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

[Dahaa]

Congratulations on the 24th place. So you can congratulate every day

[qwizzie]

So strange that a certain troll who is on everyone's ignore-list, just keeps posting here.
Does it not know it is being ignored, or does it not know it is a troll ?



Here is something for Russian troll Dahaa to think about :



I am thinking that blue fellow, because it looks so cute. But Dahaa is not really all that cute in his posts  
I wonder what happened with his Russian twin brother Alexey45, they used to be so close in this forum.

[Dahaa]

Better to be a troll than to sit and praise scammers for 3 cents!   

[afbitcoins]

Better to be a troll than to sit and praise scammers for 3 cents!   

So I'm guessing you prefer Monero?

[qwizzie]

Transactions count between Bitcoin Cash, Litecoin and Dash :


Source : https://coinmetrics.io/charts/#assets=dash,bch,ltc_roll=14_left=TxCnt_zoom=1569844800000,1601812800000

Bitcoin Cash transactions count is dropping like a brick since May-June this year. I am a bit surprised to see that. I guess Bitcoin Cash users moved to Ethereum or something,
as i am not seeing a sizable increase in Dash or Litecoin transactions count.

This is Bitcoin versus Ethereum transactions count, which are on a totally different scale and where Ethereum is dominating with regards to transactions count :


Source : https://coinmetrics.io/charts/#assets=btc,eth_roll=14_left=TxCnt_zoom=1569844800000,1601812800000

Ethereum increase in transactions count is largely due to the stablecoin tether transactions taking place on Ethereum network these days. Their network must be pretty
taxed out by now. I wonder if Ethereum will find itself in the same situation as in 2017 (network congestion, high gas fees). Only this time not thanks to an dapp
like CryptoKitties, but thanks to tether transactions overwhelming their network ?

[Pang.]

Number of transactions between Bitcoin Cash, Litecoin and Dash :


Source : https://coinmetrics.io/charts/#assets=dash,bch,ltc_roll=14_left=TxCnt_zoom=1569844800000,1601812800000

Bitcoin Cash is dropping fast since May-June this year. I am a bit surprised to see that. I guess Bitcoin Cash users moved to Ethereum or something,
as i am not seeing a sizable increase  in Dash or Litecoin transactions.

This is Bitcoin versus Ethereum transactions :



Ethereum increase in transactions is largely due to the stablecoin tether transactions taking place on their blockchain these days. Their network must be pretty
taxed out by now. I wonder if Ethereum will find itself in the same situation as in 2017 (network congestion, high gas fees). Only this time not thanks to an dapp
but thanks to tether transactions overwhelming their network ?

We have to consider that many transactions are false, and are used by exchange wallets to generate volume as a measure of use in a currency.

The example of XRP is always used with a very high number of transactions.




I think that really Dash or even LTC are indeed used in the real world, and not just on exchanges.

It could even be that 50% of daily transactions were used in the real economy and not between exchanges.

I recently commented among the people in my environment that after years in crypto as an investor and user, I see that the currency that is gaining use is USDT, and the possibility that many cryptos are losing capitalization in favor of USDT is evident.

USDT moves fast, does not require a bank, serves as a reserve for inflationary countries, is not easily expropriated by governments, and is not volatile.

The crypto world will end up being a vassal of the dollar.

Right now the main motivation that I have as a user and holder of Dash is to obtain returns from a master node, or think that little by little dash DIF will invest funds wisely.

As I said I have worked as a private investor for many years and when there is hidden interest in a small company by strong hands, they tear it down for months or even years until they take control of 51% of the shares. Then they leave it and if the company has good fundamentals it begins to gain value over time.

I think that Dash, seeing how the master nodes are growing, is in this situation, there are strong hands that want to be able to control the budget and when this happens, they will set it free and possibly end up being worth a lot.

There is no controversy between master nodes or miners, they are not to blame for the low price of Dash.

