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

[thunderjet]

Thank you thunderjet for confirming you are currently not invested in Dash (0 Dash) and for confirming that you plan to keep pushing a false narrative about Dash wealth distribution being centralized,
thereby disregarding hard evidence from the Dash blockchain itself, that very clearly shows the opposite (that the Dash coin wealth distribution is highly decentralized).  

Link : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg55559644#msg55559644

That is all i needed to know. I can safely put you on ignore now.

Here you go again with trolling. Sorry qwizzie,but you dont have birthright on truth or talking about DASH.

Everything I said is truth.You dont have any arguments against it. DASH was made for big holders.Every decision is subjugating to interest of big holders of masternodes and disregarding everyone else.Ownership decentralization exists only in your dreams.Chance for it was missed long time ago.

DASH mining is extremely unprofitable for a long time and what decision DASH team made about it - to make it even more unprofitable ,giving more of coins to masternodes. It is insane decision for one POW coin and finally make everybody crystal clear that theirs economic decisions are always only and only in the interest of big masternode owners and further centralization not only of coins possessions,but mining too.Complete control.Absolute power corrupts absolutely.


You said -  "Large Dash holders having to split their holding is irrelevant to Dash decentralized wealth distribution. They could all be sitting outside the top 10, top 100, top 1000 addresses.It does not change the decentralized nature of Dash wealth distribution."

Are you sure what you are talking about? You are admitting what I said that large holders of DASH splitting theirs coins on numerous addresses at least due to condition for masternode owners of 1000 coins on separate addresses and claiming how that means nothing for wealth distribution.Oh my God !


 




Just look at how much addresses have DASH wallets - hundreds per wallet,even in the case of small ones - https://chainz.cryptoid.info/dash/#!wallets

[1714879635]

1714879635

[1714879635]

1714879635

[jdmcg]

4500 masternodes were established before 2017 bull run.During it,only about 12% sold theirs coins,despite price went up more than 100x. If DASH was truly decentralized,we would see a huge selling of masternode operators coins during the pump and later slowly rebuy.Not at one investor would miss such opportunity to earn 100x, except if you are the one who pump coin and cant dump on yourself.That was first major sign of highly centralized ownership.

Only 12%? Tell me, how did you figure that? Did you actually track all the masternodes as they were taken down to be sold? How do you know they were sold at all? How do you know if they weren't just moved to a new address?

Not one investor would miss such opportunity to earn 100x? Just in this thread I see more than a few Dash hodlers who held too long and did miss the opportunity to earn 100x. I get the distinct impression that toknormal and other disgruntled masternode owners didn't sell during the bull run and that is part of the bitterness they bring here now.

Now all the talk about which coin is more decentralized seems pointless.

Do you really think BTC is that decentralized? How many people in this world own any yet?

[qwizzie]

v0.16 Migration Report — Spork 21 Activation and v0.16.1 Release Announcement

- Spork 21 will be activated a week from now, old nodes will be banned over time.
- v0.16.1 will be released on Friday
- Hard fork lock-in expected in this period or next

https://blog.dash.org/v0-16-migration-report-spork-21-activation-and-v0-16-1-821678cf65aa

Very nice. About 7 days / 14 days to lock-in the hard fork and then 7 more days to activate it. Hopefully this will all be done in three weeks.

[Alexey45]

Here you can take a look at the history and see how much DASH was capitalized, how many masternodes there were, and how many coins were mined at that time.
It is easy to conclude that the larger the capitalization, the more expensive DASH is.
Bitcoin will be pumped up to $ 100K and only then will DASH be pumped

https://stats.masternode.me/network-report/390674

[qwizzie]

Monero "BADCACA" - XMR Tracking Project (with user's porn preferences)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5286887.0

I have been logging Monero transactions for over a year now. Main reason why I decided to go public are blatant lies that there is nothing to worry about Chiphertrace and that Monero is private.
If you are prepared to sit though an 8 hour lecture on how broken Monero is, you will see that even they admit it. However that's obviously a small percentage of people they sell Monero to.

Monero was never a real privacy coin. Multiple problems that Ciphertrace is currently exploiting were reported to Monero project in 2016 and remain unfixed since. To draw attention to the issue
I will publish transactions, IP addresses and porn preferences of 100 "lucky" Monero users every day.

