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

[qwizzie]

If it was free, anyone could get it. Since its tied to a 1000 Dash collateral condition, it is not free.

You should get a job with a central bank. With your propensity for double accounting you're eminently qualified.

That is disappointing. I was hoping on a somewhat more thoughtful reply. I guess when people ran out of counterarguments,
they come up with remarks like that.

Well, it was nice chatting with you toknormal. Take care.

[1713864688]

1713864688

[1713864688]

1713864688

[1713864688]

1713864688

[1713864688]

1713864688

[toknormal]

That is disappointing. I was hoping on a somewhat more thoughtful reply.

The "thoughtful reply" is one that I've laboured add nauseum and that you regularly complain about being over-expressed.

That is that the capital value of your node is not a countable "cost" when it comes to measuring margin over cost of the masternode reward. Also, your remark on "return on investment" is moot because Dash is not a stable coin. The market (not Dash protocol) therefore has the last say on what the ROI is because it depends on the capital value (a.k.a. marketcap) of Dash. So if the market marks us down in that respect - your ROI is zip or negative.

So it all comes back to marketcap, even for Masternode ROI.

Furthermore, as far as our "store of value" performance goes it comes back to competitiveness (of our marketcap) with other mined crypto. If we're not competitive then it follows that our store of value performance is deficient in relative terms. The market will prefer a fully mined coin. So marketcap and ranking DO matter, even by the standards Dash sets itself in terms of ROI, efficiency etc.

[Pang.]

Not my 'free' Dash, which of course is not free Dash but simply Return on Investment.

It's free if it's obtained at a 100% profit margin.

If it was free, anyone could get it. Since its tied to a 1000 Dash collateral condition, it is not free.

Is it free to own shares in a company and receive a dividend?

Is it free to own $ 100,000 in a node, running 24 hours a day 365 days a year?

Is it free to keep the money standing there and assuming an opportunity cost in other businesses?

Masternodes serve a role and are paid for it.

Should other people's use  your computer to store data or run programs be free?

The Dash ecosystem is healthy, there is no problem with nodes or mining.

We can say that Dash remains bearish for not running smart contracts, or for not being an oracle, or for not being immersed in IOT, or for not being a DEFI ... but here and now Dash's problem is not even the miners nor the master nodes.

[toknormal]

Masternodes serve a role and are paid for it.

That isn't in dispute.

The question is what value the market puts on that role. Because, since we are not a stablecoin, the market gets to decide what the "pay" is going to be, not Dash. If the market isn't receiving any added value for that "role" (because none of the masternode revenue isn't invested in any service provision activity) then expect it to react accordingly. Capital flows into Bitcoin, Litecoin, Bitcoin Cash, Monero, Ethereum instead since at least with those blockchains the market gets more mined coin for its investment. (In fact it gets the entire supply).

******************************************************
Here's where you're all missing the point.

Monetary reserves don't pay dividends on a "de-facto" basis. If you buy property, it won't earn any revenue unless you actively DO something with it that the market values to the extent that it pays you additional for the service. Just owning the property doesn't give you a return or doesn't "entitle" you to an ROI. Same with bank deposits (at least back in the days when there was something of an interest rate). The bank can't afford to pay you interest just because you've got you money in there, it has to actually PUT your money to work to earn it. Same with real estate - you buy  it and leave it empty, no revenue will accrue. If no revenue accrues, no capital value will accrue either (in a business sense). Buy equity - you don't get a "return" unless the company is actually doing something in terms of revenue generation.

So owning 1000 Dash and setting up a masternode doesn't entitle anyone to an ROI. Sure, we can program the protocol to add more Dash to our balance. You know what the market's gonna do then ?Trash the price of Dash to make sure there's no REAL ROI, because thats what free markets do unless you give them something for their money.

Mining gives markets something for their money - a share of the blockchain more or less in proportion the market's share in the cost of mining it. So mining is not a problem in this respect, 2+2=4 and revenue flows are accounted for without recourse to revaluation of marketcap. Mining supply "hitting the market" is not a problem because the demand is there (endorsed by competitive mining levels) and the market is just being charged for something it already asked for.

Masternode revenues on the other hand ARE a problem in this respect. (If we want them to be worth anything that is). The idea of the masternode revenue is to ENHANCE the capital value of the coin, not erode it. It was envisaged that the masternode network would provide for a higher performance and more mobile MINED asset than bitcoin's. It was also envisaged that that would come at a cost. Fair enough so it was justified to divert an appropriate portion of the mining supply to masternodes to fund this. EVEN to the extent that masternodes might make a little bit of a profit after costs (like miners often do).

