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

[Nthelight]

So far i have not heard anything negative about Binance (the international exchange, not the US exchange).

LOL ... among firefighters, they don't step on the hose!

Centralized currency scammer invites marginalized and stolen holders to hand over their coins to another centralized scammer like Binance. Any shitty exchange or hosting service can build Shared Mnodes ... but for the scammers who financed themselves for six years by tricking microholders into pouring their capital into the project ... "it's a very complicated implementation ...and more blablabla..." .

Of course ... the day they are stolen ... the DASH Holders, GET FUCKED !!! ( They have already collaborated to fatten "their" treasure chest ... The DAO kidnappers ... to keep sucking !!! )


DASH CRYPTO "REVOLUTION" !!!   DECENTRALIZED !!!   FINANCIAL FREEDOM !!!   YEAH !!!YEAH !!!YEAH !!!  

You seem really obsessed about Dash. It's not good for your health ;-)

A lot of your statements are negative hyperbole (hate) which have no basis in reality. Maybe you should try to take it down a notch or two if you want people to actually read what you're saying.

[1714936595]

1714936595

[1714936595]

1714936595

[1714936595]

1714936595

[1714936595]

1714936595

[qwizzie]

Edit : Wow, we actually have a Trump fan / Ryan Taylor hater in here.. that is unexspected and a bit disappointing. There goes any respect i had for that person. Definitely no more merit points for you mister !

Intention process. It's just a meme. I figured it was kind of funny, but I guess it triggers some people.

There was a time i thought Trump was funny, now i just think he is dangerous, extremely dangerous. So yes, promoting Dash through using Trump memes is something i think we should try to avoid in here.
And yes, i may have mistaken your two trump memes in twose two seperate posts, as a sign of a you being a firm Trump supporter, with a drive to extend that Trump support to this forum.
Which means i may have overreacted in my previous post.  

I and many others have countered toknormal so many times this year that i lost count, so i am no longer interested in countering any blockreward allocation change discussion point.
Frankly that ship has long sailed.

If people like you and toknormal can not come to terms with the blockreward reallocation change being massively supported by masternode operators and feel that by
keeping a laserfocus attention on this specific topic in here will somehow make a difference, by all means please continue. And if you want to keep it as low level as you
recentely started to, by focussing on one specific person (Ryan Taylor), then by all means continue.

I will just ignore your posts then, no big deal. In the end i want to read something interesting and new on this forum, not a constant rehashing of old arguments on one specific topic.
It gets boring after awhile. It does not mean i necessarily put you on ignore, just that i will stop paying attention to your posts.
Same as with posts of toknormal on that specific topic. I am pretty done with the whole blockreward allocation change topic by now.

Little bird up there i do have on ignore, just to protect my ears (little bird sings some pretty ugly songs).

[birdonthewire]

So yes, promoting Dash through using Trump memes is something i think we should try to avoid in here.

So...Make a proposal ... you already paid for the persecution and censorship of dissidents with funds from the DAO delivered to DASH NEWS, garbage men, that none of the crypto principles that you touch remain clean.


Well, well ... now the arrogant who trolled and ridiculed the others, even in group ... you ignore me ? Where are your arrogant scorn, my friend? Has the cat eaten your tongue, my boy?

You troll TokNormal because he believes that DASH can be changed from within, saving forms against your shameless shenanigans ... and it is not like that and also ties him hand and foot in the middle of a consensus of corrupt people sharing their cake. The first thing that inmoral scammers who loot the collective wealth that they manage, like any political class in the world robbing the public administrations they hijack, distort the rules and the gaming table, turning it into a closed LOOP in favor of the cheaters.

[Nthelight]

@toknormal.

Aside from the MINER/MN/DCG/OTHER split...

Just for discussion purposes. Can I pick your brain on the following points?

1. What do you think about the yearly -7% miner reduction scheme? Bitcoin uses a halving (-50%) scheme every 4 years and there seems to be a general consensus that it creates strong upwards pressure on the price. Some time after the halving, price seems to strongly push higher. It almost confirms that the pure PoW mining model pushes price higher as inflation decreases and mining competition increases. Also, it leads to a reduced emission rate which is significantly slower than Bitcoin and other coins. How would you assess the impact of increasing the miner reduction scheme (possibly in combination with increased miner share)?