The important thing is that Dash is known nationally or globally, and that is not achieved with a cryptocurrency forum.

It is necessary to invest in real advertising, look for real marketing, not the one that DCG sells us, which only serves to put half a dozen advertising spots on web pages, or a video on YouTube that hardly anyone sees unless it is already in this world.

We have to make the leap to the mass media if we want attention.

We have the product, now we need to market it, and if the mass does not know that we exist, we will end up dying.

It is in the hands of the master nodes. It is so simple that I do not understand how it is not done.

Something as simple as 30 seconds on a national television will make people wonder:

what is this?

remember the old days and why master card is what it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDf751c1yiA


a greeting

[qwizzie]

To Pang :

I think once Dash Platform hits Mainnet, we will finally have a much more complete product to offer. A product that will be easier to promote and do marketing for.

A product that can scale, a product that can provide instant transactions, a product that can offer data-type Dapps, a product that can offer data storage, a product that can provide
optional privacy, a product that is protected against double spending, a product that is protected against 51% attacks, a product that functions as a decentralized PaaS (Platform as a Service).

We will most likely need to revise our marketing strategy and check if our current marketing identity is still sufficient.
I suspect it will also be easier then to find consensus on contracting an independent marketing organisation, to focus more on the marketing part.

The reason i think this will happen after Dash Platform hits Mainnet and not before, is because i think it will be harder to organize marketing on an (software) product that is subject to
constant change and is not finalized in its primary form.

That is the big difference between software products and physical products like credit / debit cards, one is constantly evolving through software updates which makes marketing difficult,
while the other is pretty much finalized from the start and ready for marketing.

[Pang.]

To Pang :

I think once Dash Platform hits Mainnet, we will finally have a much more complete product to offer. A product that will be easier to promote and do marketing for.

A product that can scale, a product that can provide instant transactions, a product that can offer data-type Dapps, a product that can offer data storage, a product that can provide
optional privacy, a product that is protected against double spending, a product that is protected against 51% attacks, a product that functions as a decentralized PaaS (Platform as a Service).

We will most likely need to revise our marketing strategy and check if our current marketing identity is still sufficient.
I suspect it will also be easier then to find consensus on contracting an independent marketing organisation, to focus more on the marketing part.

The reason i think this will happen after Dash Platform hits Mainnet and not before, is because i think it will be harder to organize marketing on an (software) product that is subject to
constant change and is not finalized in its primary form.

That is the big difference between software products and physical products like credit / debit cards, one is constantly evolving through software updates which makes marketing difficult,
while the other is pretty much finalized from the start and ready for marketing.

I respect your words and understand what you say.

I don't think the same way, even though I do share parts of what you say.

Windows 95 was a finished product and was sold as such, google in 2004 sold just over $ 80 a share, and so many companies that are promises.

How many biopharmaceuticals sell illusions without having anything in their pipeline?

Dash today is a functional product without use.

It doesn't help me if you tell me that it is used by 10,000 people a day ... that's fine, but it's not enough because there is no critical mass of people.

DCG sometimes seems to me like a team of public officials waiting for the end of the month to collect their payroll.

Occasionally they offer some talks for the holders, they go to presentations, but they don't take the reins or try to take giant steps.

By doing what others do we will not be different.

We have the brand, we have a product that works, and as you affirm, it will soon be even better and offer infinite possibilities. You have to move the tab, and that neither you nor I do ... almost 5000 master nodes will do it, backed by many people who believe in Dash and have invested their money and dreams there.

I swear by my children that if I represent 5000 master nodes with my decisions and all the money and responsibility that this entails, it would be difficult for me to sleep at night without knowing that I do everything necessary to take the project further.

From criticism long-term profitable things come out, but praise usually only leads to mediocrity.

I know that you are a great person and look for the best for Dash, that's why I believe in your words, but understand that a project that capitalizes more than 600 million dollars must offer something extraordinary, but above all, make it reach whoever needs it.

