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

[UdjinM6]

The question is how do I get my Mac wallet to find a block source?

is there any nodes that i can add?My wallet stuck

guys, try this one
http://wiki.darkcoin.eu/wiki/FAQ#I_have_sync_issues_with_my_wallet._What_can_I_do.3F

[JGCMiner]

That part:

If the pool doesn't pay the correct amount to the correct node, we'll know and we'll shame them. We'll get miners to move to honest pools.

...won't work. We couldn't even get the miners of coinmine to switch when they were >51% because they were getting consistency and low variance (compared to the official which was DOS'ed).

The days of 2-3 pools also seem to be over: http://drk.poolhash.org/poolhash.html

The pie chart is revealing.

Just use hard fork and another system of election/payment that doesn't affect network stability. "Honest pools" won't work. Guaranteed.

I think it's a good start. Doing masternode payments via soft fork will allow them to get paid like promised, we can at least get the larger pools to pay the fees. Later on, we can hard for and enforce them.

Sorry to bring this back up, but even in the short term I fear the chaos this will cause.

If you look at the thread since DRK started to rise last month, there have been trolls galore (some of who have admitted to being paid), some poor guy got his masternode hacked and his coins stolen (bad job of hardening, I know), as well as many other instances of hate directed towards DRK.  There are A LOT of people who want you to fail... for DRK to fail -- and I really think that this method of paying masternodes makes their job easier.  

I trust that the current major pools will cooperate, but what I worry about is a newly created malicious pool cheating (which you admitted was possible) and modifying the wallet software so that the block reward received from the network (say 5 coins) is not split 4/1, but lets say, is split 1 DRK for themselves and 4 for the miners. Or, as another example, they pay all 5 coins to the miners (and advertise that their pool has bigger payouts causing them to gain even more miners). Shaming them won't help.  In fact it might make things worse as it will bring attention to a pool where miners get bigger payouts.  It has been proven time and again that miners care much more about the profit than the coin (51%+ hashrate on coinmine in the early days, etc.)

Right. Shaming them might actually achieve the reverse effect and make the pool bigger.

If it's only hurting others indirectly, aka the MN users, then as a miner, I would go where the largest block reward is.

I just think that there will be a lot of chaos that will hurt DRK.  If DRK is going to say publicly that masternodes get 20% of the reward then they need to get that 20% every block or people will be very quick to call the coin a scam.

The beauty of all cryptocurrency is the aspect of trustlessness, but by using this method the masternode owner needs to trust that the node which found the block is using unmodified software so that they get their reward.  Even if it is for a short time, I just don't think going down a path requiring trust is good for the coin or investor loyalty.  If possible, I ask that you consider other options or just go back to the hardfork plan after very extensive testing of the new code on testnet.  


bolding in the quotes done by me

[Freckleg]

That part:

If the pool doesn't pay the correct amount to the correct node, we'll know and we'll shame them. We'll get miners to move to honest pools.

...won't work. We couldn't even get the miners of coinmine to switch when they were >51% because they were getting consistency and low variance (compared to the official which was DOS'ed).

The days of 2-3 pools also seem to be over: http://drk.poolhash.org/poolhash.html

The pie chart is revealing.

Just use hard fork and another system of election/payment that doesn't affect network stability. "Honest pools" won't work. Guaranteed.

I think it's a good start. Doing masternode payments via soft fork will allow them to get paid like promised, we can at least get the larger pools to pay the fees. Later on, we can hard for and enforce them.

Sorry to bring this back up, but even in the short term I fear the chaos this will cause.

If you look at the thread since DRK started to rise last month, there have been trolls galore (some of who have admitted to being paid), some poor guy got his masternode hacked and his coins stolen (bad job of hardening, I know), as well as many other instances of hate directed towards DRK.  There are A LOT of people who want you to fail... for DRK to fail -- and I really think that this method of paying masternodes makes their job easier.  