2. How would you feel if Dash reduces the capital requirement for setting up a masternode, in the absence of protocol level shared masternodes? Clearly, this forms a high barrier to enter our service provisioning market (masternode network) and not everyone wants to use 3rd party shared masternode services (they should only do that if they are willing to take on the risk). Would you agree that reducing the capital requirement for masternodes should lead to an increased influx of investment? Seems like a no brainer to be honest if we want to see more "investment" into masternodes. With people like birdonthewire going mental about not being able to enter the 'centralized scam' masternode network, I think it would be time to consider it. I believe there is also no longer any technical constraint to manage a much larger masternode list (since DIP003), but the devs would need to confirm that again.

3. What do you think about the previously discussed idea to move the decimal backwards which would lower price per coin with a factor 100 for example? So if 1 Dash equals $100, it would become 100 Dash equals $100 or 1 Dash equals $1. It is not my personal preference, but during the 2017 pump to +$1500 it became quite clear that it provides a psychological barrier for potential investors who really want to own full units and simply don't understand the relation of our price with our extremely scarce supply. We simply don't have the recognition that Bitcoin has and some people erroneously feel like the price is high without understanding the mechanism behind it. Price is actually very cheap, given our total supply is going to be one of the lowest of the entire crypto space, but new investors don't see or understand it.

[qwizzie]

2. How would you feel if Dash reduces the capital requirement for setting up a masternode, in the absence of protocol level shared masternodes? Clearly, this forms a high barrier to enter our service provisioning market (masternode network) and not everyone wants to use 3rd party shared masternode services (they should only do that if they are willing to take on the risk). Would you agree that reducing the capital requirement for masternodes should lead to an increased influx of investment? Seems like a no brainer to be honest if we want to see more "investment" into masternodes. With people like birdonthewire going mental about not being able to enter the 'centralized scam' masternode network, I think it would be time to consider it. I believe there is also no longer any technical constraint to manage a much larger masternode list (since DIP003), but the devs would need to confirm that again.

With regards to point 2 : having too many masternodes could slow the masternode network. If the collateral of 1000 Dash would be cut to 500 Dash
and our current masternode operators double their masternodes because of this, we could be looking at close to 10.000 masternodes. That could be too much for our network.

I am not sure how exactly or where exactly it could slow down, maybe in the block propagation area or in the quorum area or with Chainlocks perhaps?
Also the time between MN payments would double (from 8,5 days to roughly 16 days).

I know another Dash Community member in here was also entertaining that thought, and i did not respond to that. But now that its getting raised again, i seem to recall that there are technical limitations
to our number of masternodes and the network still running efficient and fast. Get too many masternodes active on the network and it will negatively effect the network .. somehow.  

Edit : found the post in question, where this was asked and answerred.


Source : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/temporary-measures-quick-wins.49138/#post-219044

So a very large increase in number of masternodes (double number of masternodes for example), could have an negative effect on Dash scalability and speed.
While a slow and limited increase in number of masternodes (as is currently foreseen) is much less of a problem.    

At least that is how i read it.

[Nthelight]

Edit : Wow, we actually have a Trump fan / Ryan Taylor hater in here.. that is unexspected and a bit disappointing. There goes any respect i had for that person. Definitely no more merit points for you mister !

Intention process. It's just a meme. I figured it was kind of funny, but I guess it triggers some people.

There was a time i thought Trump was funny, now i just think he is dangerous, extremely dangerous. So yes, promoting Dash through using Trump memes is something i think we should try to avoid in here.
And yes, i may have mistaken your two trump memes in twose two seperate posts, as a sign of a you being a firm Trump supporter, with a drive to extend that Trump support to this forum.
Which means i may have overreacted in my previous post.

I'm surprised that you wouldn't want millions of Trump supports to join Dash, because of some personal stance on Trump.

We could only dream of such an influx. Dash would probably pump to $10,000.

 
I and many others have countered toknormal so many times this year that i lost count, so i am no longer interested in countering any blockreward allocation change discussion point.
Frankly that ship has long sailed.

What is then the final convincing argument?

"We don't need all that hashrate, miners dump, masternode owners are holders ... " ?

