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

[tombtc]

how many devs SDC has? Are they full time?

[1714748759]

1714748759

[1714748759]

1714748759

[1714748759]

1714748759

[1714748759]

1714748759

[oblox]

ShadowCash Proposal Conditions

1.) Converted funds will be locked for a period of 90 days
2.) We're looking for some kind of commitment from the core team that they'd work on darkcoin for at least a year beyond this. They could work on whatever they like, at the pace they're working now.
3.) DRK Will be paid for in a 1:1 relationship, dollar wise from this moment forward.  494909 (SDC MarketCap) / 9833182 (DRK Market Cap), therefore 5.03% of the total number of DRK coins will be created on a future block, totaling 240277DRK. The exchange rate will be 31.33SDC for 1DRK.
4.) SDC users will be awarded DRK based on coins destroyed and signed (sign the private key proving you own the key). A user will send coins to a non-redeemable address, if those coins for example equal 1% (64435 SDC) of the total number of SDC ( that would amount to 2056DRK being awarded.

Evan, I had no idea you were considering "printing" more Darkcoins to bail out ShadowCash. There should be a better solution. This will create a bad precedent and what will stop you not 'print' more money in the future? Ok, I get it, we need new dev team but we don't have to bail out a failing coin. Let's think about an alternative plan.

I don't think "printing" is a good analogy to what we're doing. It's more like moving their marketcap in ours, remember they're destroying coins to create them in Darkcoin. Besides that, we've talked about reducing the eventual coin supply to compensate for the new coins, so there's actually no inflationary effect in the long term. I'll add this to the document.

Also, we're not acting unilaterally. There was an idea that has been proposed to their team and will only be done with the consent of the community.

Be that as it may, you are altering the reward structure by being able to print a superblock to increase the coin supply. It goes against what crypto stands for. The decision to change the reward in terms of balance between miners and masternodes didn't change the max coinage--it was still the same block reward, but split differently. What you're talking about is actually changing the amount of outstanding coins... please tell me you see that.

What happens 6 months from now when another opportunity arises, are we just going to print another superblock to merge with them? Where do you draw the line?

[oblox]

The calc is wrong in regards to a 1/3 of Spain's GDP.

$1.2 Million per day x 365 = $438 million

Spanish GDP = $1.35 Trillion

438 / 1350 = 0.3244

You're missing zeros going from million to trillion... What you just did was show 438M into 1.35B.

[HinnomTX]

ShadowCash Proposal Conditions

1.) Converted funds will be locked for a period of 90 days
2.) We're looking for some kind of commitment from the core team that they'd work on darkcoin for at least a year beyond this. They could work on whatever they like, at the pace they're working now.
3.) DRK Will be paid for in a 1:1 relationship, dollar wise from this moment forward.  494909 (SDC MarketCap) / 9833182 (DRK Market Cap), therefore 5.03% of the total number of DRK coins will be created on a future block, totaling 240277DRK. The exchange rate will be 31.33SDC for 1DRK.
4.) SDC users will be awarded DRK based on coins destroyed and signed (sign the private key proving you own the key). A user will send coins to a non-redeemable address, if those coins for example equal 1% (64435 SDC) of the total number of SDC ( that would amount to 2056DRK being awarded.

LOVE IT!  This will rock the community. It also sets a precedent akin to M&As back in the fiat world.

Edit: To be clear, I did not like this idea at first. At first blush, it feels dilutive to the Darkcoiners. But I believe Evan is being very thoughtful here (and definitely experimental, which is how real change happens anyway) and sends the right message. There is too much cockiness and overconfidence in the alt community, with each coin dev thinking they can go it alone, and up against Bitcoin no less.  It's ludicrous. Bitcoin will not be unseated except to fall from within.  However, complementing Bitcoin in specialized areas remains possible, but only if there are a few alternatives. The public will not accept 400 currencies.
 

[k0vic]

ShadowCash Proposal Conditions

1.) Converted funds will be locked for a period of 90 days
2.) We're looking for some kind of commitment from the core team that they'd work on darkcoin for at least a year beyond this. They could work on whatever they like, at the pace they're working now.
3.) DRK Will be paid for in a 1:1 relationship, dollar wise from this moment forward.  494909 (SDC MarketCap) / 9833182 (DRK Market Cap), therefore 5.03% of the total number of DRK coins will be created on a future block, totaling 240277DRK. The exchange rate will be 31.33SDC for 1DRK.
4.) SDC users will be awarded DRK based on coins destroyed and signed (sign the private key proving you own the key). A user will send coins to a non-redeemable address, if those coins for example equal 1% (64435 SDC) of the total number of SDC ( that would amount to 2056DRK being awarded.

