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

[qwizzie]

The realloc hard fork came to pass together with the superblock at block 1379128 https://chainz.cryptoid.info/dash/block.dws?1379128.htm as the DASH network re-routes capital to where it is best suited.

https://ibb.co/PwMHyL1

Thank you for that info. Looks like Dash completed period 1 some 3 hours ago, only 18 periods more to go  
Period 1 moved 1,3% from miners to masternodes


Source : https://www.dashninja.pl/blocks.html

Block Reward Reallocation Schedule


Source : https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/3691/commits/ba6e946a0e682ea6d33e00ab494f446625310d89

Period 1, 2 and 3 seems to have the greatest impact with regards to the block reward reallocation, then it starts to slow down over time.

What would be the aprox (human readable) date for the period 2 ,3  .. ?

The proposed changes will occur every three superblock cycles, approximately once per quarter.

Source : https://blog.dash.org/updated-product-brief-dash-core-release-v0-16-0-d3debdb6242e

So that makes end of Feb 2021 for Period 2 and end of May 2021 for Period 3
Also if we now have 18 remaining periods and there are 4 proposed changes in a year --> 18/4 = 4.5 years

[Lebubar]

The realloc hard fork came to pass together with the superblock at block 1379128 https://chainz.cryptoid.info/dash/block.dws?1379128.htm as the DASH network re-routes capital to where it is best suited.

https://ibb.co/PwMHyL1

Thank you for that info. Looks like Dash completed period 1 some 3 hours ago, only 18 periods more to go  
Period 1 moved 1,3% from miners to masternodes

Source : https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/3691/commits/ba6e946a0e682ea6d33e00ab494f446625310d89

Period 1, 2 and 3 seems to have the greatest impact with regards to the block reward reallocation, then it starts to slow down over time.

What would be the aprox (human readable) date for the period 2 ,3  .. ?

The proposed changes will occur every three superblock cycles, approximately once per quarter.

Source : https://blog.dash.org/updated-product-brief-dash-core-release-v0-16-0-d3debdb6242e

So that makes end of Feb 2021 for Period 2 and end of May 2021 for Period 3
Also if we now have 18 remaining periods and there are 4 proposed changes in a year --> 18/4 = 4.5 years

[birdonthewire]

So, will there be a fork that has the proposed 80/20 split in rewards for miners/masternode owners? Or is this just all talk?

Regarding trustless shared masternodes, I hope this is up next on the roadmap after the release of Dash Platform (DashPay). It seems to me this one thing would alleviate many of the concerns certain people have here. Having said that, StakeHound is a good first step and should help in the interim. Anyone know how that is progressing?

Stakehound, as far as I know, allows you to receive rewards from Mnode with the DASH you deliver ... and also receive rewards for the services generated by the token replicated in ETH (wrapped-wrapped DASH).

This, in addition to being the umpteenth attempt by Ryan Taylor and other artists for DASH holders to be treated like shit and take on KYC, hand over their tokens in custody, etc., that is, some fucking puppets unrelated to any elemental crypto operation that of course, DAO hijackers DO enjoy ... creating a BASIC USE gap, which is what the non-compliance with the Shared Mnodes offered in the DASH protocol has degenerated into, which already affects those "future beneficiaries" at any level.