But 60% of the entire mined supply Mostly at near 100% margin ?

We are in fairytale land if we think this is going to make us competitive. It is a massive cost to pass on to the market beyond mining and that's why, far from catapaulting us ahead of our 100% mined competitors, it's catapulted THEM ahead of US and this problem is only going to get more chronic and acute the larger the masternode network gets unless we address it appropriately.

[Dahaa]

How exactly did you come to that conclusion? Where is the evidence qwizzie is a defender of money scams? Where is the evidence he gets paid?

As i thought, all talk but no evidence to support his talks.
This forum is full of people like that.

You're a fucking defender of money scams. How much do you get paid?

No, he just sits there every day and praises this shit. Why are you trying to make people foolish?

[Midas111]

Dash is an important component of truly decentralized finance or as the eth guys call it defi. Its fixed low supply and wide adoption makes it the perfect settlement layer. I guarantee there are people working on dash as settlement layer for smart contracts, and its speed and liquidity make it awesome, it really is better than bitcoin in all ways outside of fame.

[TaoOfSaatoshi]

Anypay and Dash Developers Enable BIP70 on Dash Wallets

Steven Zeiler and Anypay have wanted to implement the payment protocol on the Dash network for a long time. Now this vision has come to be realized, thanks to a collaboration between Anypay and Dash Core developers. What is BIP70, and what does the upgrade mean for the Dash network? Find out on this episode of CATV.



Thanks for watching!

[gembitz]

DASH yobit volume fishy as fuck who masks all the volume on yobit? :-D bwaaahahahrrr

===>

https://yobit.net/en/trade/DASH/BTC

[qwizzie]

DASH yobit volume fishy as fuck who masks all the volume on yobit? :-D bwaaahahahrrr

===>

https://yobit.net/en/trade/DASH/BTC

https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/dash/markets/


Thats some funny shit  
Coinmarketcap seems to have a lot of confidence in their stated Dash volume on Yobit ($22,488,879).



Question is : do we have a lot of confidence in coinmarketcap ? 

[hd49728]

Question is : do we have a lot of confidence in coinmarketcap ? 

Ratings from any sites are not trusted because they can bias ratings to the direction they want it to be. Their ratings can be incorrect from their bugs, or from paid-ratings, sponsored-ratings.

Confidence on coinmarketcap? I don't have it because the website listed many scam coins in 2017 and 2018. Paid them money, surpass their submission verification (don't know what they did the days) and be listed.

[jdmcg]

I've previously stated that there does seem to be some merit to toknormal's argument however I also think he's overestimating its importance.

The majority of the value in any coin/token is derived from pure speculation and with good reason. Any crypto that achieves or even comes close to mass adoption will make holders multi-millionaires at the very least...

Saying there's real world value to mining I'm not sure is 100% true. It's somewhat a mirage. It's a system of busy work to create an arm's race to get rewards and fees. But there's nothing inherently valuable with mining beyond protecting it from 51% attacks. The same rewards get generated regardless of the hash rate. In most POW coins as long as the hash rate is sufficiently high enough that one group can't get 51% of the hash rate to double spend (and violate other rules) then the chain is considered secure. But we even see with ETC that despite the most recent 51%/double spend attack, the price already recovered (perhaps the speculation here is that once ETH goes POS, ETC will be the top Ethash chain).

For every POW chain that's considered more competitive than DASH by toknormal (a total of 8?) there are 100's of other POW coins that are not as competitive, dying or already dead.

Now, let's try to measure 'competitiveness' by taking snapshots of the marketcap from the beginning of the year until now (note: didn't include ADA as I don't think this is POW)

	BTC	ETH	BCH	BSV	LTC	XMR	DASH	ZCASH	ETC
Jan 5, 2020	$134,469,548,249	$14,875,569,430	$4,080,035,773	$2,003,156,469	$2,778,396,525	$940,587,960	$476,326,526	$260,715,783	$570,853,943
Aug 14, 2020	$217,415,449,393	$49,233,254,181	$5,444,846,261	$3,929,592,983	$3,711,626,608	$1,615,209,788	$891,430,846	$834,949,487	$802,247,004
	(+161%)	(+331%)	(+133%)	(+196%)	(+133%)	(+172%)	(+187%)	(+320%)	(+141%)

As you can see DASH is #4 among this group of 9 POW coins for YTD gains, so not the most competitive, but not the least either.

I restate that I believe the market cycle has more to do with a coins 'competiveness' rather than toknormal's theory of masternodes getting too much.

That said, I won't completely discount that there might be something there to look at.

