Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 1426. (Read 9723768 times)

Melech, I appreciate some of the questions you've posed here, especially about the potential to game the voting system. There are some changes that can and probably will be made to make the voting system better balanced.

Regarding your other comments, I would simply say that, as you said earlier, 'Dash is what it is'. Its past cannot be changed. Whether or not you wish to invest in what is rapidly becoming recognized as the world's first DAC, that is wholly your decision to make. You are also free to start your own DAC if you wish. Everything is open source now.

I'm not the troll, I'm a realist and I'm honest.  I'm certainly not a 'yes man'... If I see something fishy I have no problem calling attention to it...

I think Evan has put a lot of work into this project, and it has a lot of good things about it, but if you aren't skeptical when it comes to large amounts of money, you are not doing your due diligence... don't troll me for being skeptical of his motives

Something else.

Centralisation of voting is a read herring topic because voting power is not meant to be evenly distributed. It is intended to reflect

A] size of holdings
B] network service

So, consequently, if I hold 10,000 Dash but can only be bothered to deploy 3 masternodes I won't have as much voting power as someone with 5000 who deploys 5. That is the significant mechanism and the principle and the extent to which the voting system does justice to that principle is how it should be judged.

The incentivised node principle has already proven itself. Therefore basing a governance system around that is only natural.

I'm trying hard not to put you on ignore, as you do have some valid points, but posts like this make it hard. Please change your tone, or I will have to classify you among the pure trolls of this thread, as well as I'm sure others will. Keep it civil, dude! No speculations or assumptions...Keep it classy, please.

Evan beat me to it?

I doubt it because you'd be missing the one thing that not even a developer can create - a market that endorses your actions commercially.

Thats what blows the hole in your little "reality check".

It's easy to look back in time and say it was all planned that way. It's not easy to garner the 99% ingredient that your not in control of no matter what you do to the coin. That can only come from a market consensus that the conclusions you're pushing are either wrong or inconsequential. No doubt the fact that the project has bust a gut trying to arrive at well balanced and effective governance systems has something to do with it.

Like it or not, I am part of the community...

I'm that asshole who gives you a reality check when you cant see the forest for the trees...


If I were going to try to get rich with my own altcoin, I would do exactly like Dash...

1) Instamine the hell out of the launch (easy to say it was an accident)
2) Coin mixing to make it impossible to track my coin movements
3) Set up MNs to take 50% of the mining share (since I now have a ton of MNs)
4) Set up voting based on MNs to take another 10% (since I continue to have a ton of MNs)
5) Work hard and write a lot of code
6) Change name to Dash

I like Dash, because it looks just like a psuedo-scam I would run myself....

Listen when Dash was launched everyone and their uncle where looking for the next big thing to mine... those where the days....
Where you there? After the BTC/LTC bubble?

Edit: Following up on Minotaur's reply I also didn't mine much, maybe 20% of my holdings but I bought the other 80% for pennies on c-cex and poloniex...
such volume, many coins 

Because your assumption is simply incorrect, you want to jump from the first day launch to today like there was no trading over the last 2 years and two rallies in which Dash went all the way up to 15 USD and  6 USD respectively and millions in volume traded. I have never mined anything other than BTC with butterfly labs ASICS in which I lost money. So all the nodes I owned I acquired from the market, so I know first hand distribution is healthy.


You can read more details on this here:

https://dashdot.io/alpha/?page_id=118

And the official statement on the launch issues here:

https://dashtalk.org/threads/official-dash-instamine-issue-clarification.7569/#post-78081

Beyond that, I think the project current state clearly shows we are making progress so is a personal decision each person needs to take whether they want to be involved or not.  

How could you possibly know that?  Not every wallet is a unique person... hello?

More people mined Dash in the first 48h than in the first year of BTC!

Thanks for bumping the thread anyway.

My point is more about the centralized launch of Dash and how that relates to voting...

With 1850 MNs in the hands of a handful of people, then you add in the 40-50% MN mining share, plus I assume some of them kept mining the whole time...

The first 24 hours alone accounts for 58% of the votes (not counting any accumulation from MNs)... how is that not centralized?

Yeah, your numbers are off and Minotaur is correct. I do not hold as many coins as Otoh. The system is designed in such a way that the founders eventually lose complete control of the voting system. It's on purpose, we are the ones that have the best idea of what needs to be done currently, but over the next few years our voting power will become less and less.

Look at the emission schedule here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RpLd87PTs65sz8USrrXwGRoVGVbzaC-nunErEtGSJoE/edit#gid=0

55% of the coins are going to people other than the masternodes (miners and budgets), that means a good portion of those will actually be turned into fresh masternodes. Over a long period of time this will dilute our power in the system.

In 2020 we will have nearly 10 million coins and probably about 7000 masternodes (Just a guess based on current trends).
In 2025 we will have nearly 12 million coins and probably about 9000 masternodes.

You should be able to see where I'm going. Those with a many masternodes can't even keep control of this if they are dedicating a good deal of earned coins back into the system. Year by year, our network will become increasingly more decentralized. I think it's a good strategy.

You also have to consider running masternodes isn't free. Operators must pay for hosting or someone to administer their nodes. Those coins are also reentering the supply and some of them will be turned into a new masternode, ran by someone else. Every part of this process further decentralizes the system over time.

 Wow. I wonder how much you know about Bitcoin's launch.

Except when you post them in which case they are rambling speculative musings.

I didn't mean to change the topic, or call anyone out here, but the facts are the facts and I'm not going to hide them... The launch was bad, 1.85mil was mined in just the first 24 hours.  Only a linux version was compiled, so very few people got a large chunk of this 1.85mil (1850 MNs)...

It is what it is...

I made a long msg here.....and after rereading my post 2 times before posting I deleted all and gonna simply write.... No comments.... patience and releax uffff

I'm sure you'll agree, that no one knows the facts about how many MNs people have, save for Otoh who is pretty transparent about it. Instead of speculation, maybe you should concentrate on improving the voting process, which Minotaur agreed that you were on to something.

How would you know?

I ran the numbers 6 months ago, but I estimated Evan should have mined 750,000+ in the first 24-48 hours with the hashrate he himself claimed to have at the time... that's 750MNs already... (not that he necessarily has them online right now)

Then they start collecting 50% of the mining share as masternodes, he should have 1000+ by now...