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

[WastedLTC]

Imagine bitcoin hits $200,000.

That would value a Dash masternode at a $150,000 at the current ratio. Masternode revenue for a single node at $2200 per week and for the whole network at $10 million per WEEK.

Lost me on that calculation.     Think you mean 1500 per Dash and 1.5 million per MN.

$200000 BTC * 0.0078 = 1560 (dash) * 1000 = $1560000 (mn)

[TaoOfSaatoshi]

Bitfinex/Tether to Stand Trial, The Coindesk 20, Earn Dash on Discord...and more! | CATV LIVE

After upgrading the audio settings last week, CATV LIVE returns this week with brand new visuals. Tether (through Bitfinex) is apparently missing 850M dollars of users funds, and is going to stand trial. Coindesk releases their top 20 ranking, but how did they arrive at their conclusions? If you are personable, and like chatting with like-minded individuals, there may be some crypto-making opportunities coming up on Dash Nation on Discord. All this and more on this weekend's CATV LIVE!



Today at 3:30PM UTC. Thanks for watching and participating!

[qwizzie]

Tether freezes 7.9 Million USDT
https://hive.blog/hive-167922/@themarkymark/tether-freezes-7-9-million-usdt

Did you know Tether can freeze your wallet address?

Over 7.9M USDT has been frozen by Bitfinex as requested by law enforcement.

"Turns out 39 addresses have been banned from using USDT on Ethereum as of now."
- Philippe Castonguay

Why am i thinking of centralized banks all of a sudden ?
Be your own bank !!

[jdmcg]

To jdmcg :

What are your thoughts on the proposed changes on Dash budget system ? (to be presented and voted upon in a later cycle, if the blockreward allocation decision proposal passes)
Making the treasury allocation possibly flex higher then the current 10% ?


Source : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUf76R2V3pY&feature=emb_logo
Timestamp 1:16:15

I quickly looked at it... wasn't clear on whether the treasury allocation could be below 10% but it does sound like it can be and that there would never be any Dash 'burned' going forward.  Whatever gets approved by the masternodes up to a maximum of 20% would be created for the treasury, the remainder would be split between masternodes and miners.

Maybe that's good, not sure but maybe masternodes approve nothing to get a larger share?

If 10% is still the minimum allocation for the treasury then that problem is avoided but it'd be curious to see if it ever went over 10%. I could see the odd time hitting 11%...

I'd need to see the full proposal I think to make up my mind. What's the problem and how is it being solved.

[toknormal]

One of the nice things about the new reward ratio is that it now exposes over half of Dash's entire primary supply to statutory taxation.

This will assist governments with rebuilding their fiat economies.

So notwithstanding nodes in crypto fiscal paradises, that's up to $160k per week that needs to get dumped purely to cover the tax bill on the new supply. $8 million per year at current prices. As the price goes up, so does the tax bill.

Unfortunately our 100% mined counterparts are not similarly exposed and so they will not be assisting their tax authorities to the same extent.

[qwizzie]

To jdmcg :

What are your thoughts on the proposed changes on Dash budget system ? (to be presented and voted upon in a later cycle, if the blockreward allocation decision proposal passes)
Making the treasury allocation possibly flex higher then the current 10% ?

Source : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUf76R2V3pY&feature=emb_logo
Timestamp 1:16:15

I quickly looked at it... wasn't clear on whether the treasury allocation could be below 10% but it does sound like it can be and that there would never be any Dash 'burned' going forward.  Whatever gets approved by the masternodes up to a maximum of 20% would be created for the treasury, the remainder would be split between masternodes and miners.

Maybe that's good, not sure but maybe masternodes approve nothing to get a larger share?

If 10% is still the minimum allocation for the treasury then that problem is avoided but it'd be curious to see if it ever went over 10%. I could see the odd time hitting 11%...

I'd need to see the full proposal I think to make up my mind. What's the problem and how is it being solved.

I think it means that if there is a large number of budget proposals passing the 10% threshold (thereby expanding the budget allocation to an allocation between 10 and 20%), it will automatically deduct that additional percentage of allocation from the masternode and mining rewards (in a 60/40 ratio). On the other hand if the budget allocation is less then 10%, then that unallocated percentage will be added to masternodes and miners (also in a 60/40 ratio).

