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

[thelonecrouton]

First Ever InstantX Demonstration

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBjUPj-TmFE&feature=youtu.be

Edit: Sorry for terrible audio quality, I need a new mic!

Great video!

You will be laughing at me - but most important that I get from:
1. This video: «There is some real man behind the project speaking fluently without stuttering and without Indian/Chinese accent».
- May be not as «genius PR-man», but much better then «regular programmer».
2. Shadowcoin story: There are guys in Darkcoin team that can think strategically and "out of the box" and act as real entrepreneurs.
- May be not «genius businessmen», but much better then «regular programmers».

You will be laughing at me - but this 2 points of Darkcoin mean for me more than bunch of crypto features.

Yep, The Foundation needs to drag Evan "Satoshi2.0" Duffield away from the code now and again and stick him in front of a camera.

[Jesse Livermore]

First Ever InstantX Demonstration

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBjUPj-TmFE&feature=youtu.be

Edit: Sorry for terrible audio quality, I need a new mic!

Great video!

You will be laughing at me - but most important that I get from:
1. This video: «There is some real man behind the project speaking fluently without stuttering and without Indian/Chinese accent».
- May be not as «genius PR-man», but much better then «regular programmer».
2. Shadowcoin story: There are guys in Darkcoin team that can think strategically and "out of the box" and act as real entrepreneurs.
- May be not «genius businessmen», but much better then «regular programmers».

You will be laughing at me - but this 2 points of Darkcoin mean for me more than bunch of crypto features.

It was like hearing a young Bill Gates talk about DOS.

[roede94105]

I think so, yes. Might be why Evan warned that you can't InstantX over and over and have to wait some time - because the coins have to go back the "normal" route before being vouched for again.

 Or maybe it's just that you won't be allowed to InstantX again before your first instantX transaction is confirmed by the block chain the "normal" way, to ensure there will be no double spend.

I'm not sure about that part, I'd like some confirmation from Evan if possible, what scenario is possible, and what scenario isn't:

1) I receive an InstantX transaction and try to immediately send them through InstantX before reaching the amount of confirmation blocks required.

2)I send an InstantX transaction and try to send another one before the first one is completely confirmed.

According to the whitepaper the transaction look is between an input (or more) and an output (or more).

You'll still be able to spend other inputs.

I meant try to send another InstantX transaction, but your answer is still valid I think

[AlexGR]

First Ever InstantX Demonstration

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBjUPj-TmFE&feature=youtu.be

Edit: Sorry for terrible audio quality, I need a new mic!

Don't worry, sound was ok - apart from the PC noise, heh... Are these 10 DRKs spendable right away? Can the client who received them send them to another address right away?

[Ignition75]

Instant(tx) is also going to be good in a Multi-Sig environment...

[wozzek23]

Yep, The Foundation needs to drag Evan "Satoshi2.0" Duffield away from the code now and again and stick him in front of a camera.

Not really needed.

"Satoshi1.0" (quite likely this man http://szabo.best.vwh.net/) is still in obscurity. Evan seem a natural talent for just being who he is, a visionary with superb programming skills, while still a normal human being you'd like to have a beer with.

People will like him. Couple this with by far the most advanced crypto currency at the moment - Darkcoin - and you have a win-win situation.

[Fatov]

First Ever InstantX Demonstration

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBjUPj-TmFE&feature=youtu.be

Edit: Sorry for terrible audio quality, I need a new mic!

I can sell a mic in dark

[georgem]

First Ever InstantX Demonstration

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBjUPj-TmFE&feature=youtu.be

Edit: Sorry for terrible audio quality, I need a new mic!

I don't understand where those 6 confirmations came from.
Your commentary suggest that you explicitly expected not less or more but exactly 6, even though there were no 6 new blocks, nor 6 masternodes, so this number seems to pop out of thin air.

6 block confirmation is considered to be a fully "confirmed" transaction. So if an exchange wants to allow deposits with instant transactions, they could set it to 6 and their systems will recognize it as confirmed. Alternatively, a vendor taking money by default will see 1 confirmation and know the money is safe (without the --instantxdepth parameter set).

Awesome work, evan.

If I understand you correctly an --instanttxdepth higher than 6 is not possible, right?
Any additional number of confirmations will slowly come from the miners confirming the transactions.
But it will never be possible to do an --instanttxdepth = 100.
People will be able to set values from 1 - 6, but not higher, right?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

[MasterMined710]

Testnet is going to be so much fun this time. If we stick with the shades of black for release names, I think the Instantx release will be a good time to unleash "Darkcoin Midnight"  

Darkcoin Eclipse, because eclipse means "Instant Dark"  

i like that

[thelonecrouton]

Instant(tx) is also going to be good in a Multi-Sig environment...