Perhaps trustless masternode shares could be implemented and the collateral be increased maybe from 1000 DASH to 1200 DASH to keep ROI high enough and not have too many masternodes.

Or perhaps instead of trustless masternodes, interest savings could be implemented where maybe people can 'lock up' loose DASH to get 2% or so. Some restrictions like, only up to 200 loose DASH can be locked up per masternode and this 2% would have to come from the masternode reward.

Another thing to look at is the reality that people like to own whole things. People might think BTC is too expensive and since they can't have a whole one will buy some altcoins instead. While it might be a good feature that DASH is scarce and has low coin count, this is also the same thing that can lead to centralization and price volatility. People are ecstatic with the huge upswings in price of DASH during a bull market but then panic with the huge price dumps during a bear market. I think something like LTC and XMR are less volatile simply because there are more coins and likely more individual holders. We see stock splits happen when individual shares become too expensive. It might make sense at some point to consider a 'coin split' where 1 old DASH is exchanged for 10 new DASH. Where 1 old DASH was too expensive for someone to buy any before, they might go ahead and buy 5 new DASH. Overall the price goes up with this psychological trick.

Anyways, just throwing ideas out there. Perhaps, toknormal, one or more of these forms the beginnings of a solution you can propose to the DAO to address the problems you see.

[Midas111]

I've previously stated that there does seem to be some merit to toknormal's argument however I also think he's overestimating its importance.

The majority of the value in any coin/token is derived from pure speculation and with good reason. Any crypto that achieves or even comes close to mass adoption will make holders multi-millionaires at the very least...

Saying there's real world value to mining I'm not sure is 100% true. It's somewhat a mirage. It's a system of busy work to create an arm's race to get rewards and fees. But there's nothing inherently valuable with mining beyond protecting it from 51% attacks. The same rewards get generated regardless of the hash rate. In most POW coins as long as the hash rate is sufficiently high enough that one group can't get 51% of the hash rate to double spend (and violate other rules) then the chain is considered secure. But we even see with ETC that despite the most recent 51%/double spend attack, the price already recovered (perhaps the speculation here is that once ETH goes POS, ETC will be the top Ethash chain).

For every POW chain that's considered more competitive than DASH by toknormal (a total of 8?) there are 100's of other POW coins that are not as competitive, dying or already dead.

Now, let's try to measure 'competitiveness' by taking snapshots of the marketcap from the beginning of the year until now (note: didn't include ADA as I don't think this is POW)

	BTC	ETH	BCH	BSV	LTC	XMR	DASH	ZCASH	ETC
Jan 5, 2020	$134,469,548,249	$14,875,569,430	$4,080,035,773	$2,003,156,469	$2,778,396,525	$940,587,960	$476,326,526	$260,715,783	$570,853,943
Aug 14, 2020	$217,415,449,393	$49,233,254,181	$5,444,846,261	$3,929,592,983	$3,711,626,608	$1,615,209,788	$891,430,846	$834,949,487	$802,247,004
	(+161%)	(+331%)	(+133%)	(+196%)	(+133%)	(+172%)	(+187%)	(+320%)	(+141%)

As you can see DASH is #4 among this group of 9 POW coins for YTD gains, so not the most competitive, but not the least either.

I restate that I believe the market cycle has more to do with a coins 'competiveness' rather than toknormal's theory of masternodes getting too much.

That said, I won't completely discount that there might be something there to look at.

Perhaps trustless masternode shares could be implemented and the collateral be increased maybe from 1000 DASH to 1200 DASH to keep ROI high enough and not have too many masternodes.

Or perhaps instead of trustless masternodes, interest savings could be implemented where maybe people can 'lock up' loose DASH to get 2% or so. Some restrictions like, only up to 200 loose DASH can be locked up per masternode and this 2% would have to come from the masternode reward.

Another thing to look at is the reality that people like to own whole things. People might think BTC is too expensive and since they can't have a whole one will buy some altcoins instead. While it might be a good feature that DASH is scarce and has low coin count, this is also the same thing that can lead to centralization and price volatility. People are ecstatic with the huge upswings in price of DASH during a bull market but then panic with the huge price dumps during a bear market. I think something like LTC and XMR are less volatile simply because there are more coins and likely more individual holders. We see stock splits happen when individual shares become too expensive. It might make sense at some point to consider a 'coin split' where 1 old DASH is exchanged for 10 new DASH. Where 1 old DASH was too expensive for someone to buy any before, they might go ahead and buy 5 new DASH. Overall the price goes up with this psychological trick.

Anyways, just throwing ideas out there. Perhaps, toknormal, one or more of these forms the beginnings of a solution you can propose to the DAO to address the problems you see.