This further accentuates the problem of concentrating DASH in fewer and fewer hands ... it is literally "a game of chairs". Having owners of hundreds of Mnodes, just by converting their returns to "wrapped DASH", they would continue to expand Mnodes ... and also, increasing their returns with the ETH token in defined services ... added returns to load even more DASH (Logically from those who constantly undo their positions by having less financial capacity to support them or dedicate DASH hypes to vital objectives of greater economic demand than their current level, which will be a constant bait for owners of few Mnodes, which with their sales, will reduce also, the level of vote in front of the whales) . Obviously, Mnodes owners would assume a minimal risk due to custody, public identification, etc. with respect to micro-holders, but, and this is the most serious thing and that affects the centralization of the project ... the modest owners , gambling for a few crumbs, frequently 100% of its assets in DASH ... while the whales would simply gamble on their rewards, never exposing their main base of DASH savings and a influence on the ecosystem, bigger and bigger every day. For some clueless to get an idea, a whale with a hundred Mnodes could, through this system, receive returns on a basis of 7 new Mnodes more per year ... and their respective ETH tokens, with which possibly, double that 6 -7% (and also, now, have these prepared for any convenient speculative movement ... not to mention the easily appreciable trend that micro-holders will spend their returns taking their tokens to market, due to their infinitely lower purchasing power) . The tendency to concentrate power, EVEN WITHOUT REDUCING OWNERS, is enormous. And Mnodes with few devices will only benefit until the proportion turns their voting power into irrelevant shit.

Let's remember: There are 4000 Mnodes that NEVER vote ... UNTIL THE DAY THEY DO, of course. In the most capricious and selfish sense that you can think of. They may be expanding their positions by two percentage figures OF INFLUENCE IN THE CHAIN ​​every year: Decentralization "Made in DASH" ...  which will likely soon savor the cheaters who today marginalize microholders or miners and assault the Treasury "formerly collective" while they are looking for 5-figure investors whose vote - and by extension, reward - is totally, utterly vulnerable to these shenanigans.

To those close to Duffield in his day, quite possibly generously graced by the enormous heritage in Tokens of the founder ... surely that doesn't hurt them too much, right? Some with lack of enough shame to also become the victims defending that they "work hard" - in crypto, when you hear "work hard" or "soon", you can start to tremble - DASH for their "idealism" and the minimum wage ( in dollars subject to taxes, of course).

[Nthelight]

Bitcoin fees

A small impression of the user experience with Bitcoin in regards to transaction fees.




It seems almost as if you are not allowed to talk about Bitcoin fees or you are attacked for not knowing about SegWit/Lightning (second layer), Liquid network (sidechain), RBF and CPFP.

[Nthelight]

Bitcoin average transaction fee versus Dash average transaction fee





Our average transaction fee (in USD) obviously also rises when DASH/USD rises. The difference with DASH is that our project monitors the average fee and is capable to adapt it when necessary. Like we did during the 2017 bull run when the average fee spiked to a "whopping" $1.6. Avg transaction fee with Dash is currently $0.003.

[toknormal]

Dash transaction fees are paid straight out of the blockchain.

Just because they're not charged to network users doesn't mean they don't exist. (Or that they're not the most expensive in the "business").

[birdonthewire]

Dash transaction fees are paid straight out of the blockchain.

Just because they're not charged to network users doesn't mean they don't exist. (Or that they're not the most expensive in the "business").

Low transaction costs are constantly being boasted, when it has not been more than the obligatory evidence of a failed strategy. DASH's failed model was already established in different terms. The original business model was in the direct payment of services to a layer of "workers", initially, other members of the ecosystem. Instant Send is the best example of the failure of this strategy. The "almost free" services (the carrot) cannot be sustained without payment incentives on the other hand ... and if the paid ones do not work, there is an easy recourse for those who govern without the expected high rewards and have shown repeated signs of disability and immorality: Direct appropriation.

If miners pervert their coin optimization work ... there is a fork to escape from that situation. The Mnodes, tacitly overriding the Shared Mnodes, turn the system into a dead end, because they appropriate the rules ... which turn in their favor, accentuating the imbalance between all the members of the project. Their actions, first with a delirious waste of mountains of resources and later, with a direct intervention of the project for their own benefit, camouflaging their shenanigans in aspects of general interest of the project as an "optimization as a reserve of value" that simply do not deserves five minutes of serious analysis in those terms. The approach with which Rtaylor trolled the hasty and cosmetic "Open Day of the fifth year without Evolution" a year ago... and later, aided by the info intoxicants in DASH, the debate of maximums of the current year seems nonsensical because it simply does not pursue the reinforcement of DASH as a reserve of value.