If people like you and toknormal can not come to terms with the blockreward reallocation change being massively supported by masternode operators and feel that by keeping a laserfocus attention on this specific topic in here will somehow make a difference, by all means please continue. And if you want to keep it as low level as you recentely started to, by focussing on one specific person (Ryan Taylor), then by all means continue.

I actually want to talk about anything. Toknormal only wants to talk about the split. I'm actually disappointed to see almost no talk on Dash Platform. Hopefully that changes around drastically when it's on testnet and we can experience it for ourselves. Really, I'm very excited about it and still see a very bright future for Dash.

I will just ignore your posts then, no big deal. In the end i want to read something interesting and new on this forum, not a constant rehashing of old arguments on one specific topic. It gets boring after awhile. It does not mean i necessarily put you on ignore, just that i will stop paying attention to your posts. Same as with posts of toknormal on that specific topic. I am pretty done with the whole blockreward allocation change topic by now.

Little bird up there i do have on ignore, just to protect my ears (little bird sings some pretty ugly songs).

I understand and even asked him not to be 'laser focused' on it. I tried to change the subject towards Dash Platform, but toknormal seems to ignore everything that is not about the split. He feels really strongly about his point of view and I share his concern, so I didn't mind rehashing the topic. Don't think I'm personally stuck on this topic. I'm honestly still waiting for the actual release of Dash Platform to go into shill mode. DCG is cutting it close again.

To be honest, you know what's really boring qwizzie? You being the only who posts here. This thread was dead and it's coming back to life. If more people would join, it could become something again. Let's get it rolling again. Outsiders don't know what is going on in the Discord(s) and at least we get some views here from people who want to check the latest on Dash and see that Dash is still alive.

Feel free to ignore anyone you want. I won't. I look forward to your excellent 'Legendary' posts.

[Nthelight]

2. How would you feel if Dash reduces the capital requirement for setting up a masternode, in the absence of protocol level shared masternodes? Clearly, this forms a high barrier to enter our service provisioning market (masternode network) and not everyone wants to use 3rd party shared masternode services (they should only do that if they are willing to take on the risk). Would you agree that reducing the capital requirement for masternodes should lead to an increased influx of investment? Seems like a no brainer to be honest if we want to see more "investment" into masternodes. With people like birdonthewire going mental about not being able to enter the 'centralized scam' masternode network, I think it would be time to consider it. I believe there is also no longer any technical constraint to manage a much larger masternode list (since DIP003), but the devs would need to confirm that again.

With regards to point 2 : having too many masternodes will slow the masternode network. If the collateral of 1000 Dash would be cut to 500 Dash
and our current masternode operators double their masternodes because of this, we could be looking at close to 10.000 masternodes. That would be too much for our network.

I am not sure how exactly or where exactly it slows down, maybe in the block propagation area or in the quorum area or with Chainlocks perhaps?
Also the time between MN payments would double (from 8,5 days to roughly 16 days).

I know another Dash Community member in here was also entertaining that thought, and i did not respond to that. But now that its getting raised again, i seem to recall that there are technical limitations
to our number of masternodes and the network still running efficient and fast. Get too many masternodes active on the network and it will negatively effect the network .. somehow.  

Edit : found the post in question, where this was asked and answerred.


Source : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/temporary-measures-quick-wins.49138/#post-219044

So a very large increase in number of masternodes (double number of masternodes for example), could have an negative effect on Dash scalability and speed.
While a slow and limited increase in number of masternode (as is currently foreseen) is much less of a problem.    

At least that is how i read it.

Ok, thanks for digging up Ryan's (or DCG's) point of view on it. Appreciate it. He does say 'slightly' which is subjective, but indicates minimal effect. Important point is that he assessed the effect to be logarithmic and not linear. It would be good to have a deeper (technical) analysis on it, like you say, in what sense it affects block propagation, quorum management and so on. This could be used to counter anyone asking to lower the capital requirement for masternodes, because today I presumed that there was no longer any reason to not do this.

I wonder if he took into consideration the point that this creates a barrier to entry. With Dash price rising it will become even more so.

If DCG's argument is convincing, then the only option left to have more people enter the masternode network is by implementing shared masternodes on protocol level (at least without having them take on risk).