I trust that the current major pools will cooperate, but what I worry about is a newly created malicious pool cheating (which you admitted was possible) and modifying the wallet software so that the block reward received from the network (say 5 coins) is not split 4/1, but lets say, is split 1 DRK for themselves and 4 for the miners. Or, as another example, they pay all 5 coins to the miners (and advertise that their pool has bigger payouts causing them to gain even more miners). Shaming them won't help.  In fact it might make things worse as it will bring attention to a pool where miners get bigger payouts.  It has been proven time and again that miners care much more about the profit than the coin (51%+ hashrate on coinmine in the early days, etc.)

Right. Shaming them might actually achieve the reverse effect and make the pool bigger.

If it's only hurting others indirectly, aka the MN users, then as a miner, I would go where the largest block reward is.

I just think that there will be a lot of chaos that will hurt DRK.  If DRK is going to say publicly that masternodes get 20% of the reward then they need to get that 20% every block or people will be very quick to call the coin a scam.

The beauty of all cryptocurrency is the aspect of trustlessness, but by using this method the masternode owner needs to trust that the node which found the block is using unmodified software so that they get their reward.  Even if it is for a short time, I just don't think going down a path requiring trust is good for the coin or investor loyalty.  If possible, I ask that you consider other options or just go back to the hardfork plan after very extensive testing of the new code on testnet.  


bolding in the quotes done by me

You observations are correct. However the plan as I understood by reading Evans posts is to soft fork the payments of the masternodes and later on, well prepared, hard fork it in. In this case it is a short term and long term win. Short term the masternodes get what they deserve (with no pools cheating that is), later on it is guaranteed for all because it is then hard forked in.

-edit I forgot to mention that the good thing is darksend works. So we really have the first anonymous coin. That fact alone will skyrocket the price of DRK. which is good for those that have coin stashed in Masternodes and those that hold.

[JGCMiner]

That part:

If the pool doesn't pay the correct amount to the correct node, we'll know and we'll shame them. We'll get miners to move to honest pools.

...won't work. We couldn't even get the miners of coinmine to switch when they were >51% because they were getting consistency and low variance (compared to the official which was DOS'ed).

The days of 2-3 pools also seem to be over: http://drk.poolhash.org/poolhash.html

The pie chart is revealing.

Just use hard fork and another system of election/payment that doesn't affect network stability. "Honest pools" won't work. Guaranteed.

I think it's a good start. Doing masternode payments via soft fork will allow them to get paid like promised, we can at least get the larger pools to pay the fees. Later on, we can hard for and enforce them.

Sorry to bring this back up, but even in the short term I fear the chaos this will cause.

If you look at the thread since DRK started to rise last month, there have been trolls galore (some of who have admitted to being paid), some poor guy got his masternode hacked and his coins stolen (bad job of hardening, I know), as well as many other instances of hate directed towards DRK.  There are A LOT of people who want you to fail... for DRK to fail -- and I really think that this method of paying masternodes makes their job easier.  

I trust that the current major pools will cooperate, but what I worry about is a newly created malicious pool cheating (which you admitted was possible) and modifying the wallet software so that the block reward received from the network (say 5 coins) is not split 4/1, but lets say, is split 1 DRK for themselves and 4 for the miners. Or, as another example, they pay all 5 coins to the miners (and advertise that their pool has bigger payouts causing them to gain even more miners). Shaming them won't help.  In fact it might make things worse as it will bring attention to a pool where miners get bigger payouts.  It has been proven time and again that miners care much more about the profit than the coin (51%+ hashrate on coinmine in the early days, etc.)

Right. Shaming them might actually achieve the reverse effect and make the pool bigger.

If it's only hurting others indirectly, aka the MN users, then as a miner, I would go where the largest block reward is.

I just think that there will be a lot of chaos that will hurt DRK.  If DRK is going to say publicly that masternodes get 20% of the reward then they need to get that 20% every block or people will be very quick to call the coin a scam.

