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

[rickraw]

Some big buys on MP, 2k+ DRK buys.

[1715004775]

1715004775

[1715004775]

1715004775

[1715004775]

1715004775

[1715004775]

1715004775

[Jesse Livermore]

DRK! FTW!!!

I'm wagering a guess that whomever has been accumulating these multi-1000 DRK bunches at a time on MP and popping price knows something about DRK that'll be coming out soon....I'm sure this whale(s) must feel like a bull walking around on tippy-toes in a china shop by these sudden price spikes he's causing.
And yet, the MP bots keep reloading the ask with DRK for him....There's suddenly another 1,000 available up to .0054.
JL

[Laxdude7691]

This is what I don't understand...I'm very new to crypto but I see the potential of DRK. Who are all these coin holders that are dumping at very low prices. Is it the same whale(s) manipulating the market?

[xtent]

This is what I don't understand...I'm very new to crypto but I see the potential of DRK. Who are all these coin holders that are dumping at very low prices. Is it the same whale(s) manipulating the market?

What you may be considering very low prices could still be huge gains for early adopters.

[Laxdude7691]

This is what I don't understand...I'm very new to crypto but I see the potential of DRK. Who are all these coin holders that are dumping at very low prices. Is it the same whale(s) manipulating the market?

What you may be considering very low prices could still be huge gains for early adopters.

True...very possible but you think most of them would have cashed out when DRK was $15/coin! Not $2.5. Early idiots more like...why wait till now?

[xtent]

This is what I don't understand...I'm very new to crypto but I see the potential of DRK. Who are all these coin holders that are dumping at very low prices. Is it the same whale(s) manipulating the market?

What you may be considering very low prices could still be huge gains for early adopters.

True...very possible but you think most of them would have cashed out when DRK was $15/coin! Not $2.5. Early idiots more like...why wait till now?

They probably did sell some then, maybe selling at market now to jump on another hype train.

[Laxdude7691]

This is what I don't understand...I'm very new to crypto but I see the potential of DRK. Who are all these coin holders that are dumping at very low prices. Is it the same whale(s) manipulating the market?

What you may be considering very low prices could still be huge gains for early adopters.

True...very possible but you think most of them would have cashed out when DRK was $15/coin! Not $2.5. Early idiots more like...why wait till now?

They probably did sell some then, maybe selling at market now to jump on another hype train.

Again true...sure there may be a few early adopters selling off but you think that when the price first started to dip from the high or when it got down to $10 they would have took the money and ran. 10k early adopter coins @ $15/$10 or 10k @ $2.5   You do the math...

Or still holding...

[camosoul]

so where is the moon ? RC4 is out for some time now, and you said that Litecoin is shit and is going to die after RC4 and you even said that Bitcoin is whatever comparing to DRK... so when all of this is going to happen ?

I don't think LTC will die completely, at least not soon anyway. However, the whole silver to Bitcoin's gold thing is laughable.

Only retards buy LTC, but there are so many retards...

[camosoul]

What is needed is a protocol-based solution that works without forking and is non-voluntary.

I personally would love to see the words "Hard Fork"

+1

Mod the protocol to be a true hybrid block proof. Easy to say that, sure... But still true.

[Laxdude7691]

so where is the moon ? RC4 is out for some time now, and you said that Litecoin is shit and is going to die after RC4 and you even said that Bitcoin is whatever comparing to DRK... so when all of this is going to happen ?

I don't think LTC will die completely, at least not soon anyway. However, the whole silver to Bitcoin's gold thing is laughable.

Only retards buy LTC, but there are so many retards...

Lol...as I said in an earlier post I'm new to crypto but I can see the potential of DRK. LTC  Why is this coin still around? Mining?

[camosoul]

I get them mixed up sometimes.

Pass that shit over here, bro...

[camosoul]

so where is the moon ? RC4 is out for some time now, and you said that Litecoin is shit and is going to die after RC4 and you even said that Bitcoin is whatever comparing to DRK... so when all of this is going to happen ?

I don't think LTC will die completely, at least not soon anyway. However, the whole silver to Bitcoin's gold thing is laughable.

