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

[Artoodeetoo]

That XC feature list as related to this thread just a moment ago is verbal diarrhoea. Enjoy losing your money.

Surprised you are saying these things, Evan is a one man band and I have faith XC is doing some interesting things and is worthy competition which has to be good.. To dismiss the coin like that is childish...  

No one cares. That coin was copied/cloned from Darkcoin. Go away.

No need for that... I did buy some XC yesterday.. Sold this morning and now have a free pile of coins, used my profits to buy a small amount more DRK so happy all round...

For the record in the same way I would stand up for XC here if ridiculous suggestions are made about it, I would stand up for DRK on other threads where its called a premine etc etc.. I just like to try and keep things real and balanced... I like DRK a lot, thats why I hold it, I also think there is room for others.... And judging by the volume on XC which is being sustained others agree...

[fernando]

I'm not tech savvy at all but I'll be really interested in trying to set up my one master node pretty soon.

I guess I'd feel better if my coins stayed in cold storage, then it would remain pretty secure in itself no matter my mistakes (although I'm not doing it if i'm not certain I'm putting enough protections)

Cold storage is not possible at the moment. Both machines need to be online.

[TsuyokuNaritai]

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

More of the trolls trying to manipulate the price

Where is this copied from?

[roede94105]

I'm not tech savvy at all but I'll be really interested in trying to set up my one master node pretty soon.

I guess I'd feel better if my coins stayed in cold storage, then it would remain pretty secure in itself no matter my mistakes (although I'm not doing it if i'm not certain I'm putting enough protections)

Cold storage is not possible at the moment. Both machines need to be online.

Apparently so.. I'll wait and see if a noob friendly guide appears, or maybe I won't do it if I don't feel capable enough

[hashmoon]

XC - we don't know who our dev is

well, bitcoin also has 1 anonymous dev.. (but gavin and other core devs are not anonymous, they are very well known )

[Artoodeetoo]

I'm not tech savvy at all but I'll be really interested in trying to set up my one master node pretty soon.

I guess I'd feel better if my coins stayed in cold storage, then it would remain pretty secure in itself no matter my mistakes (although I'm not doing it if i'm not certain I'm putting enough protections)

Cold storage will be the best long term option - needs to be implemented though, if DRK keeps rising these masternodes will be so valuable they will need to be protected like fort knox....

[thelonecrouton]

I'm going to go ahead and quote myself for effect, because I think this is important:

------

I hate to say this, but handing out an ISO for a MN built by a competent person is in a very real way analogous to handing out condoms to horny teenagers.  You can tell them not to fuck all you want, but they're still going to do it.  At least if they have rubbers they're less likely to get the drip-dick or pregnant.

In this case, if MNs get a rep for being a major Achilles heel to the coin and people start looking elsewhere, we're all screwed.  All of us.

It's not my preference, believe me, but in the bigger picture it may be the safer thing to do.  Anyone who's ever run a business will understand the need to eat a shit sandwich for the greater good now and then.

And I'll requote you for bigger effect  

I'm not sure if we need an official ISO, or published best practices, or lectures, or whatever. But we need something to avoid people losing coins and damaging our image. I believe that most people who are running masternodes are eager to learn about this if they don't know enough. And no matter how competent each one is, everyone can use some more ideas on how to secure his masternode.

Masternodes are a target and will be attacked, this much is certain. If a properly locked down ISO is provided and best practices are published and adhered to, it will help mitigate the inevitable.

Of course, cold storage would solve most issues. Have the MN validate the private keys to the cold storage and check the balance, or something. Good to go.

(Yes, maybe it's a little more complex than that.)

[TanteStefana2]

I'm wondering if those of you with Masternodes are more interested in going with Evan's new proposal so you can start getting paid, or would you rather Evan take more time to get the original implementation, or something similar working?  I'm curious to know,  I know where I stand (I'd rather he take his time) but don't know where you all stand   Please comment

[Joshuar]

I'm going to go ahead and quote myself for effect, because I think this is important:

------

I hate to say this, but handing out an ISO for a MN built by a competent person is in a very real way analogous to handing out condoms to horny teenagers.  You can tell them not to fuck all you want, but they're still going to do it.  At least if they have rubbers they're less likely to get the drip-dick or pregnant.

In this case, if MNs get a rep for being a major Achilles heel to the coin and people start looking elsewhere, we're all screwed.  All of us.

