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

[salmion]

Any chart witchdoctors around?

Could you throw the bones?
 
4 hour chart looking good to me but my voodoo skills are elsewhere.

[pbleak]

RC5 general ballpark release date?

Probably 3-5 weeks, contingent on the K.A. audit findings.

Ah that is quite fine when it comes to the price. I can't see why any new money will come in without this so us holders should ignore the charts for a bit.

[salmion]

RC5 general ballpark release date?

Probably 3-5 weeks, contingent on the K.A. audit findings.

Ah that is quite fine when it comes to the price. I can't see why any new money will come in without this so us holders should ignore the charts for a bit.

Well because the price is relatively stable and will actually be growing providing the dumper stops.
And in my opinion is way undervalued.

So it still presents an opportunity at these prices.

http://cryptomen.com/2014/08/cryptomen-weekly-report-2-august-18-2014/

[Terzo]

Why you guy are so scared ? Little price drop huh ? Lets talk price right now.
What are your predictions ?
Le me tellyou mine :
Two weeks after RC5 one DRK is going to cost 0.045 BTCand rising !

I don't see how RC5 is going to drive the price up. Unless some big holders stop dumping their coins the bearish trend will continue.

RC5 will mean DarkSend+ is open source and then the marketing will commence... Or soon after that anyway...

Nobody trust close source . RC5 and the open source is going to be the start of the race !

[RenegadeMan]

Why you guy are so scared ? Little price drop huh ? Lets talk price right now.
What are your predictions ?
Le me tellyou mine :
Two weeks after RC5 one DRK is going to cost 0.045 BTCand rising !

I don't see how RC5 is going to drive the price up. Unless some big holders stop dumping their coins the bearish trend will continue.

Well I don't see why the price has to drop below 0.045 either. Although I agree that RC5 won't make any difference in terms of price fluctuation.      

Sooooo....let me see, are you saying:

Well I don't see why the price has to drop below 0.045 either

...that we will travel all the way up to 0.045 i.e. approx 10 times from where we're at now (0.00487829 on MP as I write this) and then, based on RC5 and/or potential developments you're not expecting the price to drop below 0.045 (i.e. 10 x current), although it will continue to experience fluctuation (which, I guess means it will have to go substantially higher than 0.045 in order for there to be enough room for the fluctuations without it coming back down below 0.045....)?

Or

Do you actually mean 0.0045 (i.e. approx where it's at now) in which case you're saying that you don't see why it would have to drop back below the current levels?

I'm guessing it's the second of these two scenarios?

(I really wish people would take more care with the placement of the decimal point when they're writing about prices!)

[Brilliantrocket]

I think we're setting ourselves up for more disappointment by predicting price jumps after RC5. The hype is over. The only way we will grow is through adoption and actual use. That means slow growth, but consequently real growth, not just speculative bubbles as we've experienced in the past and other coins continue to experience. We need to break through the pump and dump paradigm. RC5 will hopefully allow for us to begin that process.

[shojayxt]

I think we're setting ourselves up for more disappointment by predicting price jumps after RC5. The hype is over. The only way we will grow is through adoption and actual use. That means slow growth, but consequently real growth, not just speculative bubbles as we've experienced in the past and other coins continue to experience. We need to break through the pump and dump paradigm. RC5 will hopefully allow for us to begin that process.

[splawik21]

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.

That'd be awesome to replace litecoin from #2 position. It's a long way until that can be done though. More efforts should be directed to marketing. 

So!
According to http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/views/all/
2    Litecoin  LTC    $ 165,926,555 $ 5.26
8    Darkcoin DRK    $ 11,336,589  $ 2.46

All DRK need is multiple the current price by 14,63637386871836 times
So 1 DRK = $36,005+ $0,001 to become #2
So 1 DRK = BTC0,0708969183814118

I don`t know how much time we need to obtain this BUT with open source, RC5 and comming mass info spreading marketing etc we can do it, all depend how strong hands we have and @ what price ppl start mass dumping again.
Saying this when MasterNet (darktor) will go live I don`t think we will be under BTC0,1
Time, development, testing, marketing, time, development, testing, marketing etc thats how the things should work.
btw. there will be much manipulation during all the way to darkbank, so don`t be eaten by the whale.

[salmion]

Slow and steady uptrend will do just fine for me.

And I agree with the adoption being vital. Hype shmype. 

[tombtc]

I don't understand why you people saying we will start marketing after RC5. Any reason we can't start it now?

[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.

That'd be awesome to replace litecoin from #2 position. It's a long way until that can be done though. More efforts should be directed to marketing. 

So!
According to http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/views/all/
2    Litecoin  LTC    $ 165,926,555 $ 5.26
8    Darkcoin DRK    $ 11,336,589  $ 2.46

All DRK need is multiple the current price by 14,63637386871836 times
So 1 DRK = $36,005+ $0,001 to become #2
So 1 DRK = BTC0,0708969183814118

I don`t know how much time we need to obtain this BUT with open source, RC5 and comming mass info spreading marketing etc we can do it, all depend how strong hands we have and @ what price ppl start mass dumping again.
Saying this when MasterNet (darktor) will go live I don`t think we will be under BTC0,1
Time, development, testing, marketing, time, development, testing, marketing etc thats how the things should work.
btw. there will be much manipulation during all the way to darkbank, so don`t be eaten by the whale.