Evan, I had no idea you were considering "printing" more Darkcoins to bail out ShadowCash. There should be a better solution. This will create a bad precedent and what will stop you not 'print' more money in the future? Ok, I get it, we need new dev team but we don't have to bail out a failing coin. Let's think about an alternative plan.

I don't think "printing" is a good analogy to what we're doing. It's more like moving their marketcap in ours, remember they're destroying coins to create them in Darkcoin. Besides that, we've talked about reducing the eventual coin supply to compensate for the new coins, so there's actually no inflationary effect in the long term. I'll add this to the document.

Also, we're not acting unilaterally. There was an idea that has been proposed to their team and will only be done with the consent of the community.

Your the man but the act of changing the total supply of drk is wrong. The act of creating new DRK for any reason what so ever is wrong. We need to ensure that given any date and time we can predict the total supply. This is one of the most powerful things about crypto. We can not set this precedent.

[thelonecrouton]

how many devs SDC has? Are they full time?

Unknown! -  "We're under the impression the ShadowCash team is quite sizable"  

[fernando]

Please, let's be respectful with each other. We all love our coins. Our devs have been talking and they all recognize the value of the other coin. This is no bailing out. There is no way to know what would happen in the future, both for ShadowCash or for Darkcoin. The market is difficult and that is why we think this makes sense. We both have nice features planned, but the market doesn't always recognizes them because success needs more than features.

Thank you, and don't get me wrong I respect that Duffield and Dark see the value in SDC and are approaching with this offer. As an investor I just personally am iffy on whether the deal is beneficial to SDC or not, but I'm not on the SDC team so all I can do is watch. Either way this brings alot of new eyeballs to SDC.

I know, we all look for our interests. As we should!

It is true that we are "older" than SDC and you are still hopping for your big jump in price. But we are also hopping for another one thanks to instant transactions or the increase in adoption. Truth is, we (you, I, the crypto community in general) are all a bunch of optimists. We always expect a better future, so there will never be a good time to do it. If it is gonna happen we all will need to accept a correction in our short term expectations to be able to tackle a bigger future.

[qwizzie]

forming strategic alliances is nothing new in the business world and also nothing new in the cryptocurrency world (think of Doge & LTC combined mining),
I realise this proposal comes as a shock for many (for me too) , but this is really just the discussion phase .. lets take the time and think it over.

 

[thelonecrouton]

Be that as it may, you are altering the reward structure by being able to print a superblock to increase the coin supply. It goes against what crypto stands for. The decision to change the reward in terms of balance between miners and masternodes didn't change the max coinage--it was still the same block reward, but split differently. What you're talking about is actually changing the amount of outstanding coins... please tell me you see that.

What happens 6 months from now when another opportunity arises, are we just going to print another superblock to merge with them? Where do you draw the line?

Agreed.

And if manpower is needed than crowdfund if needed and hire manpower, contractually obligated to turn up for work each day and produce results.

This merger smells of wishful thinking all round. Hope is not a plan.

[toknormal]

You're missing zeros going from million to trillion...

Oops. So I am.

Massive red face. Can I rollback the last 2 pages ?

START TRANSACTION

`   couple of posts

IF(know-your-millions-from-your-billions)
VALIDATE TRANSACTION
Else
CANCEL TRANSACTION
End IF

Massive loss of credibility - ouch. Thanks for the heads up. Please ignore.

[rentahash]

how many SDC active wallets there are , does anybody knows that info?

[eahmadov]

I have no intention to be rude or disrespect anyone. As I said before I never heard about ShadowCoin but I trust Evan and if he think that their dev team is high quality and will be a great asset for the Darkcoin community then I have no problem with that. The main point which there is a major disagreement is about instantly increasing the short term money supply.

I remember a Chinese crypto investors who once mentioned in bitcointalk forum that the main reason China is slow in adopting Darkcoin is because of the instamine issue. And he had a point. Still, we are, as a community struggling to convince the new investors that those 2 million 'instamine" coins have already changed hands and is no threat to your investment but it is not really working. How on earth are we going to win the PR battle if we create new coins out of thin air. Even if you cut the similar amount from the total coin supply, it is not the same thing.

[eduffield]

ShadowCash Proposal Conditions

1.) Converted funds will be locked for a period of 90 days
2.) We're looking for some kind of commitment from the core team that they'd work on darkcoin for at least a year beyond this. They could work on whatever they like, at the pace they're working now.
3.) DRK Will be paid for in a 1:1 relationship, dollar wise from this moment forward.  494909 (SDC MarketCap) / 9833182 (DRK Market Cap), therefore 5.03% of the total number of DRK coins will be created on a future block, totaling 240277DRK. The exchange rate will be 31.33SDC for 1DRK.
4.) SDC users will be awarded DRK based on coins destroyed and signed (sign the private key proving you own the key). A user will send coins to a non-redeemable address, if those coins for example equal 1% (64435 SDC) of the total number of SDC ( that would amount to 2056DRK being awarded.