Which just introduces uncertainty in ROI in my eyes, and the possibility of unintended voting behavior. Masternode operators could vote in such a way that the 10 to 20% budget allocation will not be reached, so they are not getting cut on their masternode rewards. Or even try to vote in such a way that they receive a larger share. Or entities with a large number of masternodes could do the opposite, to get certain budget proposals passed that they perhaps have a special interest in.

To be honest, i am not totally sure if i understand the flexible allocation proposal in all its details either.

[jdmcg]

One of the nice things about the new reward ratio is that it now exposes over half of Dash's entire primary supply to statutory taxation.

This will assist governments with rebuilding their fiat economies.

So notwithstanding nodes in crypto fiscal paradises, that's up to $160k per week that needs to get dumped purely to cover the tax bill on the new supply. $8 million per year at current prices. As the price goes up, so does the tax bill.

Unfortunately our 100% mined counterparts are not similarly exposed and so they will not be assisting their tax authorities to the same extent.

I don't follow... I would think both mining and masternode earnings would be taxed the same way across most jurisdictions.

I thought the US treated it as income at the price it was mined/staked and the majority of other countries treat it as income only when sold and at the price it's sold at... at least the latter is how it works for me.

[toknormal]

I don't follow... I would think both mining and masternode earnings would be taxed the same way across most jurisdictions.

Most of mining turnover is cost so very little proportionally is taxable. (Assuming mining at a profit. None is if mining at a loss).

Masternode margin over cost is near 100% so it's almost all taxable.

[jdmcg]

based on the pushed theories (presented as obvious facts) ETH should plummet in value like PPC when it finally goes POS.

Not necessarily. "Pushed theories" account for 2 categories of asset as described at the end of this post: Ether is a computing platform and has a different monetary basis from Dash or PPC.

The only thing Ryan is trying to achive is to make a price pump if he can entice a few more masternodes to come on line and hodl the collatoral. That is not long term thinking

That's the only explanation I can see for this craziness, why everybody is voting for it and why nobody can adequately defend the logic behind it.

They all want out on the next pump.

No worries. I'll be joining them.

Right, so you already made up your mind. But it's still very disingenuous of you to compare DASH to PPC.

PPC's POS does something very much similar to POW, it doesn't really add much and PPC's POW is in direct competition with BTC. Same with NMC...

Dash's masternodes are not POS, no matter how many times you say it. It adds features POW can't, privatesend, instantsend, chainlocks and dash platform when released.

I'm still not completely clear what you're upset at, 1) the proposal to slightly change miner/masternode rewards or 2) the miner/masternode rewards from the beginning which you seemingly used to agree with before this brutal bear market...

Dash platform would move it closer to what ETH is, no?

[toknormal]

I'm still not completely clear what you're upset at, 1) the proposal to slightly change miner/masternode rewards or 2) the miner/masternode rewards from the beginning which you seemingly used to agree with before this brutal bear market...

Dash platform would move it closer to what ETH is, no?

I've always supported the idea of incentivised nodes, in fact it's why I invested in the first place. But it's a question of degree.

I didn't think too much about it until this proposal came up, in fact when DCG presented the idea in December.

If you're a crypto person, you tend to get used to the idea that coins just "pop" out of the blockchain with value attached.
If you're an economist you're also quite comfortable with the idea that "money printing" has a viable basis.
But if you're a bookkeeper and you see revenue then you're always looking for the other side of the entry to see where the expense is and whether it's viable. (I'm not a bookkeeper, just half a lifetime of building accounting systems in software for businesses).

This set me off down the path of actually thinking about the mining business model and accounting for the various capital flows. To me crypto isn't inherently valuable. It has value because it catalyses capital flows between real people in the real world. In doing that I came to the conclusion that the problem has been inadequately framed (in terms of minimising the flow of Dash denominated mining rewards to market) and when you frame it more completely you come to the opposite conclusion: that all of the primary supply is always sold regardless of relative reward ratio. Further, that the masternode margin causes us to have to draw a lot more fiat from markets than Bitcoin and Litecoin et al do for the same proportional supply production.