Dash is already divisible. high price hasnt stopped bitcoin adoption

[jdmcg]

Dash is already divisible. high price hasnt stopped bitcoin adoption

Ok, but I'm not suggesting otherwise...

I'm talking about something called Natural Number Bias... some reason we prefer whole numbers. Also, in other psychology, a subconscious assumption that a bigger number is better value.

So if someone has $5 to invest and just wants to get some crypto, 16 XRP may seem to be better value than 0.052 DASH simply because the number 16 is larger. And how many people actually prefer a small fraction of anything?

Or someone might rank a crypto as better just on it having a higher marketcap...

[qwizzie]

And it is official : New ATH in number of active masternodes



Onwards and upwards towards 5000

[Midas111]

Dash is already divisible. high price hasnt stopped bitcoin adoption

Ok, but I'm not suggesting otherwise...

I'm talking about something called Natural Number Bias... some reason we prefer whole numbers. Also, in other psychology, a subconscious assumption that a bigger number is better value.

So if someone has $5 to invest and just wants to get some crypto, 16 XRP may seem to be better value than 0.052 DASH simply because the number 16 is larger. And how many people actually prefer a small fraction of anything?

Or someone might rank a crypto as better just on it having a higher marketcap...

Large increases in price only help adoption. People making money attracts more people. Dash had this effect before, bitcoin has always increased popularity from its huge gains. the question is how do we get dash to increase mcap and stop being held down

[toknormal]

The majority of the value in any coin/token is derived from pure speculation and with good reason. Any crypto that achieves or even comes close to mass adoption will make holders multi-millionaires at the very least...

Adoption for what ?

Most people that have adopted Dash, including most of those holders posting in this thread, have done so for store of value. The objective behind the recent protocol proposals and the split reward is to enhance Dash's store of value performance. That was categorically stated by the DCG announcement and original presentation back in December.

There's nothing inherently valuable with mining beyond protecting it from 51% attacks.

Believe this at your own risk I'd say.

For a start, this argument is completely disproved by market observations. I don't know why anybody even tries to promote it anymore. If you really think that investors are buying network security rather than token scarcity then the most cheaply secured mined blockchains would rise to the top of the rankings. But they don't, the ones with the biggest hashrates do - not because they expend the most energy but because they're demonstrably the most scarce.

Scarcity is not a numerical concept (i.e. you can't create scarcity simply by issuing a small number of anything), it's a reflection of the amount of effort required to acquire the thing. In blockchains, the cost of that effort puts an initial price on the next block. It is not a "speculative" value, it's real, based on the level of prevailing competition in effect at the point of mining the block.

A masternode reward coin is obtained at zero effort and zero cost. I can then theoretically pass that on to another holder for free without incurring a loss, and that user can and so on.

On the other hand, the next block reward in a mined coin cannot be obtained by ANYBODY for less than mining cost (dictated by the prevailing level of competition). Even if I held a million bitcoin like the Winklevosses I couldn't. It's therefore far more scarce by definition and a higher valuation follows. This is what we see in markets. It's what differentiates a supply that's 100% competitively mined and one that's inflated on a purely numerical basis since, in the latter case, we're talking ICO premine or fiat type monetary models which are a whole different ball game.

I don't know how this idea that securing the network cheaply leads lead to a high coin value took hold. It is such a bogus concept and embody's such a mis-understanding of how the market values mined digital assets that I didn't really think it would have legs but some people seem to buy it. Even Ryan didn't explain any mechanism by which a reduction in hashrate feeds through to a higher or more stable coin value. "Saving on hashrate" to boost store of value has about as much logic to it as making diamonds out of glass because they're cheaper to produce and thinking there's a market for them IMO.

Now, let's try to measure 'competitiveness' by taking snapshots of the marketcap from the beginning of the year until now

That is not a measure of competitiveness. By that measure you could demonstrate that a coin ranked at 200 position is "more competitive" than Bitcoin or Ethereum. The point to address is Dash's valuation against competing mined assets that do not have split reward ratios.

There's a very simple reason we're less competitive than them: we have to collect far more fiat from markets than they do, proportionally for each block mined. We need to collect the mining cost PLUS whatever proportion of the masternode reward is sold. As the masternode network gets larger, that overhead gets larger. Our competitors only have to collect the mining cost.

[JollyGood]

Elaborate. Kindly explain in detail then point you are trying to make. Thank you.

Dash is already divisible. high price hasnt stopped bitcoin adoption

[jdmcg]

There's nothing inherently valuable with mining beyond protecting it from 51% attacks.

Believe this at your own risk I'd say.

