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

[camosoul]

Even though the increased percentage is intriguing, I wholeheartedly agree with oblox - balance is essential.

The amount of MNs will decrease in time anyway as the amount of coins in circulation is increasing. We must also make sure to have enough liquidity in the marketplaces, otherwise the value will stay super volatile.
And the most important thing is to reward the miners as well. Imagine a scenario when ASISs are introduced to x11, with darkcoin having an already small fraction of money as mining reward. This would totally centralize mining imho.

On the positive side more masternodes would decrease the available amount on the market, thereby increasing prices.

It should also be considered that even though there are 900 masternodes, these are maintained by 150-200 person max. vertoe alone runs ~10% of the masternodes, which - no offense - is a risk to consider. The more people own a small amount of drk the better it is for the community. If we increase the masternode numbers, will it mean that new people will start running mns? I highly doubt. Many here would add one more to their mns. From this perspective, the system security wouldn't increase at all, despite the increased number of nodes.

I'd say give it some more time. When the currency is more spread, THEN we MAY increase the %, IFF it will seem beneficial. At the moment it would backfire I think.

I have to somewhat agree with this.  I was one of the first to put forward suggestions on master nodes as a service to enable non-technical people to participate by paying others to help.

What Vertoe also pointed out yesterday, is that running 70 MNs is a nightmare. This is not like building a cloud mining farm. If you had one organisation with lots of people, then it could be an issue.

Creating a MN package that could be deployed allows non-technical people to participate, but it also makes it easier to centralise.

Tough challenge.

Easy answer: 400DRK for a MN instead of 1000DRK.

People don't have to play with share systems to reach it. Stays distributed. Get more MNs.

Because of greater accessibility, half the price will get you more than double the MN count. No coin supply/reward/tax tampering needed.

[eduffield]

Development Update - Oct 1, 2014.

https://darkcointalk.org/threads/development-update-oct-1-2014.2561/

I'm curious what everyone thinks.  

This is fascinating. The little rusty gears in my head are churning at full speed.

It's a workable plan, but heavy-handed... It leaves me confused about enforcement... If manipulating the coin reward is treated so flippantly, but actually getting those rewards we treat with kid gloves... We're messing with the fundamentals of coin creation and supply way, way too much here.

Sure, it'd probably work, but I think effort should be put into finding a better way. I think that simply decreasing the number of coins needed to run a MN would be a much better way to get more of them. If it only takes 700 DRK instead of 1000, people can still lock away the same amount of DRK that they want into MNs, there's just more of them in a direct and controllable proportion. Why hunt for equilibrium by tampering with the coin supply, when you can very predictably increase MN count by observing current MN count, look at desired MN count, and divide by N. No screwing around with the coin supply needed, nobody can troll about a tax, and you know exactly what you're getting... Both from the dev side and the MN operator side... Predictable, simple, get what you want without dicking around with coin supply... Tell me where I'm wrong?

The Masternode network can be thought of as the Darkcoin amount it takes to subvert the network. Decreasing the amount of coins required for a Masternode to operate does increase the number of Masternodes, but it also maintains the same level of security. For example, if you change the rule to 100DRK per Masternode, we'll end up with 5x-10x more masternodes but the cost of a sybil attack will actually remain the same or even decrease.

BabyGiraffe has a great post about this here: https://darkcointalk.org/threads/development-update-oct-1-2014.2561/page-4#post-23297
 

[TanteStefana2]

Thing is, I just decided around... two weeks ago or something, "Hey, I feel like fucking around with X11 on AMD." Seeing as I didn't know what GPU code looked like 4 months ago, there obviously are loads of people out there who could hand me my ass when it comes to GPU optimizations, on AMD or otherwise, and it stands to reason that someone has done this shit already.

What do you plan to do about it?

Game theory suggests that there is more benefit to you in releasing your improved code than simply to keep on using it yourself, as the people you claim to have even better miners are currently profiting at your expense, as well as everyone elses. Plus the steps you have taken can then also be improved upon by others, thus further lowering the disparity.

You would sacrifice your gain now for a better net gain in the future.