The boycott of the optimization of the currency is the same size as that of a wrong validation of transactions, etc. They appropriate the common Treasury and governance to favor a suicidal centralization. DASH is a system condemned to expel synergies, not to integrate and exploit them. To be looted and ruined collaborators / investors, not to create wealth and share it, creating a huge network effect and consequent expansion to a top crypto level, scenario to which DASH could objectively opt for its cutting-edge technology and initial approach. The needed benefits of decentralization have been mortgaged subject to looting and short-haul centralization - as this model will be optimized by the CBDCs of current fiat currencies -.

In any case, it is to be expected that new resources will arrive to increase incentives ... probably coming from the new platform. But as manipulation and speculation/concealment of info is another of the private options of an already atrophied project, this would probably be confirmed when it is of greater interest to a beneficiary party (Mnodes, CORE ...) ... and, if not produced, it will be created as a promotional tool to attract the capital of newly deceived. I've been asking for new resources in the next format for a long time ... and of course, there is no answer.

It's inexplicable that there isn't any programmer who is passionate about DASH's decentralization and synergy capabilities with a fork available to the community, honestly. Unless the current incentives outweigh the optimization prospects of a long-flawed project, of course. Which would not be without logic in a corrupt structure that devours itself before bursting. They're going to loot DASH until there's not a dollar left in it and even the last lost Eskimo know it's a centralized scam ... they haven't given a crap about that for a long time. It is a perfectly assumed price ... and in any case, the hundreds of Mnodes currently voting, will not even be able to turn around, even if they wanted to, the trend of concentration of governance that they are consolidating ... next time, in favor of the great whales of DASH.

[Nthelight]

Criticism on Dash's block reward scheme (split).

I read everything you say and I am well aware that you have valid points and unlike others I do welcome your opinion and analysis on the matter. I've shared my opinion on it on our Discord quite a while ago.

The premise that MNOs are stronger holders than miners is an assumption that will soon be put to the test. I suspect that there are still many hardcore Dash holders around who will continue to support Dash into the future. More than 4000 masternodes were never sold by their owners. Granted, their hands may be weaker now, after the extremely harsh correction we underwent. Some may be itching to sell when Dash/USD starts to rise again, but sentiment will (hopefully) change around when we start to see a clear sign of a recovery (uptrend). The crypto markets are brutal. Emotions run high. Dash is no exception. Some are likely going to sell and regret it not much later. We had several people leave the project in 2015/2016 when Dash dumped to $1.5, stating Dash was done for. Some even ragequit dumping tens of thousands of Dash at $7 when there was a clear sign of recovery, less than a year before the 2017 megapump.

The point I do agree with is that the current return for Dash may be considered too high for what is required from MNOs in the strictest sense. This is true from a purely cost perspective, but is perhaps a narrow analysis. Currently earning $500ish with a cost of $15 per month to run a VPS, excluding the work you do. Even when Dash was $40, the MNOs were still earning a profit. I see that. I voiced my opinion on it, but this is a minority opinion it seems. I'm well aware that the majority can be wrong. There is no proof either way. When you are challenged to prove your analysis, I honestly facepalm on it, because it's impossible to prove either position. It would also not surprise me that there is a lot of correlation presented as facts, but is flawed in reality. I, for one, was not impressed at all by the "tokenomics" analysis.

It should also be taken into account, that many MNOs actually go through all the proposals and need to make an assessment of whether it's a valuable proposition or not. Let's not forget how much time this requires to do properly. Granted, many don't bother anymore as there is no difference in return for non-voting MNOs and those who do vote. When you take into account the time you need to evaluate proposals, the return for running an MN is actually no that high at all. This may not be the best argument, but the whole crypto market is full of projects with ROI schemes that make no sense whatsoever. If you compare those with the Dash Masternode return scheme, ours does not seem outrageous or unfair.