It's not my preference, believe me, but in the bigger picture it may be the safer thing to do.  Anyone who's ever run a business will understand the need to eat a shit sandwich for the greater good now and then.

And I'll requote you for bigger effect  

I'm not sure if we need an official ISO, or published best practices, or lectures, or whatever. But we need something to avoid people losing coins and damaging our image. I believe that most people who are running masternodes are eager to learn about this if they don't know enough. And no matter how competent each one is, everyone can use some more ideas on how to secure his masternode.

Masternodes are a target and will be attacked, this much is certain. If a properly locked down ISO is provided and best practices are published and adhered to, it will help mitigate the inevitable.

Of course, cold storage would solve most issues. Have the MN validate the private keys to the cold storage and check the balance, or something. Good to go.

(Yes, maybe it's a little more complex than that.)

Just establish your masternode on a VPS....or through TOR. it's pretty easy and makes your real IP unknown.

[fernando]

I'm wondering if those of you with Masternodes are more interested in going with Evan's new proposal so you can start getting paid, or would you rather Evan take more time to get the original implementation, or something similar working?  I'm curious to know,  I know where I stand (I'd rather he take his time) but don't know where you all stand   Please comment

Same here. I trust him and don't care if the price suffers because things go slower if he thinks that's the way to go... ok, I do care, but I can stand the pain  

[sin242]

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

More of the trolls trying to manipulate the price

Where is this copied from?

Curious about this as well

[thelonecrouton]

I'm going to go ahead and quote myself for effect, because I think this is important:

------

I hate to say this, but handing out an ISO for a MN built by a competent person is in a very real way analogous to handing out condoms to horny teenagers.  You can tell them not to fuck all you want, but they're still going to do it.  At least if they have rubbers they're less likely to get the drip-dick or pregnant.

In this case, if MNs get a rep for being a major Achilles heel to the coin and people start looking elsewhere, we're all screwed.  All of us.

It's not my preference, believe me, but in the bigger picture it may be the safer thing to do.  Anyone who's ever run a business will understand the need to eat a shit sandwich for the greater good now and then.

And I'll requote you for bigger effect  

I'm not sure if we need an official ISO, or published best practices, or lectures, or whatever. But we need something to avoid people losing coins and damaging our image. I believe that most people who are running masternodes are eager to learn about this if they don't know enough. And no matter how competent each one is, everyone can use some more ideas on how to secure his masternode.

Masternodes are a target and will be attacked, this much is certain. If a properly locked down ISO is provided and best practices are published and adhered to, it will help mitigate the inevitable.

Of course, cold storage would solve most issues. Have the MN validate the private keys to the cold storage and check the balance, or something. Good to go.

(Yes, maybe it's a little more complex than that.)

Just establish your masternode on a VPS....or through TOR. it's pretty easy and makes your real IP unknown.

How does a VPS 'make your real IP unknown?'

Do you mean the local/remote setup? If so sure, but right now it's impractical to run more than one MN in that config, unless you also have several (or twenty, whatever)  running boxes at home

[richy]

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

More of the trolls trying to manipulate the price

Where is this copied from?

Curious about this as well

looks like twitter? i am not shure though

[Donho]

I'm wondering if those of you with Masternodes are more interested in going with Evan's new proposal so you can start getting paid, or would you rather Evan take more time to get the original implementation, or something similar working?  I'm curious to know,  I know where I stand (I'd rather he take his time) but don't know where you all stand   Please comment

take time and do it right with with another well prepared and large testnet tested hardfork (more testnet pools maybe)
I'm no fan of relying on the miners to do the right thing

[thelonecrouton]

I'm wondering if those of you with Masternodes are more interested in going with Evan's new proposal so you can start getting paid, or would you rather Evan take more time to get the original implementation, or something similar working?  I'm curious to know,  I know where I stand (I'd rather he take his time) but don't know where you all stand   Please comment

Need to get it right this time. Idiots losing coins due to their own crap security is one thing, but the system itself needs to be solid. So: it'll be ready when it's ready hopefully, I'm in no hurry.

If you need crash test dummies for testing, I've got rigs and nodes to spare.

[Minotaur26]

I'm wondering if those of you with Masternodes are more interested in going with Evan's new proposal so you can start getting paid, or would you rather Evan take more time to get the original implementation, or something similar working?  I'm curious to know,  I know where I stand (I'd rather he take his time) but don't know where you all stand   Please comment

Same here. I trust him and don't care if the price suffers because things go slower if he thinks that's the way to go... ok, I do care, but I can stand the pain  

I also think the coin should remain true to its principle of quality first, take the time it needs to do things properly. No rush.