I don't claim anyone has even better miners - I said I believe it's quite likely. Assuming that is true, they are indeed profiting at my (very slight) expense at the moment. However, the only motive I could possibly have for releasing my current code is malice: that is, simply wanting to lower the amount they are making. Since by keeping it to myself, and VERY few others (about two to three testers and one farmer), I finally am not forced to frantically look for freelance jobs every month until I have money, as my percentage covers my expenses with a little bit extra, I would have to be EXTREMELY irrational to do so. Pretty much anything done to X11 to speed it up can be added to X13 and X15 with minimal effort - which I have, of course, completed. As there are just loads of coins that use X11/X13/X15, and more coming out, this means that for the forseeable future my optimizations will make a good enough profit to keep me above water - and very likely more. (Multipools and NiceHash are pretty much what all farmers I know use.)

Therefore, the suggestion you pose to me is, put simply, to destroy my main source of income in order to fuck over people who are profiting more than I am, for now, who I do not know and actually have no beef with. Oh, and said people may or may not exist.

So in essence you're just bitching that someone else might be doing exactly what you're doing?

Bitching? No, not at all! You've got it wrong - I'm saying that coins should take steps to avoid this type of situation, and that not doing so is extremely bad for it. Haha, I would never demonize someone for acting in a rational manner.

Ah, right, you're not bitching, you're gloating that you're doing something 'extremely bad' for DRK.

NO!  He is just saying that it would be better for the coin if the developers would release a well functioning miner from the get go so that everyone has the best available, so that people like himself wouldn't have an advantage.  Of course, he needs the money, he made a better miner, so he keeps it to himself.

I think he is sort of correct, it would be nice to have the most efficient miner available to everyone, and Evan has said he would like to devote some time in optimizing the miner, but he's been too busy.

But in the end, there will never be fair distribution for mining.  People who can code, can optimize for themselves and their hardware, people with money can buy the best equipment, etc... etc...  It's called competition and as long as the rewards are worth it, things will get more efficient and productive for those with the ability to make it so.  There is no reason why they shouldn't benefit from their work and abilities either, IMO. 

So actually, I disagree with Wolf0, I don't think the developer would ever get a coin off the ground by being so meticulous as to bring the miner up to the best it could possibly be.  That amount of time required of him is not worth it.  He was smart to spend his time on getting the coin to work.  As long as the distribution of mining power was relatively balanced, that was all we needed.  Even so, it swung over 50% a few times.  Now the network is larger and doesn't swing so badly anymore, and DRK has matured a lot.

So no, I don't believe in everything being fair.  I think, for people on the ball, they'll get their fair share of life eventually.  If they miss out once, they'll be on it next time.  For others like myself, without the talent, I am glad to have stumbled upon this coin early and learned as fast as I could how to mine.  I wish I knew I could rent an instance to mine back then!  Oh, I could have been rich!  LOL.  But I was so green, I had no clue.

Anyway, that's life.  Gotta grab it by the balls, or work 9-5 till you're 70 years old.  And just cause you can't grab as many balls as the next guy because you don't have the talent or money, doesn't mean you can't scramble up a nice chunk of 'em for yourself in accordance to your talent

[TaoOfSaatoshi]

Development Update - Oct 1, 2014.

https://darkcointalk.org/threads/development-update-oct-1-2014.2561/

I'm curious what everyone thinks.  

This is fascinating. The little rusty gears in my head are churning at full speed.

It's a workable plan, but heavy-handed... It leaves me confused about enforcement... If manipulating the coin reward is treated so flippantly, but actually getting those rewards we treat with kid gloves... We're messing with the fundamentals of coin creation and supply way, way too much here.

Sure, it'd probably work, but I think effort should be put into finding a better way. I think that simply decreasing the number of coins needed to run a MN would be a much better way to get more of them. If it only takes 700 DRK instead of 1000, people can still lock away the same amount of DRK that they want into MNs, there's just more of them in a direct and controllable proportion. Why hunt for equilibrium by tampering with the coin supply, when you can very predictably increase MN count by observing current MN count, look at desired MN count, and divide by N. No screwing around with the coin supply needed, nobody can troll about a tax, and you know exactly what you're getting... Both from the dev side and the MN operator side... Predictable, simple, get what you want without dicking around with coin supply... Tell me where I'm wrong?

The Masternode network can be thought of as the Darkcoin amount it takes to subvert the network. Decreasing the amount of coins required for a Masternode to operate does increase the number of Masternodes, but it also maintains the same level of security. For example, if you change the rule to 100DRK per Masternode, we'll end up with 5x-10x more masternodes but the cost of a sybil attack will actually remain the same or even decrease.