It is justified to assume that miners have a lot more pressure on them to sell their holdings to keep their operation running. That pressure does not exist for MNOs, so the change could indeed improve our perceived store of value. Oddly, mining Dash seems to be a net loss operation, but hash rate has consistently grown. It has always been unprofitable to mine. I really have a hard time understanding how they can pull it off, other than holding as long and as much as possible and then dumping their holdings during a pump.

I understand what you say when you claim that the network becomes highly expensive, if Dash continues to rise in price, but this assumes that all MNOs sell their rewards all the time. That makes the cost real. Otherwise this is all just a virtual number, which makes your point less strong to be honest, but I agree that there is a large discrepancy between the mining profit ratio and the Dash MN profit ratio.

Fact is, the new block reward scheme is accepted by miners (tier 1), so it's even difficult to argue that they are against it. I also don't think they blindly accept changes. They are well aware of what it means.

I understand you want Dash to switch to a pure PoW coin (as much as possible) and reduce both the MN reward drastically, as well as the share for DCG, but your statement stops there. What comes next? You don't answer that. Do you want Dash to become like Litecoin? You can't be serious about that. You may have some valuable insights and may be justifiably raising a red flag, but how do we continue afterwards if the Dash community would follow your reasoning? You don't provide a perspective on that and that is likely why people stopped listening. Again, you may be right about certain elements of the overall Dash network, but you don't build on that statement. Dash's value comes from the incredible talent that is working day and night to push this project to the next level, not because of one or other parameter.  

What difference will it make to investors or users if we were to follow your reasoning? The project will be constrained in its ability to develop and the only direct change it will have is that our 6 Petahash hashrate will jump up. It makes no actual difference to anyone using Dash. You expect Dash/USD (capital gains) to go up because of it, but I would not be surprised if it has no effect. The problem with an analysis like yours, is that they are way too laser focused on one element. Do you believe that Litecoin is a Top10 cryptocurrency because it's 100% PoW? Success depends on many factors and the reason that Litecoin is a Top10 coin consistently has nothing to do with being 100% PoW or not. You are certainly capable to see that their "success" is almost entirely determined by non technical factors. Likewise our fall down the rankings is almost certainly due to non technical factors. I wish people would see those issues and make an effort to address them, instead of wasting energy on one technical element of our design.

Dash decided in 2014 already that more was required to become a usable cryptocurrency than what Bitcoin and Litecoin were doing. Providing a superior end user experience required moving away from the idea of being a pure PoW coin. This idea that Proof of Work is the only thing that determines the value and consequently determines the price is in my opinion a flawed analysis. It is only partly true. Both Bitcoin and Litecoin have seen no significant innovation since many years. Bitcoin's innovations are in fact optimizations to deal with the self-imposed limitations in their layer 1. Both projects have stagnated in that regard and depend on first mover advantage, crypto inner circle connections, good will, marketing, faith and donations. They are pure PoW, but let's not pretend this is the reason for their success and that there aren't any significant trade offs in this model.

Dash however split the block reward to support growth, which in essence is not a bad idea, but it also comes with trade offs, just like any design comes with trade offs. Contrary to this unfruitful discussion on the block reward, it would be much better to look at other elements. In my opinion the treasury is a bigger elephant in the room. That's where I've consistently seen waste. That waste is a real cost as proposal owners need to sell to USD, which makes it real and continues to put pressure on our price. All these amateur projects are seemingly largely useless and the treasury was too gameable by scammers, due to lack of control and oversight by the DAO (putting it mildly). Lots of money has been wasted and I believe this has hurt our value and image more than the presumed high return for running a masternode. The "high" return (in Dash) for MNs can still be somewhat justified and it cannot be denied it creates an investor demand supporting our price. Throwing money at anyone that is willing to do something for Dash just isn't valuable and comes at a cost. I don't support any of these proposal projects and MNOs need to understand that there is no such thing as free money to be thrown around. New investors pay the price for these amateurish or unsustainable projects. Unfortunately there were several very vocal people in the past who believed strongly in the mantra that "all treasury coins must be used". I never supported it. Luckily things have improved a lot.

