Topic: . - page 2. (Read 17898 times)

And I know why you're here too - to desperately justify your ever heavier bag of attempt at digital cash one trick pony addressing only 1/6th of the requirements listed.

The reference node was just a temporary thing to support the network while the real functionality was being developed. It's ready now, and the reference node has been dropped a while ago.

Except that green addresses work only for trusted predefined parties (good luck trying to get trusted if you're an individual) whereas instantX is decentralized, trustless, and works for everyone.




Yes, let's try once more to do it like Bitcoin like all the hundreds of altcoin projects alredy have maybe this time it'll work. Cryptocurrencies differ from many open source projects because money is inherently involved. This changes a lot of things. What has sometimes (most projects fail after all) worked in a non-profit environment doesn't mean will work when it's a competitive environment that is about money.

These pathetic, low-life scumbags didn't do anything good in their life and they won't let anybody to even try to do something right.

One scumbag, iCEBREAKER, even repeatedly quote another scumbag, vertoe. Can you even give me a credible source?

You, monero guys are without shame. Your psy-ops are childish. I guess this is your job now.

Bad, big Dash is here to stay and won't go away.

The reference node is gone. It must be time for yet another vertoe or Peter Todd spiel

The reference node can be brought back any time eduffield feels like it.  Who would stop him?  His cargo cult?  Ya, right... 

The fact there was a reference node in the first place shows eduffield gives zero fucks about decentralization, privacy, and security.  For him, it's about selling soap on the blockchain by creating yet another uninteresting retail payment rail.

That's exactly why vertoe left the Dash core dev team, and didn't come back when the reference node was replaced by some other form of unproven (probably shitty) homespun software.

The reference node is gone. iCEBREAKER and AdamWhite could confirm if they were honest - it is one less thing they've had to drone on and on about.

Dash's "improvements" are bad copies of Bitcoin innovations given a coat of paint and new names.

Honest: "green addresses:
Dishonest: new & improved "instantX"

Litecoin is the best of first gen alts.  It was designed by an engineer, with the benefit of hindsight thanks to Bitcoin's first mover example.

The trivial shorter block time and "more" coin supply aren't LTC's raison d'etre.  You missed the most important clue...LTC's different PoW.

LTC's "little innovation over BTC" is an outstanding feature, not a bug.  BTC needs a highly compatible, hot-swappable complement that is different enough to remain unaffected by governance coups/SHA 0days/catastrophic consensus failure.  BTC investors need a good hedge against Something Bad happening to BTC.

BTC needs LTC like gold needs silver, and like a car needs to carry around a spare tire.  It seems useless (zomg that spare tire offer little innovation over my real tires, it's just a crappy dinky rip-off version) until you have a blow-out or flat and suddenly need it to get out of the desert.

LTC is also the most natural beneficiary of BTC tx overflow.  It's fast and very secure, thanks to ASICs sprinkled around the world.

Best of all, LTC wasn't insta-mined by a scam dev that lied about the launch date, and thus enjoys a widespread distribution/vibrant ecosystem second only to BTC.  Unlike Dash, LTC's actual emission exactly matches the theoretical.




#R3KT

LTC has organized development, but it is more focused on incremental improvements and maintenance. I'm not an LTCer so I may be misstating this, but I think what they would say is that they have past the point where they need major initiatives on new features and governance to manage those initiatives, because the essential properties of the asset are already defined. The normal essentially-voluntary open source development model which has given us great operating systems, database, compilers, web servers, network infrastructure, etc. and runs the whole damn internet world at this point works just fine for this approach, and it seems to be working fine for LTC too.

Let's not assume that just because BTC specifically can't seem to get its shit together (likely for its own project-specific reasons), voluntary open source financial core infrastructure can't or won't work and we all need to start creating currency-corporation-hybrids with masternodes and governance.

As for investing, the distinction between a currency or native asset and a corporation is important and too easily glossed over. You can invest in gold, and most who buy gold are investing, but there is no governance and you get no voting rights. You don't even get voting rights, nor a say in "governance", if you have 1000 ounces of gold! If you want voting rights, you can buy shares in gold-ecosystem companies, but that is distinct from buying gold itself. Importantly, people decide for themselves which role they want, and people with no interest in being part of the machine aren't effectively charged a fee/inflation for sitting out (as is the case in Dash).

Corporations do of course need governance and voting because the active managers of the assets of the company are separate from the passive owners (principal-agent problem), not because it is an investment. A currency or asset, in and of itself, does not need governance and voting.