This is the consensus we are seeming to reach on DCT...

[TanteStefana2]

The Masternode network can be thought of as the Darkcoin amount it takes to subvert the network. Decreasing the amount of coins required for a Masternode to operate does increase the number of Masternodes, but it also maintains the same level of security. For example, if you change the rule to 100DRK per Masternode, we'll end up with 5x-10x more masternodes but the cost of a sybil attack will actually remain the same or even decrease.

Yah, but you said it would increase the traffic and cause excessive lag??  No?

[shojayxt]

fuck u whale , fuck you.
could it be that evan is that megga whalebot ?

Not likely.  He probably dumped a majority of his instamine when the price peaked.  The current sellers are bagholders finally jumping off this sinking ship.

-20% down price the last 7 days since open source, evan pelase no moré update development 

That's because now it can be forked and launched with a fair distribution instead of the instamine scam that drk is.  Other reasons include coins with superior anonymity, a disgust by the altcoin community in general towards darkcoin and all the brainwashed cheerleaders.  darkcoin is a pathetic cult based off of a scam.  Even now there are idiots talking "more cheap drk" even while they dump what they hold.

Anyone looking for an anonymous cryptocurrency would be better off choosing any of the other options available.  Any cryptonote release has better anonymity than darkcoin without the need for darkcoins CENTRALIZED masternode network.

Then there are projects like SuperNet that will combine all the features of many coins into one location and make these features available to everyone even if you don't hold the coin that is offering the feature.

You also have that mentally deficient sissy called camoshit acting like a complete moron and attacking people with his ignorant rants.  Did that drk bagholder ever get his Tesla?  If not, his misfortune pleases me.  And what about that fool saying he wouldn't sell until drk reached $300?  He'll be waiting forever.  And how is that Professional Investor that studied altcoins and came to drk because he knows how to make money?  Finally, did that other fool actually sell his BMW and property to invest in drk?  If he did then he made a terrible investment in this instamined scam.  

Bottom line:

Darkcoin is a dead coin.  It's time has passed.  Nobody believes the bullshit anymore except the braindead darkcoin cult members.

I warned people but they didn't listen.  So while myself and many others made massive profits dumping drk and trading other coins, many bought into the darkcoin hype and watched their holding lose value when they could have been making significant gains.  But hey, they can always brag about being a member of the darkcoin bagholders club.

I'm done here and will retire this screen name.  That doesn't mean that I'm done with altcoins.  It just means that I'm done with this scam called darkcoin.

You can either sell darkcoin now for what you can get or watch what you have  continue to lose value.  Your choice.  

Darkcoin, the Instamine Scam that is going nowhere.

P.S.

I forgot to point out the fact that there have been enhanced private miners as proven by wolf.  So this scam runs even deeper than most people ever thought.  

1. Instamine
2. Private enhanced miners
3. Centralization


That's three strikes against this coin.  

No need to respond to my post.  Please continue posting your pathetic meme's, talking about the moon, and just basically continuing your little circle jerk of hardcore darkcoin bagholders.  I'm just a troll and a fudster anyway right?  I'll take those labels over bagholder any day.  Time for me to make some more money while the darkcoin bagholders complain about the price and act butthurt over the fact that people are bailing on instamined scamcoin in droves.

This is my last post.  shojayxt will self destruct in 30 seconds.

Dos Svidanya

  




  

[TanteStefana2]

Easy answer: 400DRK for a MN instead of 1000DRK.

People don't have to play with share systems to reach it. Stays distributed. Get more MNs.

Because of greater accessibility, half the price will get you more than double the MN count. No coin supply/reward/tax tampering needed.

Can we keep it evenly divisible into 1000, so that people like myself don't lose a percentage because they can't divide their coin into those masternodes evenly, thus lose a proportion of their income? 

[camosoul]

Development Update - Oct 1, 2014.

https://darkcointalk.org/threads/development-update-oct-1-2014.2561/

I'm curious what everyone thinks.  

This is fascinating. The little rusty gears in my head are churning at full speed.

It's a workable plan, but heavy-handed... It leaves me confused about enforcement... If manipulating the coin reward is treated so flippantly, but actually getting those rewards we treat with kid gloves... We're messing with the fundamentals of coin creation and supply way, way too much here.