Yea, but LTC si open source .
Yes the hype is over now. After open source the real investors will come to the darkbank

[salmion]

I don't understand why you people saying we will start marketing after RC5. Any reason we can't start it now?

I think the idea is when it's ready for the wider public as opposed to the cryptoliterate - ie. RC5 and opensource.

It's had Wired articles etc. No reason why it won't have more.

 

[Terzo]

I don't understand why you people saying we will start marketing after RC5. Any reason we can't start it now?

People do not care about close source !

[shojayxt]

I don't understand why you people saying we will start marketing after RC5. Any reason we can't start it now?

People do not care about close source !

They don't?

[Terzo]

I don't understand why you people saying we will start marketing after RC5. Any reason we can't start it now?

People do not care about close source !

They don't?

Well at least according to crypto market ...

[Brilliantrocket]

The fact that we're closed source is a huge (temporary) weakness. No one will seriously consider using Darkcoin until we go open source. That's why we're putting off marketing until then.

[salmion]

The fact that we're closed source is a huge (temporary) weakness. No one will seriously consider using Darkcoin until we go open source. That's why we're putting off marketing until then.

Well Evan has started annotating in jira for open source so that's definitely on the cards.

I used to be opposed to it but one advantage to this taking a while is despite the plethora of anon type coins is that dark still stands out from the saturation.
There is less of an issue now with a copy cat. As they'll just join the others clamouring no I'm anon no me.

With open source more devs can get on board and it truly becomes decentralised.
And hopefully more can be done concurrently. Particulalry if the masternodes are going to function as a platform for further services.

And for tinfoil hat wearers it means they don't have to trust the dev team they can check for any backdoors themselves.

[oblox]

The fact that we're closed source is a huge (temporary) weakness. No one will seriously consider using Darkcoin until we go open source. That's why we're putting off marketing until then.

Well Evan has started annotating in jira for open source so that's definitely on the cards.

I used to be opposed to it but one advantage to this taking a while is despite the plethora of anon type coins is that dark still stands out from the saturation.
There is less of an issue now with a copy cat. As they'll just join the others clamouring no I'm anon no me.

With open source more devs can get on board and it truly becomes decentralised.
And hopefully more can be done concurrently. Particulalry if the masternodes are going to function as a platform for further services.

And for tinfoil hat wearers it means they don't have to trust the dev team they can check for any backdoors themselves.

I was originally opposed to a quick open source as well but then I started to think about the kinds of overhauls new and existing coins would need to do in order to use DRK as a basis for their coins and I believe it will be challenging at best. The one concern I thought about was having a POS coin adopt it and then use all the wallets as masternodes but then it goes back to the idea of why masternodes require a 1000 DRK to begin with (to prohibit parties from setting up enough nodes to deanonymize transactions). Even if you were to take an open source DRK and try to do a fair launch to get past the instamine issue that has plagued DRK for months now, it would still need plenty of revising as you can't expect to generate enough coins for both setting up as extensive of a masternode network as there currently is and have enough coins in circulation. There have been enough growing pains in DRK to last a lifetime but with RC4 out there, it appears the worse is behind us.

I was never fortunate enough to be apart of the BTC start only hearing about it when it was $15/coin or so and thinking it was the beginning scheme ever. Only waiting months and researching more about it did I feel it was a viable idea. The biggest thing missing to BTC is privacy (also faster confirms for real world usage) and I feel DRK can fill that missing void. That's why I'm not going to fret too much about whether I can get coins at $1.50, $2.5, $5, $10, etc because at the end of the day, if the project is successful and it does fill that void, the market cap will be significantly higher. It's all about the bigger picture. Sure, it sucks seeing unrealized gains plummet (or for some turn into losses), but I also don't want to risk trading out of my coins for what most traders would consider excellent gains only to be left standing there on some piece of news or feature that causes a fury of buying activity. BTC also had similar price moves. I don't think the people that took profit sub-$100 felt great when BTC rallied above $1000. Sure, they probably made great gains and had it in their head to buy a pullback but there was a point when the pullback didn't happen and prices went parabolic. Anything can happen with crypto, it's still very much in its infancy. I'm glad I can be part of a project I do believe in and clearly others believe in with the rising masternode count (808+ out of a possible 4600 given the current supply).

[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.

Well as fate would have it, I didn't dream about this at all...

It seems to me that the distribution of masternode public keys is probably not very uniform, and therefore a (pseudo) random matching based on block hashes could result in rather uneven payments? It may be possible to mitigate this, though not 100% sure. Perhaps some additional variables in the matching algorithm could help. If it can be structured in a way to get a reasonably normal distribution, then it's actually rather elegant.
One other consideration is that it'd still be highly probable that producing an output not matching any MNs is possible. Do we just say "too bad" for those ineligible blocks?

[eduffield]

Why you guy are so scared ? Little price drop huh ? Lets talk price right now.
What are your predictions ?
Le me tellyou mine :
Two weeks after RC5 one DRK is going to cost 0.045 BTCand rising !

I don't see how RC5 is going to drive the price up. Unless some big holders stop dumping their coins the bearish trend will continue.

RC5 will mean DarkSend+ is open source and then the marketing will commence... Or soon after that anyway...

Nobody trust close source . RC5 and the open source is going to be the start of the race !

I'm thinking about opening the source at release of RC5. I've actually been having various close friends of mine look at the source and no one sees anything seriously wrong with it besides some organizational issues (which I'm working on now). I believe we're ready to go.