Dahaa better check if he is not one of those 100 ''lucky'' Monero users  

[Tungi17]

25% discount on Amazon by paying with Dash
check Genitrust 💪

https://twitter.com/genitrust/status/1324943835017961472?s=21

[toknormal]

DASH mining is extremely unprofitable for a long time and what decision DASH team made about it - to make it even more unprofitable ,giving more of coins to masternodes. It is insane decision for one POW coin

It sure is. Because there are 2 significant omissions/flaws in the reasoning behind Spork 21 IMO:

   1. expressing and targeting ROI in Dash instead of USD (irrelevant to an investor)

   2. modelling miners and masternodes as demographic groups instead of compoundable factors in the reward function (makes the analysis almost sociological in nature instead of economic)

So, to correct for these two errors we see that a completely different picture emerges as to the optimal approach.

Masternode ROI now becomes: (Reward + Capital Gain or Loss) / Collateral
Mining ROI now becomes: (Reward[at mining difficulty] + Reward[at zero difficulty])/Mining Cost

This is the more complete and correct description of the Dash protocol economic model which is the one that should have been used to determine an optimal "store of value" configuration IMO since roughly half of Dash's supply is effectively mined at zero difficulty. Any "miner" can therefore avail themselves of primary supply:

 • exclusively at mining difficulty
 • exclusively at zero difficulty or
 • a combination of both

Note that there are two significant implications of this which turn the reasoning behind Spork 21 on its head:

   1. while the Dash protocol can set the reward ratio in Dash, the market sets the reward ratio in Dollars.

   2. following from 1, the Dash-determined reward ratio is IRRELEVANT unless its "tuned" to a market-competitive level. If we set it wrong the market will simply work against us to "set it right"

   3. the argument that "restricting supply to miners" is somehow effective in gaming order book liquidity is moot because in the holistic model the entire supply is mined, just at distinct difficulty levels. It is also rendered moot because of the false assumption that demographics are coupled to reward categories which they clearly don't have to be

   4. the argument over whether or not miners run masternodes to subsidise mining is also moot because the Dash protocol ENCOURAGES IT, since the more masternodes a mining cartel runs, then lower their average mining difficulty level is. Masternodes are also a capital asset that can be cashed in at the end of use (unlike mining rigs) so the incentive for hybrid mining is substantial

***************** HOW TO FIX *****************

The problem is that mining profitability is set DIRECTLY by the free market (through difficulty adjustments) whereas masternode profitability is set INDIRECTLY by the free market with recourse to the coin price. We need to eliminate the tension between the market-optimal reward ratio and the protocol-configured reward ratio to get rid of the drag.

Since masternodes are effectively miners in the sense that they receive the primary supply, the mining profitability margin therefore serves as a reference for this (since it's already responsive to the free market). We can even guess it just by looking at a few coins - getting it anywhere near the right level will be infinitely more optimal for growth than what we have at the moment.

[birdonthewire]

DASH mining is extremely unprofitable for a long time and what decision DASH team made about it - to make it even more unprofitable ,giving more of coins to masternodes. It is insane decision for one POW coin

It sure is. Because there are 2 significant omissions/flaws in the reasoning behind Spork 21 IMO:

   1. expressing and targeting ROI in Dash instead of USD (irrelevant to an investor)

   2. modelling miners and masternodes as demographic groups instead of compoundable factors in the reward function (makes the analysis almost sociological in nature instead of economic)

So, to correct for these two errors we see that a completely different picture emerges as to the optimal approach.

Masternode ROI now becomes: (Reward + Capital Gain or Loss) / Collateral
Mining ROI now becomes: (Reward[at mining difficulty] + Reward[at zero difficulty])/Mining Cost

This is the more complete and correct description of the Dash protocol economic model which is the one that should have been used to determine an optimal "store of value" configuration IMO since roughly half of Dash's supply is effectively mined at zero difficulty. Any "miner" can therefore avail themselves of primary supply:

 • exclusively at mining difficulty
 • exclusively at zero difficulty or
 • a combination of both

Note that there are two significant implications of this which turn the reasoning behind Spork 21 on its head:

   1. while the Dash protocol can set the reward ratio in Dash, the market sets the reward ratio in Dollars.