See for example for a different way of looking at it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg54754054#msg54754054

I was also very skeptical of the assertion that "we don't need all this hashrate". I think we're about to find out that we do - or at least we need a large part of our supply to be as competitively mined as possible if it isn't doing some other job that delivers measurable value back to the investor.

Saying we have "value added" features like instantsend and privatesend is true but not really relevant to the economics of things. These features don't cost the masternodes anything to support relative to the revenue they draw from the network. Even just intuitively, margins like that are not sustainable - in any business. You end up paying for it somewhere and I've shown in other posts the possible mechanics by which we end up paying for it in chronic loss of marketcap share.

Most of all I'm gobsmacked at the lack of effort to explain or account for the reason that the split reward ratio has not made us more competitive compared with our 100% mined counterparts. The evidence is there staring us in the face. They have BOTH more mining reward (which we claim is our problem) AND less functional versatility (which we claim is our strength). Yet we choose to ignore this and are now doubling down on more of the same, citing arbitrary excuses such as "too much supply growth", "first mover advantage" or "market bias" obstructing our growth. These are not adequate explanations IMO. Anything except consider that the mining business model might actually have a basis to it in stabilising the asset as a store of value or that expensive masternode margins may be leeching out or competitiveness from the investment market's perspective.

I find that reckless.

[afbitcoins]

Dash could hit page 3 on CMC at 10k sats and still have 5000 masternodes, just not with the same owners as when they cost $1 million a pop.

True

Most of all I'm gobsmacked at the lack of effort to explain or account for the reason that the split reward ratio has not made us more competitive compared with our 100% mined counterparts. The evidence is there staring us in the face. They have BOTH more mining reward (which we claim is our problem) AND less functional versatility (which we claim is our strength). Yet we choose to ignore this and are now doubling down on more of the same ..

Its the twilight zone.

[jdmcg]

I'm still not completely clear what you're upset at, 1) the proposal to slightly change miner/masternode rewards or 2) the miner/masternode rewards from the beginning which you seemingly used to agree with before this brutal bear market...

Dash platform would move it closer to what ETH is, no?

I've always supported the idea of incentivised nodes, in fact it's why I invested in the first place. But it's a question of degree.

I didn't think too much about it until this proposal came up, in fact when DCG presented the idea in December.

If you're a crypto person, you tend to get used to the idea that coins just "pop" out of the blockchain with value attached.
If you're an economist you're also quite comfortable with the idea that "money printing" has a viable basis.
But if you're a bookkeeper and you see revenue then you're always looking for the other side of the entry to see where the expense is and whether it's viable. (I'm not a bookkeeper, just half a lifetime of building accounting systems in software for businesses).

This set me off down the path of actually analysing the mining business model and accounting for the various capital flows. To me crypto isn't inherently valuable. It has value because it catalyses capital flows between real people in the real world. In doing that I came to the conclusion that the problem has been wrongly framed (in terms of minimising the flow of Dash denominated mining rewards to market) and when you frame it more completely, you come to the opposite conclusion: that all of the primary supply is always sold regardless of relative reward ratio. Further, that the masternode margin causes us to have to draw a lot more fiat from markets than Bitcoin and Litecoin et al do for the same proportional supply production.

See for example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg54754054#msg54754054

I was also very skeptical of the assertion that "we don't need all this hashrate". I think we're about to find out that we do - or at least we need a large part of our supply to be as competitively mined as possible if it isn't doing some other job that delivers measurable value back to the investor.

Saying we have "value added" features like instantsend and privatesend is true but not really relevant to the economics of things. These features don't cost the masternodes anything to support relative to the revenue they draw from the network. Even just intuitively, margins like that are not sustainable - in any business. You end up paying for it somewhere and I've shown in other posts the possible mechanics by which we end up paying for it in chronic loss of marketcap share.

Most of all I'm gobsmacked at the lack of effort to explain or account for the reason that the split reward ratio has not made us more competitive compared with our 100% mined counterparts. The evidence is there staring us in the face. They have BOTH more mining reward (which we claim is our problem) AND less functional versatility (which we claim is our strength). Yet we choose to ignore this and are now doubling down on more of the same, citing all sorts of excuses such as "first mover advantage" or "market bias" obstructing our growth. Anything except consider that the mining business model might actually have a basis to it in stabilising the asset as a store of value or that expensive masternode margins may be leeching out or competitiveness from the investment market's perspective.