For a start, this argument is completely disproved by market observations. I don't know why anybody even tries to promote it anymore. If you really think that investors are buying network security rather than token scarcity then the most cheaply secured mined blockchains would rise to the top of the rankings. But they don't, the ones with the biggest hashrates do - not because they expend the most energy but because they're demonstrably the most scarce.

Scarcity is not a numerical concept (i.e. you can't create scarcity simply by issuing a small number of anything), it's a reflection of the amount of effort required to acquire the thing. In blockchains, the cost of that effort puts an initial price on the next block. It is not a "speculative" value, it's real, based on the level of prevailing competition in effect at the point of mining the block.

Perhaps something is valuable just because enough people believe it's valuable...

A masternode reward coin is obtained at zero effort and zero cost. I can then theoretically pass that on to another holder for free without incurring a loss, and that user can and so on.

Isn't it far more likely a masternode owner sells their reward for the cost at which they got their other coins? Or perhaps they'd try to sell their stash at a roughly 6% discount (assuming they collected rewards for a year) to get out without a loss.

It's not theory, but miners actually do sell at a loss just to keep going even in a bear market.

Now, let's try to measure 'competitiveness' by taking snapshots of the marketcap from the beginning of the year until now

That is not a measure of competitiveness. By that measure you could demonstrate that a coin ranked at 200 position is "more competitive" than Bitcoin or Ethereum. The point to address is Dash's valuation against competing mined assets that do not have split reward ratios.

There's a very simple reason we're less competitive than them: we have to collect far more fiat from markets than they do, proportionally for each block mined. We need to collect the mining cost PLUS whatever proportion of the masternode reward is sold. As the masternode network gets larger, that overhead gets larger. Our competitors only have to collect the mining cost.

Wait, what? So you pasting the coinmarketcap rankings showing DASH at the bottom of about 7 or 8 other POW coins to demonstrate that DASH was not as competitive is now not a measure of competitiveness? I was trying to use your criteria... if that's not correct please present something that actually demonstrates that DASH is not as competitive as these other POW coins.  'Because masternode rewards', while possibly is a cause for lack of competitiveness, it certainly doesn't demonstrate this.

So, none of the ideas I suggested (trustless shared masternodes/increased collateral or interest paid by masternodes) help address the store of value problem you see?

[toknormal]

Wait, what? So you pasting the coinmarketcap rankings showing DASH at the bottom of about 7 or 8 other POW coins to demonstrate that DASH was not as competitive is now not a measure of competitiveness? I was trying to use your criteria...

I don't think that's very fair. You're taking a snapshot of growth over an arbitrary (and I stress arbitrary) 6 month period which is meaningless (because growth is not the same thing as market cap. One is a velocity, the other is a quantity).

The more appropriate comparison is taking the relative marketcaps. Those represent the relative values of the entire coin supply since birth, which for most of those coins is 4-5 years. The theory behind the split reward is that it should make Dash more valuable in relative terms (ie. have a larger marketcap than those competitors).

Instead it has made Dash LESS valuable.

We have to ask why the split reward has not worked in our favour and come up with some reasonable answer instead of doubling down on an already failed protocol policy. My answer is not that it isn't effective, but that it's been pushed way beyond the point of diminishing returns. i.e. masternodes are receiving more of the mining reward than investors, but the adverse impact on capital growth offsets this so the net effect is a "negative" reward long term since we have to pay for the reward with a capital loss.

Doesn't mean there won't be periods when, due to the pumping of the entire crypto market, that doesn't hold true, but I'm talking:

A: long term aggregate effect
B: store of value performance relative to 100% mined coins

"B" is clearly not working. The way to fix it is to restore the mining reward by a massive margin. It isn't as if we have much to lose. We're not even in the top 20 anymore and are struggling to even attain $100 per coin valuation. The ratio against bitcoin has collapsed completely. It's not even a third of the ATH from 2014 - Dash's year of birth. So maybe people should stop resting on their laurels, believing in "pumps will save us" economic theory and start putting 2+2 together to reverse the trend.

[qwizzie]

Dash price having another attempt at breaking into the 0.009 range / $110+ ? Stay tuned ..


Source : https://cryptowat.ch/charts/HITBTC:DASH-BTC?period=1d


Source : https://cryptowat.ch/charts/COINBASE-PRO:DASH-USD?period=1d

Here is a Dash chart on a monthly time interval, to put things in perspective, long term  :


Source : tradingview

Long term, Dash still has a long way to go. I see this upward momentum easily stretch into 2021.
At this point i am just waiting for a MA cross on the monthly chart.
I believe that will be the time when the real fireworks starts for Dash.