The beauty of all cryptocurrency is the aspect of trustlessness, but by using this method the masternode owner needs to trust that the node which found the block is using unmodified software so that they get their reward.  Even if it is for a short time, I just don't think going down a path requiring trust is good for the coin or investor loyalty.  If possible, I ask that you consider other options or just go back to the hardfork plan after very extensive testing of the new code on testnet.  


bolding in the quotes done by me

You observations are correct. However the plan as I understood by reading Evans posts is to soft fork the payments of the masternodes and later on, well prepared, hard fork it in. In this case it is a short term and long term win. Short term the masternodes get what they deserve (with no pools cheating that is), later on it is guaranteed for all because it is then hard forked in.

Maybe all the FUD, attacks, etc. in the last month have left me skittish -- but I wonder even in the short term what might happen to the coin if there is an organized effort to hurt DRK based around pools cheating.   If Evan does go through with this then I hope I am just worrying over nothing.  

[Freckleg]

You observations are correct. However the plan as I understood by reading Evans posts is to soft fork the payments of the masternodes and later on, well prepared, hard fork it in. In this case it is a short term and long term win. Short term the masternodes get what they deserve (with no pools cheating that is), later on it is guaranteed for all because it is then hard forked in.

Maybe all the to FUD, attacks, etc. in the last month have left me skittish -- but I wonder even in the short term what might happen to the coin if there is an organized effort to hurt DRK based around pools cheating.  

[/quote]

thats also why the additional edit is important ;-)

-edit I forgot to mention that the good thing is darksend works. So we really have the first anonymous coin. That fact alone will skyrocket the price of DRK. which is good for those that have coin stashed in Masternodes and those that hold.

[caspar]

This coin is too unstable. All the participants were very upset. Development should be to do something. Of course, if you like, please help!

[lohveh]

This coin is too unstable. All the participants were very upset. Development should be to do something. Of course, if you like, please help!

What ?

1/ If it's unstable, what about all other coins ?

2/ I'm not upset

3/ Evan is here everyday, with his team ... what about other coins where dev don't show his face for 2months ?

[ezimedia]

So we still on to set up a donation addres for Evan to fund a great Dev team?

https://darkcointalk.org/threads/masternode-payments-and-beyond.921/

I've concluded that XosX (http://chainz.cryptoid.info/drk/address.dws?188207.htm) is Evan...so I think he's doing alright.

Any guesses for #2?

Max Keiser
Although I believe him to be number 1

What's the net worth of Keiser in terms of BTC?

No idea to be honest. He was buying them since they were less than $5 though.

Thank you stupid/weak people. You made me homeless with your votes, you made me rich with your stupidity/weakness.

Pshaw, I used all the BTC that I paid less than $1 for to go all in on DRK back in March. I turned a pocket-change investment while I was homeless into more money than I know what to do with.

Thank you stupid/weak people. You made me homeless with your votes, you made me rich with your stupidity/weakness.
[/quote]

how do homeless people have Internet... or even the gear to buy coins...

well what do I know... glad you got out of being homeless... all the power to you

[JGCMiner]

This coin is too unstable. All the participants were very upset. Development should be to do something. Of course, if you like, please help!

Who are these "participatants"?  Stop spreading FUD. Price has been very resilient considering the technical issues over the last couple days.

[splawik21]

next to ignore troll list

[coins101]

It's a pretty organised effort by other coin supporters and traders. No sense of reality.

[coins101]

More of the trolls trying to manipulate the price

[richy]

So we still on to set up a donation addres for Evan to fund a great Dev team?

https://darkcointalk.org/threads/masternode-payments-and-beyond.921/

I've concluded that XosX (http://chainz.cryptoid.info/drk/address.dws?188207.htm) is Evan...so I think he's doing alright.

Any guesses for #2?

Max Keiser
Although I believe him to be number 1

What's the net worth of Keiser in terms of BTC?

No idea to be honest. He was buying them since they were less than $5 though.

Thank you stupid/weak people. You made me homeless with your votes, you made me rich with your stupidity/weakness.

Pshaw, I used all the BTC that I paid less than $1 for to go all in on DRK back in March. I turned a pocket-change investment while I was homeless into more money than I know what to do with.