I find that reckless.

It just doesn't seem to me the proposal changes the ratio that much though. In 3 years will miners stop since the reward will be reduced to 1 DASH instead of 1.15 DASH every 2.5 minutes? DASH is the top X11 coin by far, hashrate keeps going up too...

If the proposal was to change the masternode reward from 1.15 DASH to 1 DASH in 3 years would most masternodes quit at once? Not sure they would. I assume this would be the proposal you'd want or would you look for a larger reduction?

No DASH holder is happy with the market share loss but that doesn't mean it's because of what you've outlined. Somehow I can't follow completely your line of logic to draw the same conclusions you do. Yes, the masternode reward far exceeds the cost to operate a masternode on face value. Are there hidden costs? Maybe, cost to acquire 1000 DASH and not trade or use it for another investment maybe? It's somewhat speculation, and I haven't seen a convincing argument yet. Maybe once we reach something closer to mass adoption this will become a bigger problem. As of now, metrics indicate growth in new users/addresses every month so new money seems to still come in. And this is the case for BTC and ETH too...

Why would anyone hold a masternode right now if the rewards were reduced substantially? Almost all the new competitors have copied to some extent Dash's governance/treasury and ROI for holding coins and typically offer more than 6%.

DASH has only been thru one bull market so far and to me has survived this bear market well enough and has enough exposure to do well this next upcoming bull market.

Honestly, I'm somewhat indifferent to whether this proposal passes or not. It almost certainly will pass but it seems to me so slight a change that I would think DASH's fate will be the same regardless. We can try to understand how everything interacts but I haven't read anything which predicts this future.

Perhaps during a bear market we see all the new hype for new projects and loss of interest for old projects. DASH was the new shiny thing last time. At some point the hype passes and people rediscover the old survivors (like LTC in last run up).

Personally, I'm more focused and excited for what Dash Platform can bring.

[toknormal]

Yes, the masternode reward far exceeds the cost to operate a masternode on face value. Are there hidden costs? Maybe, cost to acquire 1000 DASH and not trade or use it for another investment maybe?

That isn't a cost, it's a capital investment and so cannot be offset against the operating revenue of a masternode. It doesn't affect the margin. There are no hidden costs (I know cos I've run one for years) apart from the capital loss incurred when the market devalues the coin. That's how it can destroy these margins if we fail to put them to good use. Which would be either:

 • protecting a larger proportion of the coin supply scarcity with competitive mining (restoring mining reward) or
 • having masternodes invest a large part of the margin back into the network in some service provision capacity

Why would anyone hold a masternode right now if the rewards were reduced substantially?

This depends on how you denominate the "rewards". Since Dash isn't a stablecoin the reward is dependent on the exchange rate. At its peak, the masternode reward was around $83k per projected annum. Right now it's around $5k per annum. I ask you the same question: "why would anyone hold a masternode when the potential capital loss far outweighs the reward itself ?"

The idea is that by restoring the mining reward we'd become more competitive in terms of investment (by needing to draw less capital from fiat markets as I've outlined in other posts) and restore price growth. This would INCREASE (dollar denominated) masternode rewards, not decrease them.

I realise this conclusion is counter-intuitive but it's rational all the same when you work through things on a fiat measured basis and consider the cryptocurrency market as a whole rather than simply draw a line around Dash miners and masternodes. It's at least as justifiable as the "shot in the dark" that's being taken now - IMO more so since it's based on known quantities and relationships rather than on speculated ones.

It also has observable evidence on its side while the current proposal does not. 10% change may not seem much but the problem is it's in the wrong direction and we're already suffering enough from loss of marketcap share.

There are 3 groups of voters to be convinced here, not just 1:

 • masterndoes
 • non-masternode Dash holders (who vote in markets)
 • non-Dash holders (who vote in markets)

Convincing the first group is not enough. Their interests may or not be in conflict with the other 2 so people need to be slightly more sophisticated and not think like a turkey. I know what I will vote and which of those 3 groups I need to appeal to, unfortunately it's not the popular option. Which one of us ends up the turkey, only the second & third of those groups can decide.

