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

[jdmcg]

Masternode collateral is part of the equation. Not the operating cost but still part of the equation.

It isn't really. It's what entitles you to operate a node and receive a reward that makes the activity profitable but it's not part of the accounting equation. Mining reward is, masternode reward is, mining cost is and masternode hosting costs are but the collateral isn't.

Right, it's not part of the accounting equation. It is part of the network equation and what makes it work. I hope you're innocent in this nitpicking and not just pretending to be pedantic.

I believe if you kept the collateral at 1000 DASH and reduced the masternode share from 60% to 20%, that masternode count would sharply decrease initially (destroying any perceived store of value theory you have) and bounce back (if the price would recover) and settle around 1600 to restore the approximate 6% return in DASH that the network seems to have settled with now.

You wouldn't have fixed the problem at all. Instead DASH would become more centralized with 2/3rd's fewer masternodes that still only have fixed costs while still enjoying rewards above costs much higher than the miners.

None of that is a problem. Also you've missed the biggest gain - the single objective of the whole exercise which is that we'd have attracted a huge amount of mining back to the chain and secured (in a monetary sense) a far larger portion of the supply. The point of doing that is to raise the opening price of far more blocks in the so called "primary market". It isn't the masternode count that supports the marketcap it's the price of a coin mined at "source".

Ok, finally maybe we've come to some kind of consensus.

I already see DASH dangerously close to being too centralized especially as the price increases.

If your position were ever to be implemented it would cause so much initial damage to DASH, there'd be a serious question of whether the coin could ever recover. And if it did, then you'd have managed making it even more centralized than it is now. These are the 2 main reasons I'm against your position.

If you could actually garner enough support for a modified position, which instead is phased in over time (gradually reduce masternode reward percentage while gradually increasing miner reward percentage) and lower the collateral to 100 (also gradually phased in) I'd be inclined to support it. At 100 DASH collateral and with the reward percentage reduced to 20%, maybe you'd get between 15000 and 20000 masternodes.

But, I'm a realist... The majority has already spoken regarding the reward split and doesn't appear to have the appetite to revisit it again so early. I think it's far more likely that after Dash Platform (DashPay) is released there's a chance to either introduce trustless shared masternodes and/or reduce the collateral requirement.

Even then, I'm not getting the sense there's a lot of support for that... so maybe StakeHound is the only hope for some kind of increased decentralization.

[birdonthewire]

... what is relevant is how much of the blockchain new supply capital is wasted and how much is invested back into the chain.

That has been assumed in the thread for a long time, but mining is not. Not in the proportions you defend.

An important key is whether the DIF structure is properly designed to receive wealth without negative repercussions from the regulator.

It isn't the masternode count that supports the marketcap it's the price of a coin mined at "source".

Neither one nor the other.

[Tungi17]

Dash Podcast 160 with Dash Core COO Robert Wiecko

https://youtu.be/ND-Xgu_e_5o

[espressodelisi]

can i start mining dash on server computers?

No, you can not.
There are special ASIC devices mining dash. Do you have millions of servers?

[toknormal]

If you could actually garner enough support for a modified position, which instead is phased in over time (gradually reduce masternode reward percentage while gradually increasing miner reward percentage) and lower the collateral to 100 (also gradually phased in) I'd be inclined to support it.

My jaw is on the floor.   So you're now saying you'd support it in principle ?

I thought you just didn't accept the whole concept that mining was a wealth preserver.

I certainly wouldn't be against implementing it in the way you describe if that was the price of making everyone feel more comfortable about it. The problem I have more than anything with the current protocol change is that it's going in the wrong direction.

[birdonthewire]

Dash Podcast 160 with Dash Core COO Robert Wiecko

https://youtu.be/ND-Xgu_e_5o

Probably the biggest active intoxicator in DASH's flawed information-manipulation system, Joel Valenzuela, in his umpteenth session of communicative juggling licking DCG's ass, as usual.

