Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 1571. (Read 9723858 times)

You do realize that the development over the entire crypto currency ecosystem encompasses more than just coding, right?

Understanding the fundamentals of the math and proofs that back such systems is the very heart beat of cryptocurrency. To disregard it is like giving up your rights for more government "security".

You may think it is a waste of time but actually for myself reading into how the code works along with the SOUND cryptography (and associated Math proofs) that backs some potential crypto coins does make my intuition on Dash to scream "snake oil". Everyone can invest in what they want. Don't let me stop you.

The nature of the dis-incentive is of the type he originally described. In other words, a rival with tremendous amount of money can theoretically attack the system. We are counting that this is not "realistic" to happen.

But the same is true for all cryptocurrencies (PoW, PoS) and their entire operation.

The same is also true for all mixing-based anonymity systems, due to the possibility of sybil attacks.

What are Monero guys saying against Bytecoin? "Ohhh the preminers hold 80something % of the first coins which can be used to deanonymize the mixin of later users..."...

Now, of course, there are degrees of chance, probabilities, etc etc on what might happen. But, in the end of the day, even a 0.000000000000000001% chance that something might go wrong, is proof that the system is not designed to be 100% robust in itself, instead if operates with certain assumptions on the economical behavior of the users of the network.

Your way of thinking does not take into account that new people come to these forums and the overall cryptocurrency movement DAILY. So just because some issues have been discussed previously does not mean they are irrelevant. Just put us on ignore and go about your business living in ignorance to what actually Dash/Evan is and represents.

Looking forward to all the new features.  Amazing stuff going on... It's great to have our devs coding and developing and not on here wasting time.

It's great when they(devs) are quietly working away... I for one can feel the excitement build.

Can we please have a outline list of all the up coming features? Are these currently being kept quite till roll out date?

I'm guessing some marketing hype terms and "cool features" without real technological innovations.

We already heard that mixing will likely still be done in masternodes, requiring liquidity providers to function (red flag, centralization, weakness in anonymity and usability).
Also, probably no peer reviewed paper when Evolution is announced, making it an attempt to pump vaporware.
 So don't have too high expectations...

Spanish ?

DASH ENTRA AL MERCADO MÓVIL CON UNA WALLET PARA IPHONE
http://bitcoinnewses.com/bitcoinespanol/dash-entra-al-mercado-movil-con-una-wallet-para-iphone/

Portuguese ?

DASH: NOVA CARTEIRA PARA IPHONE, RECEBA 0.5 EM DASH PARA TESTÁ-LA
http://www.bitcoinnews.com.br/bitcoinbrasil/dash-nova-carteira-para-iphone-receba-0-5-em-dash-para-testa-la/

 

Well, this is what I can remember from what has been told to us:

There will be a DAPI, or a Distributed Applications Programming Layer which will allow developers to develop applications on top of Dash Core.
Every transaction will be an instantX transaction, where miners will no longer make the decision on what to include in the blockchain, but masternode quorums will.
And somehow mixing is supposed to be instant.

I think the first thing that will come out is the DAPI

Everything else is elaboration on the talk Evan gave at Bicoin Wednesday and rampant speculation, which is always fun, but I'm afraid I've done enough of that, and I'll bore everyone again if I go on, LOL.

Actually, AlexGR, he isn't at all right.  Mostly because he presents one attack vector, which is nearly impossible to acheive, as the only issue.  The point isn't to get a majority control over all masternodes, but rather a 90%+ minimum for less than 1% chance of deanonymizing a transaction.

It's not a matter of how much it costs to gain control over the MN network enough to either deanonymize a transaction or other malicious actions (such as double spends, etc...) It's a matter of ability, and there is no way any entity can do this without just about everyone selling off their Masternodes, and only to this malicious entity in a free market.  You think that's going to happen?  Heck, it'd be awesome if it would, our coins would be worth tens of thousands of dollars (maybe hundreds of thousands) and we could sell them to the fools, then turn around and start a new coin, abandon the old one to the malicious entities and all be SUPER rich on top of it all.

The trolls don't think this through. 