There is at least one project in cryptocurrency whose organizers seem to have understood this concept far better than Dash's. Sia has are two tokens, one for shares in the project (which earns royalty dividends from some forms of network activity) and another, separate token for currency purposes. The first token was 100% premined, like a corporation, and then nearly all sold via crowdfunding to raise money for development. (I probably would have sold less of it up front but I'm sure they had their reasons.) The currency token is simply fair mined (there was a tiny premine of <1 day of blocks -- not sure why they even did that, but maybe for technical reasons) without all the extra baggage of massive premine/instamine, voting, governance, etc. that is no interest whatsoever to users of a currency. (I don't know a lot about the project so this is not an endorsement of anything other than their clearheaded understanding of the share/coin distinction.)

Dash to me seems not quite sure of what the hell it want to be. With one foot in each of these distinct roles, it is able to serve neither particularly well (and indeed is trying to claim that an "accidental" instamine created this wonderful hybrid structure, so it is now a feature, but it looks a lot more like rationalization to me).

This dev seriously needs to join NXT or NEM, and he will take things places! 

TBH, both coins dont interest me much, mainly for two reasons.

Litecoin is basically bitcoin with shorter block time and more coin supply. Little innovation other than that improvement over BTC.

Still doesnt solve the problems with instant transactions, but is a good solid coin, but still doesnt interest me for future growth.

Dash, on the other hand, has far more improvements, privacy added and instantX, which was a good improvement on transaction times.

However, its still very centralised to keep the masternodes in sync, relying on Evan's reference node to keep everything in check.

The instamine was also something that shed a bad light on the coin, very unfair distribution, this will never go away.
Their community is very cult like and its all gone to everyones head that their coin is the best, they almost worship Evan. lol

Thats my personal view anyway.
I dont like investing on crappy altcoins driven by hype (im not implying litecoin is) but 99% of them are, when DRK launched the hype around it drove the price to ridiculous amounts of money, then it crashed after everyone dumped it etc.

If you want some real solid investment, look to NXT and NEM, they are the only two projects that i feel are delivering currently.
Such 2.0 projects designed from the ground up with future in mind are the only way forward

Ethereum was another project that made promises but has not delivered, its on the verge of a scam, since they raised alot of money and now its pretty much all gone. I could have said that all the way along, im glad i did not touch it.

I think bitcoin is the best because it is the original.

k thx bai.

Dash doesn't solve any problems, it just copies features from Bitcoin and renames its cargo cult bamboo versions with original-sounding marketing-speak titles.  The only problems Dash is working on is how to "win a gold donkey" and "exploit every possible vector of profit in the coins space."

It's a red flag when people invoke hoary platitudes like "in the end" or "at the end of the day."  That's their cheap, flimsy way to impute conclusiveness, without the logical rigor actually required.

At least Evan Scamfield has started openly admitting to the instamine, although he had no choice (thanks to Adam White, etc) and that's just a way to deflect from its premine-like aspects.

But vertoe, a former Darkcoin core dev, adamantly disputes Scamfield's claims of "can't corrupted or controlled by any single entity" and "governed in a decentralized and decisive way."


vertoe's "oligarchy of instaminers" confirming whistleblower report is supported by noted Bitcoin core dev Peter Todd.

Peter Todd calls dash "snake oil."

Peter Todd calls dash's instant-x fake.

Peter Todd calls dash "bad crypto."

Sorry if pointing out the flaws in your leadership and design get in the way of your narrative. But I'm here to support an honest attempt at digital cash. I know why you're here and that's why I'm not letting you off the hook for the instamine or the strategic blunder of not relaunching.

 

Doesn't OP know Dash is a certified instamined scam, or is he a scam pusher?
Dash tarts even proclaiming Dash to be the new Cash scam. There is literally thousands of better coins around without the unwanted instamine which by the way has grown from 2000 masternotes to 2700 thanks by robbing miners and take 45% of there pay-check.
Some sick rigged system.

In the end we're all going after the same thing, a replacement for fiat, that can't corrupted or controlled by any single entity.

Requirements:
- Fungibility - All units of the current must be interchangeable (after sending coins they shouldn't have history attached)
- Speed - The currency must be able to compete with credit cards (1-5 second double-spend proof confirmations)
- Governance - The currency must be governed in a decentralized and decisive way
- Funding - The currency must have a permanent decentralized funding source for development, marketing, legal, etc
- Scalability - The currency must be able to scale to billions of transactions per day with 100% decentralization
- Ease Of Use - The currency must be usable by normal every day people

We're working on solving these problems, how's your progress going? If you don't like the instamine, go start a project and compete with our ideas with other fresh and new ideas. If you aren't trying to solve these problems, why are you here?

