Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 1605. (Read 9723706 times)

There you go! Another problem completely solved. Even problems I believed to be insoluble fall when Evan tackles them.

(Somebody asked a few weeks ago how you could prevent an insanely-funded organization, such as a nation state, from attacking Dash. I said I thought it would be impossible, as it would be with Bitcoin or virtually any corporation. Now we can see that even if the NSA or GCHQ bought millions of DASH and set up thousands of additional masternodes, at best they would only get a 25% vote in the quorum pool, because masternode quorums are now determined partially by age. Brilliant.)

Yes, This is close to optimal; however one does not get those extremly low probabilites of an attack based on rouge masternodes voting yes that are repeatedly presented. The mathematics of this is the Binominal Distribution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution.

Really interesting article, and my response to it:
https://www.saveonsend.com/blog/bitcoin-money-transfer/

This is an excellent, well-reasoned, and insightful piece. It would be better, however, without the obvious bias you have against the bitcoin community. Terms like "hypocrisy" don't add much to the discourse, and make it seem like you have a bone to pick rather than an objective, rational argument.

I do particularly like how you pointed out that the actual cost of money transfer using "traditional" methods is in fact quite low, and that much of the cost of using these services is in ordinary overhead, such as commissions, that would be present in any formal business that was based on bitcoin transfer.

I think the ultimate goal for bitcoin and other digital currencies is to make things so simple to use that people can send value from one person to another directly, without ever interacting with a middleman. Circle is one company that is working hard on that; it is now possible to send money with low or no fees directly to other people using Circle Pay. They use the Bitcoin network to send the transaction, but Bitcoin is never actually mentioned in the marketing. It's merely a back-office function.

Theoretically, if the Bitcoin software was more user-friendly and currency conversion was easier or a non-issue (due to a universal, stable bitcoin value), then Bitcoin could be used to transfer value from one wallet directly to another without relying on third-party companies.

In short, your arguments are valid if you are comparing for-profit "traditional" remittance companies with for-profit Bitcoin-based remittance companies. I think the ultimate goal of the Bitcoin community, however, is to cut all companies out of the equation and send money directly peer-to-peer for virtually free. The rub, of course, is that a rural Bolivian farmer can't do a damn thing with a bitcoin. IMO, that's the problem to solve.

Wow, now I finally understood that "age-based quorums", thank you. This is amazing!

Afaik, 4 out of the 9 in the quorum can vote "no" and if the rest 5 vote "yes" the IX lock is on.

I do see your point, and I definitely agree to an extent. You're likely familiar with the following article, or at least the principles behind it, but I'll post it anyway: https://medium.com/message/everything-is-broken-81e5f33a24e1

The long-and-short of it is that yes, a lot of people are "hacked" because their security is garbage. Unfortunately, a lot of others presumably do the best they can and are still hacked due to the weaknesses in underlying software. As an example, consider an organization that did everything right, with good internal controls and so forth. Consider that this organization depended on SSL, and fell victim to Heartbleed. Is this due to poor security on their part? Not at all!

*You are probably correct 80-90% of the time though, I surmise. Most hacks come from a lack of security...often a pitiful lack.

...because 'some' knows better   

great pic !

you only need to have one MN to vote "no" for an IX to fail. So you don't need every MN for every IX.

It is more personal vendetta now and this make him look even "better".
I will not criticise him for doing this because he could develop some kind of inteligence as a result.
Let him be like this. It hurts already.

Lets do the math. Currently there are 3300 masternodes in total. If Otoh wants to attack instant x with his 500 masternodes. The chance that all of the 10 random choosen instant x masternodes are from Otoh are 0.000000590407831743% or am I wrong? With your proposed 50 masternodes 0.0000000000000000246727918068%. Good luck. (My numbers may be wrong, please correct me in that case)

Please someone print this off as a flyer to hand out to the trolls.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/34733248/nasa-wants-people-to-apply-to-be-astronauts

Is this FUD/trolling or are you giving investment advice?

I think I could probably drive a bus through that chip on your shoulder by now. If it gets any bigger your arm will fall off.

Or otoh needs to protect his investment and put up big walls.
If BTC starts to go up again, expect some big masternode holders to dump.

you do see the problem with this, right?

If someone buys/hires/bribes/hacks say 50 masternodes, you can disrupt the a lot of the InstantX transactions very easily

seriosuly.... Anonimity in a second layer means counterparties, so that can by definition not be anonymous.

I actually think it has a lot to do with trust.  Isn't that why miners choose one pool over another? They trust that the payout will be consistently good, that the operator is acting in the best interests of their coin/network, and especially the fact that the pool won't "get hacked."

The word "hacker" is only used to describe internal events to the outside world as an excuse for incompetence.  Like you said, the size of the organization is irrelevant -- it is all Gox!  It doesnt matter whether the attack/theft/whatever supposedly came from malicious parties within the organization, the organization itself, or an external 3rd party.

In the end, none of that matters. There are no "hackers" as it is an exercise in futility to classify and justify each and every lapse in security.  All that matters is that end-user trust/money (or decentralization, in this case) is compromised.

The blame lies wholly with
A) the users for putting their trust in an untrustworthy organization, and
B) the organization for not doing their due security dilligence  to maintain a trustworthy reputation.  

The problem is that we've relied so heavily for so long on the regulatory systems in place to protect us that we've forgotten these basic principles of reputation and trust.

So really, a well-intentioned mining pool that actually cares about its investment and continued profitability, won't ever "get hacked."  

That's good to see. Dash is insanely cheap at these prices...