Only retards buy LTC, but there are so many retards...

Lol...as I said in an earlier post I'm new to crypto but I can see the potential of DRK. LTC   Why is this coin still around? Mining?

Retards. Lots and lots of retards. That is the answer.

[camosoul]

This is what I don't understand...I'm very new to crypto but I see the potential of DRK. Who are all these coin holders that are dumping at very low prices. Is it the same whale(s) manipulating the market?

What you may be considering very low prices could still be huge gains for early adopters.

Even with my massively up-averaged positions due to buying in the last month or two, I'm still way up at .004... You don't know how many I got and how much I paid... You'd be so jelly you'd have to undulate to swim away...

[KryptoFoo]

DRK! FTW!!!

I'm wagering a guess that whomever has been accumulating these multi-1000 DRK bunches at a time on MP and popping price knows something about DRK that'll be coming out soon....I'm sure this whale(s) must feel like a bull walking around on tippy-toes in a china shop by these sudden price spikes he's causing.
And yet, the MP bots keep reloading the ask with DRK for him....There's suddenly another 1,000 available up to .0054.
JL

Mini-dumps have become mini-pumps. This is encouraging. Let's see .006 today!

[baddw]

Sporkage is just putting the rules you mention into action. Same as if they were hardcoded in the first place.

Of course they had to be hardcoded in the first place for the spork to even work, but the fact that the software can be influenced by an external "switch" that can be turned on or off at any time is not in the spirit of cryptocurrencies.  I am fine with it for betas/RCs/development/whatever, but the final product should definitely not have any spork switches.

I don't believe enforcement was ever difficult to implement, I think the problems resulted from the payment/election code sometimes causing different nodes to believe different masternodes should be paid. So when enforcement was switched on (via hard fork), little forks started emerging because there wasn't consensus.

That is what I understand to have been happening; could've been something else though.

This is certainly believable, and I guess it would be a problem if a given miners/pools "chose" the same MNs over and over again, excluding other MNs. 1. However, it is better for them to be paying MNs than not at all.

Personally I've always thought the "election" process was convoluted and prone to error (given that not all MNs can necessarily always be seen by all nodes on the network) and that the coinbase transaction should simply pay the MNs who provably performed the mixing during that particular block.  Split it up among them proportionately.  The clients will choose which MNs to send to at random; or if they mess with the code to always favor certain MNs, that's fine too (although they will probably be losing some privacy if they choose to always use their own MN = shooting themselves in the foot = hopefully nobody is so stupid as to do this).  The MNs are paid for providing a service, and if they provide that service in a given block, then they should be paid in that block.  JM2C

1. I believe this should have been a fairly easy "enforcement" switch to code, but in reality wouldn't have done too much. I believe the cause of the forking to have been nodes thinking different MNs should be paid, and rejecting the blocks that paid, but didn't pay the "right" node. However, just making so 20% had to be split off or the block rejected would allow the miner to just pay themselves in a separate transaction.

I think you have an interesting idea in doing that PoSvc thing (which I believe "flare" has talked about at dct): you should be able to determine which masternode signed each denomination transaction included in the block.

It sounds very cool and elegant at first, but it too has vectors that must be considered. Nothing stops you from choosing a masternode; they just sit around waiting for inputs. So you could constantly denominate the smallest # of inputs (to minimize fees) using your own node, which would nearly guarantee its inclusion in every block for payment. This only wouldn't make sense if fees were higher than the payout.

Additionally, what happens if no denominate transaction occurs in a particular block? Is the mining node then able to keep the entire reward for himself? What then happens if he simply refused to include those transactions in his block (I'm not sure how you can force them to include transactions?).

Several other ideas are rolling around in my head, mostly in relation to masternodes somehow/sometimes having block minting authority. I need to think about it some more though.

Ok, good points.... keeping up a synchronized, agreed-upon list of MNs throughout the network is the real crux here.  Especially since it definitely needs to account for MNs dropping out of the network from time to time.  Which shouldn't really happen, but it will happen for various reasons.  So yeah, that idea definitely has some flaws that would be hard to work through.