As Ryan states, I'm fully aware that we have more than enough masternodes already giving our actual usage, but if we really want people to buy more dash for masternodes, then we don't have many options.

Do we know how many masternodes are already running in 3rd party shared masternode services? (Crowdnode has 25).

[qwizzie]

2. How would you feel if Dash reduces the capital requirement for setting up a masternode, in the absence of protocol level shared masternodes? Clearly, this forms a high barrier to enter our service provisioning market (masternode network) and not everyone wants to use 3rd party shared masternode services (they should only do that if they are willing to take on the risk). Would you agree that reducing the capital requirement for masternodes should lead to an increased influx of investment? Seems like a no brainer to be honest if we want to see more "investment" into masternodes. With people like birdonthewire going mental about not being able to enter the 'centralized scam' masternode network, I think it would be time to consider it. I believe there is also no longer any technical constraint to manage a much larger masternode list (since DIP003), but the devs would need to confirm that again.

With regards to point 2 : having too many masternodes will slow the masternode network. If the collateral of 1000 Dash would be cut to 500 Dash
and our current masternode operators double their masternodes because of this, we could be looking at close to 10.000 masternodes. That would be too much for our network.

I am not sure how exactly or where exactly it slows down, maybe in the block propagation area or in the quorum area or with Chainlocks perhaps?
Also the time between MN payments would double (from 8,5 days to roughly 16 days).

I know another Dash Community member in here was also entertaining that thought, and i did not respond to that. But now that its getting raised again, i seem to recall that there are technical limitations
to our number of masternodes and the network still running efficient and fast. Get too many masternodes active on the network and it will negatively effect the network .. somehow.  

Edit : found the post in question, where this was asked and answerred.


Source : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/temporary-measures-quick-wins.49138/#post-219044

So a very large increase in number of masternodes (double number of masternodes for example), could have an negative effect on Dash scalability and speed.
While a slow and limited increase in number of masternode (as is currently foreseen) is much less of a problem.    

At least that is how i read it.

Ok, thanks for digging up Ryan's (or DCG's) point of view on it. Appreciate it. He does say 'slightly' which is subjective, but indicates minimal effect. Important point is that he assessed the effect to be logarithmic and not linear. It would be good to have a deeper (technical) analysis on it, like you say, in what sense it affects block propagation, quorum management and so on. This could be used to counter anyone asking to lower the capital requirement for masternodes, because today I presumed that there was no longer any reason to not do this.

I wonder if he took into consideration the point that this creates a barrier to entry. With Dash price rising it will become even more so.

If DCG's argument is convincing, then the only option left to have more people enter the masternode network is by implementing shared masternodes on protocol level (at least without having them take on risk).

As Ryan states, I'm fully aware that we have more than enough masternodes already giving our actual usage, but if we really want people to buy more dash for masternodes, then we don't have many options.

Do we know how many masternodes are already running in 3rd party shared masternode services? (Crowdnode has 25).

I also think the masternode collateral serves as protection against sybil attacks. Maybe you remember this one ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bz6rFZQywOE
I have no idea how many masternodes are already running in 3rd party shared masternode services.

[birdonthewire]

I also think the masternode collateral serves as protection against sybil attacks. Maybe you remember this one ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bz6rFZQywOE
I have no idea how many masternodes are already running in 3rd party shared masternode services.

Far fewer than the REAL community that you promised, stole, marginalized and kicked out from your centralized trap would have set up. The original project was going like a shot ... until 4 arrogant conceits wanted to appropriate the chicken of golden eggs changing the rules in the middle of the game and centralizing the project. It wasn't all Evolution's subsidized botch.

And having MILLIONS of holders defending and expanding the currency. Like another BTC...and optimized. But calm ... you keep your money and "have no idea". Why bother?

Of course ... there is at least the poetic justice that the Mnodes have their tokens at a price of shit. Thieves ... of cow dung. Great artists. The great Mnodes and his stupid track record of decisions and cheating  are like the agronomist's dog: he neither eats nor allows others to eat.

By the way ... your "BTC wealth expansion to altcoins" theory is that, theory. BTC is no longer reliant on pumping & dumping on altcoins ... it is even dropping its dependence on Tether for Wall Street blessings and infinite fiat. A wall street that has a thousand options in crypto before enriching some redneck scammers who believed themselves to be the kings of the Mambo.