[eduffield]

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.  

If? It is a given that at least half the pools and big farms (a lot of them nowadays) won't be paying. So the 20% will be more like 10% for the masternodes, =what they were expecting anyway. But it will be a disproportionate weight to the "fair" pools.

The whole thing to appease investors with "ok guys no hard forks" and bagholders of masternodes with "ok guys you'll get 20%" is sketchy. I know I'm harsh but I like things to go right

Price is price. It'll go up, down, sideways etc. Let it be. All the price attention is having an impact in development.

Development must proceed as planned so we can have the final product, nice and polished - no matter if it takes 1-2-3 or 5 hardforks and no matter if investors are bitching that they are losing masternode income because the implementation is late. Do they want to have masternodes of a coin that is GOOD or do they want to have a masternode of a coin that is doing hack-arounds?

The masternode protocol works, the masternode payments work (we saw them - it's not vapor), it's just that there is something introducing instability which has to be debugged and sorted out. If the origin is difficult to trace, then perhaps a different mechanism can be used for doing the payments (not voluntarily)

We also need improvements in DarkSend. The competition (MRO) is integrating I2P (as we've said) and XC will be using encrypted communication between nodes (as it has been said of DRK's future plans as well).

I know this sounds like a mom's "to-do list" to the child until she gets back home, but priorities are priorities, and price or reaching litecoin immediately are not a priority. If the code is sorted out and the product delivered in final form, LTC will start rolling down. Too fast of a price rise with a half-baked product is problematic.

LTC can't compete anyway in fundamentals like inflation (10x the BTCs to absorb LTC production compared to DRK) or innovation so they will be dead anyway by debasement. #2 is a given. Preserving #2 is not due to the competition. Who is gonna buy 300k USD of LTCs per day? It'll go 0.019 -> 18 -> 17 over time. It doesn't look that "hot" of a property. Only buys will be for cost-averaging buys at 0.025+.

Having said that about the #2 competition, the anonymity competition actually looks pretty lame (BCN and clones too many issues, XC mostly vapor for now but that could change a few months ahead as they seem to have the prospects of delivering a product similar to what Evan has at like 70-80% completion). But we can't base our strategy on others failing or being pumps & dumps that are "threatening" us due to pumps => we must excel and take the market. Then bring V2 for "fatality". Otherwise the risk is there for more serious contenders appearing.

My 2 duffs.

Apparently I have more faith in humanity than anyone else around here   I'll implement the masternode payments via hardfork, who knows, maybe all of you are right.

By the way, I'm not talking about the price now or even in a year. It's about the security of the network when it's large enough to support a decent amount of transactions. Giving a higher reward simply doubles or triples the cost of such an attack, 10% was just too low.

[thelonecrouton]

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.  

If? It is a given that at least half the pools and big farms (a lot of them nowadays) won't be paying. So the 20% will be more like 10% for the masternodes, =what they were expecting anyway. But it will be a disproportionate weight to the "fair" pools.

The whole thing to appease investors with "ok guys no hard forks" and bagholders of masternodes with "ok guys you'll get 20%" is sketchy. I know I'm harsh but I like things to go right

Price is price. It'll go up, down, sideways etc. Let it be. All the price attention is having an impact in development.

Development must proceed as planned so we can have the final product, nice and polished - no matter if it takes 1-2-3 or 5 hardforks and no matter if investors are bitching that they are losing masternode income because the implementation is late. Do they want to have masternodes of a coin that is GOOD or do they want to have a masternode of a coin that is doing hack-arounds?

The masternode protocol works, the masternode payments work (we saw them - it's not vapor), it's just that there is something introducing instability which has to be debugged and sorted out. If the origin is difficult to trace, then perhaps a different mechanism can be used for doing the payments (not voluntarily)

We also need improvements in DarkSend. The competition (MRO) is integrating I2P (as we've said) and XC will be using encrypted communication between nodes (as it has been said of DRK's future plans as well).

I know this sounds like a mom's "to-do list" to the child until she gets back home, but priorities are priorities, and price or reaching litecoin immediately are not a priority. If the code is sorted out and the product delivered in final form, LTC will start rolling down. Too fast of a price rise with a half-baked product is problematic.