How about this.  Each block, a group of MNs is "nominated" by the block hash.  The hash simply matches a few bits of the MN's public address... target this so that each block hash should "nominate" 5-10 MNs on average.  Then all of the nominated MNs will be required to create "ping" transactions and push them to the network within 2 blocks.  These transactions will be included in these next 2 blocks.  Take the hash of the 2nd block after the original "nomination" block, and use it to determine the winner (among the nominees who have correctly "pinged" back) of the MN prize that will be generated by the coinbase transaction in the next, 3rd block.  If for some reason a block hash doesn't match any MNs (or no MNs happen to "ping" in time -- which is equivalent in result), then there would be a fallback option such as awarding the prize to a different MN that wasn't chosen in the previous block, but was nominated and "pinged" back correctly.

This gets rid of the problem of having to keep a current, up-to-date list of all MNs throughout the network.  The MNs themselves are responsible for letting the network know that they are out there by the "ping" transactions, and they can be called upon at any time due to the random nature of the nomination process, so therefore they must be ready to quickly respond at any time.  If they miss a "ping" then they will be penalized by not being eligible for the reward the next time they are nominated.  All MN-payment-eligible addresses will have their public addresses in the blockchain immediately prior (1 or 2 blocks) to the block which pays them out, and the reward will be awarded to one of the nominees in a deterministic fashion, which eliminates confusion and rejection of blocks due to nodes not being aware of a particular MN on the network.

There might be some problems that crop up with this process due to orphan blocks.  Perhaps the ping-response-time should be set to 5 or even 10 blocks instead of 2.  But I have been chewing on this kind of idea for a while now, and I think it could work for the MNs.

[RenegadeMan]

I think you are an intelligent man but you're also an appalling example of a frightened individual who hides behind this outward persona of a kick-arse, gun wielding, no-time-for-anyone-different-to-me, loud-mouthed, obnoxious, dick head. Your capacity for misogyny with a phrase like that is up there with the best (worst) examples to be found on the Internet. There is at least one female regularly on here (Tante), and bless her for being able to survive in here. And I'd like to see a whole lot more females because diversity is what crypto needs. But using language like that is not going to attract them or keep them here.

Your armchair psychology is as unuseful as it is inaccurate.

Most people are trash. Half of them are female. How dare I say it!

Calling me names to make yourself feel cool isn't useful, either.

I don't hide behind anything, you just can't stand that I'm really this way and it shows.

Tante is not a typical female and I have plenty of respect for her for being so. It'd serve you well to read before you spout off your bullshit attempts to step on me. You only get egg on your face.

I can't care less if you want to pick a fight, it's just that it won't work... Good of the coin, female worship, collectivist superiority complex... Weaklings are all the same.

I don't hide behind anything, you just can't stand that I'm really this way and it shows.

Ah, no you're wrong Camo, I actually appreciate much of what you have to say and how you're able to provide an alternative view to the mainstream. I'm not here to pick a fight with you, far from it. I don't share your views that most people are trash, but that's okay, I respect that you hold that opinion and you're able to freely express it. But writing disgusting descriptions of how you'd anally rape a woman because she's not complying to your wishes (or you're just sick of her, or whatever....) is beneath you and everyone that has to read such offensive material. That's what my main point was about. Over and out.

It seems your main point(s) were entirely made-up...

This is an absolute fabrication and I said nothing of the sort. Anyone can read it not more than a page back.

Nothing was said of non-consensuality. That notion is repugnant on it's face.

Your fabricated imagining for why are equally vile.

This commentary is a flaming shit heap of Straw Man and you know it. I disagree with what you've falsely presented and would never force myself on someone. The very notion turns my willy inside out, wouldn't even be able to do the deed under such circumstances. I never, ever take. I only accept what is given.