Time is our enemy, let's not let it make us memories.

[bigrcanada1]

Again with the same line...I guess we'll soon see.     I'm not going to go through this all over again. You have your very set thoughts on this and many of us disagree with your analysis.  I have asked several times for you to explain some things and what I seem to get back is a word salad....so I'll just have to agree to completely disagree.  At this point I suggest you move 100% out of DASH and do it sooner then later...because the MN's are going to vote for these changes and your not going to be happy.  There are certainly members in the community that you could start a new project with.   I say this with no ill will, you've been a good person and you have been an great contributing member of this community.  But we have very very different ideologies...good luck. 

[JollyGood]

Excellent article. Your opinions and view were very well articulated.

Everybody at some point will question their investments because that is part and parcel of the investing and reflecting cycle but the way you expressed your views on the where it seems the future will be moving away from PoW towards PoS. If you expressed your views and concerns then you have a right to them. I broadly agree with most of what you wrote in your article.

Masternode owners already benefit to the tune of a massive 40% share of block rewards and they have considerable voting power on top - so there seems to be a huge conflict on interest to say the least.

My answer to the question you asked in your article is categoric and resounding "Yes it does": "Does it seem a bit scammy for masternode owners to decide by vote, amongst themselves, to give themselves more and miners less ?"

Dicing with Dash

For the first time since I got into Darkcoin, or Dash as it is of course nowadays. I am doubting the project. I shall try to explain why.


https://afbitcoins.wordpress.com/2020/06/17/dicing-with-dash/

[qwizzie]

Excellent article. Your opinions and view were very well articulated.

Everybody at some point will question their investments because that is part and parcel of the investing and reflecting cycle but the way you expressed your views on the where it seems the future will be moving away from PoW towards PoS. If you expressed your views and concerns then you have a right to them. I broadly agree with most of what you wrote in your article. Masternode owners already benefit to the tune of a massive 40% share of block rewards and they have considerable voting power on top - so there seems to be a huge conflict on interest to say the least.

My answer to the question you asked in your article is categoric and resounding "Yes it does": "Does it seem a bit scammy for masternode owners to decide by vote, amongst themselves, to give themselves more and miners less ?"

Dicing with Dash

For the first time since I got into Darkcoin, or Dash as it is of course nowadays. I am doubting the project. I shall try to explain why.


https://afbitcoins.wordpress.com/2020/06/17/dicing-with-dash/

How can it be considered 'scammy' when our orginal blockreward schedule also included a planned reduction in blockrewards for miners ? With a 60% (masternodes) and 40% (miners) end goal !!

Masternode Payment schedule :

if(nHeight > 158000) ret += blockValue / 20; //25.0% - 2014-10-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*1)) ret += blockValue / 20; //30.0% - 2014-11-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*2)) ret += blockValue / 20; //35.0% - 2014-12-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*3)) ret += blockValue / 40; //37.5% - 2015-01-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*4)) ret += blockValue / 40; //40.0% - 2015-02-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*5)) ret += blockValue / 40; //42.5% - 2015-03-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*6)) ret += blockValue / 40; //45.0% - 2015-04-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*7)) ret += blockValue / 40; //47.5% - 2015-05-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*9)) ret += blockValue / 40; //50.0% - 2015-07-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*11)) ret += blockValue / 40; //52.5% - 2015-09-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*13)) ret += blockValue / 40; //55.0% - 2015-11-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*15)) ret += blockValue / 40; //57.5% - 2016-01-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*17)) ret += blockValue / 40; //60.0% - 2016-03-23

Does that mean Darkcoin/Dash was scammy from the start ? I don't think so. Miners and masternode operators knew very well what they were getting themselves into (at least those that paid attention).
And yes, we stopped in 2015 with a 45%/45%/10% blockreward split (which was very very fortunate for miners), but that does not mean we are not allowed to change this when we need to.
And it certainly does not mean that by changing it (again), this crypto project suddenly becomes a scam project.  

