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

[kingofalts]

DRK MN are already very profitable and much more economical to run than actual mining. Already the MN just collect more drk to create more MN, give them anymore rewards and you'll just be pooping on the real miners.

[1715057160]

1715057160

[1715057160]

1715057160

[1715057160]

1715057160

[1715057160]

1715057160

[1715057160]

1715057160

[1715057160]

1715057160

[Cryptosis]

With masternode payouts it's incentive for people to run them just as the incentive for miners. Without darksend what would dark be? I think 20% is fair for a service that makes the coin unique and in return makes it worth mining. Look at bitcoins full node problem, if they started payouts there would be 1,000 times as many nodes.  

[JGCMiner]

It seems to me like we have the same people defending increasing the current 20% MN payments and a much larger set of people against it. I have been a DRK supporter since early February and I haven't had this bad of a feeling about something Evan suggested since that airdrop idea he floated...

I still don't know why we don't give the currency several months to a year to grow organically before messing with the technicals. If DRK/fiat increases then MN's will become more profitable and their numbers will naturally increase. The current plan is heavy handed and may well be a disaster if too many people are pissed off.

[falsealarm_bf]

Been away for a couple of days. What happened to Mintpal? Is it gone for good?

[g4q34g4qg47ww]

It seems to me like we have the same people defending increasing the current 20% MN payments and a much larger set of people against it. I have been a DRK supporter since early February and I haven't had this bad of a feeling about something Evan suggested since that airdrop idea he floated...

I still don't know why we don't give the currency several months to a year to grow organically before messing with the technicals. If DRK/fiat increases then MN's will become more profitable and their numbers will naturally increase. The current plan is heavy handed and may well be a disaster if too many people are pissed off.

Some coins don't change. This one does. People are pissed off at the theoretical discussions being thrown around. I'd say Evan has a bird's eye view of how crypto works and has the best interest of the coin in mind, not specifically what is going fill a masternode owner's pocket. People are afraid to speak too vocally in favor because Evan's plan for the coin also happens to appeal to the greed of a masternode owner, making themselves look greedy for supporting it.

[snogcel]

I've taken a few days to really think hard about the changes in the future for POW and Darkcoin... it really does feel like a well thought out plan, it's just that you have to look at it in the context of InstantX... first read:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/241012134/Transaction-Locking-and-Masternode-Consensus-A-Mechanism-for-Mitigating-Double-Spending-Attacks

Bitcoin uses proof of work to maintain consensus throughout its network of peers. Due to its technical parameters this limits the speed at which a transaction can be considered confirmed and safe against double spend attacks.

To decrease the time a transaction needs to be confirmed it’s possible to lower the block generation time. which has the drawback of blockchain bloat and has a lower boundary of ~30 seconds due to network latency.

We are proposing to combine the proof of work algorithm with an implementation of a distributed lock manager (DLM) which will utilise the masternode network: Transaction Locking.

Once finalized and deployed, POW serves as a much slower "backup" to the DLM method. To support transaction locking, a robust network is required - and - logically, as the Masternodes will be doing all of the actual 'work'... doesn't it make sense to adjust the distribution of block reward to provide incentive for that network?

Code:

+ if(nHeight > 150000) ret += blockValue / 20; //25%
+ if(nHeight > 150000+((576*30)*1)) ret += blockValue / 20; //30%
+ if(nHeight > 150000+((576*30)*2)) ret += blockValue / 20; //35%
+ if(nHeight > 150000+((576*30)*3)) ret += blockValue / 40; //37.5%
+ if(nHeight > 150000+((576*30)*4)) ret += blockValue / 40; //40%
+ if(nHeight > 150000+((576*30)*5)) ret += blockValue / 40; //42.5%
+ if(nHeight > 150000+((576*30)*6)) ret += blockValue / 40; //45%
+ if(nHeight > 150000+((576*30)*7)) ret += blockValue / 40; //47.5%
+ if(nHeight > 150000+((576*30)*9)) ret += blockValue / 40; //50%
+ if(nHeight > 150000+((576*30)*11)) ret += blockValue / 40; //52.5%
+ if(nHeight > 150000+((576*30)*13)) ret += blockValue / 40; //55%
+ if(nHeight > 150000+((576*30)*15)) ret += blockValue / 40; //57.5%
+ if(nHeight > 150000+((576*30)*17)) ret += blockValue / 40; //60%

60% for the preferred method (DLM), 40% for the auxiliary and slower method (POW). I think the fallacy lies in the term "payment" - it's a distribution of block reward based on service provided to the network.

What if down the road 95% of transactions bypass the POW network entirely? It will be funny looking back on this thread when the roles are reversed and MN owners are complaining about POW "payments" ;-)

[stealth923]

I've taken a few days to really think hard about the changes in the future for POW and Darkcoin... it really does feel like a well thought out plan, it's just that you have to look at it in the context of InstantX... first read:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/241012134/Transaction-Locking-and-Masternode-Consensus-A-Mechanism-for-Mitigating-Double-Spending-Attacks

Bitcoin uses proof of work to maintain consensus throughout its network of peers. Due to its technical parameters this limits the speed at which a transaction can be considered confirmed and safe against double spend attacks.