Sure, it'd probably work, but I think effort should be put into finding a better way. I think that simply decreasing the number of coins needed to run a MN would be a much better way to get more of them. If it only takes 700 DRK instead of 1000, people can still lock away the same amount of DRK that they want into MNs, there's just more of them in a direct and controllable proportion. Why hunt for equilibrium by tampering with the coin supply, when you can very predictably increase MN count by observing current MN count, look at desired MN count, and divide by N. No screwing around with the coin supply needed, nobody can troll about a tax, and you know exactly what you're getting... Both from the dev side and the MN operator side... Predictable, simple, get what you want without dicking around with coin supply... Tell me where I'm wrong?

The Masternode network can be thought of as the Darkcoin amount it takes to subvert the network. Decreasing the amount of coins required for a Masternode to operate does increase the number of Masternodes, but it also maintains the same level of security. For example, if you change the rule to 100DRK per Masternode, we'll end up with 5x-10x more masternodes but the cost of a sybil attack will actually remain the same or even decrease.

BabyGiraffe has a great post about this here: https://darkcointalk.org/threads/development-update-oct-1-2014.2561/page-4#post-23297

I see your point, but I'm not sure it's valid. If we don't care about sybil now because it's a crazy longshot, why do we care about sybil later when it is exactly the same longshot?

If it's raining and you're inside the house and not worried about getting wet today, why would you suddenly be worried about getting wet tomorrow under the same conditions? I think viable sybil conditions are being overstated.

I'm also not suggesting that the MN cost be cut by an order of magnitude. That's way too much. The lower price will make them more viable for operators, and avoid share scheme consolidation, or "centralized coinjoin servers" as the douche trolls like to FUD it up. While you theoretically "increase" sybil concerns in a way that is still of no actual real-world concern, you drastically decrease these other things... If you cut the MN PoService retention cost to 700 instead of 1000, it'll probably double the qty of MNs due to accessibility.

I'm only saying it would be better to try that way instead of experiment with reward/tax rate because we already know how sensitive that is in valuation, confidence, and trolling... Not saying it should be ruled out, just that I don't think it's a good first option... The end goal being more MNs, we can try something a little less heavy handed before going to this option... I guess I'm saying that it's like the nuclear option. It's on the table, but we should try a few other things first. Kitty stuck in a tree? DROP THE BOMB seems like an over-reaction... All we're trying to do is get more MNs, right? If you wanted 3000 MNs at the current coin supply, holy crap, 3/4 of the market cap would be tied up. Price would skyrocket... If people didn't see that as the obvious manipulation that it would look like to me... Is it really practical to think that you can tie up 70% of the coin supply in a service network? Exactly what service is being provided to the tiny amount of coins, and users, that remain? See how this looks?

I'm sure a variable MN reward system is a cool idea, and it mimics how miners are paid with difficulty. But miners and MNs are apples and oranges. While it's "cool" to implement a familiar dynamic metric handler, it doesn't necessarily apply to the matter... I think guns are cool, but they aren't always the appropriate answer to a given situation... It may be really cool, but I don't think it's the right tool for the job.

No one wants to see $550/DRK more than I do. I just don't think it'd be a healthy way to get it. If people even bought into it with those slants...

[toknormal]

That's because now it can be forked and....lets see how much bullsh*t I can create from nothing in 5 seconds

LoL !! You've excelled yourself there.

You've got your troll hat on today I see - must've dumped and hoping to hell it doesn't recover before your target.

[AlexGR]

My 2 duffs for development priorities:

1. Leave the MN payment formula as it is right now. No need for tampering it...

2. Provide strong IP obfuscation - or TOR-merging, so that DRK is usable for "fund Snowden" type of stuff. If DRK doesn't do it, clones will. "We have DarkSend plus IP obf".

3. Find a way (or outsource) a solution to get back to MN payments at a protocol level, without workarounds and without forking.

4. Wallet stuff / visual improvements.

5. Instant TXs

(some could be worked in parallel)

[camosoul]

My 2 duffs for development priorities:

1. Leave the MN payment formula as it is right now. No need for tampering it...

2. Provide strong IP obfuscation - or TOR-merging, so that DRK is usable for "fund Snowden" type of stuff. If DRK doesn't do it, clones will. "We have DarkSend plus IP obf".

3. Find a way (or outsource) a solution to get back to MN payments at a protocol level, without workarounds and without forking.