I am going to repeat this once more, Darkcoin/Dash is and always has been a masternodes-focussed cryptocurrency. If people only start to realize that now (6 years later), then that means those people did not really understand Dash all that well or understand where its power and decision-making lays.  

I understood that perfectly well in 2014 / 2015 --> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=860067.0 and seeing the explosion of masternodes that followed in those early years many many others understood that as well.
People can try to bend this crypto project into a form that they want or desire as much as they want, but if that conflicts with a crypto project's identity and that which really drives such a crypto project,
then those efforts will be pretty pointless and not very realistic.  

[toknormal]

I have asked several times for you to explain some things and what I seem to get back is a word salad....

Ok, I'll make the point less "salady" for you.

The proposed theory is that by reducing the mining reward, less Dash goes to market and therefore price will not be so suppressed. The reason I say this theory is flawed is twofold:

1. the problem is wrongly framed. It should be framed as how much $USD value does Dash have to draw from markets to support mining. Changing the mining reward does not affect this *. Mining costs whatever it costs in USD and that's what gets passed on to markets. If you return ever less coins to that market in return (proportionally, relative to other chains), market will just move its capital elsewhere

2. we've already tested this theory and found it to fail. With our mining ratio ALREADY depleted by over 50% we've dropped out of sight while our 5-year BTC clone competitors have not. All other pure monetary offerings which tried it met a similar fate

Relying solely on "Ah but it'll be different this time" logic may seem comforting to you but it doesn't to me.

==========
* Mining cost doesn't reduce with a reduced reward ratio. It only reduces if mining is less competitive and that can only happen if Dash is in less demand. Mining cost covers the cost of the ENTIRE primary supply.

[NibiruHybrid]

Dash Insights: Institutional Platform LGO To Provide OTC Liquidity For Dash Network

On today's episode Mark Mason speaks with Hugo Renaudin who is the Co-Founder & CEO for LGO Group to learn more about the wide range of financial services they provide for digital assets and the details of their new partnership with Dash.

LGO is a leading digital asset exchange for institutions providing a market for an international and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, and individuals.

Question Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
00:56 What services do LGO provide?
02:10 Details on LGO's new partnership with Dash?
03:48 What is the lower limit for OTC with Dash?
04:28 Why is LGO interested in remittances with Dash?
06:57 Is Dash's scarcity causing any liquidity issues?
07:55 How do LGO and Dash complement each other?
08:28 Is crypto better than traditional payments?

Watch now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpb_e209KcE

[TaoOfSaatoshi]

Dash OGs: Was Evolution Development Too Slow For You?

There was a lot of excitement in the Dash community when Evan Duffield announced the innovative Evolution concept in 2015. A decentralized API, usernames, and a PayPal/Venmo-like experience for a digital currency was the dream. In the intervening years, however, delays and setbacks led some to lose patience and quit supporting the project. In the present, however, the features of Evolution (now called Dash Platform) are very close to being a reality. Did you lose patience with Dash? Find out why it may be time to come back in this episode of CATV.



Thanks for watching!

[aleix]

2. we've already tested this theory and found it to fail. With our mining ratio ALREADY depleted by over 50% we've dropped out of sight while our 5-year BTC clone competitors have not. All other pure monetary offerings which tried it met a similar fate

Tok, your thesis is flawed because you compare us with Bitcoin (the most important coin) and then with peercoin (which is a piece of junk).

You worried about our position in coinmarketcap? Tezos (12), Cardano (8.), Stellar (14), Tron (16), etc. are PoS coins.

Even Ethereum is moving to a pure PoS / masternodes system. Ethereum!

You can do it better  

una abraçada,

[toknormal]

Thanks aleix, nice to hear from you !

Tok, your thesis is flawed because you compare us with Bitcoin (the most important coin) and then with peercoin (which is a piece of junk).