In any case, what experience says is that BTC can steal all the wealth of the rest when it wants, more the more speculative capital it has ... while you make up a ridiculous approach as a store of value solution. It is not that it is bad or good ... it simply DOES NOT AFFECT that objective, it is an excuse to cover up negligence and shenanigans ... and benefit (miserably) the accomplices of the robbery with their crumbs.

Any attempt to reinforce DASH, to endow it with stability ... has been sidelined from the debate for years by RTaylor, DASH NEWS and the whole cheating gang.

[toknormal]

@toknormal.
1. What do you think about the yearly -7% miner reduction scheme? Bitcoin uses a halving (-50%) scheme every 4 years and there seems to be a general consensus that it creates strong upwards pressure on the price. Some time after the halving, price seems to strongly push higher. It almost confirms that the pure PoW mining model pushes price higher...

I think if we stick to a core principle, this question gets answered quite easily. That core principle is that:

 • Dash needs to be as LIKE bitcoin as humanly possible in store of value and
 • as DIFFERENT from bitcoin as humanly possible for utility

Therefore Dash needs to mine the sh* out of as much of its supply as possible to make it extremely scarce because that's what bitcoin does. At the same time Dash needs to leave just enough blockchain budget to fund its service layer - a dimension of utility that bitcoin does not have. That is very easy for us because it only costs us around 1% of our mining budget to fund the service layer to gain a huge advantage over bitcoin. Ever less as the price rises. (So why do we spend 60% on it ).

The smoother 7% reduction is therefore far more suited to that priority than the disruptive halving IMO because it makes masternode adoption less disruptive and allows investors a more predictable ROI.

2. How would you feel if Dash reduces the capital requirement for setting up a masternode, in the absence of protocol level shared masternodes? Clearly, this forms a high barrier to enter our service provisioning market (masternode network) and not everyone wants to use 3rd party shared masternode services (they should only do that if they are willing to take on the risk). Would you agree that reducing the capital requirement for masternodes should lead to an increased influx of investment?

I would not support that. The masternode collateral level should remain high IMO, otherwise we'd just end up as a proof of stake coin which would be disastrous.

Masternode "sharing" should occur in the fintech commercial sector IMO, not at the blockchain protocol level, nor by trying to reduce the collateral to ever smaller amounts. By keeping the collateral threshold high we create a clear market in the fintech sector for security type products that are Dash backed. I've always argued that we should not think of a masternode as a "person". That only happened because when the price was low, a masternode and an individual human were largely synonymous. But the masternode is actually an archetypal element of the protocol and should remain so. It should be investible like an ocean liner is, as an "all or nothing" thing, not an infinitely divisible thing.

It is not a "person". Nor is the masternode vote a "person". Everybody on board the ocean liner can have a vote but it's the role of the fintech retail sector to manage and ultimately direct the course of the one "ocean liner" which they control and that one vote then gets forwarded to the protocol. We need the idea of a masternode to stay with the protocol but the idea of its ownership to be able to float and be marketed by whoever wants to in a free enterprise manner IMO. Keeping the collateral high forces that decoupling at an earlier stage. It was already starting to happen during the last round of revaluation when we started seeing institutionalised investement coming in to the masternode sector.

But we're not going to see that again unless we address the reward ratio so that ROI in Dash can be replaced (mostly) with capital gain ROI. That's why it's important IMO to get Spork 21 reversed ASAP and restore mining across the majority of our blocks to protect their scarcity.

3. What do you think about the previously discussed idea to move the decimal backwards which would lower price per coin with a factor 100 for example? So if 1 Dash equals $100, it would become 100 Dash equals $100 or 1 Dash equals $1. It is not my personal preference, but during the 2017 pump to +$1500 it became quite clear that it provides a psychological barrier for potential investors who really want to own full units and simply don't understand the relation of our price with our extremely scarce supply.

Firstly, our supply isn't "scarce" unless it's made so through mining. Currently we give it away for free in cornflakes packets to masternodes in exchange for providing a service which bitcoin & litecoin get for free. (Dash would still retain all of its functional advantages even if all it did was to make operating a node profitable over operating a bitcoin node).