Where he gets the idea that this situation is limited in time is beyond me.  The more time goes on, the more distribution of the masternodes we get.  More different people buy them, the holders of tons of MNs sell a few, and others buy, etc....  On an open and free market.  It's just not possible.  And it gets more impossible each day.

This does not rely on honesty, this relies on the self interests of all parties.

Thanks Stan!

"Not (Yet) Worth Attacking" = security in (economic) obscurity

I like how the obviously lying DashHole claims that 1) he read DJB's paper in 10 minutes and 2) it wasn't worth his time.

Does anyone have any info on what we are to expect with Evolution?

OK.  So... Can we please stop engaging these individuals?  That would be great.  I asked much as love talking with trolls... I really don't.

Hello!

I posted a Daniel J Burnstein blog post that talks about new facts and issues. WRITTEN 2 DAYS AGO. Not very old I'd say.

 Please read it instead of point out that I am "rehashing" old issues. When the topic is actually new issues of discussion.

Yes I agree that at the mining level or forking the block chain with enough computational power is an issue (inherent with any coin using a similar consensus model for verification of transactions), BUT that is not the issue we are discussing as that is merely determining the block/ledger for which a coin stores transactions. The item of topic was "privacy" and how Dash's approach has been an "attacker economist" approach.

The focus of the paper was on breaking cryptographic KEYS and the analogy being used specifically targeting the privacy system Dash has put into place.


This ^ has really nothing to do with mining. But rather the algorithm put into place being "just good enough" from a "attacker economist" point of view concerning PRIVACY.

The thing is, bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are *base money*. You can't run a financial system on base money alone - at least not a developed one. It would be like trying to ride the tour-de-france in bottom gear the whole way round, including the mountain stages.

Layers evolve on top of it which disperse the wealth.

For example, lets take a hypothetical scenario where Bitcoin captures 0.1% (one tenth of one percent) or world asset marketcap. Meanwhile, Dash captures one percent (1%) of Bitcoin's marketcap. (It's currently at a quarter of one percent BTC marketcap).

That would put the value of masternode collateral at around half a million dollars ($500,000).

Lets say that's enough of a cap for a certain institutional - such as trade union, pension fund, corporate trust, whatever, to at least hedge into 10 masternodes which would represent a capital sum of $5 million fiat equivalent.

The annualised return on that element of their portfolio (at today's payout levels) would be around $350,000 (350 thousand dollars) if realised, just from blockchain revenue alone.  Remember that masternode revenue as mining revenue is not fiat gain until you cash into dollars and coming against that is a constant increase in coin supply through mining, so it's possibly not as great a return as that but still measurable.

However, the corporate fund has that money invested on behalf of its subscribers who may number in the 100's of thousands. Moreover, although there is "counterparty risk" for the fund subscribers, there is none for the fund (necessarily) since they are at liberty to manage the base asset - the blockchain keys - themselves if they so choose.

* Working

The blog post he quoted was from yesterday. I doubt it had been posted many times before.

Question for you Props: Is there any possible new information or analysis which would cause you to reconsider your opinion about Dash's design?

IMO you are right on that, however this is a failure of all cryptocurrencies, not DASH exclusively. Cryptocurrencies rely on attacker economist rationale, including Monero, Bitcoin etc. "Honest miners", bloat attacks vs fees increase (Bytecoin attackers (?) on Monero), etc etc.

The mining process itself is one where you expect that the other will not do something stupid to the blockchain, but instead respect his mining costs. But if you are a government and bring an NSA super-farm online, and don't care about "mining costs", well, you can fuck up every PoW blockchain on the planet because cryptocurrencies have not been designed to withstand such an attack. And if you have money to spend, you can fuck up every PoS blockchain. And if you have money to spend, you can also sybil every transaction, including Cryptonote.

Would I like crypto to be more sound? I would. Would I like people to take its security more seriously? I would. That's not what we have though and I'm not seeing many working towards this direction.

Yep, I like Dash..  This is the Dash thread.  I guess your not a Dash supporter then, your here for the eyeballs

Nice. We're moving up! That's important. 

As usual dash supporters are only partially correct (it is #2 not #1):