Now, whitewashing, by dramatizing absolutely out-of-time modesty and self-criticism for tens or hundreds of thousands of RUINED people, the "miscommunication" about Evolution (evident, intentional and supported by infamies paid for and blessed by the DAO as DASH NEWS, with its strategy situated between reports of candy & rainbow worlds avoiding highly damaging events for token buyers ... and direct marginalization of dissidents through unilateral and unfounded bans and even groups of subsidized trolls like the author of this interview-fellatio .. .Strategy destined to submerge in the confusion and manipulate every DASH follower to continue receiving capital both for the financing of the project and for private drainage in the rewards of the insider whales perfectly informed of the precarious real situation. Almost six years of camouflage before buyers from all over the world or economic condition, from a roadma p impossible to fulfill by communicators, producers and funders At the expense of deceived investors - calling them "community" would be an invitation to vomit -) fully aware of this and of the enormous damage created.If you really believe drivers of bad communication, no problem: Annotation of the damage generated ... and compensation for the people who have paid for their negligence in sound money.


A scam also finished off by blocking all those investors deceived by the "rewards accounts" (Shared Mnodes) who were deprived, probably forever, of their promised integration into the
 "hospitable" structure. Which makes the abusive intention very clear, such as the assumption of harm from the group that financed this entire assault ... even face to the less savvy judge or regulator, which is where they should be. (And not for not achieving adequate performance in a job, which can happen to anyone ... but for knowing about it and hiding it, amplifying the damage to trusted third parties in their commitments).The pretended pose of self-criticism, when in little more than 20 days we entered the SIXTH year of Evolution ... it could be shoved directly up the ass, it no longer serves to repair any damage (unfortunately, surely to continue parasitizing the benefits achieved of his privileged positionalso, with their faces washed ... and let the party continue!   ).


Then you read their wacky political antics or watch their interviews and they look like Teresa of Calcutta. Amazing. What a band.

[xkcdd]

got it! that's a NO/don't care answer! good to know

Crawl back into your pitt, wench!

[robertrodriguez]

got it! that's a NO/don't care answer! good to know

Crawl back into your pitt, wench!

keyboard bruce lee...bitch, in real life i'll whip your ass until you scream for your hoe mother

[jdmcg]

If you could actually garner enough support for a modified position, which instead is phased in over time (gradually reduce masternode reward percentage while gradually increasing miner reward percentage) and lower the collateral to 100 (also gradually phased in) I'd be inclined to support it.

My jaw is on the floor.   So you're now saying you'd support it in principle ?

I thought you just didn't accept the whole concept that mining was a wealth preserver.

I certainly wouldn't be against implementing it in the way you describe if that was the price of making everyone feel more comfortable about it. The problem I have more than anything with the current protocol change is that it's going in the wrong direction.

Mining is a wealth preserver? Well, it's a theory and I can see how and why it might be but I still think you over-exaggerate its importance.

I'm more on board with the idea that masternodes are over compensated for what they do, at least for now. Maybe Dash Platform changes that enough, hard to say. But just reducing the reward for masternodes would simply reduce the number of masternodes there are and I think this would hurt DASH more. Reducing the collateral would reduce the risk that would allow for a reduced reward.

If DASH is supposed to be decentralized, 5000 or so masternodes shouldn't be the ceiling. Everything in the network should continue to grow.

[toknormal]

Mining is a wealth preserver? Well, it's a theory

Having the blockchain donate coins to existing holders for next to nothing as a "wealth preserver" is also a theory.

It's just it's just that one of those "theories" has a slightly more successful track record at it than the other.

[AzzAz]

again, mining DASH is so very unprofitable. WHO are miners?

[toknormal]

mining DASH is so very unprofitable.

It's not unprofitable if you run a couple of masternodes alongside your rigs to reduce your aggregate difficulty below the network level.

Masternodes can mine at zero difficulty.

The incentive to mine is therefore to accumulated more masternodes. Once you've paid of your rigs and with a hybrid mining configuration you're thenceforce trending towards hoovering up the supply for free.

[qwizzie]

again, mining DASH is so very unprofitable. WHO are miners?

I have heard this so many times in the past as well, specially when Dash was in a bear market (way back before the major 2017 pump).
People were wondering even back then how Dash still had miners, when it was so unprofitable to mine.

I am not surprised to see that same questioning emerge in this bear market. Seems like Dash miners / Dash mining pools can survive bear markets much better
then people think they can. We just had 1.3% of the block rewards moved from miners to masternodes, and it did not seem to dent the hashrate in any way.