Evan, I had no idea you were considering "printing" more Darkcoins to bail out ShadowCash. There should be a better solution. This will create a bad precedent and what will stop you not 'print' more money in the future? Ok, I get it, we need new dev team but we don't have to bail out a failing coin. Let's think about an alternative plan.

I don't think "printing" is a good analogy to what we're doing. It's more like moving their marketcap in ours, remember they're destroying coins to create them in Darkcoin. Besides that, we've talked about reducing the eventual coin supply to compensate for the new coins, so there's actually no inflationary effect in the long term. I'll add this to the document.

Also, we're not acting unilaterally. There was an idea that has been proposed to their team and will only be done with the consent of the community.

Be that as it may, you are altering the reward structure by being able to print a superblock to increase the coin supply. It goes against what crypto stands for. The decision to change the reward in terms of balance between miners and masternodes didn't change the max coinage--it was still the same block reward, but split differently. What you're talking about is actually changing the amount of outstanding coins... please tell me you see that.

What happens 6 months from now when another opportunity arises, are we just going to print another superblock to merge with them? Where do you draw the line?

From the proposal: "In the long term, Darkcoin’s distribution curve will be slightly reduced so we release exactly the same amount of coins in the long term. This will also counteract the effects of expanding the Darkcoin supply." In the long term this is a non-inflationary event.

This is the only "coin-merge" that's being planned.

[shojayxt]

i like the idea of a coinmerge, solves one of the biggest problems .. trying to increase the development team
which just isnt easy with every development team tied to its own coin. The benefits from such strategic alliance
would be immense.

Which is all fine and dandy if it happened without printing new DRK. If it came from the existing DRK supply so be it, but not changing the supply. It's a horrible idea.

I agree that it's a horrible idea regardless where the DRK comes from.

I dont understand what you guys mean by printing in this case. They would just be buying DRK at a fixed exchange rate, their coins have value. It would be exactly the same if they were to sell for BTC and buy DRK but obviously the  liquidity wouldnt allow to transfer the whole SDC market cap at once their price would dump and DRK would pump, therefore a special arrangement would need to be make so that they can transfer at a fixed rate. I really dont see any problem with this, why is it so difficult to support progress and development?

What about the people that have SDC that don't want to buy DRK?

You can't start having "Special Arrangements"  and then be considered "Decentralized".  

[Propulsion]

Please feel free to join the discussion.
https://darkcointalk.org/threads/darkcoin-shadowcash-merger.2918

[shojayxt]

ShadowCash Proposal Conditions

1.) Converted funds will be locked for a period of 90 days
2.) We're looking for some kind of commitment from the core team that they'd work on darkcoin for at least a year beyond this. They could work on whatever they like, at the pace they're working now.
3.) DRK Will be paid for in a 1:1 relationship, dollar wise from this moment forward.  494909 (SDC MarketCap) / 9833182 (DRK Market Cap), therefore 5.03% of the total number of DRK coins will be created on a future block, totaling 240277DRK. The exchange rate will be 31.33SDC for 1DRK.
4.) SDC users will be awarded DRK based on coins destroyed and signed (sign the private key proving you own the key). A user will send coins to a non-redeemable address, if those coins for example equal 1% (64435 SDC) of the total number of SDC ( that would amount to 2056DRK being awarded.

Evan, I had no idea you were considering "printing" more Darkcoins to bail out ShadowCash. There should be a better solution. This will create a bad precedent and what will stop you not 'print' more money in the future? Ok, I get it, we need new dev team but we don't have to bail out a failing coin. Let's think about an alternative plan.

I don't think "printing" is a good analogy to what we're doing. It's more like moving their marketcap in ours, remember they're destroying coins to create them in Darkcoin. Besides that, we've talked about reducing the eventual coin supply to compensate for the new coins, so there's actually no inflationary effect in the long term. I'll add this to the document.

Also, we're not acting unilaterally. There was an idea that has been proposed to their team and will only be done with the consent of the community.

Be that as it may, you are altering the reward structure by being able to print a superblock to increase the coin supply. It goes against what crypto stands for. The decision to change the reward in terms of balance between miners and masternodes didn't change the max coinage--it was still the same block reward, but split differently. What you're talking about is actually changing the amount of outstanding coins... please tell me you see that.

