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

[illodin]

Mintpal re-opening shortly.

What's going to happen

Mintpal will have 3 weeks of fee-free trading, so there are p&d groups waiting to get there and start buying their own coins to fake volume and price of many shitcoins. It could get crazy.

http://blog.moolah.io/2014/10/02/mintpal-v2-the-ongoing-migration/

And now they extended the fee-free period to 60 days. It will be interesting to see how blatant manipulation we will be seeing.

[luigi1111]

... CPU ... There's always a chance I'll solve a block.

Sure. Totally... :-p

This isn't about solving blocks.  Its about distributing the network hash rate.

EXACTLY !!!!

The blocks are just the bonus :-D

May be I am wrong about this, but I think it doesn't really matter. The "51% attack" is about having >50% of the network hash rate. A few (let alone virtual) CPU cores here and there don't really matter. They start to solve the block but effectively never finish it and thus they never actually have any effect on the blockchain. They do not mine any blocks, they are only trying to find the solution (and their work gets flushed when somebody else finds it before them).
Wild luck doesn't count here (unless you are hoping for the block reward as a lottery), because you would need a series of wild lucks in an externally defined time frame (solve several blocks in a row until the >50% entity looses it's adventage).

Theoretically, you are wrong, but:

Take the case of a single CPU hashing away: it contributes nothing to the network until it finds a block. However, he WILL find a block if he mined long enough; it's a virtual certainty. He always has a chance = (his hashing power) / (network hashing power). Let's say it's going to take him 6 months to find a block, on average. During those first theoretical 6 months until he finds a block (if block finding was perfectly distributed), he has indeed contributed nothing security-wise.

A few (let alone virtual) CPU cores here and there don't really matter. They start to solve the block but effectively never finish it and thus they never actually have any effect on the blockchain. They do not mine any blocks, they are only trying to find the solution (and their work gets flushed when somebody else finds it before them).

This is not correct. Each computed hash is its own independent event, and its input is (assumed to be) as likely to solve the block as any other. Work does not "get flushed" when someone else finds a block, as that work was determined to be worthless anyway (it didn't solve the block). The case where work would be lost is if you were in the middle of calculating a hash when you received notice of a new block, but that's very trivial.

Now, instead of your single CPU, imagine 150 CPUs just like yours. This group of CPUs would on average solve 1 block per day. 150 X 24 = 3,600 solo-mining CPUs and you've got on average 1 block every hour. It does indeed "make a difference", however you personally with your 1 CPU are unlikely to be a contributor over the short term.

So with that said.....

If we have 5000 Wallets solo-mining on even single CPU Cores - would that - or - would that not make a difference?

I don't know the x11 HR of a generic single core off hand, but just for our purposes let's go with 50 KH/s. 5,000 x 50 KH/s = 250 MH/s, only about 50 280x worth.

[thelonecrouton]

Crikey, logged into Bitfinex to pick up some more DRK and noticed they're now trading terahashes. Did some crude math but it didn't look very tempting. Bought another hundred DRK instead. 

[daddeo]

Why not have p2pool nodes become integrated with the masternodes. Yet another service provided by your friendly neighborhood masternode. Evan's thinking of increasing rewards for masternodes right? Let's pass a percentage of the rewards on to those who will use their nodes for hosting p2pool nodes. And then another percentage to incentivize miners to mine on them. Miners somehow get a higher reward for mining p2pool nodes.
I don't know; this makes sense in my head but honestly, I'm not sure it's even possible. Thoughts?

[thelonecrouton]

Why not have p2pool nodes become integrated with the masternodes. Yet another service provided by your friendly neighborhood masternode. Evan's thinking of increasing rewards for masternodes right? Let's pass a percentage of the rewards on to those who will use their nodes for hosting p2pool nodes. And then another percentage to incentivize miners to mine on them. Miners somehow get a higher reward for mining p2pool nodes.
I don't know; this makes sense in my head but honestly, I'm not sure it's even possible. Thoughts?