If transactions can be locked for an arbitrarily long number of blocks, with multisig, you basically have n-party contracts...

[roede94105]

First Ever InstantX Demonstration

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBjUPj-TmFE&feature=youtu.be

Edit: Sorry for terrible audio quality, I need a new mic!

I don't understand where those 6 confirmations came from.
Your commentary suggest that you explicitly expected not less or more but exactly 6, even though there were no 6 new blocks, nor 6 masternodes, so this number seems to pop out of thin air.

6 block confirmation is considered to be a fully "confirmed" transaction. So if an exchange wants to allow deposits with instant transactions, they could set it to 6 and their systems will recognize it as confirmed. Alternatively, a vendor taking money by default will see 1 confirmation and know the money is safe (without the --instantxdepth parameter set).

Awesome work, evan.

If I understand you correctly an --instanttxdepth higher than 6 is not possible, right?
Any additional number of confirmations will slowly come from the miners confirming the transactions.
But it will never be possible to do an --instanttxdepth = 100.
People will be able to set values from 1 - 6, but not higher, right?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Also, what would be the interest of doing a instantxdepth = 1?

[MasterMined710]

To sum up recent events of DRK:


1) Leak of possible merge between DRK & SDC, discussed by the community, Evan pulled the plugs. (cancelled)


2) Rumor of OKCoin.com adding DRK on their (FIAT) exchange.


3) DRK featured on FOX 26 news (6-nov-2014):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YQnYpc52ks


4) DRK discussed on Bloomberg TV (6-nov-2014):
http://www.businessweek.com/videos/2014-11-06/can-bitcoin-stocks-hold-up-against-the-feds


5) Evan testing first InstantX (INSTANT) transaction successfully in ~2 SECONDS:

I just got multiple masternodes to form consensus, lock inputs, literally took 2 seconds to lock the transaction in place... then I tried to spend the same inputs for a higher fee. Works!

2014-11-07 01:13:18 ERROR: CTxMemPool::acceptableInputs()::InstantX : invalid transaction, conflicts with existing transaction lock CTxIn(COutPoint(365de7e2831dc8b85c2c94fef5f2b98e86a95e301879c5b3460db69df757deb9, 0), scriptSig=3046022100e2ca0a35ab1373)

6) Enforcement enabled, 100% compliant:

Enforcement is a success! We officially have 100% payment compliance and no forks on the network anywhere.

7) Darkcoin v0.10.15.21, bloom filters (-90% outbound traffic), load reduction of ~70%:

Darkcoin - v0.10.15.21

If you are running a masternode on a VPS, I highly suggest you update to 15.21. This update reduces outbound traffic by 90%+ (which is what amazon charges for) by implementing bloom filters. Also load has been drastically reduced by about 70%. 

https://darkcointalk.org/threads/v10-15-onyx-release.2683/

PS. Enforcement is on, everything looks good 

Quote and add up in case I missed something, please bump!

great job! maybe add that evan will be speaking at the virtual crypto convention. and of course the new InstantX video.

[eduffield]

I think so, yes. Might be why Evan warned that you can't InstantX over and over and have to wait some time - because the coins have to go back the "normal" route before being vouched for again.

 Or maybe it's just that you won't be allowed to InstantX again before your first instantX transaction is confirmed by the block chain the "normal" way, to ensure there will be no double spend.

I'm not sure about that part, I'd like some confirmation from Evan if possible, what scenario is possible, and what scenario isn't:

1) I receive an InstantX transaction and try to immediately send them through InstantX before reaching the amount of confirmation blocks required.

2)I send an InstantX transaction and try to send another one before the first one is completely confirmed.

According to the whitepaper the transaction look is between an input (or more) and an output (or more).

You'll still be able to spend other inputs.

I meant try to send another InstantX transaction, but your answer is still valid I think

The whole process needs to start with a hash to base the masternode selection off of. If you can change that hash, you can pick the masternodes you'll use (if you can pick the masternodes, you could fake a lock). To secure the system I'm using the proof of work hash, that takes the entire network's bandwidth to create so it's safe to start there.

After that, it uses a deterministic algorithm to pick the top 10 masternodes and the whole network knows who they are for that specific hash. Before I was using just the current block's hash, that's also very secure, but it means that ALL transactions would go through 10 masternodes and that's not decentralized at all. So instead I'm getting the depth of the first instantx transaction input, and grabbing the hash of that block. So let's say the transaction was included five blocks ago, I'll go grab that hash and base the masternode selection off of that. That means we get security (we don't want users picking their nodes) and each transaction will pick different masternodes (we can scale this).