******************************************

Fork it.

I think DCG should just fork the code. One at 30% mining reward and the other at 70%. Then let the miners & market discover which priority is more valuable. It would be an amazing experiment and worthwhile because it would empirically prove one or other priority as viable with market endorsement. A "controlled burn" version of the Ethereum fork minus the community contention. All current investors would be on both sides anyway and it would be a piece of research that's pioneering, instructive and at the same time would generate media interest and ultimately investment as people bet on one side or the other.

[qwizzie]

So we finally arrive at the hard fork part, it sure took toknormal long enough. Only instead of doing the hard fork himself, toknormal wants Dash Core Group to do the hard fork for him.
A hard fork to demonstrate that his theory works and gets most valued by the market. That is just lazy and unrealistic thinking. Dash Core Group does not value his theory, so they will most
certainly not going to put any time or energy into supporting it.

Dash does not do hard forks like that, because our governance system allows us to move forward without a need for hard forks. It has done that in the past and it will continue doing that.
If toknormal wants to hard fork, he will need to do it himself and be cut from this project forever. Without any support from Dash Core Group.

From projecting ultimate disaster for Dash, to now showing a strong willingness to hard fork Dash, toknormal sure is showing his true colors.
I can't believe certain people would fall for these rather obvious scare and divide tactics, but perhaps i don't know certain people as well as i thought i did.

[jdmcg]

• having masternodes invest a large part of the margin back into the network in some service provision capacity

I think the original thought (Evan Duffield's) was that running a masternode would at some point require specialized and expensive hardware to be able to scale the network. It seems research has determined that the DASH network can scale more or less as is without this requirement now. I would assume though that Dash platform will require masternodes to upgrade their servers but probably not at too great a cost.

This depends on how you denominate the "rewards". Since Dash isn't a stablecoin the reward is dependent on the exchange rate. At its peak, the masternode reward was around $83k per projected annum. Right now it's around $5k per annum. I ask you the same question: "why would anyone hold a masternode when the potential capital loss far outweighs the reward itself ?"

As the crypto markets go thru each cycle of boom and bust on its way to mass adoption it creates a roller coaster of emotions from euphoria to misery. Buying at peaks is risky if not foolish and yet it's human nature to rush in with the herd and then sell at a loss at the bottom. Buying BTC at the peak hurt too but those who hold long enough should be just fine.

The idea is that by restoring the mining reward we'd become more competitive in terms of investment (by needing to draw less capital from fiat markets as I've outlined in other posts) and restore price growth. This would INCREASE (dollar denominated) masternode rewards, not decrease them.

I realise this conclusion is counter-intuitive but it's rational all the same when you work through things on a fiat measured basis and consider the cryptocurrency market as a whole rather than simply draw a line around Dash miners and masternodes. It's at least as justifiable as the "shot in the dark" that's being taken now - IMO more so since it's based on known quantities and relationships rather than on speculated ones.

There's merit to your position but you need to garner support from DCG and the masternodes. I think this proposal has been discussed in great detail over the last 6 months. I assume you were part of the discussions?

It also has observable evidence on its side while the current proposal does not. 10% change may not seem much but the problem is it's in the wrong direction and we're already suffering enough from loss of marketcap share.

That 10% phases in over a 3 year period at the same time the yearly 7%+ reduction continues on schedule. This seems conservative and somewhat in line with Evan's original vision of a 60/40 split before the treasury was put in place. If it is the wrong direction I still can't see this causing hashrate to decline but it should be observed after this proposal is implemented to see any positive or negative effects on mining/hashrate. Miner's aren't going to continue to mine at a loss forever.

Besides if you are right, the implementation of this proposal should cause minimal damage and at the same time help provide increased evidence for your position. A future proposal could always revisit the issue.