I like the way you think! Weigh in here: https://darkcointalk.org/threads/development-update-oct-1-2014.2561/   

[splawik21]

Why not have p2pool nodes become integrated with the masternodes. Yet another service provided by your friendly neighborhood masternode. Evan's thinking of increasing rewards for masternodes right? Let's pass a percentage of the rewards on to those who will use their nodes for hosting p2pool nodes. And then another percentage to incentivize miners to mine on them. Miners somehow get a higher reward for mining p2pool nodes.
I don't know; this makes sense in my head but honestly, I'm not sure it's even possible. Thoughts?

Nothing is possible till the day it is possible
That is a nice idea, give extra 5-10 % to the miners and masternodes together which will mine through the p2pool, we would have nice decentralised network, that is the point.

[g4q34g4qg47ww]

We are currently paying 80% of new coins generated for a service we don't need! What is the benefit of having POW at all in comparison to having the MN network handle block generation?! A good point made by crouton is that even having POW is actually a weakness and creates an attack vector. Dissenting opinions are not only welcomed but sought!

[toknormal]

Tokyo markets opening in 18 minutes.

Mintpal opening in a couple of hours (once they've finished all their "SQL INSERTS").

Southern Europe ended the day so vertical that they looked like a mole trying to escape an approaching steamroller. Lets see what Japan makes of that.

Mr Draghi has spoken. He basically said that if he can't get his monetary transmission policies to work then the future for Dark is bright. Said he'd tried negative interest rates to push cash out through the multiplier layer of the fractional reserve system but that credit consumers had choked on the offering and now he's going to squirting his overlevered guvpaper straight in the faces of unsuspecting SME's via his new bond and mortgage backed security buying programme instead.

Says if that doesn't work then bonds are bust, equities are bust, cash is bust due to negative interest rates and panic bailins so he's going to try a 1 trillion DRK shot which will push market cap to....well... 1 trillion (Eu: the budget he has at his disposal for asset buying).

Somebody asked him if he was worried about the Euro-Dollar exchange rate. Said he doesn't care about it because it's not a policy target.

So better hOdl onto your DRK folks. This man means business.

[splawik21]

We are currently paying 80% of new coins generated for a service we don't need! What is the benefit of having POW at all in comparison to having the MN network handle block generation?! A good point made by crouton is that even having POW is actually a weakness and creates an attack vector. Dissenting opinions are not only welcomed but sought!

I`d like to listen what Evan thinks about it?

[camosoul]

We are currently paying 80% of new coins generated for a service we don't need! What is the benefit of having POW at all in comparison to having the MN network handle block generation?! A good point made by crouton is that even having POW is actually a weakness and creates an attack vector. Dissenting opinions are not only welcomed but sought!

PoW still has value because it involves outsiders. Without that, one could say the network just makes more coins for itself for no reason. Kinda like the Federal Reserve. It's just printing more money... There should be effort done to create money, a value provided in exchange for it, and the party who does the most gets the most. It's an external contribution that assures the network is honest and by sheer force of computing power, cannot be broken. Everything has an attack vector...

You're aiming to fix the part that's working just fine instead of the part that's busted.

Allowing the mining pools to determine the distribution and function is part of the problem. PoW should always be a part of the process that validates a block. It shouldn't be the only process that validates a block. The answer is not to change metrics, but to combine more than one metric such that even if there is a successful attack on one aspect, that attack is dead in the water because it's only part of the game. PoW works. Don't throw it away just because it's gotten clumsy and nobody has un-clumsied it yet... MNs can un-clumsy it while also facilitating the voting system as a hybrid metric. Mining is a genius idea, but like so many others, when it stands alone, it's kinda stupid. We've gotten by with it so far because that's all we've known and brute-force has been the decider and it works, but a hybrid proof would be better.

Block proof is the issue we're really discussing. PoW works. It's crude, but that's part of why it's so great. We wouldn't have mining pools if nobody wanted to do it. The problem is that mining pools are a bandaid and a point of much consternation, disproportionality, and failure. If the MNs handled it, there wouldn't be one poll getting more than another. Everyone would remain an individual hashpower contributor to one network, no pools.