To decrease the time a transaction needs to be confirmed it’s possible to lower the block generation time. which has the drawback of blockchain bloat and has a lower boundary of ~30 seconds due to network latency.

We are proposing to combine the proof of work algorithm with an implementation of a distributed lock manager (DLM) which will utilise the masternode network: Transaction Locking.

Once finalized and deployed, POW serves as a much slower "backup" to the DLM method. To support transaction locking, a robust network is required - and - logically, as the Masternodes will be doing all of the actual 'work'... doesn't it make sense to adjust the distribution of block reward to provide incentive for that network?

Code:

+ if(nHeight > 150000) ret += blockValue / 20; //25%
+ if(nHeight > 150000+((576*30)*1)) ret += blockValue / 20; //30%
+ if(nHeight > 150000+((576*30)*2)) ret += blockValue / 20; //35%
+ if(nHeight > 150000+((576*30)*3)) ret += blockValue / 40; //37.5%
+ if(nHeight > 150000+((576*30)*4)) ret += blockValue / 40; //40%
+ if(nHeight > 150000+((576*30)*5)) ret += blockValue / 40; //42.5%
+ if(nHeight > 150000+((576*30)*6)) ret += blockValue / 40; //45%
+ if(nHeight > 150000+((576*30)*7)) ret += blockValue / 40; //47.5%
+ if(nHeight > 150000+((576*30)*9)) ret += blockValue / 40; //50%
+ if(nHeight > 150000+((576*30)*11)) ret += blockValue / 40; //52.5%
+ if(nHeight > 150000+((576*30)*13)) ret += blockValue / 40; //55%
+ if(nHeight > 150000+((576*30)*15)) ret += blockValue / 40; //57.5%
+ if(nHeight > 150000+((576*30)*17)) ret += blockValue / 40; //60%

60% for the preferred method (DLM), 40% for the auxiliary and slower method (POW). I think the fallacy lies in the term "payment" - it's a distribution of block reward based on service provided to the network.

What if down the road 95% of transactions bypass the POW network entirely? It will be funny looking back on this thread when the roles are reversed and MN owners are complaining about POW "payments" ;-)

Great post - this is my thoughts exactly. Evan knows whats best from a financial and crypto perspective. To allow InstantTX to be successful and to secure the anonymity network we need more masternodes. There are other ways to give incentives to get people to purchase and configure a MN but I see this as the best approach.

[chaeplin]

I have found a project prefer DarkCoin for Anonymous Donations.

https://github.com/SecUpwN/Android-IMSI-Catcher-Detector/wiki/Anonymous-Donations

[Ignition75]

X11 Mining Optimisation Project

Hi all, I've been in discussions with a couple of very talented OpenCL (AMD) and Cuda (Nvidia) developers who both think there are decent optimisations to be had from spending some time on existing mining software.

Both have done similar projects for other coins, and, lets just say there was a large gap in the reward vs effort spent on these optimisations.  There was a bit of reluctance from both developers to spend huge amounts of time on this.

So I thought about a crowd funding exercise, similar to the way we've funded other projects which have been of benefit to the DRK community.

How many of you would be interested in showing a little support with some DRK, along side myself, to give a nice boost to both AMD and Nvidia mining for x11?  In a similar fashion to the Kristov Atlas review, the more we can raise, the more time can be spent on this exercise.

Nothing formal has been set-up at this stage, I'm really just gauging people's appetites for improvements on the mining software, if we all think this is a good idea I'll set-up an address and we can get the ball rolling.

 

Bump - Why should private mining groups get all the spoils...

[g4q34g4qg47ww]

Been away for a couple of days. What happened to Mintpal? Is it gone for good?

They are having planned security over-haul, but it is taking longer than expected. They have now said they will open on Monday, some folks are getting freaked out though.

[antonioserrano72]

Been away for a couple of days. What happened to Mintpal? Is it gone for good?

They are having planned security over-haul, but it is taking longer than expected. They have now said they will open on Monday, some folks are getting freaked out though.

That's perfectly logical. Having your funds locked for days while you were expecting a single one is insane. I would be super anxious about this if I had any money there.

[stonehedge]

I already bailed but miss Mintpal.  The thing that has stopped me trading more with their rivals is the low volume on some other exhanges and also that my bank is a bunch of cretins.

[Anonz]

comparing now with magi m7m

[freedomno1]

I already bailed but miss Mintpal.  The thing that has stopped me trading more with their rivals is the low volume on some other exhanges and also that my bank is a bunch of cretins.

Mintpal will be back online within 12 hours
Although it should have been up three days ago but ya they were having server problems and migration errors stuff happens.