With each new ATH and bubble popping, BTC also seems to be losing marketcap share. There's a lot more competition now. As I mentioned already, from 4 years ago BTC is up by 16 times, LTC by 15 times and DASH by 14 times. I used 4 years as this seems to be crytpo's (BTC's) market cycle. So yes, DASH holders have suffered more during this bear market but by how much more? LTC's 15 times vs DASH's 14 times (actually 14.3 times) is a huge difference? Is this because of DASH's masternode rewards? Could be but I'm still more inclined to think it's network effect and first mover advantage and DASH has done quite well against 2 coins that have already gone thru full market cycles.

In any case it seems silly to be complaining about 14 times increase over 4 years... this is such a once in a life time opportunity. Of course, if people are trying to get in and out over a few months (put in more than they can afford to lose) then yeah one can and will get burned with any crypto.

There are 3 groups of voters to be convinced here, not just 1:

 • masterndoes
 • non-masternode Dash holders (who vote in markets)
 • non-Dash holders (who vote in markets)

This is one of the main reasons I think decentralized masternode shares should be a priority to implement after Dash Platform's initial release (and maybe in a way that's almost invisible to the end user). Not necessarily so much for the % every holder can gain but more so for every DASH holder to be able to have some say in the voting.

Fork it.

I think DCG should just fork the code. One at 30% mining reward and the other at 70%. Then let the miners & market discover which priority is more valuable. It would be an amazing experiment and worthwhile because it would empirically prove one or other priority as viable with market endorsement. A "controlled burn" version of the Ethereum fork minus the community contention. All current investors would be on both sides anyway and it would be a piece of research that's pioneering, instructive and at the same time would generate media interest and ultimately investment as people bet on one side or the other.

Interesting. It would likely generate some exciting and pump like behavior (short term anyway). Seems strange though given we have governance to actually prevent this sort of thing. It might also permanently split the community in 2 groups. Funny, maybe that's one of the reasons BTC and ETH became so successful.

[Tungi17]

This week (7/12) at Dash Core Group!

- Virtual meetup of all development teams to sync up on progress and plan upcoming months.

- Updated the Platform distribution package (mn-bootstrap) with new commands for contract registration and local development setup.

- Completed development for multiple features surrounding DashPay contacts & notifications on Android

https://blog.dash.org/dash-product-update-july-12th-2020-d3b94b800a79

[bigrcanada1]

******************************************

Fork it.

Finally we get to it!  DCG nor the vast majority of MNOs will not help "Fork it" for you.  I knew this was were it is going...as your beliefs are no longer aligned with the current path DASH is on, and this is fine.  These things happen.  I and many of the long term DASH community wish you well on your next crypto venture.  Cheers.

[AzzAz]

There may be those, like me, who were saving during the bear market, believing Dash was at a bargain price. In fact I was saving and also buying on the market too, until Ryans proposal to move the block reward allocation. In my case I feel that the investment I was making is not the same investment anymore. Rug pulled out from under my feet. Now I feel overinvested in an asset that is changing to something else. I have been through similar experiences with another investment (Byteball now OByte) and can see all the warning signs again. I rode byteball down out of the top 100, I don't plan to do that with Dash. You don't think marketcap is important? That is a bit of a losing mentality to be blunt. Dash should be top5, firmly established. The Dash should have value, not be cheap.

Anyway, Just as you can argue that we (ie Dash) pay too much for hashrate you can argue we pay too much for masternodes. How many nodes do we need in order to run the layer two stuff? Have we got too many miners or too many masternodes?   Or too many of both What does having 5000 nodes give you extra compared to 4000 nodes? What does more hashrate give you than less hashrate ? All the same arguments against hashrate can be turned around to the masternodes just as easily. The only thing Ryan is trying to achive is to make a price pump if he can entice a few more masternodes to come on line and hodl the collatoral. That is not long term thinking

Does it matter to your conclusions whether or not masternodes hold most of their earnings?

No. Because masternodes are no different from any other part of the supply. They might hold under one set of circumstances and sell under another. Dash supply is not "locked up in masternodes", it never was because no-one in their right mind would hold onto such a huge capital loss in a bear market, while in a bull market the principal attraction is capital gain, not fixed income so entire nodes will get dumped at the top of a rally. The only people that hold through both are Dash tribalists who do not represent the wider economic landscape.