Mining is not the problem. How we're handling BTC's flaw of needing mining pools is the problem. the raw brutality of it is part of the paradoxical ruleset that makes crypto work so well. Even if it can be defined as vestigial, it still serves us better as part of a hybrid proof, than to abandon it and have another solitary proof system. That's the lesson we should be learning; no single proof system will ever be as good as a combined hybrid proof system, no matter what it is. You can't get rid of the attack vectors, but you can make them impotent by requiring that several be accomplished at once in order to break it. No one is going to go 51% AND spoof the whole MN voting system at the same time. But one or the other might be possible. Even if mining is stupid, it's still useful... Like shojayxt.

[Propulsion]

We are currently paying 80% of new coins generated for a service we don't need! What is the benefit of having POW at all in comparison to having the MN network handle block generation?! A good point made by crouton is that even having POW is actually a weakness and creates an attack vector. Dissenting opinions are not only welcomed but sought!

PoW still has value because it involves outsiders. Without that, one could say the network just makes more coins for itself for no reason. Kinda like the Federal Reserve. It's just printing more money... There should be effort done to create money, a value provided in exchange for it, and the party who does the most gets the most. It's an external contribution that assures the network is honest and by sheer force of computing power, cannot be broken. Everything has an attack vector...

You're aiming to fix the part that's working just fine instead of the part that's busted.

Allowing the mining pools to determine the distribution and function is part of the problem. PoW should always be a part of the process that validates a block. It shouldn't be the only process that validates a block. The answer is not to change metrics, but to combine more than one metric such that even if there is a successful attack on one aspect, that attack is dead in the water because it's only part of the game. PoW works. Don't throw it away just because it's gotten clumsy and nobody has un-clumsied it yet... MNs can un-clumsy it while also facilitating the voting system as a hybrid metric. Mining is a genius idea, but like so many others, when it stands alone, it's kinda stupid. We've gotten by with it so far because that's all we've known and brute-force has been the decider and it works, but a hybrid proof would be better.

Block proof is the issue we're really discussing. PoW works. It's crude, but that's part of why it's so great. We wouldn't have mining pools if nobody wanted to do it. The problem is that mining pools are a bandaid and a point of much consternation, disproportionality, and failure. If the MNs handled it, there wouldn't be one poll getting more than another. Everyone would remain an individual hashpower contributor to one network, no pools.

Mining is not the problem. How we're handling BTC's flaw of needing mining pools is the problem. the raw brutality of it is part of the paradoxical ruleset that makes crypto work so well. Even if it can be defined as vestigial, it still serves us better as part of a hybrid proof, than to abandon it and have another solitary proof system. That's the lesson we should be learning; no single proof system will ever be as good as a combined hybrid proof system, no matter what it is. You can't get rid of the attack vectors, but you can make them impotent by requiring that several be accomplished at once in order to break it. No one is going to go 51% AND spoof the whole MN voting system at the same time. But one or the other might be possible. Even if mining is stupid, it's still useful... Like shojayxt.

This.

The current POW is good because it lets anyone start mining from the get go.
With a 100% PoS system, only the people who are invested mint the coins. Also, it's easier to fork a coin with 100% PoS as well.

How it is now with PoW is good.

[r-ando]

I'm happy we are having these wonderful talks about the future of Darkcoin… and very happy we have finally started discussing possibilities of masternode pools and precious metal backing. Good evening.


https://darkcointalk.org/threads/development-update-oct-1-2014.2561/page-7

[nsimmons]

I'm happy we are having these wonderful talks about the future of Darkcoin… and very happy we have finally started discussing possibilities of masternode pools and precious metal backing. Good evening.


https://darkcointalk.org/threads/development-update-oct-1-2014.2561/page-7

Precious metal backing??? This defeats the entire purpose of crypto currency. Who do I have to trust to hold my metal in custody for me? This is the dumbest idea in this entire thread.

The entire point is the system already backed by proof of work. All this bitching about fixing things that aren't broken is nothing but a reaction to a low bitcoin and hence a low darkcoin price.