   2. following from 1, the Dash-determined reward ratio is IRRELEVANT unless its "tuned" to a market-competitive level. If we set it wrong the market will simply work against us to "set it right"

   3. the argument that "restricting supply to miners" is somehow effective in gaming order book liquidity is moot because in the holistic model the entire supply is mined, just at distinct difficulty levels. It is also rendered moot because of the false assumption that demographics are coupled to reward categories which they clearly don't have to be

   4. the argument over whether or not miners run masternodes to subsidise mining is also moot because the Dash protocol ENCOURAGES IT, since the more masternodes a mining cartel runs, then lower their average mining difficulty level is. Masternodes are also a capital asset that can be cashed in at the end of use (unlike mining rigs) so the incentive for hybrid mining is substantial

***************** HOW TO FIX *****************

The problem is that mining profitability is set DIRECTLY by the free market (through difficulty adjustments) whereas masternode profitability is set INDIRECTLY by the free market with recourse to the coin price. We need to eliminate the tension between the market-optimal reward ratio and the protocol-configured reward ratio to get rid of the drag.

Since masternodes are effectively miners in the sense that they receive the primary supply, the mining profitability margin therefore serves as a reference for this (since it's already responsive to the free market). We can even guess it just by looking at a few coins - getting it anywhere near the right level will be infinitely more optimal for growth than what we have at the moment.

With all due respect, you've been going around in circles for a long time.

The "reserve of energy value" is a fallacy. The energy spent is not a reserve of value, the deposit chosen to dump that energy (which is really "contained capital") is what adequately reserves the value ... or not. And it even projects it, in its case.

If you shit in a box, that energy used is worth nothing. It is the energy used in a WORK that generates wealth that must be preserved in a suitable reserve of value. And by the way, economic dynamics itself creates added wealth to preserve ... if not ... what is prosperity, prosperous growth? Fiat is centralized and effortlessly created garbage, now ... to believe that it does not create wealth is stupid.

Prosperity is basically a soil of inalienable wealth. Various factors contribute to this beyond an energy expenditure in the initial production.

When monetary issues can be generated by other less expensive channels, other factors must be consolidated in DASH to make it a successful project. What you have to do is preserve that wealth created and that it reverts in the chain ... turn that dynamic into one of progressive accumulation of wealth for the general interest. (which, indeed, is practically monopolized in DASH for the Mnodes ... but that is the question to fix, not an EXPENSIVE energy source whose costs have been optimized - which should be positive for the project - ... that this added value - and more - is intercepted in particular interest during the process and prevents contributing to the common good to enrich the ecosystem).

You have a paradigmatic example of this parasitic sacrifice in a DCG CEO who claims to charge the minimum wage ... while taking his warm cake at the expense of his nodes, with which he constantly drains the system. Mining is not the key to anything, man ... it is another agent that suffers speculation for the centralization of DASH, nothing more.

[toknormal]

When monetary issues can be generated by other less expensive channels, other factors must be consolidated in DASH to make it a successful project.

With "all due respect", this is arrant nonsense in the case of cryptos who's store-of-value proposition is based around a commodity archetype and the last 5 years of trading have shown it to be such.

You're basically arguing that bitcoin would be more valuable if it could be created without all that hashrate.

Be my guest in demonstrating this theory because Dash is already trying it and plummeting out of competitive range of its contemporaries. All these theories are trying to do is justify how "free money" can have value. It's emperor's clothes logic, nothing more and is exposed when you simply present an authentic formula for ROI for masternodes and mining as done above.

[birdonthewire]

When monetary issues can be generated by other less expensive channels, other factors must be consolidated in DASH to make it a successful project.

With "all due respect", this is arrant nonsense in the case of cryptos who's store-of-value proposition is based around a commodity archetype and the last 5 years of trading have shown it to be such.

You're basically arguing that bitcoin would be more valuable if it could be created without all that hashrate.

Be my guest in demonstrating this theory because Dash is already trying it and plummeting out of competitive range of its contemporaries. All these theories are trying to do is justify how "free money" can have value. It's emperor's clothes logic, nothing more and is exposed when you simply present an authentic formula for ROI for masternodes and mining as done above.

 

In the last conversation I had with you, you described my assertions that speculation with stable coins was tremendously fruitful as foolish ... and I ended that debate at the root by showing it in 3 lines, with even greater return, frequency and security than currency trading. open trading. I always read you with interest in discord, you are not the average fool that lives there, despite your obvious errors of concept and that often your vehemence leads you to function on the basis of topics instead of absorbing perspectives that tear down walls with evidence. of you. I sincerely hope that you have overcome that ... because if you are perceived as a restless person ... and that will prevent you from growing and solving the crossroads that arise. Anyway, and since it's your business ... I don't have much time to settle into that. I hope that around here we all know how to get something better.