Fortunately, likely due to the extreme correction, many have woken up and now understand that this is not the way. That is probably why there is a significant decrease in voting. I'm not the only who doesn't believe these projects are providing an actual return. Unfortunately many don't bother voting "no" on these projects. Honestly, I'm even doubtful about the Venezuela adoption strategy and believe it should not be chased as if it's the holy grail to generate real usage, adoption, ... Having said that, it's quite possible that there is a select group of people working really hard to get a micro ecosystem going over there (in some places) and we may some day look back at it and understand that it was a good strategy. There is an absolute need for alternatives to fiat currency over there, but whether Dash will be successful over there remains a question. I have nothing but respect for those who are trying hard to make a difference, but I remain skeptical.

When it comes to the block reward scheme (split), I'm not pro one or the other. Both sides have some valid reasoning. I would not have touched the block reward, if it were up to me. Focus needs to be on Dashpay and Dash Platform. This discussion has honestly become a distraction in my opinion.

One thing I'm adamant about, is that Dash should never abandon Proof of Work, nor can it. Chainlocks can still fail during very high usage. People who think we can just abandon PoW have a lack of understanding of our core protocol. Proof of work remains the fall back (Nakamoto) consensus mechanism, in the rare case that Chainlocks do fail. As confirmed by Alexander De Block and UdjinM6, our primary core developers.

Reality is, that the community has decided and is moving forward. Time will tell if Dash has made the right decision or not when it comes to the block reward.

[qwizzie]

Looks like spork 22 got activated, bumping number of participants to 20 during PrivateSend mixing. This should increase speed and privacy.
Source :

http://178.254.23.111/~pub/Dash/Dash_Info.html (Sporks)
https://www.dash.org/2020/10/09/dash-core-v0-16-migration-report-week-1/

Also to all masternode operators, please update to latest v0.16.1.1 (hotfix)
Source : https://www.dash.org/2020/11/17/dash-core-v0-16-1-1/

There was an unexpected behaviour of the "Encrypt wallet" menu item for unencrypted wallets which was showing users the "Decrypt wallet" dialog instead.
This was a GUI only issue, internal encryption logic and RPC behaviour were not affected.

Maybe masternode operators don't feel a need to implement this hotfix, because they don't need to encrypt their empty Linux server wallet. But our masternodes network
benefits i think from being all on the latest version, instead of being spread out over three 0.16 versions.

[Nthelight]

Dash V0.16 Upgrade Status

Seems we have about 1000 masternodes that are slow to upgrade.
Still 500 to be upgraded according to in below link. Not sure how accurate it is.

https://mnowatch.org/legacynodes/
505 nodes listed of which 46 have been spent.
Generated at: Sun 29 Nov 2020 11:22:57 PM UTC.

When I check Dash Ninja it seems it's more like 400ish.









They are all consistenly being PoSE banned, so we will know soon enough if the total count has effectively dropped or not. As far as I can tell, they are almost all being updated after they were PoSE banned.

https://docs.dash.org/en/stable/masternodes/maintenance.html#proof-of-service-bans

[toknormal]

this assumes that all MNOs sell their rewards all the time. That makes the cost real. Otherwise this is all just a virtual number

In the formal (accounting) analysis this is simply not true. Masternodes are being paid. The revenue is real, therefore the cost is real. The currency doesn't change anything. We must therefore investigate WHERE that cost is being taken and by whom. When I did this I discovered it was being drawn from the capital value of the chain because it represents a mining deficiency and mining is what creates real scarcity (i.e. if you define scarcity as commercially competitive effort prevailing to obtain a scarce resource rather than simply a small number of something which I'd label as faux scarcity).