4. Wallet stuff / visual improvements.

5. Instant TXs

(some could be worked in parallel)

Yeah, lets feature add and mull the MN count thoughts as that happens. It's good to think ahead and always be asking "So, what awesomeness will I do next?" But not at the expense of the immediate tasks...

This list is perfect.

There needs to be more thinking out loud about the MN count augmentation interest. These other things are already "Hell yeah! Git sum1!!"

[innergy]

Snowden it is.

Right. Six degrees of separation



How do we 1) get Snowden to load a DRK wallet; 2) have people sending him DRKs, if they are allowed to in their jurisdiction; and 3) get him to post a picture on r/darkcoin?

Heh, this has major media potential...  

I take it it's legal to send him DRKs? If that's the case, 200 DRKs bounty to the first person to get him to open a DRK wallet, post a picture on r/darkcoin to show some evidence (don't try and photoshop something crude) and also for Snoweden to post a picture of the address for the person claiming the bounty.

Snowden would need to hold up something to confirm he has a DRK wallet.  Anyone from the DRK foundation can be the final judge on whether the funds should be paid out to the bounty hunter.

(I will also need to double check none of this is breaking any laws).

I just sent a mail to his lawyer in Russia
http://www.kucherena.ru/contacts/

[coins101]

That's because now it can be forked and....lets see how much bullsh*t I can create from nothing in 5 seconds

LoL !! You've excelled yourself there.

You've got your troll hat on today I see - must've dumped and hoping to hell it doesn't recover before your target.

His writing style is similar to the guy who provoked an attack against Monero.

Might not be him, but clearly there have been some issues with a few cryptonote fans of various flavors causing CN wars.

Like I've always said, he is crypto cancer.

[camosoul]

Aw yeah, blowjay is back! Pump incoming... lols.

I r watching you from the moon. It's a giant titty-shaped moon. Y U NO HERE?

[thelonecrouton]

My 2 duffs for development priorities:

1. Leave the MN payment formula as it is right now. No need for tampering it...

2. Provide strong IP obfuscation - or TOR-merging, so that DRK is usable for "fund Snowden" type of stuff. If DRK doesn't do it, clones will. "We have DarkSend plus IP obf".

3. Find a way (or outsource) a solution to get back to MN payments at a protocol level, without workarounds and without forking.

4. Wallet stuff / visual improvements.

5. Instant TXs

(some could be worked in parallel)

Enforce p2pool. With Masternodes as p2pool nodes. No more bad pools, no more 51% attack, guaranteed decentralisation.

[AlexGR]

Enforce p2pool. With Masternodes as p2pool nodes. No more bad pools, no more 51% attack, guaranteed decentralisation.

Can I make an ordinary pool and then forward my hashrate to p2pool masquarading as an individual? If yes, it can be bypassed.

[naplam]

CrunchPool just moved to a new server in Canada, with low latency to US and Europe, you can still mine DRK, BTC and more coins with us!
http://p2pool.crunchpool.com:7903

[illodin]

You kept all that anger inside you for the last weeks? LOL

I'm done here and will retire this screen name.

Looks like you already have quite a many new ones. LOL

This is my last post.  shojayxt will self destruct in 30 seconds.

First troll that I made quit by busting his sock puppet trolling. Didn't know you took it so hard. LOL


That's three LOL's for you.

And one for the road, go choke on it and die, loser: LOL

[camosoul]

My 2 duffs for development priorities:

1. Leave the MN payment formula as it is right now. No need for tampering it...

2. Provide strong IP obfuscation - or TOR-merging, so that DRK is usable for "fund Snowden" type of stuff. If DRK doesn't do it, clones will. "We have DarkSend plus IP obf".

3. Find a way (or outsource) a solution to get back to MN payments at a protocol level, without workarounds and without forking.

4. Wallet stuff / visual improvements.

5. Instant TXs

(some could be worked in parallel)

Enforce p2pool. With Masternodes as p2pool nodes. No more bad pools, no more 51% attack, guaranteed decentralisation.

But keep the MNs behind the planned IP obfuscation? Would need to be it's own protocol/fabric.

[thelonecrouton]

Enforce p2pool. With Masternodes as p2pool nodes. No more bad pools, no more 51% attack, guaranteed decentralisation.

Can I make an ordinary pool and then forward my hashrate to p2pool masquarading as an individual? If yes, it can be bypassed.

The MN payments can't be bypassed that way as the p2pool node makes them, not the individual miner (or farm.)