Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 105. (Read 9723787 times)

In the past i found miners / mining pools having the ability to delay major Dash updates on our network concerning (some mining pools were very slow to update in the past).
But that concern has been lifted by more clear feedback from Dash Core Group about the whole update progress, regarding sporks & support needed from miners (lock-in window, activation window).

I still have a concern that mining pools could get too centralized over time, but so far they are still operating pretty decentralized on our network.




 
Source : https://chainz.cryptoid.info/dash/#!extraction

So i think i softened my stance on that. Our blockreward allocation change (miners -9%, masternodes (+9%) over a time period of 4.5 years could introduce a little more centralization to miners,
but because it is a relatively low impact change over a long period of time, i don't really see it drastically changing our current mining pools / extraction share ratio composition.  
  

- Personally, and beyond that evidence ... I believe that miners have been presented almost as "expendable" due to the existence of ChainLocks in DASH - initially and although RTaylor later denied it, its elimination and the adoption of a POS system As an option, it was one of the scenarios he broadcast in the surprise talk at the open house a year ago -.

Whether this is based on a sufficient technical criterion or not - I lack the technical criteria to pronounce on it -, i think that the impression that miners are not strictly necessary or not to the extent that they were previously considered, is quite widely implanted. The proof is that, rightly or wrongly, a scenario has been approved that prioritizes the benefit of Mnodes over them.


- In the second point, I see the opposite: Yes there is a VERY EVIDENT generalized perception that the incentives of the network are centralized in the Mnodes. In fact, the marginalization of community members without 1000 tokens, and their almost testimonial existence in the project, until recently was common discourse that many Mnodes arrogantly exposed in other DASH communication channels.

Besides being obvious, of course. And that point I do see manifestly improvable in a "not friendly" fork - and extending that improvement to the interest of a supposedly decentralized network -.

A greeting.

Qwizzie you have said yourself in the past that miner centralisation is a problem dash has to avoid, which I agree with entirely. Surely you still think this is the case?

No,qwizzie,ball is in your goal.A lot of them,but you are in "this is not happening " mode.

- Your assumption is that DASH miners are group of DASH huge fans, which are mining immensely unprofitable DASH for months,because they love to do that.You cant explain why they would destroy themselves or why other miners in other coins shutdown theirs machines when price of mining goes close to break even point.

- You are denying that large masternode operators were become the biggest DASH miners,despite obvious fact that mining is only profitable if you get 50% of coins at 0 cost.Basically you are supporting total fiction that DASH miners are group of people who are willingly sacrificing theirs money for months just to help DASH network afloat.I have never heard for such generous miners.Did you?

- Dash immense price decline is not only because large masternode operators became DASH main miners,but such situation strongly helped that decline was worse then it would be.Simply,because they have in theirs hands network and mining,getting 50% of coins with 0 cost,helped them to eliminate need for ordinary miners and need for supporting price above break even point to prevent network crash,

- If you look at DASH/BTC chart,you can clearly see that DASH has far the worst performance among coins who existed at least a year,before 2017 bull run.DASH price before bull run was 0.01 BTC.Now it is 0.0048( 50% worse,see connection ).There is not at one coin,which price in BTCs went so below its price before 2017 bull run. Cant look at ZEC,because its price was massively overvalued at the beginning,  


Signs of serious problems caused by giving masternodes reward far greater than it is acceptable are all around you.When you get such unnatural union between large holders and miners you get a coin prone to massive manipulaton and extreme amplitudes in price - massive short living pumps and even more massive dumps,after it, coin remains dead for a years.

Today market has also one significant difference than market in 2017.In 2017, altcoins prices were bound to BTC.Trading pairs with BTC were dominant.During that bull run and especially after it,situation changed a lot.Altcoins decoupled from pricing in BTC,so price in USD and trading pairs got a main role. Situation is such that we could see rally of altcoins in USD ,but at the same time theirs price in BTC will decline or will be far below prices in BTC  seen in 2017.I think that so call "negative rally" can easily becomes reality for the most of altcoins,except for few the biggest.We shall see.

Well this has been fun. But until i see some evidence that miners are indeed also operating masternodes, there is really not much left to discuss for me personally. And toknormal pointing to a picture in a post that does not even has a
source and does not link to miners operating also masternodes, can hardly be considered evidence.

Also i am still waiting on thunderjet to provide evidence that Dash coin wealth distribution being 'centralized' is causing the Dash price to be 'mercilessly trashed to oblivion', but that is perhaps indeed a separate topic.


The problem with thunderjet is that he only provides assumptions / personal opinions, which will most likely mean i will be waiting for that evidence a very long time.
Here is my own evidence pointing to the opposite, that Dash coin wealth distribution is decentralized : https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.55559644 (this is data directly from the blockchain).

With all due respect, my personal impression is that the mining approach - so much for the detriment of this group and the added value that it could bring to the network - does not spark any relevant debate in the community. And I understand that many other factors do.