The idea that restricting traffic to order books represents a more valuable form of "scarcity" than mining is even more faux still. I can create my own crypto of 5 coins, never sell them and they won't necessarily be worth anything. But if I can somehow attract competition to extract them from the blockchain at great expense then cost of their extraction puts a commercial value on that scarcity and will set their opening price in the secondary market. (If we define the blockchain itself as the primary market).

I understand you want Dash to switch to a pure PoW coin (as much as possible) and reduce both the MN reward drastically, as well as the share for DCG, but your statement stops there. What comes next? You don't answer that. Do you want Dash to become like Litecoin? You can't be serious about that

Why does anything need to change ?

 • masternodes would still be profitable
 • the treasury would still exist
 • we'd still have all our features
 • we'd still have the same development budget

We'd only be stripping away much of the redundant element of the masternode reward. It isn't paying for anything at the moment so nothing would change in terms of budgets. Nodes would continue to be profitable and in fact be MORE profitable as the marketcap increased. This is what people seem to forget - the reward ratio is irrelevant to masternode profitability because their costs are fixed. So what if they get 10% or 60% ? It all depends on the price, not the reward ratio. (The same is not true for mining). Masternodes could be making $1000 per week at a 20% reward share or $200 per week at a 60% reward share.

On the other hand, reducing mining reward DOES come with a measurable cost. Arguing against this is hypocricy because the basis for the current policy is ostensibly limiting traffic to order books - thereby creating a form of "scarcity", but not one that has any measurable value. It's a notional concept that I personally think is ludicrous because high volume, deep liquidity markets can represent high value assets as well as low value ones. What matters is what's being DONE with the revenue from selling. Spending it on raising mining difficulty is a far more wealth-preserving proposal than giving it away for nothing in this respect and IMO.

In my opinion the treasury is a bigger elephant in the room. That's where I've consistently seen waste.

Again, I find this argument slightly hypocritical. Masternodes are simply an extension of the treasury in economic terms. They're no different from any other commercial contractor and their "delivery" should be evaluated in exactly the same way. If you don't see it that way then you need to see them simply as zero-difficulty miners which is an equally concerning proposition.

So what does Dash get for its $32 million per year from this extended treasury budget ? Hosting costs and an incentive to keep coins in wallets ? But other networks get this for free. Even if those networks do send more of their new supply to markets proportionally (even that's debatable), more of their blockchain goes towards raising fiat to pay for scarcity (REAL scarcity that preserves capital, not faux orderbook traffic management scarcity).

So the $32 million budget per year is a far bigger waste than anything the treasury can throw away IMO. Treasury is only 10% of the supply. Nodes are going to get 60.

[birdonthewire]

So what does Dash get for its $32 million per year from this extended treasury budget ? Hosting costs and an incentive to keep coins in wallets ? But other networks get this for free. Even if those networks do send more of their new supply markets proportionally (even that's debatable), more of their blockchain goes towards raising fiat to pay for scarcity (REAL scarcity that stores capital, not faux orderbook traffic management scarcity).

So the $32 million budget per year is a far bigger waste than anything the treasury can throw away IMO. Treasury is only 10% of the supply. Nodes are going to get 60.

They not only offer hosting costs and coins in wallets ... they also offer services that this network of nodes manages and that enrich the project. The point is that the qualitative leap is the management of the Treasury and that this generates real returns and growth to the project.

I personally believe that both miners and Mnodes get those returns, RELATIVELY ... the problem is that the costs are absolutely unconscionable. And, by the way, the fiat price, which serves to justify an attractive return for Mnodes, you should also consider it for miners, however, there you do claim a higher percentage in the distribution of monetary issues (and for me, there is no a direct transmission of value between mining effort and price).

Imo, both collectives, Mnodes and miners, should receive a much smaller proportion of the monetary issues ... and focus the rest, received by the treasury, on creating more prosperous growth and  price. Starting with an adequate management of Reserves in proven store of values ​​that would represent, without so many subjective speculations, not only a DIRECT transmission of value to the ecosystem but also and by extension, a transmission of this nature to DASH, the attractive store of value. ... and for the general benefit of all the profiles integrated in it. And following a professional management of the DIF, also capable of generating external resources.