Thank you stupid/weak people. You made me homeless with your votes, you made me rich with your stupidity/weakness.

how do homeless people have Internet... or even the gear to buy coins...

well what do I know... glad you got out of being homeless... all the power to you
[/quote]


i love him ... he is my LION

[Terzo]

The price went down enought ! Bought a bunch ! No need to troll you anymore .

[Freckleg]

More of the trolls trying to manipulate the price

Ah well none of the top wallets are responding to this, let the Trolls have their fun. Dark is the new number two. Then again no one grows without some growingpains, and never ever in one straight line to the top. Just be patient and support the dev team. Those with vision prevail, and the vision is Dark.

[Joshuar]

The price went down enought ! Bought a bunch ! No need to troll you anymore .

LOL, we have found out why the Trolls have been trolling, to buy in early!

[Artoodeetoo]

After all the announcements, all the garbage, all the rows, all the "fun" it looks to "me" like this is bottoming out round here... Consistent support and a much better mood on the board.. I think I may throw another 0.2 BTC into the DRK fire

[caspar]

This coin is too unstable. All the participants were very upset. Development should be to do something. Of course, if you like, please help!

Who are these "participatants"?  Stop spreading FUD. Price has been very resilient considering the technical issues over the last couple days.

Sorry, may be the expression of wrong.
Thank you for your reply.
I really like this coin.

[Terzo]

More of the trolls trying to manipulate the price

Ah well none of the top wallets are responding to this, let the Trolls have their fun. Dark is the new number two. Then again no one grows without some growingpains, and never ever in one straight line to the top. Just be patient and support the dev team. Those with vision prevail, and the vision is Dark.

The price went down enought ! Bought a bunch ! No need to troll you anymore .

LOL, we have found out why the Trolls have been trolling, to buy in early!

Guy there are actual rewards for trolls !
I used to troll DRK. Now all of my btc are in DRK .

[coins101]

Anybody else raise a bit of an eyebrow at the "no forks" part of Evan's post?  If that can be done, then why did we try to hard fork in the first place? Was the original method really thought through and the best option to pay masternodes selected? Or is there some compromise in implementing forkless payments that is now being ignored becuase of the chaos over the last few days? And then there is the obvious increasing of the masternode incentive (20%, multiple tickets) which I guess is fine... but is also a convenient price lifeboat.

My wallet has remained closed during this mishap and I have no plans to dump any part of my modest stash, but I have a lot of questions right now. Anybody that has any insight (Evan himself is best, but that is hoping for too much) that could answer some of these questions would be appreciated.

Or maybe I am being too skeptical and nobody else sees anything odd here...

There were originally two strategies for masternode payments. One requires a hardfork and one doesn't. I originally decided to do the one that does, because you can't cheat as a pool operator. But, that comes with a price. The code must reject cheating blocks and that's what caused the forking issue.

The other way is to setup the client to pay nodes in a provably fair way. If the pool doesn't pay the correct amount to the correct node, we'll know and we'll shame them. We'll get miners to move to honest pools.

Like others have suggested, all of the groundwork has been laid. I have implemented the masternodes, the election system for payments and it's compatible with this soft fork.

So why 20% fees for masternode payments? This essentially will create twice as many nodes and create a much higher cost to spy on the network. It also creates a larger feedback loop for the price (because as darkcoin is taken out of the supply, it drives the price up), which is good for all of the investors and security of DarkSend. Miners will get less coin, but it's been proven time and time again that when you decrease the coins generated the price will just go up to meet the cost of mining.

My goal with Darkcoin has always been to take the #2 spot from Litecoin. I believe we have the best chance we've ever had now and these changes will actually help realize that goal.

As for my communication? Lately I've just had my nose to the grindstone, coding all of the time. I intend to be much more involved with the community in the future. This will include getting a team of software developers and managing the vision of the project. I think my time might be better spent in the future doing interviews, speaking at conferences and being Darkcoin's figurehead.