LTC can't compete anyway in fundamentals like inflation (10x the BTCs to absorb LTC production compared to DRK) or innovation so they will be dead anyway by debasement. #2 is a given. Preserving #2 is not due to the competition. Who is gonna buy 300k USD of LTCs per day? It'll go 0.019 -> 18 -> 17 over time. It doesn't look that "hot" of a property. Only buys will be for cost-averaging buys at 0.025+.

Having said that about the #2 competition, the anonymity competition actually looks pretty lame (BCN and clones too many issues, XC mostly vapor for now but that could change a few months ahead as they seem to have the prospects of delivering a product similar to what Evan has at like 70-80% completion). But we can't base our strategy on others failing or being pumps & dumps that are "threatening" us due to pumps => we must excel and take the market. Then bring V2 for "fatality". Otherwise the risk is there for more serious contenders appearing.

My 2 duffs.

Apparently I have more faith in humanity than anyone else around here   I'll implement the masternode payments via hardfork, who knows, maybe all of you are right.

By the way, I'm not talking about the price now or even in a year. It's about the security of the network when it's large enough to support a decent amount of transactions. Giving a higher reward simply doubles or triples the cost of such an attack, 10% was just too low.

A lot of minds set at ease there hopefully.

edit: and thank you!

[fernando]

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.  

If? It is a given that at least half the pools and big farms (a lot of them nowadays) won't be paying. So the 20% will be more like 10% for the masternodes, =what they were expecting anyway. But it will be a disproportionate weight to the "fair" pools.

The whole thing to appease investors with "ok guys no hard forks" and bagholders of masternodes with "ok guys you'll get 20%" is sketchy. I know I'm harsh but I like things to go right

Price is price. It'll go up, down, sideways etc. Let it be. All the price attention is having an impact in development.

Development must proceed as planned so we can have the final product, nice and polished - no matter if it takes 1-2-3 or 5 hardforks and no matter if investors are bitching that they are losing masternode income because the implementation is late. Do they want to have masternodes of a coin that is GOOD or do they want to have a masternode of a coin that is doing hack-arounds?

The masternode protocol works, the masternode payments work (we saw them - it's not vapor), it's just that there is something introducing instability which has to be debugged and sorted out. If the origin is difficult to trace, then perhaps a different mechanism can be used for doing the payments (not voluntarily)

We also need improvements in DarkSend. The competition (MRO) is integrating I2P (as we've said) and XC will be using encrypted communication between nodes (as it has been said of DRK's future plans as well).

I know this sounds like a mom's "to-do list" to the child until she gets back home, but priorities are priorities, and price or reaching litecoin immediately are not a priority. If the code is sorted out and the product delivered in final form, LTC will start rolling down. Too fast of a price rise with a half-baked product is problematic.

LTC can't compete anyway in fundamentals like inflation (10x the BTCs to absorb LTC production compared to DRK) or innovation so they will be dead anyway by debasement. #2 is a given. Preserving #2 is not due to the competition. Who is gonna buy 300k USD of LTCs per day? It'll go 0.019 -> 18 -> 17 over time. It doesn't look that "hot" of a property. Only buys will be for cost-averaging buys at 0.025+.

Having said that about the #2 competition, the anonymity competition actually looks pretty lame (BCN and clones too many issues, XC mostly vapor for now but that could change a few months ahead as they seem to have the prospects of delivering a product similar to what Evan has at like 70-80% completion). But we can't base our strategy on others failing or being pumps & dumps that are "threatening" us due to pumps => we must excel and take the market. Then bring V2 for "fatality". Otherwise the risk is there for more serious contenders appearing.

My 2 duffs.

Apparently I have more faith in humanity than anyone else around here   I'll implement the masternode payments via hardfork, who knows, maybe all of you are right.

By the way, I'm not talking about the price now or even in a year. It's about the security of the network when it's large enough to support a decent amount of transactions. Giving a higher reward simply doubles or triples the cost of such an attack, 10% was just too low.

A lot of minds set at ease there hopefully.

edit: and thank you!

Great news, thanks! we stand behind you

[TanteStefana2]

Apparently I have more faith in humanity than anyone else around here   I'll implement the masternode payments via hardfork, who knows, maybe all of you are right.

By the way, I'm not talking about the price now or even in a year. It's about the security of the network when it's large enough to support a decent amount of transactions. Giving a higher reward simply doubles or triples the cost of such an attack, 10% was just too low.

Thank God!

If you saw all these paid trolls constantly attacking on this thread and everywhere else all day long, you'd lose your faith as well, LOL.