I think the rampage of gifted funds up to 2018 had a lot to do with a naive vision both of global expansion at the level of a totally premature adoption and of the conviction, no less childish, that the funds were an endless fountain (there is no more to see the galactic economic extrapolations regarding available funds that RTaylor made at the London'17 event - he, so insistent on highlighting the senseless waste represented by many of the approved proposals -  . The icing on the cake with "The sky is the limit" is simply embarrassing looking back today, and more coming from the visible head of a project, who is supposed to be more rigorous and firm feet on the ground than any fanboy seduced by an exponential fireworks rise).

[toknormal]

They not only offer hosting costs and coins in wallets ... they also offer services that this network of nodes manages and that enrich the project.

I would argue they impoverish the project in the current protocol configuration.

These "services" cost nothing to provide over and above hosting cost. Yet we're charged $32M a year for them and this is paid directly out of the capital value of the chain, just like treasury budgets. Miners at least have to invest hashrate in the chain to get any coin out of it at all. That hashrate adds to the store of capital rather than draining it.

If a treasury contractor wrote a service-provision proposal who's budget accounted for 99% profit margin they'd be likely to get thrown out the door. Saying that the 1% worth of service provision "benefitted the network" would be unlikely to save them.

[jdmcg]

They are all consistenly being PoSE banned, so we will know soon enough if the total count has effectively dropped or not. As far as I can tell, they are almost all being updated after they were PoSE banned.

Looking at https://mnowatch.org/legacynodes/ it seems to me about 300+ have been PoSE banned and have not yet upgraded (either haven't noticed yet or unable for some reason).

Looking at https://www.dashninja.pl/deterministic-masternodes.html it seems about another 2.3% of the current active total count of 4615 (just over 100) will eventually get PoSE banned as well.

We might be sitting around 4500 active masternodes in a week or so which is interestingly enough the same count Dash was at around Feb 2017, right before the bull run...

Oh, and in case you missed it, DASH entered into a technical bull market against the USD on Nov 28... For comparison, DASH last entered a true bull market against the USD on Jan 14 2017... Against BTC it was about Feb 20 2017... right now DASH is above the 50 day SMA, fighting with the 100 day SMA, while the 200 day SMA is around 0.0069 BTC... so very possible DASH enters a technical bull market against BTC end of Dec, beginning of Jan, very much in line with my prediction months ago. Seems there might be something to crypto's (BTC's) 4 year cycle afterall...

[birdonthewire]

They not only offer hosting costs and coins in wallets ... they also offer services that this network of nodes manages and that enrich the project.

I would argue they impoverish the project in the current protocol configuration.

These "services" cost nothing to provide over and above hosting cost. Yet we're charged $32M a year for them and this is paid directly out of the capital value of the chain, just like treasury budgets. Miners at least have to invest hashrate in the chain to get any coin out of it at all. That hashrate adds to the store of capital rather than draining it.

If a treasury contractor wrote a service-provision proposal who's budget accounted for 99% profit margin they'd be likely to get thrown out the door. Saying that the 1% worth of service provision "benefitted the network" would be unlikely to save them.

Okay, I'm not a little persistent about it, I think ...as annoying and even rude as it sounds at times - but the distortion that this generates atrophy the projection of DASH from the root, integral...and I understand that the answer must be frontal, because the DAO hijackers have clearly shown that they are capable of turning one of the great jewels of the ranking into authentic shit ... and enough of that -. But I see it as a question of proportionality, because its contribution of value, in value-added services that are those that DASH has achieved on the original basis of BTC and even shaping its POTENTIAL personality, is undeniable. And furthermore, they are not just economic costs, but governance costs and to the highest degree, where they have openly assumed that they admit a dead end for the project for their own convenience. It's dramatic, but that's the way it is.