You are completely lost, because you associate the value of money with the energy expended to produce it - or you give it a totally excessive importance -, which is an enormous stupidity that ignores innumerable and BIGGER conditioning factors between one issue and another that they simply evaluate perfectly your thesis to the irrelevant level it deserves - a confinement in which you settle and that seems like you like to savor, a mystery -. You are the one who must refute the undeniable and gigantic social value that a fiat provides that a corrupt regulator can produce with the tip of its penis ... or, for example, ERC20 created by decree, many of which are a thousand times better deposits of value than DASH.

If the energy expenditure of BTC were the basis of its value, Tether - a thousand times more important in the retention of value of BTC than the contribution of its miners - would not exist ... do not be naive. The value is determined by an inalienable floor of wealth (which in BTC has been and continues to be caused for the most part by speculative factors - in fact, enormously allied with the unspeakable and demonic fiat, of which few "idealists" beneficiaries complain -) . That is what is practical beyond the endless literature of each (mine included) ... and it is what you have to achieve. And by the way ... perfectly possible to achieve for the DASH model (although perhaps not for its original project, locked in a centralized corruption loop that prevents executing the SIMPLE necessary optimizations - which, by the way, you, although minimizing them, you continually reveal -).

DASH must optimize its financial independence, its decentralization and its resistance to censorship ... all of them elementary factors in its original declaration of principles ... and clearly, immensely improvable. Without that ... the rest is talking about the sex of angels...but I hope that with the debate we will get something better.

A greeting.

[toknormal]

You are completely lost, because you associate the value of money with the energy expended to produce it

If that's how you interpret my view then I'm think you've misunderstood it.

The energy required to produce the coin is irrelevant other than serving as a proxy for scarcity in the implementation of a monetary archetype. Remember that these are synthetic monetary assets. They're not like precious metals or rare minerals who's monetary use is incidental to their existence.

Any synthesised archetype has to be faithfully implemented in terms of the properties its trying to inherit from its real world counterpart, otherwise it simply becomes useless and is cast aside.

In that respect there are essentially 2 on offer:

1. contractural money (that's backed by a counterparty bond)
2. commodity money (that is backed by a scarcity value representing the amount of financial effort needed to acquire it from nature)

That's it !

There is no "make these tokens and somebody will buy them" money. Or worse even "the cheaper this money is to produce the more valuable it will be". So I think you've missed the point about mining. The "energy" isn't there to secure the network or even to generate the coins. It's role is to mediate competition for the supply without recourse to counterparties or intermediaries. As such it is able to faithfully inherit the monetary properties of commodity money. This is what leads to its ability to store capital because the scarcity can be measured in financial units independently of the market traded price - again another important inheritance of commodity money such as metals or minerals.

So if you throw out mining and ALSO don't capitalise the tokens in some other way such as through bonds or massive utility, what have you got left ? Nothing. An emperor's clothes scenario where the market simply devalues you on a chronic basis. The "rewards" in that case more closely represent a cake that gets sliced ever more thinly without gaining any size or weight.

A greeting

[birdonthewire]

I was entering to correct a term from my previous post by the "nice" Saint Google (in my original language, the tone and respect it expresses is very different ... I don't know if it is in English, but just in case, I'll leave it there ).

Where it says "stupidity" (worthy of an idiot), the term was "absurdity" (lacking in logic). For me, one and the other are very different, especially on a personal level.

That being said ... move on to the reply post I see

So if you throw out mining and ALSO don't capitalise the tokens in some other way such as through bonds or massive utility, what have you got left ? Nothing.

Capitalize with Reserves that DO work. But it is not possible as long as the system reverts its benefits to those who (against the general interest) casually decide how it works. That's the wicked LOOP of DASH.

Unfortunately, in crypto, the shortcuts and tricks leave any orthodoxy on the back burner. And, imo, the important thing is that the most positive projection of these projects is expressed in practice for an automatic disposition of a quality money of absolute urgency for users all over the world, imo ( precisally  because I am absolutely fed up with heavenly white papers that in their execution, remain on wet paper just cheating a couple of proper nuances)...and i would like to see the original idea of DASH to its full potential ... and I don't see him doing it through metaphysics that are impossible to implement.