Evan is obviously very confused about many things. His responses in this thread are laughable and essentially boil down to the following excuses:
 
-Satoshi has lots of Bitcoins
-Corporations are instamined

Nevermind that Satoshi mined his Bitcoins. He didn't change the reward or total supply. He didn't instamine 1.5 million in the first 8 hours and then drastically reduce the block reward from 500 to 5, and lower total supply from 84 million to 21 million  

Like I said in my previous post, it's very clear to anyone with a brain that the instamine was intentional. Anyone promoting or even talking about "Dash" as if it's a legit coin is either uninformed or scam defending.

Minotaur26's opinions boil down to 'buy Dash' and 'use as many words as possible to deflect away from the intentional instamine'.

I don't think that Evan is confused between the currency properties of a digital token and the share properties, in which early adopters of digital currency tokens look at them as an investment with an expectation of future returns.  I think is clear that digital currencies exhibit both aspects. You can see this manifested on ICOs and early investment in new coin projects with no intention of use.

Wide spread adoption in which distribution and network effects are the main source of value are the ultimate goal of a digital currency project, but in early stages of its development it needs an organized group of people behind it that will work on its development, hold coins as an investment and educate the public about its benefits. Without this it may prove too hard to reach critical mass and develop strong enough network effects that would allow the currency to live on indefinitely without official development and promotion.

In the case of LTC it may be that they already went past the point where they would need organized development and promotion and may just continue to spread based on word of mouth, momentum and network effects. I don't believe that is the case but that is a possibility.

I personally don't think even Bitcoin has reached the point where it does not need organized development and promotion. Most people investing into Bitcoin even now, are doing exactly that "investing". Until we reach the point where a large enough percentage of the people interacting with the system are just users with no expectation of return we still need to act as a form of decentralized autonomous organization that is developing and refining its digital currency solution and growing its user base until it reaches critical mass and can sustain on its own.

 I would venture to say that no person actively participating in a particular currency forum/community, at the moment, considers himself to be the target market of the solution.  Most people would consider themselves to be investors or members of the decentralized organization looking to develop and promote the solution. Reality is we are all both, we are the users (target market) and we are the developers (organization behind it)  so it is important to understand this and find balance if a project is to endure.

Dash is not a finished product, it is in development, we have a clear idea of where we are going now but we are not there yet, so it is not ready to be stable it still needs to be highly dynamic and continue to evolve.  If someone is joining the project at this stage, that person is definitely coming more from the investment side than from the end user side of things. So having structure around these group of volunteers that are more members of the decentralized organization than end users will help develop the platform and take it to the point where it is ready for regular users to adopt.

All cryptocurrecy projects are experiments at this point. We strongly believe we are coming up with a model that is sustainable and promotes slow organic growth. I guess we will see what happens.

It might, but I'm not sure. Voting tends to be centralizing since voting power is increasing returns in the number of votes you can control or influence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapley–Shubik_power_index

Democracy attempts avoid this by forbidding selling of votes, but as we all know that it is at best imperfect.

I think I lean toward the only possible system that may avoid being captured by a power elite is satoshi's ideal of setting as much "in stone" in possible and letting the market flow around those immovables.

Depending on your opinion as to the objectives of cryptocurrency that may be the only part that actually matters.

LTC captures this ideal better than DASH, especially given the history of not replacing the PoW in response to ASICs, shifting focus away from "features" etc. The culture of LTC seems pretty well grounded in not changing a lot of things. I'm not really a fan of LTC overall, but I see some things to admire about it.

Also, I find Evan's comment (in the "interview") that calls LTC a failure because the founder wasn't sufficiently incentivized and left to be bizarre especially since LTC has almost 10x the market cap of DASH and also because it contradicts the Bitcoin (300x DASH market cap) example as well. Satoshi was apparently well incentivized and left anyway (and his leaving did not preclude the system succeeding without him).

Overall Evan seems quite confused about the differences between a currency and company stock. Here is one. Aside from marginal liquidity effects, widespread distribution of a company stock has little to no bearing on the success of the company, in fact it can sometimes be a negative. There are many examples of successful privately held or closely held companies, as well companies that were once public but improve their performance after going private. None of these make any sense at all for a currency. A currency derives all or nearly all of its value from its distribution. You can't have a privately held currency with any value at all.

That said, the things people are doing with blockchain-based virtual corporations are interesting and potentially may amount to something, but I doubt their success, if any, will be found in the area of currency.

You are excused.