Re. the decimal point moving, that is another desperation move by people who don't understand where our store-of-value function is. Our store of value dimension comes from mining, not from either of:

 • trying to get the protocol to restrict traffic to order books or
 • playing around with the decimal point

To test the irrelevance of the "decimal point" theory, follow these steps:

1. Go to https://coinmarketcap.com/
2. Click "Filters"
3. Click "Mineable"
4. Click "Circulating supply" to reverse sort

You should now be seeing the most valuable coins at the top if the theory holds.

[Tungi17]

What’s up with Dash ? with Ernesto Contreras / Head of Biz Dev for Dash Core Group

https://youtu.be/mR5JmEPXCvg

[Tungi17]

TREZOR users:
A breach of our competitor’s e-commerce database is now resulting in attempts to scam potential Trezor customers.
We recommend every owner of a HW wallet to read this guide.
Never trust anyone asking for your seed.
Trezor customer data has not been leaked.
We continue to operate on a policy of anonymizing all customer data from e-commerce within 90 days, and will even remove customer data manually if requested before that.
https://blog.trezor.io/phishing-attacks-are-targeting-trezor-users-4edac4cb96fa

[jdmcg]

Bitcoin broke $20,000. Lift off.

Careful... if BTC and the alts follow the previous pattern from early 2017 then we might see Bitcoin crater by 30%+ before finding support at the 21 weekly moving average. This could be anywhere between $15K and $17K I'd guess.

With this dump we could see DASH easily form a double bottom around 420000 sats or even form a new bottom as low as 380000 sats or so... (about $60 or so)

And if then DASH follows LTC's previous script from 2017 we might see DASH and other alts rocket up 7x or so as BTC recovers and re-passes the $20K mark and beyond. The bull run will have officially started for alts. This could all play out by mid Jan to early Feb.

Of course, who knows, just because the crypto market has followed much of the previous 4 year cycle, doesn't mean it won't deviate in the next 2 months...

[Nthelight]

2. How would you feel if Dash reduces the capital requirement for setting up a masternode, in the absence of protocol level shared masternodes? Clearly, this forms a high barrier to enter our service provisioning market (masternode network) and not everyone wants to use 3rd party shared masternode services (they should only do that if they are willing to take on the risk). Would you agree that reducing the capital requirement for masternodes should lead to an increased influx of investment? Seems like a no brainer to be honest if we want to see more "investment" into masternodes. With people like birdonthewire going mental about not being able to enter the 'centralized scam' masternode network, I think it would be time to consider it. I believe there is also no longer any technical constraint to manage a much larger masternode list (since DIP003), but the devs would need to confirm that again.

With regards to point 2 : having too many masternodes will slow the masternode network. If the collateral of 1000 Dash would be cut to 500 Dash
and our current masternode operators double their masternodes because of this, we could be looking at close to 10.000 masternodes. That would be too much for our network.

I am not sure how exactly or where exactly it slows down, maybe in the block propagation area or in the quorum area or with Chainlocks perhaps?
Also the time between MN payments would double (from 8,5 days to roughly 16 days).

I know another Dash Community member in here was also entertaining that thought, and i did not respond to that. But now that its getting raised again, i seem to recall that there are technical limitations
to our number of masternodes and the network still running efficient and fast. Get too many masternodes active on the network and it will negatively effect the network .. somehow.  

Edit : found the post in question, where this was asked and answerred.
Source : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/temporary-measures-quick-wins.49138/#post-219044

So a very large increase in number of masternodes (double number of masternodes for example), could have an negative effect on Dash scalability and speed.
While a slow and limited increase in number of masternode (as is currently foreseen) is much less of a problem.    

At least that is how i read it.

Ok, thanks for digging up Ryan's (or DCG's) point of view on it. Appreciate it. He does say 'slightly' which is subjective, but indicates minimal effect. Important point is that he assessed the effect to be logarithmic and not linear. It would be good to have a deeper (technical) analysis on it, like you say, in what sense it affects block propagation, quorum management and so on. This could be used to counter anyone asking to lower the capital requirement for masternodes, because today I presumed that there was no longer any reason to not do this.

I wonder if he took into consideration the point that this creates a barrier to entry. With Dash price rising it will become even more so.

