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

[tungfa]

Who would you trust?

Exactly, it comes down to Trust !
as TOR is already hacked and monitored,
sure other shxtcoins can try the same, but would anybody trust them ?

To run a MN you still gotta set up that server (Tx GhostPlayer) , maintain it, pay and all ...
only creating a new coin and suggesting everybody to do it for a 100 bucks investment, no way,
the returns would be too low to make it worth your time ! (+server costs)

I think Evan is on a good path there,
sure it all needs some fine-tuning, but there is such good potential in the MN network we have not even figured out yet !
Exciting Times ..>>>>

[1714103860]

1714103860

[aigeezer]

Who would you trust?

Nobody.

It, whatever it becomes, must be trustless. That's its strength in the long term. Even vanilla DRK isn't trustless yet until the open source version is available and vetted. I have no problem trusting Evan and team in these early days, but it's not viable to trust in the long run. Trust is always broken eventually - by someone - for some reason. Trustless architecture is essential.

Trust me on this.       

[Ignition75]

Darktor is :

Use it and become invisible

Darkring

Bwaaaaaahahahahahahahahaaa!!!

[yetiripper]

Hope u all listened to me... i called the first major break out 4 min before when we crossed.... then i told u to set your EMAS to 21 50 100 200.... its the magic parameters just look it told me when to sell perfectly...


Remember I am no longer a troll Im here with all of you SET EMAS TO 21 50 100 200 and have AMAZING PARAMETERS

That's solid advice, pookie.

[thelonecrouton]

Web 3.0 is the Master Nodes.

They are not the same thing.  The Master Nodes are an infrastructure service that has to be paid for. Bandwidth is not for the currency to sort out. That's an issue over, err, bandwidth. Its not linked to mining. Its not linked to block chain bloat. Its hardware and routing speeds. If you pay enough, you get the bandwidth.

I think I'd be less worried about this if I was convinced that it wouldn't corrupt Evan's original equilibrium principle between masternode supply and demand so that the majority of the coin supply was kept in circulation.

That's partly what I meant by "highly controlled" in my little rant above.

Right now, this works because the PE ratio of a masternode is calculated (and fixed) purely in terms of DRK (at 20% of the mined supply). What that means in fiat depends on the value of DRK's role as a currency.

On the other hand, with the new service model, the PE ratio will be calculated in terms of FIAT and will have a fixed revenue in fiat (in $ per hour of service). This turns the whole thing on its head because 1 Darkcoin now becomes no more than a share unit in a fiat revenue model. The price equilibrium will now revolve around the fiat ROI on a masternode and all DRKs will go out of circulation at that price point.

That's where I see the huge banana skin in this whole idea.

Evan obviously meant to say 0.05DRK. My MNs will perform services for DRK, you can take your filthy dollars somewhere else.

[ImI]

thats how i see it... 

[toknormal]

This is bonkers. Do you really think gold has less value because it has real-world uses? Do you believe it would go down in price if some vastly worthwhile new use was found for it making lots of people want to use it beyond the people who already wanted it for it's other uses and value?

It's not that it's value would go down if a real world use was found, it's the fact that it ceases to be of monetary value if it goes out of circulation due to its utility.

Most of the world's gold supply isn't stuck in people's teeth or in your home Hi-Fi contacts. It's sitting in vaults doing nothing but functioning as a monetary unit.

A monetary medium that also has a utility value DOES detract from its monetary value because it makes it a targetable commodity in its own right and therefore inefficient in it's monetary role. Cryptos are almost perfect in this sense because they have almost zero utility value. They are pure monetary tokens and are therefore one step closer to monetary perfection than gold was.

If you really need it spelled out, think of it this way - a funfair uses plastic tokens as "money" to pay for rides. Those plastic tokens are almost worthless in the hardware shop where they only have utility value. On the other hand, inside the "funfair economy" their value accrues to maybe 10,000% of their utility value. The difference is their monetary value when used as a currency - i.e. the price you pay for their "monetary role".

Now lets say you increase the utility value of those plastic tokens by having them perform a function - say, monitoring your heartbeat. Now they will perform less well in a monetary role because a load of them go out of circulation and eventually there's not enough left to effectively use as a currency. A few are still traded and have high value (higher than before even possibly) but they're not used as a currency any more due to being a poor monetary medium.

Finally, one day along comes another company selling cheaper heartrate monitors and blows away the valuation because we no longer have "universal adoption", just utility in a very specific sector.

[thelonecrouton]

Well, my Simple Python Wallet is basically complete, I just need to extract it from my toolkit as a standalone script.

[patrolman]

Web 3.0 is the Master Nodes.

They are not the same thing.  The Master Nodes are an infrastructure service that has to be paid for. Bandwidth is not for the currency to sort out. That's an issue over, err, bandwidth. Its not linked to mining. Its not linked to block chain bloat. Its hardware and routing speeds. If you pay enough, you get the bandwidth.