What happens 6 months from now when another opportunity arises, are we just going to print another superblock to merge with them? Where do you draw the line?

From the proposal: "In the long term, Darkcoin’s distribution curve will be slightly reduced so we release exactly the same amount of coins in the long term. This will also counteract the effects of expanding the Darkcoin supply." In the long term this is a non-inflationary event.

This is the only "coin-merge" that's being planned.

What?  Changing the emission rate as well?

[qwizzie]

Please feel free to join the discussion.
https://darkcointalk.org/threads/darkcoin-shadowcash-merger.2918

+1 for putting it on the darkcointalk forum as well 

[thelonecrouton]

I just compiled the SDC QT wallet and am not seeing any of this alleged eyecandy? I see a bog standard bitcoin wallet with a dark theme and a chat tab.

I made an encrypted p2p chat app in python in under a day a few months ago. Don't speak c++ so can't add it to the DRK QT wallet but it would be simple for anyone that could code in c++

I'm struggling to share the optimism here, or see much value in the proposition as it stands.

[oblox]

ShadowCash Proposal Conditions

1.) Converted funds will be locked for a period of 90 days
2.) We're looking for some kind of commitment from the core team that they'd work on darkcoin for at least a year beyond this. They could work on whatever they like, at the pace they're working now.
3.) DRK Will be paid for in a 1:1 relationship, dollar wise from this moment forward.  494909 (SDC MarketCap) / 9833182 (DRK Market Cap), therefore 5.03% of the total number of DRK coins will be created on a future block, totaling 240277DRK. The exchange rate will be 31.33SDC for 1DRK.
4.) SDC users will be awarded DRK based on coins destroyed and signed (sign the private key proving you own the key). A user will send coins to a non-redeemable address, if those coins for example equal 1% (64435 SDC) of the total number of SDC ( that would amount to 2056DRK being awarded.

Evan, I had no idea you were considering "printing" more Darkcoins to bail out ShadowCash. There should be a better solution. This will create a bad precedent and what will stop you not 'print' more money in the future? Ok, I get it, we need new dev team but we don't have to bail out a failing coin. Let's think about an alternative plan.

I don't think "printing" is a good analogy to what we're doing. It's more like moving their marketcap in ours, remember they're destroying coins to create them in Darkcoin. Besides that, we've talked about reducing the eventual coin supply to compensate for the new coins, so there's actually no inflationary effect in the long term. I'll add this to the document.

Also, we're not acting unilaterally. There was an idea that has been proposed to their team and will only be done with the consent of the community.

Be that as it may, you are altering the reward structure by being able to print a superblock to increase the coin supply. It goes against what crypto stands for. The decision to change the reward in terms of balance between miners and masternodes didn't change the max coinage--it was still the same block reward, but split differently. What you're talking about is actually changing the amount of outstanding coins... please tell me you see that.

What happens 6 months from now when another opportunity arises, are we just going to print another superblock to merge with them? Where do you draw the line?

From the proposal: "In the long term, Darkcoin’s distribution curve will be slightly reduced so we release exactly the same amount of coins in the long term. This will also counteract the effects of expanding the Darkcoin supply." In the long term this is a non-inflationary event.

This is the only "coin-merge" that's being planned.

I think a lot of people, including myself were anticipating the max coinage being closer to that 16-17M range from the blocks being driven down to the floor reward level...

[ddink7]

This is beyond preposterous for two reasons:

a) You're going to dilute my DRK holdings to merge us with some shitcoin nobody has ever heard of?

b) You have the power to do so? Isn't crypto all about decentralization and math-based consensus to a (relatively) immutable basic protocol? I realize we are still in the development stages of DRK and consequently Evan has an unusual amount of power (e.g. enforcement), but this is a real reach. One person creating more coins in direct contravention of the basic protocol? If Evan can create more coins any time he wishes, how is he any different than the Federal Reserve?

c) This *WILL* fork DRK. Guaranteed. Look at the massive amount of opposition so far...I haven't counted but it looks about 2:1 against. Even if you reverse those numbers, you will have a significant number of DRK owners who *WILL* fork DRK into another coin. And then what do you have? The exact brain-drain you were hoping to avoid, plus market ambiguity, plus a massive loss of investor confidence.

P.S. Even with the reward structure of future blocks being altered to prevent inflation, the creation of a superblock by the DRK devs *after implementation* will rock our coin onto its heels. If one person (Evan) can create more DRK for a good reason, what's to prevent him from creating more DRK for a bad reason (at some point down the road)?

I have been one of DRK's biggest supporters, and everybody here knows this. But hearing that the dev team is even considering something like this makes me almost want to sell my coins. It's that bad of an idea.