.

Thats what gives a blockchain confidence and confidence is what supports its value. If all you have is one end of the transaction or a poxy TXID that you have to beg for, then you’ve a recipe for catastrophe. A while back I said that encryption was the "cancer of cryptocurrency". I didn’t mean that from the point of view of technical failure, I meant it from the perspective that ANY kind of obfuscation in an unbacked asset is corrosive to confidence and it’s only a matter of time before all it’s good for is a temporary payment rail thats valueless.

The reason these coins have no future isn’t because they don’t have good tech. It’s because ‘encrypting stuff’ is dirt cheap these days and doesn’t add any value. (Sticking a gold bar or a diamond in a safe might cost you a small premium, but the price of the safe, not the price of the gold).

On the contrary, when it comes to cryptocurrency, “encrypting stuff” positively detracts form its potential value because we’re talking about a bearer token which draws its worth from authenticity, not obscurity.

How much evidence of that do you need ? If not the above posts (which will be the tip of the Iceberg if people start using it in earnest), try this:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg17896089#msg17896089

BS upon BS

you still need an escrow/arbitor to solve BTC disputes. In XMR, this is the same. The only difference is that an arbitor needs to give the sender a deadline by which he needs to disclose his private transaction key. If he doesn't, than it'll be assumed that he did not send the money. Simple as that.

This is a much better approach than just having all balances of addresses public by default (both the case in BTC and DASH)

edit:

If Poloniex say my deposit ‘went through’ and no funds turn up and don’t supply me a TXID or viewkey I’m stuffed. Nor do I have recourse to “the rest of the world”. Take a look at the last 6 years of Bitcoin forums. They’re littered with discussions about addresses, transactions where something went, where it didn’t go.

Ask yourself, tok, what will you do if Poloniex says your DASH withdrawal went through but you didn't receive it?

The key thing you don't seem to understand is that selective transparency is still possible with monero. You can force your counterparty to disclose his prove that he has sent the money. Selective transparency > default transparency

[MasterMined710]

Simply beautiful:



(thanks to Raptor73!)

This clearly shows the lack of understanding how Monero works. I'll assume it's just an IQ problem, if not you're just FUDding.

Monero transactions can be proved by both the sender and the receiver.

When the receiver claims that he did not receive the money, 2 things can happen.
1) either the receiver discloses his viewkey. This will result in everybody being able to check if the money did arrive or not.
2) the receiver doesn't want to disclose his viewkey for privacy reasons, and asks for the sender to disclose the transaction private key. This key can prove an outgoing payment from a certain address on a transaction per transaction basis. The sender won't lose privacy when he does this, except for this one transaction.

So the quoted statement is BS.

Yeah that's totally gonna scale, not. Problem is you can't really prove anything for sure. For example, that would be a nightmare for people or businesses that want to use a single address, like a laminated QR code etc. The only solution is to generate a new monero address for every transaction. That would work and fix the trust issue but the whole scheme does not scale.
 
That is why tok keeps preaching about the value of transparent blockchain tech like btc and Dash, it scales.

[dnaleor]

Simply beautiful:



(thanks to Raptor73!)

This clearly shows the lack of understanding how Monero works. I'll assume it's just an IQ problem, if not you're just FUDding.

Monero transactions can be proved by both the sender and the receiver.

When the receiver claims that he did not receive the money, 2 things can happen.
1) either the receiver discloses his viewkey. This will result in everybody being able to check if the money did arrive or not.
2) the receiver doesn't want to disclose his viewkey for privacy reasons, and asks for the sender to disclose the transaction private key. This key can prove an outgoing payment from a certain address on a transaction per transaction basis. The sender won't lose privacy when he does this, except for this one transaction.

So the quoted statement is BS.

Yeah that's totally gonna scale, not. Problem is you can't really prove anything for sure. For example, that would be a nightmare for people or businesses that want to use a single address, like a laminated QR code etc. The only solution is to generate a new monero address for every transaction. That would work and fix the trust issue but the whole scheme does not scale.
 
That is why tok keeps preaching about the value of transparent blockchain tech like btc and Dash, it scales.

For proving a transaction as a sender, it can be done on a per transaction basis. You only need your tx private key, the transaction id and the address you've sent the coins to.

For the receiver, you indeed need your viewkey which shows all your incoming transactions, but work is being done to create disposable addresses. This will enable users to have a unique address for every service/person/website/... they interact with.

edit: and as I said, you usually will force the sender to prove he has sent the transaction. So I don't see any privacy problem.

edit:

Yeah that's totally gonna scale, not. Problem is you can't really prove anything for sure.

I don't see your problem with "scaling". The sender can always prove he sent the transaction.

[toknormal]

You can force your counterparty to disclose his prove that he has sent the money.

Nice. A Cryptocurrency who's blockchain state can only be verified through recourse to third parties.

Good luck with that

[wackyD]

Simply beautiful:



(thanks to Raptor73!)

toknormal style

This clearly shows the lack of understanding how Monero works. I'll assume it's just an IQ problem, if not you're just FUDding.

Monero transactions can be proved by both the sender and the receiver.