Yet we currently have 4914 masternode operators that did exactly that (hold onto such a huge capital loss in a bear market). Those 4914 are also pretty close to our ATH (4969), and Dash is not even in a bull market.
Number of masternodes never reached lower then 4500 (discounting network updates causing large fluctuations) throughout this bear market. That is a lot of 'Dash tribalists'
I would dare say 4,5 million Dash (46,9% of Dash circulating supply) staying long term invested despite a rampaging bearmarket, does represent a large portion of the economic landscape.
To me it indicates that there are other factors driving masternode operators. Factors that are getting overlooked or ignored in your theory.

Maybe just maybe your all-explaining theory has holes.
Holes you are never ever willing to admit exists.

Exactly how I feel.
Just to add: I remember Evan here said that 3000 MNs would be enough and 3500 sufficient, like he 'd be happy with that.
And...even XMR trolls are out of here, they do not see DASH competitive anymore...

[AzzAz]

So we finally arrive at the hard fork part, it sure took toknormal long enough. Only instead of doing the hard fork himself, toknormal wants Dash Core Group to do the hard fork for him.
A hard fork to demonstrate that his theory works and gets most valued by the market. That is just lazy and unrealistic thinking. Dash Core Group does not value his theory, so they will most
certainly not going to put any time or energy into supporting it.

Dash does not do hard forks like that, because our governance system allows us to move forward without a need for hard forks. It has done that in the past and it will continue doing that.
If toknormal wants to hard fork, he will need to do it himself and be cut from this project forever. Without any support from Dash Core Group.

From projecting ultimate disaster for Dash, to now showing a strong willingness to hard fork Dash, toknormal sure is showing his true colors.
I can't believe certain people would fall for these rather obvious scare and divide tactics, but perhaps i don't know certain people as well as i thought i did.

Qwizzie, I still see Talk's good will here. Do not bend that he just disagree. Many do so, too. And many already left so you do not hear their opinion here.
Just to add: DCG idea of slow changes move is, for me just doing nothing.
      Ryan, DCG: Do changes now, IMEDIATELLY and see the results!  Not in 5 years!

[qwizzie]

So we finally arrive at the hard fork part, it sure took toknormal long enough. Only instead of doing the hard fork himself, toknormal wants Dash Core Group to do the hard fork for him.
A hard fork to demonstrate that his theory works and gets most valued by the market. That is just lazy and unrealistic thinking. Dash Core Group does not value his theory, so they will most
certainly not going to put any time or energy into supporting it.

Dash does not do hard forks like that, because our governance system allows us to move forward without a need for hard forks. It has done that in the past and it will continue doing that.
If toknormal wants to hard fork, he will need to do it himself and be cut from this project forever. Without any support from Dash Core Group.

From projecting ultimate disaster for Dash, to now showing a strong willingness to hard fork Dash, toknormal sure is showing his true colors.
I can't believe certain people would fall for these rather obvious scare and divide tactics, but perhaps i don't know certain people as well as i thought i did.

Qwizzie, I still see Talk's good will here. Do not bend that he just disagree. Many do so, too. And many already left so you do not hear their opinion here.
Just to add: DCG idea of slow changes move is, for me just doing nothing.
      Ryan, DCG: Do changes now, IMEDIATELLY and see the results!  Not in 5 years!

I am not bending anything. toknormal clearly said he wants to hard fork this project. And he wants Dash Core Group's help with that, which is totally unrealistic as they directly oppose
his view on mining. I have not seen anyone else mentioning a willingness to hard fork Dash, have you ? No, this is pretty much all on toknormal. From now on he will be remembered as
the guy that wants to hard fork Dash, with little regards on how that will affect the Dash community.

Sure many people have left, a long and hard bear market will do that to people. Only those that have a true belief and a longterm strategy in this project will remain.
That is fine with me.  

I think Ryan had a difficult decision to make, he could have done nothing and then get accused of doing nothing or he could initiate some kind of change and then be accused of initiating  
a change in the first place. Anyways this quickwin blockreward allocation change will not be immediate, it will be spread out over 4½ years. And all things considered, it is a minor change.  



I would be surprised if it would even put a dent in our mining hashrate, coming years. But it could slow our circulating supply growth and give less inflation to users, which is what this is all about.