But yes, optimizing those three fundamentals mentioned above (which, of course, I have not invented in DASH - which makes it quite clear that its limitations do not come from rethinking, but from NON-COMPLIANCE -) : Financial freedom - an adequate Reserves strategy is the shortest way in that sense, imo -, decentralization and resistance to censorship.

A greeting.



pd : I just discovered the "edit" button. A relief.

[afbitcoins]

Masternode owners still stalled at the gate below 80%. But it doesn't matter now, 79% masternode adoption is suddenly enough to trigger the infamous spork 21. Who decided that? Ryan Taylor?

Not really a ringing endorsement is it. Two weeks stuck below 80% threshold and still not over it.

Spork 21 Activation

I am happy to announce that the network has reached sufficient masternode adoption, reaching 79.0%. As such, we are planning to activate Spork 21 one week from today on November 17th. We encourage all remaining masternode operators to update immediately.

Masternode Adoption

While initial adoption was great, over the past few weeks, masternode adoption has significantly leveled off and currently stands at 79%. While “flattening the curve” may be preferable in some instances, this is not one of those!

https://blog.dash.org/v0-16-migration-report-spork-21-activation-and-v0-16-1-821678cf65aa

[toknormal]

Not really a ringing endorsement is it. Two weeks stuck below 80% threshold and still not over it.

I'm one of the foot-draggers.

I'm protesting. I'll let my node go off the network before upgrading.

Hunger strike.

[birdonthewire]

Masternode owners still stalled at the gate below 80%. But it doesn't matter now, 79% masternode adoption is suddenly enough to trigger the infamous spork 21. Who decided that? Ryan Taylor?

Not really a ringing endorsement is it. Two weeks stuck below 80% threshold and still not over it.

https://blog.dash.org/v0-16-migration-report-spork-21-activation-and-v0-16-1-821678cf65aa

I'm one of the foot-draggers.

I'm protesting. I'll let my node go off the network before upgrading.

Hunger strike.

Is it possible any estimate of how much members who disapprove of this change?

thanks

[jdmcg]

Masternode owners still stalled at the gate below 80%. But it doesn't matter now, 79% masternode adoption is suddenly enough to trigger the infamous spork 21. Who decided that? Ryan Taylor?

Not really a ringing endorsement is it. Two weeks stuck below 80% threshold and still not over it.

https://blog.dash.org/v0-16-migration-report-spork-21-activation-and-v0-16-1-821678cf65aa

I'm one of the foot-draggers.

I'm protesting. I'll let my node go off the network before upgrading.

Hunger strike.

Is it possible any estimate of how much members who disapprove of this change?

thanks

Hard to say. An overwhelming majority do support it however.

My understanding is that more than a few masternodes are managed by masternode.me and that the owner hasn't been around much and left everything on autopilot. Doesn't look like any of these have been updated.

Will be interesting to see what happens once the old ones are banned. Will they wake up and rush to upgrade? Sell? Or remain dormant forever? Could be a bit of a rush to set up masternodes once the reward increases to 7% or so.

[thunderjet]

4500 masternodes were established before 2017 bull run.During it,only about 12% sold theirs coins,despite price went up more than 100x. If DASH was truly decentralized,we would see a huge selling of masternode operators coins during the pump and later slowly rebuy.Not at one investor would miss such opportunity to earn 100x, except if you are the one who pump coin and cant dump on yourself.That was first major sign of highly centralized ownership.

Only 12%? Tell me, how did you figure that? Did you actually track all the masternodes as they were taken down to be sold? How do you know they were sold at all? How do you know if they weren't just moved to a new address?

Not one investor would miss such opportunity to earn 100x? Just in this thread I see more than a few Dash hodlers who held too long and did miss the opportunity to earn 100x. I get the distinct impression that toknormal and other disgruntled masternode owners didn't sell during the bull run and that is part of the bitterness they bring here now.

Now all the talk about which coin is more decentralized seems pointless.

Do you really think BTC is that decentralized? How many people in this world own any yet?

Simply, take a look at historic chart of DASH masternodes and you will see how much masternodes number fell during bull run.

Sure,some masternodes owners missed opportunity to sell theirs coins at 100x or more bigger price. But 88% is way too high percentage. People who invested so much money in running a large number of masternodes are not fools.