For an optimization of the project, a perspective that I miss as an aspiration in DASH for so long .... I think that both should lower their returns in their own currency, DASH. And I say very sincerely that I think they would look better and more solidly paid. But I've seen so much arrogant abuse, stupidity, and lack of vision, that I doubt infinitely it's done from within...let's face it! . Immorality and negligence are acceptable habitats for many active players in the DASH hierarchy. But at odds with exhibiting the project to its fullest potential ... which is what I always looked for in DASH.

For me, DASH still has time to offer an "improved BTC" in the eyes of the entire sector, but obviously, not like that ... with rulers who simply do not want to do it. On the contrary, and as little as it may like, the sector perfectly perceives the underlying manipulation, already inherent to the project, which does not fit into a common perspective of crypto synergy, but rather "classist" / centralized ... and therefore, it is seen as a scam and abuse from the individual perspective of many potential new members who are approaching to value it...in a TOTALLY LOGICAL REACTION.

[toknormal]

But I see it as a question of proportionality, because its contribution of value, in value-added services that are those that DASH has achieved on the original basis of BTC and even shaping its POTENTIAL personality, is undeniable. And furthermore, they are not just economic costs, but governance costs and to the highest degree, where they have openly assumed that they admit a dead end for the project for their own convenience. It's dramatic, but that's the way it is.

If Dash is at $1000, you think it's viable to pay $320 million per year straight out of the blockchain to operate a network of nodes when the service delivery value of those nodes (measured at cost) amounts to barely $1.5 million ?

How does that translate into a "store of value" for a new investor ?

[birdonthewire]

But I see it as a question of proportionality, because its contribution of value, in value-added services that are those that DASH has achieved on the original basis of BTC and even shaping its POTENTIAL personality, is undeniable. And furthermore, they are not just economic costs, but governance costs and to the highest degree, where they have openly assumed that they admit a dead end for the project for their own convenience. It's dramatic, but that's the way it is.

If Dash is at $1000, you think it's viable to pay $320 million per year straight out of the blockchain to operate a network of nodes when the service delivery value of those nodes (measured at cost) amounts to barely $1.5 million ?

How does that translate into a "store of value" for a new investor ?

Obviously not.

I only defend the real added value that the second layer provides, not an aberrant and obvious disproportionality.

A second layer that has become first de facto... unfortunately to screw the project to its liking. By the way, given what he's seen and his ability to guide the project ... it's ridiculous to wait any longer.

[xkcdd]

good for you! I wanted to sell mine at $117 but I said I will wait a few more days to sell at $120 and now its again 85. stupid me.  I will not make the same mistake, next time when it goes to over 110 i'm out of this wreckage

DASH is currently trading at $114 and on it's way to an acceleration pump as pure FOMO sets in 
Please tell me you are out so I can don my moon boots and reflective foil outfit for a victory lap around the moon in a few days time.

[xkcdd]

https://mnowatch.org/legacynodes/ is correct, I had a small bug where a few nodes were a little sticky, but they are unstuck now.  The bottom page summary eg

427 nodes listed of which 47 have been spent.

should be read as such, since the SPORK 21 was thrown, 47 collaterals have been moved, perhaps sold, rebirthed, or simply parked. 427 - 47 = 380 is the list of remaining nodes running on old versions of the DASHD.  Tok, are you nodes still among them?  How's the famine treating ya?  Feeling famished yet? 

[qwizzie]

Bitcoin some $200 away from breaking its ATH.
Interesting times ahead.

Bitcoin price : $19,420
ATH : $19,666

This is how i think things will go :

Whales breakthrough $19,666
Whales establish a blow-off top
Whales start to diversify their Bitcoin profits into Altcoins

Only the 'when' part remains a questionmark to me.

Edit : Bitcoin price just broke its previous ATH, new ATH currently at $19,808
Get ready for some Bitcoin FOMO and Bitcoin hype.
Monthly RSI : 74.42 (signaling a slightly oversold condition)