If DCG's argument is convincing, then the only option left to have more people enter the masternode network is by implementing shared masternodes on protocol level (at least without having them take on risk).

As Ryan states, I'm fully aware that we have more than enough masternodes already giving our actual usage, but if we really want people to buy more dash for masternodes, then we don't have many options.

Do we know how many masternodes are already running in 3rd party shared masternode services? (Crowdnode has 25).

I also think the masternode collateral serves as protection against sybil attacks. Maybe you remember this one ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bz6rFZQywOE
I have no idea how many masternodes are already running in 3rd party shared masternode services.

Ok, good refresh on that angle. I also checked the deeper analysis referred to by Mastermined. The presented layman's explanation by Amanda explains that Dash was already very resistant to sybil attacks with a price of $13 per coin. It was already very cost prohibitive to buy up enough Dash to have a very very small chance at performing a successful deanonymization of a single transaction.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg16106256#msg16106256

Today's price is over $100, even with real support around $40-$60 it has become several hundreds of percent more expensive to own 1 node (compared to 2016). In that sense I presume we could still have more than adequate protection against this form of attack compared to 2016, if we were to lower the collateral requirement for a masternode. I honestly think that sybil attacks are not realistic anymore in Dash.

Plus, we now have the possibility to increase rounds of mixing to 16, instead of the applicable maximum 8 rounds back in 2016.

An important element to keep in mind no doubt, but likely not thé argument to not consider lowering the masternode collateral.

It likely comes down to network efficiency, which surely was the case before DIP003, but I imagined this was now no longer the case.

Thanks for your input though.

[Nthelight]

@toknormal.
1. What do you think about the yearly -7% miner reduction scheme? Bitcoin uses a halving (-50%) scheme every 4 years and there seems to be a general consensus that it creates strong upwards pressure on the price. Some time after the halving, price seems to strongly push higher. It almost confirms that the pure PoW mining model pushes price higher...

I think if we stick to a core principle, this question gets answered quite easily. That core principle is that:

 • Dash needs to be as LIKE bitcoin as humanly possible in store of value and
 • as DIFFERENT from bitcoin as humanly possible for utility

Therefore Dash needs to mine the sh* out of as much of its supply as possible to make it extremely scarce because that's what bitcoin does. At the same time Dash needs to leave just enough blockchain budget to fund its service layer - a dimension of utility that bitcoin does not have. That is very easy for us because it only costs us around 1% of our mining budget to fund the service layer to gain a huge advantage over bitcoin. Ever less as the price rises. (So why do we spend 60% on it ).

The smoother 7% reduction is therefore far more suited to that priority than the disruptive halving IMO because it makes masternode adoption less disruptive and allows investors a more predictable ROI.

Yes I tend to agree on that point that it creates a smoother more linear push upwards. At least it should.

As you imply it likely gets distorted by the split ratio.

I don't know why we spend 60% on it and I don't agree at all with it.

You have addressed this matter multiple times with Ryan Taylor.

Could you even synthesize what his point of view is? I honestly can't. Can anyone?

2. How would you feel if Dash reduces the capital requirement for setting up a masternode, in the absence of protocol level shared masternodes? Clearly, this forms a high barrier to enter our service provisioning market (masternode network) and not everyone wants to use 3rd party shared masternode services (they should only do that if they are willing to take on the risk). Would you agree that reducing the capital requirement for masternodes should lead to an increased influx of investment?

I would not support that. The masternode collateral level should remain high IMO, otherwise we'd just end up as a proof of stake coin which would be disastrous.

Masternode "sharing" should occur in the fintech commercial sector IMO, not at the blockchain protocol level, nor by trying to reduce the collateral to ever smaller amounts. By keeping the collateral threshold high we create a clear market in the fintech sector for security type products that are Dash backed. I've always argued that we should not think of a masternode as a "person". That only happened because when the price was low, a masternode and an individual human were largely synonymous. But the masternode is actually an archetypal element of the protocol and should remain so. It should be investible like an ocean liner is, as an "all or nothing" thing, not an infinitely divisible thing.