I think I'd be less worried about this if I was convinced that it wouldn't corrupt Evan's original equilibrium principle between masternode supply and demand so that the majority of the coin supply was kept in circulation.

That's partly what I meant by "highly controlled" in my little rant above.

Right now, this works because the PE ratio of a masternode is calculated (and fixed) purely in terms of DRK (at 20% of the mined supply). What that means in fiat depends on the value of DRK's role as a currency.

On the other hand, with the new service model, the PE ratio will be calculated in terms of FIAT and will have a fixed revenue in fiat (in $ per hour of service). This turns the whole thing on its head because 1 Darkcoin now becomes no more than a share unit in a fiat revenue model. The price equilibrium will now revolve around the fiat ROI on a masternode and all DRKs will go out of circulation at that price point.

That's where I see the huge banana skin in this whole idea.

Evan obviously meant to say 0.05DRK. My MNs will perform services for DRK, you can take your filthy dollars somewhere else.

Mine too. Maybe it's possible to implement some sort of flexible pricing mechanism (in DRK of course) based on bids by the Masternode owners, or even by the users themselves, although that proabably wouldn't end well. I have no idea how it could work but I think the idea of a fixed price is not ideal, mainly because of volatility and  to a lesser extent - at the moment - inflation. If there is a workable solution it could be applied to miners fees and anonymisation fees too, because it now costs about twice as much as it did yesterday, in fiat terms, to anonymise funds.

[Ignition75]

Oh man...  Sometimes I hate living in Australia, you should have seen the scramble I did in real life to mobilise as much liquidity as possible when DRK was hovering around the .003 mark.  I wake up to the price almost doubling...

I was the Southern Hemisphere equivalent of Coins101...

Literally, I was running around like a headless chicken, selling everything of value but the dog... Funds from Paypal arrived to the bank this morning lol, oh well, price is still a steal...

Adding Utility to Dark is a stroke of genius in my book.  Sure there are going to be counter arguments but something tells me Evan has been planning this from the start and he is releasing information in stages, to allow the market to go on the journey of accepting the concepts at a slower pace...

To everyone who sold DRK and decided to have a swipe at the team for not knowing what they are doing, the joke is on you...

[Propulsion]

Toknormal is raising valid concerns. This whole idea needs some serious discussion.

• Separate Module needed or built into the wallet for a tor network
• Maximum amounts of hops in network
• latency between MN's on the same server providing timing attacks
• Economic impact of tying a currency with a service
• legal repercussions for operating a node
• Maximum amount of nodes and cost
• Bandwidth impact on MN operators

Also, in the proposed design, I believe only one node would be selected for payment. This wouldn't work. Tor requires an entrance, relay's, and exit nodes. All of them have the same amount of data aka bandwidth going through them. If only one MN was paid in this proposed design, four other MN's would take a huge bandwidth hit and receive nothing.

Paying per day would be dumb. It would be more economical, to charge a set fee of say 15 dark a month for the usage of the network. The funds would have to be secured somehow trustless, and then depending on which nodes serviced the user, those nodes would receive the highest percentage of the 15.

But then again, the above paragraph wouldn't work because that would require every MN to have knowledge of the person paying for the service. It wouldn't be trustless. Also data would be retained leading back to the entrance node and finally to the unencrypted IP address of the user.

What is being proposed is a massive undertaking. Once again, a lot of different subjects need to be discussed about this.

[stealth923]

Toknormal is raising valid concerns. This whole idea needs some serious discussion.

• Separate Module needed or built into the wallet for a tor network
• Maximum amounts of hops in network
• latency between MN's on the same server providing timing attacks
• Economic impact of tying a currency with a service
• legal repercussions for operating a node
• Maximum amount of nodes and cost
• Bandwidth impact on MN operators

Also, in the proposed design, I believe only one node would be selected for payment. This wouldn't work. Tor requires an entrance, relay's, and exit nodes. All of them have the same amount of data aka bandwidth going through them. If only one MN was paid in this proposed design, four other MN's would take a huge bandwidth hit and receive nothing.

Paying per day would be dumb. It would be more economical, to charge a set fee of say 15 dark a month for the usage of the network. The funds would have to be secured somehow trustless, and then depending on which nodes serviced the user, those nodes would receive the highest percentage of the 15.

But then again, the above paragraph wouldn't work because that would require every MN to have knowledge of the person paying for the service. It wouldn't be trustless. Also data would be retained leading back to the entrance node and finally to the unencrypted IP address of the user.

What is being proposed is a massive undertaking. Once again, a lot of different subjects need to be discussed about this.