It wasn't a peice of junk at the time. Peercoin was a highly valued asset designed to carry "trunk" payments, i.e. large payments and had a well thought out monetary strategy. It also boasted EXACTLY the type of monetary protocol that Dash is trying to argue will improve its store of value today.

Its split reward ratio was one of the main differences with bitcoin/litecoin et al. Nor was it more of a "peice of junk" than bitcoin or litecoin in any other respect.

Tezos (12), Cardano (8.), Stellar (14), Tron (16), etc. are PoS coins. Even Ethereum is moving to a pure PoS / masternodes system. Ethereum!

True. And that's why I qualified my comparison as being with pure monetary coins. i.e. blockchains which are invested in as a monetary reserve rather than as a business. To justify large margins over cost (as MN returns do) your investment needs to be doing some useful work for somebody at least to within a reasonable margin of the return. "Service oriented" assets need to feature somewhere on this list for example.

Dash is invested in for very different reasons from the likes of ETH, XTZ et al. It's as different as investing in silver on the one hand and airline on shares on the other.

The more poignant question is....if a split reward that's so inconsistent with the value delivered back to the investor is so great, why have we lost so much market share ? People don't want to face this important question.

We already have this protocol adopted and it's not working as advertised. Why ? Because of simple arithmetic as I've outlined above. I like to trust numbers and the numbers say that the only way masternode margins are sustainable in Dash terms is to accept that the market will devalue them in dollar terms over the long run. (Relative to our competitors, which is why I say it ends up as loss of marketcap share).

[aleix]

Thanks aleix, nice to hear from you !

Nice to see you are still kicking.  We need to discuss this with a big jar of beer when the end of the world is over

It wasn't a peice of junk at the time. Peercoin was a highly valued asset designed to carry "trunk" payments, i.e. large payments and had a well thought out monetary strategy. It also boasted EXACTLY the type of monetary protocol that Dash is trying to argue will improve its store of value today.

We are miles away of our competitors. Thousands of miles away from peercoin. Instant transactions, decentralized budget, etc. you know that.

True. And that's why I qualified my comparison as being with pure monetary coins. i.e. blockchains which are invested in as a monetary reserve rather than as a business. To justify large margins over cost (as MN returns do) your investment needs to be doing some useful work for somebody at least to within a reasonable margin of the return. "Service oriented" assets need to feature somewhere on this list for example.

Dash is invested in for very different reasons from the likes of ETH, XTZ et al. It's as different as investing in silver on the one hand and airline on shares on the other.

We are working on that. That's exactly where we are heading now. Programmable silver. With devs programming in our platform we will be an airline too. Thats the league I want to play.

The more poignant question is....if a split reward that's so inconsistent with the value delivered back to the investor is so great, why have we lost so much market share ? People don't want to face this important question.

We already have this protocol adopted and it's not working as advertised. Why ? Because of simple arithmetic as I've outlined above. I like to trust numbers and the numbers say that the only way masternode margins are sustainable in Dash terms is to accept that the market will devalue them in dollar terms over the long run. (Relative to our competitors, which is why I say it ends up as loss of marketcap share).

I undestand your point, but I think you are focusing too much effort trying to explain something that is in part irrational and unpredictible. And you need more unknowns and variables in your equation for that.

When you see the coinmarketcap you see rational individuals taking rational decisions. All I see is a mess of uninformed people wasting money  . IOTA, which is a centralized crap like no other is number 22 in coinmarketcap. Please explain that

btw, all considerations aside, let's be sincere here, the PoW system is an unsustainable relic from the past. We need to move from that. Do we need to mantain focus, we are not the competitors of Bitcoin, we are the competitors of paypal.

[JollyGood]

How can it be considered 'scammy' when our orginal blockreward schedule also included a planned reduction in blockrewards for miners ? With a 60% (masternodes) and 40% (miners) end goal !!