Most coins are more or less centralized.Problem with DASH is too much centralization which suffocates coin more and more :

- 1000 coins condition for masternodes favourites big investors and inevitable led to further centralization. 50-100 coins threshold would be more appropriate if the goal was decentralization,

- 50% masternode reward is way too much for service they provide. Consequence is that large masternode operators due to such high reward got ability to eliminate ordinary miners,because 1 coin costs them 50% of what is cost for ordinary miner.That led to further centralization,making dangerous and unnatural union - big masternode owners are also the biggest miners,

- DASH mining became highly unprofitable,except if you are at the same time big masternode owner and the miner.As a response to this situation ,DASH team made decision to give even more coins to masternodes.That would make mining even more unprofitable and cause death of any POW coin.But ,in the case of DASH, mining operations are already in the hands of big masternode owners,so there is no such danger.This decision will just help them to put even more money in the pockets and make theirs grip on DASH even stronger.It is impossible that DASH team did all of that unintentionally.

To make citation from Ian Fleming Goldfinger: "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, the third time is enemy action."



 

[jdmcg]

4500 masternodes were established before 2017 bull run.During it,only about 12% sold theirs coins,despite price went up more than 100x. If DASH was truly decentralized,we would see a huge selling of masternode operators coins during the pump and later slowly rebuy.Not at one investor would miss such opportunity to earn 100x, except if you are the one who pump coin and cant dump on yourself.That was first major sign of highly centralized ownership.

Only 12%? Tell me, how did you figure that? Did you actually track all the masternodes as they were taken down to be sold? How do you know they were sold at all? How do you know if they weren't just moved to a new address?

Not one investor would miss such opportunity to earn 100x? Just in this thread I see more than a few Dash hodlers who held too long and did miss the opportunity to earn 100x. I get the distinct impression that toknormal and other disgruntled masternode owners didn't sell during the bull run and that is part of the bitterness they bring here now.

Now all the talk about which coin is more decentralized seems pointless.

Do you really think BTC is that decentralized? How many people in this world own any yet?

Simply, take a look at historic chart of DASH masternodes and you will see how much masternodes number fell during bull run.

Looking at the historical chart, I could determine that many new investors rushed in to set up masternodes. So your math is too simple.

Sure,some masternodes owners missed opportunity to sell theirs coins at 100x or more bigger price. But 88% is way too high percentage. People who invested so much money in running a large number of masternodes are not fools.

More than some missed out I believe. You continue to make conclusions based on assumptions. Why?

Most coins are more or less centralized.Problem with DASH is too much centralization which suffocates coin more and more :

Like I already asked... do you think BTC is decentralized? How many people in this world actually own some?

- 1000 coins condition for masternodes favourites big investors and inevitable led to further centralization. 50-100 coins threshold would be more appropriate if the goal was decentralization,

- 50% masternode reward is way too much for service they provide. Consequence is that large masternode operators due to such high reward got ability to eliminate ordinary miners,because 1 coin costs them 50% of what is cost for ordinary miner.That led to further centralization,making dangerous and unnatural union - big masternode owners are also the biggest miners,

- DASH mining became highly unprofitable,except if you are at the same time big masternode owner and the miner.As a response to this situation ,DASH team made decision to give even more coins to masternodes.That would make mining even more unprofitable and cause death of any POW coin.But ,in the case of DASH, mining operations are already in the hands of big masternode owners,so there is no such danger.This decision will just help them to put even more money in the pockets and make theirs grip on DASH even stronger.It is impossible that DASH team did all of that unintentionally.

To make citation from Ian Fleming Goldfinger: "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, the third time is enemy action."

Your whole masternodes running miners conspiracy is a bit comical. Again, what advantage does a masternode owner have to mine DASH over anyone else? Why can't a XMR miner mine DASH just as well? You're saying to control DASH? What does that even mean? Why not buy DASH on the open market or OTC for cheaper?

[toknormal]

Again, what advantage does a masternode owner have to mine DASH over anyone else?

Well lets look it another way. What advantage do Dash miners who run masternodes have over Dash miners who don't ?

Their net mining difficulty is far lower for the same network difficulty.

[jdmcg]

Again, what advantage does a masternode owner have to mine DASH over anyone else?

Well lets look it another way. What advantage do Dash miners who run masternodes have over Dash miners who don't ?

Their net mining difficulty is far lower for the same network difficulty.

Oh, so now it's the miners that are becoming masternodes...