Excellent points - and we need to start discussing to work through all options to make it the best it can!

should copy that over to Darkcointalk where the real discussions happen

[Ignition75]

Had an additional couple of votes over night, I locked voting now, looks like the community has made its recommendation:





That was fun...

[Ignition75]

Toknormal is raising valid concerns. This whole idea needs some serious discussion.

• Separate Module needed or built into the wallet for a tor network
• Maximum amounts of hops in network
• latency between MN's on the same server providing timing attacks
• Economic impact of tying a currency with a service
• legal repercussions for operating a node
• Maximum amount of nodes and cost
• Bandwidth impact on MN operators

Also, in the proposed design, I believe only one node would be selected for payment. This wouldn't work. Tor requires an entrance, relay's, and exit nodes. All of them have the same amount of data aka bandwidth going through them. If only one MN was paid in this proposed design, four other MN's would take a huge bandwidth hit and receive nothing.

Paying per day would be dumb. It would be more economical, to charge a set fee of say 15 dark a month for the usage of the network. The funds would have to be secured somehow trustless, and then depending on which nodes serviced the user, those nodes would receive the highest percentage of the 15.

But then again, the above paragraph wouldn't work because that would require every MN to have knowledge of the person paying for the service. It wouldn't be trustless. Also data would be retained leading back to the entrance node and finally to the unencrypted IP address of the user.

What is being proposed is a massive undertaking. Once again, a lot of different subjects need to be discussed about this.

Excellent points - and we need to start discussing to work through all options to make it the best it can!

should copy that over to Darkcointalk where the real discussions happen

+1

Don't allow the gimps and retards input, they will just suck the life out of everyone...

[yetiripper]

Hope u all listened to me... i called the first major break out 4 min before when we crossed.... then i told u to set your EMAS to 21 50 100 200.... its the magic parameters just look it told me when to sell perfectly...


Remember I am no longer a troll Im here with all of you SET EMAS TO 21 50 100 200 and have AMAZING PARAMETERS

That's solid advice, pookie.

Told u...Ive gone dark... i was here for first rise now Im Back for a much BIGGER rise.... glad to be back Happy to help people with TA... BTW if we break that BLUE LINE... buy... buy a fuck ton

P.S. why do I have the feeling Open Bazzar will be accepting Dark.... They said they already had an alt in line

Last time I was in this thread my posts were all deleted.  I don't come here much.

[Icebucket]

Hope u all listened to me... i called the first major break out 4 min before when we crossed.... then i told u to set your EMAS to 21 50 100 200.... its the magic parameters just look it told me when to sell perfectly...


Remember I am no longer a troll Im here with all of you SET EMAS TO 21 50 100 200 and have AMAZING PARAMETERS

That's solid advice, pookie.

Told u...Ive gone dark... i was here for first rise now Im Back for a much BIGGER rise.... glad to be back Happy to help people with TA... BTW if we break that BLUE LINE... buy... buy a fuck ton

P.S. why do I have the feeling Open Bazzar will be accepting Dark.... They said they already had an alt in line

I would say don't chase the market, If the price has gone too far from the hourly 8EMA then we are most likely over extended and need to take a breather to test the 8EMA so set your buys at the hourly 8 and 21 EMA. Let the market come to you.
We already did test the 8EMA just now though.

Thats some advice for the future. But DRK under 0.01 is really a steal anyway  

[TanteStefana2]

Read this Tante (only for you)
really good one and makes me understand the potential of MN's even more and better ....>>
http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/we-talk-share-create-exchange-resolve-decentralized-autonomous-society

Yes, and just so you know, Evan had all those ideas just after he created Masternodes (can't remember, but it probably was prompted by discussion within the community)  But it was back in March already when these ideas came out.  It might be hand in hand with a tor system, but messaging or phoning system that is private need to be at the top of the list

[TanteStefana2]

Hope u all listened to me... i called the first major break out 4 min before when we crossed.... then i told u to set your EMAS to 21 50 100 200.... its the magic parameters just look it told me when to sell perfectly...


Remember I am no longer a troll Im here with all of you SET EMAS TO 21 50 100 200 and have AMAZING PARAMETERS

That's solid advice, pookie.

Told u...Ive gone dark... i was here for first rise now Im Back for a much BIGGER rise.... glad to be back Happy to help people with TA... BTW if we break that BLUE LINE... buy... buy a fuck ton

P.S. why do I have the feeling Open Bazzar will be accepting Dark.... They said they already had an alt in line

If only I had an inkling of what you're talking about     

[thelonecrouton]

O gods the witches are back. And somehow I now understand their voodoo babble, I must have absorbed it by osmosis or something.  

[stealth923]

Bump!

Latest update from Evan - RC4 and Darksend+ working, Kristov Atlas Review, Open Source and DarkTor Announcement - Amazing

https://darkcointalk.org/threads/development-update-august-19-2014.2086/