We don't need optimized mining software or unwanted, convoluted extraneous services. We need demand and adoption for its primary purpose, anonymity.

[TaoOfSaatoshi]

ATTENTION DARKCOIN THREADSTERS!!

Pay attention to my Twitter feed accessible from my sig at approximately 9:45PM Eastern Time (in about an hour) for a couple of very cool tweets. Let me know what you think!

#getintothedark
#buildthedarkness
#DarkcoinChameleon

Join the fun on Twitter!

@TaoOfSatoshi

[g4q34g4qg47ww]

Camo I value your opinion and appreciate the response.

I see POW as a giant waste of resources, and a remnant of networks needs from the PAST. I can see why POW brings value to coins that aren't blessed with a MN network. We trust MN network to denom our coins and sign transactions, but we can't trust it create blocks? I see value in the hybrid solution, but it seems like a much less elegant solution. Think of the security gains of having a perfectly distributed block generation between 900-3000 actors. It just seems to me like POW is a remnant from past times and not necessary for us.

[nsimmons]

I just read the thread on darkcoin talk. Here's a gem,

"What really needs to happen is have a centralized service like coinbase launch that allows people to store their darkcoins on it for a percentage of a MN. Lets call this website "MasternodeShares".

and another

"I agree, why not just get rid of "mining" altogether and have the MNs secure the network? "

So you guys want to centralize the network, and fuck the miners who got the coin this far, just to enrich the core group of node holders? If this is the current strategy it is no wonder the coin is tanking.

Forming a private cartel for your own self interest. I would dump my coins the second any of this shit was even entertained by Evan.

[g4q34g4qg47ww]

So you guys want to centralize the network, and fuck the miners who got the coin this far, just to enrich the core group of node holders? If this is the current strategy it is no wonder the coin is tanking.

So it's the miners who got the coin this far? Not Evan or his beautiful MN network? Take a day to think about it and straighten out your thoughts...

[Propulsion]

I just read the thread on darkcoin talk. Here's a gem,

"What really needs to happen is have a centralized service like coinbase launch that allows people to store their darkcoins on it for a percentage of a MN. Lets call this website "MasternodeShares".

and another

"I agree, why not just get rid of "mining" altogether and have the MNs secure the network? "

So you guys want to centralize the network, and fuck the miners who got the coin this far, just to enrich the core group of node holders? If this is the current strategy it is no wonder the coin is tanking.

Forming a private cartel for your own self interest. I would dump my coins the second any of this shit was even entertained by Evan.

Thanks for quoting me. (the first part)

Here's my reasoning:

• Not everyone has 1000 darkcoin to create a MN.
• Not everyone knows or wants to learn how to run a MN.

If the issue is that there are too few MN's to be optimal, lowering the barrier by having a service offer shares for MN's is a good thing.

It increases the number of nodes on the network, earns interest for the share owners, and locks the coins away creating a deflation.

The risk is by having the actual centralization of the coins for the service but that would be no greater than Mintpal or even Cryptsy as it is now.

The benefits to it is that it doesn't lower the MN cost and attracts smaller fish into the economy. All in all, I think it's a good thing.


For the second quote, PoW should definitely remain in play IMO. The MN's already earn mining rewards, I see no reason to also have them receiving PoS rewards as well. [/list]

[nsimmons]

So you guys want to centralize the network, and fuck the miners who got the coin this far, just to enrich the core group of node holders? If this is the current strategy it is no wonder the coin is tanking.

So it's the miners who got the coin this far? Not Evan or his beautiful MN network? Take a day to think about it and straighten out your thoughts...

Yes it's the miners, and its still the miners. See how well transactions are relayed without them.

I have thought things through, you want to turn the coin to POS to pump the price and make current masternode holders even wealthier.

The rich get richer. I can't even believe this horse shit is being entertained on darkcointalk.

[g4q34g4qg47ww]

See how well transactions are relayed without them.

With InstantX the transactions are going to be processed by the MN network anyway, and instantly. So... yeah...

Edit: Hey man, I know it's controversial. Just take a deep breath buddy