Completely clean orderbook though so where the market will move in a few hours for the first bit will be a giant mess! ^_^

[raze182]

It seems to me like we have the same people defending increasing the current 20% MN payments and a much larger set of people against it. I have been a DRK supporter since early February and I haven't had this bad of a feeling about something Evan suggested since that airdrop idea he floated...

I still don't know why we don't give the currency several months to a year to grow organically before messing with the technicals. If DRK/fiat increases then MN's will become more profitable and their numbers will naturally increase. The current plan is heavy handed and may well be a disaster if too many people are pissed off.

Agreed 100%. I too have been here since February and can't help but think of the airdrop idea in relation to this. I think it's premature to start worrying about the Masternode count this early in the game (especially considering the current market climate). I'm neither a miner nor a Masternode operator so I have no "side" really, but I can't help but think that raising the percentage is trying to fix a problem that doesn't really exist yet. The suggestion of trustless Masternode pooling seems like a less risky and controversial means to start trying to boost the Masternode count, at least in the near term.

[dotnetmin]

Mintpal down, DRK recovering while BTC is going to a 2014 low.
If mintpal has gone away with all the coins you woudn't see a recovering on DRK.
Its a shame they did dissapear for days without leaving any words before.
Thats no way to do bussiness. Hopefully they have to pay for that with loosing volume.
But Crypto community is too stupid to act as it should be. They will onöy be happy
To trade without fee for a while and all will be fine again.

[alex-ru]

If mintpal has gone away with all the coins you woudn't see a recovering on DRK.

Maybe MintPal need some more days to sell-dump all their BTC before  doing "Mt.Gox-style" announce?

[semajjames]

Hey guys - have not mined for a few here.... little help

Please point me to the "best' P2P


I got 1 rig on solo mining into the Qt

Need my other rig on a P2P

What's the best right now?


thx in advance

i use this
http://darkcoin.fr:7903/static/

i'm in uk so speed is good ,, but i not tryed many

[camosoul]

It seems to me like we have the same people defending increasing the current 20% MN payments and a much larger set of people against it. I have been a DRK supporter since early February and I haven't had this bad of a feeling about something Evan suggested since that airdrop idea he floated...

I still don't know why we don't give the currency several months to a year to grow organically before messing with the technicals. If DRK/fiat increases then MN's will become more profitable and their numbers will naturally increase. The current plan is heavy handed and may well be a disaster if too many people are pissed off.

Agreed 100%. I too have been here since February and can't help but think of the airdrop idea in relation to this. I think it's premature to start worrying about the Masternode count this early in the game (especially considering the current market climate). I'm neither a miner nor a Masternode operator so I have no "side" really, but I can't help but think that raising the percentage is trying to fix a problem that doesn't really exist yet. The suggestion of trustless Masternode pooling seems like a less risky and controversial means to start trying to boost the Masternode count, at least in the near term.

I think there is a valid point here. I don't think anyone disagrees that we need more masternodes. We need more adoption, too. I think the plan for MNs should be mapped out and need more thought, but spending time on it right now is getting the cart in front of the horse. It's a project certainly in need of doing, but not today...

Look at the MN voting system, reverted. Spent a lot of time coming up with a new idea and not using it. Was it a bad idea? No, not really. But it just wasn't the right idea for the job. That's a lot of time an effort devoted to going the wrong way that could have been avoided by just sleeping on it and getting perspective. It's really not even a criticism. Nobody is perfect. But Evan could save himself a lot of time and work if he'd step back and let the notions simmer before jumping to code. I got from 3D models direct to production, no prototypes. I get away with that because I stew it in my head for months, every tiny detail, before I pull the trigger. I'd just like to see the guy relax a bit instead of work so hard just to break out a bigass eraser... Having to do that sucks and it can really screw with your decision making because you never want to walk away from an idea when you put so much into it. It becomes easy to force the wrong solution onto the wrong problem because it's your precious and you spent the last 4 days staying up to 6am working on it only to be faced with the idea that "aw shit, I just built a mousetrap for Bigfoot..." Bad decisions like that accelerate demotivation and burning out, then more bad decisions... Deal with InstantX first. It's all figured out. How to increase MNs, give it more thought before running with it. It looks like a shameless value pump right now... It doesn't promote adoption, it attempts to remove even more coins from circulation which is pure artificial pump. More than even exist... That's not a workable plan.

[thelonecrouton]

What if down the road 95% of transactions bypass the POW network entirely? It will be funny looking back on this thread when the roles are reversed and MN owners are complaining about POW "payments" ;-)

This is hopefully going to happen (95%+ TX's being instant via MN DLM) as soon as it's switched on.

In fact it should be 99%+, PoW will only be called upon in case of network glitches or suspected/actual attacks*. Can't wait to try InstanTX on testnet!



*We should really have a more thorough testing methodology that includes deliberate attacks on testnet. There was a little of this with RC5 testing but should be throwing every spanner we can find into the works to see what happens and how we can mitigate. Although just having 'IP-less' Masternodes is going to be a huge improvement.