On the basis of what you said there is nothing scammy going on at all but my answer to afbitcoins was based on a different context.

Does that mean Darkcoin/Dash was scammy from the start ? I don't think so. Miners and masternode operators knew very well what they were getting themselves into (at least those that paid attention).
And yes, we stopped in 2015 with a 45%/45%/10% blockreward split (which was very very fortunate for miners), but that does not mean we are not allowed to change this when we need to.
And it certainly does not mean that by changing it (again), this crypto project suddenly becomes a scam project.  

I agree with you, Darkcoin/DASH was probably nowhere near a scam from the start and those that took interest before investing either as miners, masternode operators or investors all should have known what they were getting in to.

I am going to repeat this once more, Darkcoin/Dash is and always has been a masternodes-focussed cryptocurrency. If people only start to realize that now (6 years later), then that means those people did not really understand Dash all that well or understand where its power and decision-making lays.  

I feel that even though the balance of power was always with masternode operators it seems no matter how many miners and DASH holders try to put out an alternative view the only thing that will happen is what the masternode operators say. Even if the set up was designed for that to happen from day one the fact it is correct does not mean miners and investors might feel a little bit ignored.

I understood that perfectly well in 2014 / 2015 --> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=860067.0 and seeing the explosion of masternodes that followed in those early years many many others understood that as well.
People can try to bend this crypto project into a form that they want or desire as much as they want, but if that conflicts with a crypto project's identity and that which really drives such a crypto project,
then those efforts will be pretty pointless and not very realistic.  

Do you feel the status quo of masternode operators controlling the direction of DASH is something that will change one day or do you think it will be a central part of the whole DASH experience?

[toknormal]

We need to discuss this with a big jar of beer when the end of the world is over

We can certainly agree on this point :-)

I think you are focusing too much effort trying to explain something that is in part irrational and unpredictible

Then why are DCG focusing so heavily on it ?

The entire premis of the proposal (to lower mining reward) is based on what they claim happens to the so called "primary supply" and that if the protocol gives less to miners then they'll sell less compared to masternodes. But I agree with you - that this hypothesis is based on assumptions of behaviour that is in fact "irrational and unpredictable".

What isn't "irrational and unpredictable" however is the relationship between a given mining cost, the fiat value required from markets to support it and the marginal overhead of masternode revenue. These are entirely "rational and predictable" because the protocol makes them so. We can also measure (in relative terms) what we demand from the market to keep "ticking' compared with other similar coins.

The problem with this debate is that we're marketing the coin to ourselves. The market does not value chainlocks...we do. It's a technical concept that's redundant in a coin where mining competitivity is high. We can easily have lots of great utility features and still drop to Nº 300 in ranking because technological innovation is cheap and just needs a few programmers for a year or two to produce. This is what will happen if we don't value the core business model that makes any mined coin work - competitive mining. It's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

We can have both because the beauty of the Dash protocol is that it only needs a tiny staking element to add huge amounts of value to the mining model. The service layer can multiply this value, but not if it kills the engine that drives it. The phrase "we don't need all this hashrate" is equivalent to an airline becoming so focused on the in-flight service that they forget they need to make the plane go somewhere. Then they wonder why they lose customers.

[qwizzie]

Do you feel the status quo of masternode operators controlling the direction of DASH is something that will change one day or do you think it will be a central part of the whole DASH experience?

I think masternode operators controlling the direction of DASH has become such an integral part of Dash governance system, that i don't see that changing anytime soon in the future.
Maybe if Dash went from PoW to PoS, then maybe Dash Governance could change with it. But i don't see that switch to full PoS happening anytime soon either (nor do i want that at this point).

Miners can exert some influence on the direction of Dash, by choosing not to support Dash latest code / software. But that works only for a limited time as miners running on older software run the risk
of getting their mined blocks rejected at some point, thereby wasting their time, money and electricity.