When the receiver claims that he did not receive the money, 2 things can happen.
1) either the receiver discloses his viewkey. This will result in everybody being able to check if the money did arrive or not.
2) the receiver doesn't want to disclose his viewkey for privacy reasons, and asks for the sender to disclose the transaction private key. This key can prove an outgoing payment from a certain address on a transaction per transaction basis. The sender won't lose privacy when he does this, except for this one transaction.

So the quoted statement is BS.

dnaleor stay on topic please, this is the dash forum, not the monero forum

[dnaleor]

You can force your counterparty to disclose his prove that he has sent the money.

Nice. A Cryptocurrency who's blockchain state can only be verified through recourse to third parties.

Good luck with that

If the sender doesn't, one can assume he didn't send the coins.

answer my question, tok...
What will you do if poloniex says they processed your DASH withdrawal but it doesn't show up in your wallet?

[dnaleor]

dnaleor stay on topic please, this is the dash forum, not the monero forum

If things are said that aren't true, I can correct those statements. Even if that's of topic.

[Macrochip]

dnaleor stay on topic please, this is the dash forum, not the monero forum

If things are said that aren't true, I can correct those statements. Even if that's of topic.

Wrong, Belgian Lard Waffle!

You and your gang of morons tell lies about Dash whenever you open your filthy traps over at your ANN and we don't come over correcting you because we don't give a flying fuck about your scalability desaster that sealed its own doom with overengineered contraptions light years away from real world applicability.
Reported every instance of your drivel.

[MasterMined710]

Yeah that's totally gonna scale, not. Problem is you can't really prove anything for sure. For example, that would be a nightmare for people or businesses that want to use a single address, like a laminated QR code etc. The only solution is to generate a new monero address for every transaction. That would work and fix the trust issue but the whole scheme does not scale.
 
That is why tok keeps preaching about the value of transparent blockchain tech like btc and Dash, it scales.

For proving a transaction as a sender, it can be done on a per transaction basis. You only need your tx private key, the transaction id and the address you've sent the coins to.

For the receiver, you indeed need your viewkey which shows all your incoming transactions, but work is being done to create disposable addresses. This will enable users to have a unique address for every service/person/website/... they interact with.

edit: and as I said, you usually will force the sender to prove he has sent the transaction. So I don't see any privacy problem.

edit:

Yeah that's totally gonna scale, not. Problem is you can't really prove anything for sure.

I don't see your problem with "scaling". The sender can always prove he sent the transaction.

Glad to see a solution is being worked on. It does not scale in that it is a PITA and you can't quickly and easily check the blockchain like with btc and DASH.
I don't see a privacy problem either, i see a trust problem...

Thanks guys, that's better than i thought it was.

"It doesn't prove you sent the amount, but it does prove that amount was sent (and received). – Luigi Oct 3 at 18:46"

So i guess it doesn't show the address it came from just that the amount was sent from someone to the address? The easy solution would be to generate a new address for each transaction.

Not as easy as having a public blockchain anyone could quickly verify but a good solution nonetheless.

I'll ask my other questions when i have more time. Thanks again.

You're welcome and that's correct.

Context:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg16728080#msg16728080



P.S. We are way off topic at this point. I love Dash, that's better  

[wackyD]

dnaleor stay on topic please, this is the dash forum, not the monero forum

If things are said that aren't true, I can correct those statements. Even if that's of topic.

Sorry buddy, the TRUTH is that monero does not scale and has significant usability issues. If you refute this, you are simply in denial

So as I requested, please stay on topic, otherwise please leave

[toknormal]

If the sender doesn't, one can assume he didn't send the coins.

That doesn't exactly help you very much.

The idea of a transparent blockchain is to deter such conflicts in the first place since any party making a claim to have altered the blockchain state will have that claim arbitrated on by the entire userbase, not just by me.

Therefore, Poloniex can make any claim they like as to what state change they've made and that claim is instantly testable, not just by keyholders but by non keyholders also. Furthermore, that applies not only to the positive case but the negative (absence of state change) as well - no 'assumptions' needed.

Encrypted blockchains are designed to keep everyone else out of the loop except the sender and receiver. Thats what makes them ok as an encrypted messaging system but valueless as a monetary asset in their own right (an unbacked one at least) since bearer tokens don't distinguish ownership from possession. The encryption is therefore redundant and only serves to obscure (and potentially corrupt) their authenticity as you've already illustrated by demonstrating that the co-operation of 3rd parties (keyholders) is required to fully verify that a claimed state change did in fact occur.

[Lebubar]

You can force your counterparty to disclose his prove that he has sent the money.

Nice. A Cryptocurrency who's blockchain state can only be verified through recourse to third parties.

Good luck with that

So easy to ask counterparty when you are buying drugs with an anonymous dealer on DN

Anyway the interesting in the image is : "NOBODY IS USING IT! (ndlr: xmr).

/OffTopic

[Macrochip]

Hey Roeland! PM me a death threat. DO IT! Come on!


I dare you! I double dare you motherfucker!

[bigrcanada1]

dnaleor stay on topic please, this is the dash forum, not the monero forum

If things are said that aren't true, I can correct those statements. Even if that's of topic.

Wrong, Belgian Lard Waffle!

....

LOL.  That's the funniest thing I've seen in here in a long time.  

[bigrcanada1]

I don't think we need to sink down to monerons level of idiocy. Let's keep this fairly clean on here everyone.