Source : https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/dash-hashrate.html#1y

You can believe toknormal and his assumption of miners also operating masternodes (which he offers no evidence for). Or just accept that Dash miners throughout Dash history
have shown more resilience and endurance, then people have given them credit for.

What i do wonder is how many miners are part of a mining multi-pool (where the mining multi-pool is mining several altcoin blockchains at once), that used to be a big thing.
Now with all the Dash ASICS miners out there (24) and the stability of Dash hashrate, i suspect multi-pool mining may have less of an effect on Dash mining these days.
On the other hand Luxor Mining Pool (23% extraction for the Dash network) & Antpool (13% extraction for the Dash network) do seem to be multi-pools  


Source : https://chainz.cryptoid.info/dash/#!extraction

Here is something interesting :

DASH can be mined by 24 Application-Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs) currently on the market with the most recent ASIC release in November 2019. Thus far, there are no X11 ASICs set for release in 2020.
Only 12 of the 24 ASICs are currently profitable at US$0.04 per kilowatt-hour (c/kWh).

Source : https://bravenewcoin.com/insights/dash-price-analysis-usd-market-flips-bullish

So the question is, who can mine at US$0.04 per kilowatt-hour (c/kWh) ? Or formulated differently : who can mine at low electricity cost ?
Or better yet, where can one mine with very low electricity cost ?

  

[toknormal]

You can believe toknormal and his assumption of miners also operating masternodes (which he offers no evidence for).

I have offered evidence for hybrid mining being the most optimal configuration and of it being economically encouraged by the Dash protocol.

[qwizzie]

You can believe toknormal and his assumption of miners also operating masternodes (which he offers no evidence for).

I have offered evidence for hybrid mining being the most optimal configuration and of it being economically encouraged by the Dash protocol.

Nope, that was no evidence. You did not give evidence of miners actually operating masternodes. Therefore your assumption remains an unproven assumption.
Find the missing link and we will have something to talk about.

[toknormal]

Nope, that was no evidence. You did not give evidence of miners actually operating masternodes. Therefore your assumption remains an unproven assumption.
Find the missing link and we will have something to talk about.

That is a slightly silly comment if I may say so.

That the protocol supports and favours hybrid mining at scale is academic. It doesn't require empirical observations as "evidence".

[qwizzie]

Nope, that was no evidence. You did not give evidence of miners actually operating masternodes. Therefore your assumption remains an unproven assumption.
Find the missing link and we will have something to talk about.

That is a slightly silly comment if I may say so.

That the protocol supports and favours hybrid mining at scale is academic. It doesn't require empirical observations as "evidence".

I would say that too, if i was trying to present an assumption that i could not proof or find evidence for.
Find the missing link.

[toknormal]

I would say that too, if i was trying to present an assumption that i could not proof or find evidence for.
Find the missing link.

Please stop trying to deflect statements that are academically self evident by trying to assert that they are "assumptions" or lack "empirical evidence".

The Dash protocol is documented as exposing a proportion of its new supply to competitive mining. The rest is effectively "mined" at zero difficulty.

It therefore follows that various options are available to miners who want to "game" these protocol properties. An quantified example is given here.

[qwizzie]

Months after months after months of assumptions, and still no evidence to support any of toknormal assumptions.

* Dash price is in a death spiral  
* Dash miners will all leave Dash once this blockreward allocation change gets through  
* Dash miners are also operating masternodes  
* Dash should hard fork from the main project and focus more on miners as means of a fun and interesting expirement  

Just silly assumptions really. I guess that is what toknormal needs to get through this Altcoins bear market (which is showing bullish signs by the way), just post a whole lot of silly unproven assumptions,
one after another and try to present most of them as facts, in the hope someone will fall for it.

The fastest way to loose money is to listen to toknormal.
That gave me an idea for my forum signature....
 

[xkcdd]

Please stop trying to deflect statements that are academically self evident...

Please close your fallacious pie hole, Tok.  How then do explain that a whopping 1144 Masternodes voted in favour of of the mining reallocation back in July DAO poll and a pitful 91 masternodes (I assume these are run by you and afbitcoins and the rest by miners) voted no on the poll?

Source:  https://mnowatch.org/the_results_dashd_2020-07-27-02-15-58.uniqueHashVotes.336.html

Please, just please stop trying to pull the wool over our heads, it only makes you look more foolish.