Further, my personal whims play no part in it. Sometimes people are just plain shitty and need an attitude adjustment. It works. It's a perfect example of the shitty people who subvert MN payments; they need the pimp hand, not the kid gloves dancing on eggshells. A bitch will only push you harder if you don't push back. You lack life experience, or at least experience with women. When they act badly, they want to be "handled." Try it and see what happens. It'll surprise you. I don't care if you like it, it's true. Women like a man that doesn't put up with their shit. They play the game to see if you're man enough, or if you're a sissy that puts up with whatever she dishes out just to get laid. A real man isn't afraid of making her mad, and she knows this means he's not trying to get laid. Weak guys who are trying to get laid are terrified of making her mad cuz then she might not want to do it... It's a test. She's not actually a bitch. But when you fail, she'll become one and pile on more. Further, why would she bother to test a man she isn't interested in? Think about it... If she's doing that, it's because she wants you to pass the test, but how many ever do? All you have to do is not put up with it, and you're in. But weak pansies never figure it out, because they never get that far. It's a woman's defense mechanism for weeding out losers. I'm not meaning to preach, but you clearly have no idea what real misogyny is, or what women are really like. I don't have to talk big or impress anyone. I can have my pick anytime I please because I do not care about being politically correct and it turns them on. I do not care about getting laid. I haven't allowed it for a long, long time. Men pick fights with me at titty bars because I spend no money, but the girls all hang around me and slip me their numbers without me even asking. I don't play games like lashing out from a weak position with name calling. I'm a balls-out manly man, and I do go over the top sometimes just to revel in the fun of it, but even when I try to tone it down... I want a woman who's brain is in charge, over whom my alpha traits do not have complete power. I'm the man version of a supermodel. That's just how it is, and frankly, it sucks. Women are starving for a real man in a society of sissified metrosexual tools. Their brains shut off and the just want to screw immediately. That's not love and I had to learn how to say no to women most men never even get to talk to. Not an easy thing to do for a testosterone infected person who doesn't realize what he's stepping into at puberty. Women see the landscape of men like "water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink." The weaklings and appeasers starve them, and then along comes me... The only drop of water in a desert of pansies. It's not as fun as you imagine it... I'm not afraid to do the ugly thing when it's the best tool for the job. Sometimes, that's just how it is. You gotta man up and do it even if you know you won't like yourself the next day. MN Enforcement is a perfect example. Let the whiners whine about what a misogynist you are and do what must be done. Haters gonna hate. Let the entitled bitches whine about having sand in their vaginas. Nobody forced them to take advantage of DRK in an inappropriate way, and they deserve to get what they give.

Good for you Camo! Glad to see someone has things worked out so well.

[Laxdude7691]

This is what I don't understand...I'm very new to crypto but I see the potential of DRK. Who are all these coin holders that are dumping at very low prices. Is it the same whale(s) manipulating the market?

What you may be considering very low prices could still be huge gains for early adopters.

Even with my massively up-averaged positions due to buying in the last month or two, I'm still way up at .004... You don't know how many I got and how much I paid... You'd be so jelly you'd have to undulate to swim away...

Holy shit dude! You have been posting in this forum since 2011! Were you an early DRK adopter? 2011! You were probably in on BTC before it got to the moon. Good for you I guess...

[luigi1111]

Sporkage is just putting the rules you mention into action. Same as if they were hardcoded in the first place.

Of course they had to be hardcoded in the first place for the spork to even work, but the fact that the software can be influenced by an external "switch" that can be turned on or off at any time is not in the spirit of cryptocurrencies.  I am fine with it for betas/RCs/development/whatever, but the final product should definitely not have any spork switches.

I don't believe enforcement was ever difficult to implement, I think the problems resulted from the payment/election code sometimes causing different nodes to believe different masternodes should be paid. So when enforcement was switched on (via hard fork), little forks started emerging because there wasn't consensus.

That is what I understand to have been happening; could've been something else though.

This is certainly believable, and I guess it would be a problem if a given miners/pools "chose" the same MNs over and over again, excluding other MNs. 1. However, it is better for them to be paying MNs than not at all.