I am left with a "not friendly" fork. Personally, very interested in any such OPEN approach. If anyone considers themselves technically gifted and wants to improve the overall interest of DASH, I am at their entire disposal at my humble level of input.

A greeting.

China’s Center for Information and Industry Development published its XX Rankings of Crypto Projects
https://twitter.com/CryptoDiffer/status/1326573530121719813

Dash Core v0.16.1.0 has been released
This is a new minor version release, bringing various bugfixes and improvements.
Download:
https://www.dash.org/downloads/#wallets
Release Notes:
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/v0.16.1.0/doc/release-notes.md

There is evidence that the incentives are there. You know fine that the proposal incentives masternodes at expense of mining, this is the whole proposal made by Ryan Tayor. We don't need the hashrate.

Thunderjet was talking about how this pushes out small miners no? ie miners becoming highly centralised. Because of the incentives.

The price decline is a whole different argument.

This supposed balance of reason is a frequent conception error, since it only works between two parts of an internal debate and leads to endless circled that only waste time.

Faced with third parties, such as the agents of "SaintMarket" that is highly valued in other cases, they do not need proof of their reasonable doubts: Simply having them retracts them in their capital movements. You just have to see the laps against DASH that the famous Instamine has given, despite being explained a thousand times, for example. False or not ... they are perfect bullets for a troll ... and detriment to the project. Distrust is enough as a purchase trigger ... or not.

It is the SELLER who must support their thesis and define an attractive investment scenario ... even with respect to real fallacies (and this is a general example, not specific on the point).

A greeting.

You're alluding to anecdotal evidence, which is like asking for anecdotal evidence that smoking causes cancer. It's a way of evading a general principle which works through at an aggregate level.

In the case of hybrid mining the principle is easy to identify without recourse to anecdotal evidence - i.e. that it results in a reduction of the aggregate difficulty level incurred by the mining group. That then has two effects which defy the intended actions of the protocol-based reward split:

1. moves the reward ratio back in miner's favour in terms of USD (rendering the protocol reward ratio somewhat meaningless and counter productive)

2. reduces the aggregate cost of mined blocks, thereby reducing the price for all Dash (and thereby loss of "capital value")

I am not claiming such thing, i am simply requesting evidence that miners are indeed operating masternodes and are responsible for the Dash price decline.
Please provide that evidence or just accept that it will remain a base-less assumption, a personal opinion that is lacking evidence.

Please provide evidence that miners are indeed operating masternodes and are responsible for the Dash price decline

Because you're claiming that hybrid mining does not happen/is not significant in Dash's economics when it's been clearly demonstrated that it is highly incentivised.

Thank you. Interesting.

Do you see how stripping it of noise around it makes it efficient?  

Why would i need to provide evidence if something worthy or not ?

thunderjet / toknormal assume / are of the opinion that miners also operate masternodes and are behind Dash price decline. Fine, proof it.  
It is not me supporting thunderjet assumption / opinion. And it is not me needing to provide evidence for that assumption / opinion.

Wheres your evidence that a dash/masternode hybrid isn't worth doing? It seems very obvious that small miners who can't afford a masternode will be squeezed out.

It is not me supporting thunderjet assumption that miners also operate masternodes and are behind Dash price decline. And it is not me needing to provide evidence for those assumptions.
The ball is clearly in you and thunderjet corner.

If you can't find any evidence then this will just remain a base-less assumption, a personal opinion that is lacking evidence.

The fork idea was that dash core group could fork Dash with different reward allocations by having one fork going in the direction of Ryans proposal. Toknormal proposed an idea (which was quickly stamped on by nearly everyone who heard it) that Dash core group could make another fork in which miner allocation was increased. So one fork would support growing the masternode network the other would support strengthening hashrate and scarcity. We could then see in a real world market situation what the market prefers.

edit Unlike contentious hard forks this would have both sides supported by Dash community. Possibly even bringing a lot of attention to Dash. Masternode owners would have the same masternode collatoral on both forks. They would also be able to choose to dump one fork to support the other. Toknormal hasn't endorsed this for a long time that I've seen. But qwizzie likes to bring it up every now and then and imply that it is contentious and toknormal is malicious in intent.

It's actually more incumbent on you to demonstrate that they're not since the protocol encourages hybrid mining as the most profitable configuration. So if you're trying to make the argument that for some reason this option is not being pursued and that miners & masternodes are distinct demographics than that would go against natural economic incentives and would be quite a bold claim.

Hybrid mining doesn't so much contribute to a "price decline" as a relative loss of marketcap compared with our 100% mined competitors. The reason for that is that they don't have the option of reducing their aggregate difficulty by running masternodes which can mine at zero difficulty alongside their mining rigs.

To a mining cartel, a masternode is simply a $67,000 miner capable of bypassing the difficulty barrier. Therefore = zero scarcity.

Something strange does not equal as being evidence that miners also operate masternodes or that a miner/masternode combo is behind the Dash price decline. (most Altcoins are experiencing the same level of price decline as Dash).
Also the mining hashrate in general has not been affected so far i can tell :



Source : https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/dash-hashrate.html