It is not a "person". Nor is the masternode vote a "person". Everybody on board the ocean liner can have a vote but it's the role of the fintech retail sector to manage and ultimately direct the course of the one "ocean liner" which they control and that one vote then gets forwarded to the protocol. We need the idea of a masternode to stay with the protocol but the idea of its ownership to be able to float and be marketed by whoever wants to in a free enterprise manner IMO. Keeping the collateral high forces that decoupling at an earlier stage. It was already starting to happen during the last round of revaluation when we started seeing institutionalised investement coming in to the masternode sector.

But we're not going to see that again unless we address the reward ratio so that ROI in Dash can be replaced (mostly) with capital gain ROI. That's why it's important IMO to get Spork 21 reversed ASAP and restore mining across the majority of our blocks to protect their scarcity.

3. What do you think about the previously discussed idea to move the decimal backwards which would lower price per coin with a factor 100 for example? So if 1 Dash equals $100, it would become 100 Dash equals $100 or 1 Dash equals $1. It is not my personal preference, but during the 2017 pump to +$1500 it became quite clear that it provides a psychological barrier for potential investors who really want to own full units and simply don't understand the relation of our price with our extremely scarce supply.

Firstly, our supply isn't "scarce" unless it's made so through mining. Currently we give it away for free in cornflakes packets to masternodes in exchange for providing a service which bitcoin & litecoin get for free. (Dash would still retain all of its functional advantages even if all it did was to make operating a node profitable over operating a bitcoin node).

Re. the decimal point moving, that is another desperation move by people who don't understand where our store-of-value function is. Our store of value dimension comes from mining, not from either of:

 • trying to get the protocol to restrict traffic to order books or
 • playing around with the decimal point

To test the irrelevance of the "decimal point" theory, follow these steps:

1. Go to https://coinmarketcap.com/
2. Click "Filters"
3. Click "Mineable"
4. Click "Circulating supply" to reverse sort

You should now be seeing the most valuable coins at the top if the theory holds.

Ok, well, just trying to think out of the box, since I don't see the reallocation hard fork being reversed. The cognitive dissonance is too strong.

Like qwizzie said "that ship has sailed", I just hope it doesn't sink ...

[Nthelight]

Bitcoin broke $20,000. Lift off.

Careful... if BTC and the alts follow the previous pattern from early 2017 then we might see Bitcoin crater by 30%+ before finding support at the 21 weekly moving average. This could be anywhere between $15K and $17K I'd guess.

With this dump we could see DASH easily form a double bottom around 420000 sats or even form a new bottom as low as 380000 sats or so... (about $60 or so)

And if then DASH follows LTC's previous script from 2017 we might see DASH and other alts rocket up 7x or so as BTC recovers and re-passes the $20K mark and beyond. The bull run will have officially started for alts. This could all play out by mid Jan to early Feb.

Of course, who knows, just because the crypto market has followed much of the previous 4 year cycle, doesn't mean it won't deviate in the next 2 months...

Bitcoin is in full bull trend now without any sign that a serious correction will happen. Too many huge investment funds involved and they are all betting on the one and only. They are simply buying up every attempt to correct and they continue pumping. FOMO building in small investors.

Consequently as previously discussed, DASH/BTC is in complete reset mode. No hard support whatsoever. There is no floor at 380000 sats.

We may see 1 BTC = 1MN. :'-//



DASH/BTC entering the zone of Dash's first four months after inception. Surprised. Not surprised.

[qwizzie]

I suspect we are in for a large rise in the Dash price. Hold unto your hats ladies and gentlemen, this could be a bumpy ride.

1 Dash = $109
1 Dash = 0.004757

XRP (+18.15%) & Litecoin (+16.72%) already fired up their engine it seems. Could be another Altcoins rally.
Dash currently at +7.46%


Source : messari.io

Listing mostly based on : https://coinmarketcap.com/coins/  (which excludes tokens projects)
Listing for tokens projects can be viewed here : https://coinmarketcap.com/tokens/ (i don't monitor those)

[Nthelight]

Percentage from ATH -- cryptocurrency competitors:



Percentage from ATH -- general top 30 list:

[qwizzie]

Dash chart with 1 month time interval



Source : https://www.tradingview.com/chart/z3IO0qvH/

I am still waiting for Dash to pass the $200 mark, as that will confirm a longterm bullish trend to me.  

[toknormal]

In case you have stash on exchanges...



See also: https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/1339314427607322624