Personally I've always thought the "election" process was convoluted and prone to error (given that not all MNs can necessarily always be seen by all nodes on the network) and that the coinbase transaction should simply pay the MNs who provably performed the mixing during that particular block.  Split it up among them proportionately.  The clients will choose which MNs to send to at random; or if they mess with the code to always favor certain MNs, that's fine too (although they will probably be losing some privacy if they choose to always use their own MN = shooting themselves in the foot = hopefully nobody is so stupid as to do this).  The MNs are paid for providing a service, and if they provide that service in a given block, then they should be paid in that block.  JM2C

1. I believe this should have been a fairly easy "enforcement" switch to code, but in reality wouldn't have done too much. I believe the cause of the forking to have been nodes thinking different MNs should be paid, and rejecting the blocks that paid, but didn't pay the "right" node. However, just making so 20% had to be split off or the block rejected would allow the miner to just pay themselves in a separate transaction.

I think you have an interesting idea in doing that PoSvc thing (which I believe "flare" has talked about at dct): you should be able to determine which masternode signed each denomination transaction included in the block.

It sounds very cool and elegant at first, but it too has vectors that must be considered. Nothing stops you from choosing a masternode; they just sit around waiting for inputs. So you could constantly denominate the smallest # of inputs (to minimize fees) using your own node, which would nearly guarantee its inclusion in every block for payment. This only wouldn't make sense if fees were higher than the payout.

Additionally, what happens if no denominate transaction occurs in a particular block? Is the mining node then able to keep the entire reward for himself? What then happens if he simply refused to include those transactions in his block (I'm not sure how you can force them to include transactions?).

Several other ideas are rolling around in my head, mostly in relation to masternodes somehow/sometimes having block minting authority. I need to think about it some more though.

Ok, good points.... keeping up a synchronized, agreed-upon list of MNs throughout the network is the real crux here.  Especially since it definitely needs to account for MNs dropping out of the network from time to time.  Which shouldn't really happen, but it will happen for various reasons.  So yeah, that idea definitely has some flaws that would be hard to work through.

How about this.  Each block, a group of MNs is "nominated" by the block hash.  The hash simply matches a few bits of the MN's public address... target this so that each block hash should "nominate" 5-10 MNs on average.  Then all of the nominated MNs will be required to create "ping" transactions and push them to the network within 2 blocks.  These transactions will be included in these next 2 blocks.  Take the hash of the 2nd block after the original "nomination" block, and use it to determine the winner (among the nominees who have correctly "pinged" back) of the MN prize that will be generated by the coinbase transaction in the next, 3rd block.  If for some reason a block hash doesn't match any MNs (or no MNs happen to "ping" in time -- which is equivalent in result), then there would be a fallback option such as awarding the prize to a different MN that wasn't chosen in the previous block, but was nominated and "pinged" back correctly.

This gets rid of the problem of having to keep a current, up-to-date list of all MNs throughout the network.  The MNs themselves are responsible for letting the network know that they are out there by the "ping" transactions, and they can be called upon at any time due to the random nature of the nomination process, so therefore they must be ready to quickly respond at any time.  If they miss a "ping" then they will be penalized by not being eligible for the reward the next time they are nominated.  All MN-payment-eligible addresses will have their public addresses in the blockchain immediately prior (1 or 2 blocks) to the block which pays them out, and the reward will be awarded to one of the nominees in a deterministic fashion, which eliminates confusion and rejection of blocks due to nodes not being aware of a particular MN on the network.

There might be some problems that crop up with this process due to orphan blocks.  Perhaps the ping-response-time should be set to 5 or even 10 blocks instead of 2.  But I have been chewing on this kind of idea for a while now, and I think it could work for the MNs.

Will think about this as I dream tonight, and respond in the morning!

[KryptoFoo]

I believe that darkcoin deserves a position in the top 5 cryptocurrencies by marketcap. That means more than a double from these prices. The right combination of product releases, market sentiment, and news should get us there. My 2 duffs.

[Terzo]

I believe that darkcoin deserves a position in the top 5 cryptocurrencies by marketcap. That means more than a double from these prices. The right combination of product releases, market sentiment, and news should get us there. My 2 duffs.

You are absolutely right ! Buying and holding DRK feels better than ever !