[MyFarm]

Can someone please provide that chart of when masternode payments will be increasing and by how much that was recently released?  I can't seem to find it.

Thank you!

[thelonecrouton]

Also, what would be the interest of doing a instantxdepth = 1?

Because 99.9% of the time, that's all that is actually needed?

6 confirms being the standard is just a number someone once pulled out of their arse and it has become accepted, I don't think there's any concrete reason for it.

[georgem]

Also, what would be the interest of doing a instantxdepth = 1?

Because 99.9% of the time, that's all that is actually needed?

6 confirms being the standard is just a number someone once pulled out of their arse and it has become accepted, I don't think there's any concrete reason for it.

Well, I don't think it was pulled out of their arse, it's just that it's pretty darn close to zero probability that someone could fake 6 blocks in a row before someone else realized what's up.

[thelonecrouton]

I think so, yes. Might be why Evan warned that you can't InstantX over and over and have to wait some time - because the coins have to go back the "normal" route before being vouched for again.

 Or maybe it's just that you won't be allowed to InstantX again before your first instantX transaction is confirmed by the block chain the "normal" way, to ensure there will be no double spend.

I'm not sure about that part, I'd like some confirmation from Evan if possible, what scenario is possible, and what scenario isn't:

1) I receive an InstantX transaction and try to immediately send them through InstantX before reaching the amount of confirmation blocks required.

2)I send an InstantX transaction and try to send another one before the first one is completely confirmed.

According to the whitepaper the transaction look is between an input (or more) and an output (or more).

You'll still be able to spend other inputs.

I meant try to send another InstantX transaction, but your answer is still valid I think

The whole process needs to start with a hash to base the masternode selection off of. If you can change that hash, you can pick the masternodes you'll use (if you can pick the masternodes, you could fake a lock). To secure the system I'm using the proof of work hash, that takes the entire network's bandwidth to create so it's safe to start there.

After that, it uses a deterministic algorithm to pick the top 10 masternodes and the whole network knows who they are for that specific hash. Before I was using just the current block's hash, that's also very secure, but it means that ALL transactions would go through 10 masternodes and that's not decentralized at all. So instead I'm getting the depth of the first instantx transaction input, and grabbing the hash of that block. So let's say the transaction was included five blocks ago, I'll go grab that hash and base the masternode selection off of that. That means we get security (we don't want users picking their nodes) and each transaction will pick different masternodes (we can scale this).

I had to read that twice to grasp it, but when I did, I was a happy crouton.

[eduffield]

First Ever InstantX Demonstration

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBjUPj-TmFE&feature=youtu.be

Edit: Sorry for terrible audio quality, I need a new mic!

I don't understand where those 6 confirmations came from.
Your commentary suggest that you explicitly expected not less or more but exactly 6, even though there were no 6 new blocks, nor 6 masternodes, so this number seems to pop out of thin air.

6 block confirmation is considered to be a fully "confirmed" transaction. So if an exchange wants to allow deposits with instant transactions, they could set it to 6 and their systems will recognize it as confirmed. Alternatively, a vendor taking money by default will see 1 confirmation and know the money is safe (without the --instantxdepth parameter set).

Awesome work, evan.

If I understand you correctly an --instanttxdepth higher than 6 is not possible, right?
Any additional number of confirmations will slowly come from the miners confirming the transactions.
But it will never be possible to do an --instanttxdepth = 100.
People will be able to set values from 1 - 6, but not higher, right?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

It can go much higher.

[Jesse Livermore]

Hello, Mr. Fractal


Explanation: whatever happens in the 3-minute time frame could very well happen in the 15-minute timeframe on a bigger scale here.

JL

[georgem]

First Ever InstantX Demonstration

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBjUPj-TmFE&feature=youtu.be

Edit: Sorry for terrible audio quality, I need a new mic!

I don't understand where those 6 confirmations came from.
Your commentary suggest that you explicitly expected not less or more but exactly 6, even though there were no 6 new blocks, nor 6 masternodes, so this number seems to pop out of thin air.

6 block confirmation is considered to be a fully "confirmed" transaction. So if an exchange wants to allow deposits with instant transactions, they could set it to 6 and their systems will recognize it as confirmed. Alternatively, a vendor taking money by default will see 1 confirmation and know the money is safe (without the --instantxdepth parameter set).

Awesome work, evan.

If I understand you correctly an --instanttxdepth higher than 6 is not possible, right?
Any additional number of confirmations will slowly come from the miners confirming the transactions.
But it will never be possible to do an --instanttxdepth = 100.
People will be able to set values from 1 - 6, but not higher, right?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

It can go much higher.

But would take longer, cost more? Or what's the catch?
Why would someone want to go for something higher than 100% confirmed?