Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 1608. (Read 9723706 times)

We already use something like the blockchain to store InstantX transactions and where the users promised the funds to go. This "blockchain" is managed by quorum messages; you can't add to it as a user. If any new blocks or txes conflict, they are rejected by the entire network.

That is what this datastructure is for:
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/master/src/instantx.cpp#L23


You can't cause a reorg, because you can't get the block in question approved by the network in the first place. Miners blocks have to qualify to get accepted by the network, it's not as simple as the Bitcoin system.

Even if you could do a reorg, IX only goes up to $2000 worth of coin, a reorg would cost more than that in processing power to pull off. You can't simply sent the conflicting transaction to a miner, they have the list of IX transactions and already will side with the masternode network.

https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L2973


Given that you can't get a block approved with a conflicting transaction, it can be trusted 100% of the time. These attacks are more theoretical, where the double spend attack that we're stopping is trivial to pull off. On Bitcoin anyone can double spend against you by submitting two conflicting transactions to separate edges of the network, there is no question our network is safer to do business on because of this.

For more information read 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5:
https://www.dashpay.io/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/InstantTX.pdf

I'd be all for getting rid of electricity consuming miners if there were no drawbacks, but I think a coin should stand on its own and not depend on a 3rd party. And what if DASH overtakes Bitcoin (yea yea not gonna happen but just like someone taking over all masternodes isn't gonna happen so just in case) the mining would have to be restarted as the smaller coin couldn't provide the security anymore, and the consensus for the change would be hard to achieve as the miners would need some reward for their services.

And something can be said about distributing coins by mining, I assume masternode owners tend to hold instead of autodumping what they generate.

Also, the miners act as a "backup" in case someone decides to DoS the InstantX process so people can still transact, but without IX.

You do understand that, in case InstantX is actually safe, it doesn't really matter which oracle you use for quorum selection?
If anything, the bitcoin block hashes are more safe to use, due to less centralization of mining power and a bigger hashrate compared to DASH.

can we actually send donation to p2pool, then those donation added as bonus to all miner connected to p2pool ?

if there is a way to do this then we can at least try to centralized the miner to p2pool (which is decentralized pool btw)

https://dashtalk.org/threads/instantx-questions.5751

Enjoy 

If the IX lock exists longer than it takes for standard confirmations to be considered safe (6 or so?) it's still safer than basic block confirmations, right?

i7-5820K

I'm not sure but blocks are still validated even when reorg happens and if they contain conflicting transactions to locked ones they will be rejected?

Perhaps some expert will chime in.

Invalid blocks are rejected by the network.

An invalid block can be for example a block which has a transaction that conflicts with an already locked InstantX transaction.

https://www.dashpay.io/instantx/

No, that's not what I said. If the InstantX is not working because of a DoS attack or something, then the receiver does not get the InstantX confirmations within seconds so there is no InstantX transaction to be trusted in the first place, and instead the first confirmation comes when the next block is mined.

So the settlement eventually happens by the miners, through PoW in the blockchain?

So InstantX can't be trusted?

Dashwhale android app update: full proposal information and comments

The dashwhale android app has been updated. It now shows full DASH budget proposal information as well as budget comments, in addition to displaying comprehensive masternode monitoring information.

Please check out the screenshots (maybe somebody can post the screenshots on my behalf; image posts are still locked for my account):

https://www.dashwhale.org/downloads/dw_screenshot12.png
https://www.dashwhale.org/downloads/dw_screenshot14.png

You can download the app here!

If you are interested to include DASH proposal information within your own website or app, please check out our public DASH proposal API: https://www.dashwhale.org/dbin

What did he say right after saying that Dash is trying to be innovative?

Yes, and he didn't say anything negative about Dash. He also said "Dash is pretty innovative" but you didn't hear that, did you?

Double safety is always better than just a safety...

But if Dash can protect blockchain(-s)    without miners and spend "miner's money" more effectively for more useful tasks - why not...

Let's see what Dash's Evolution is about, soon.

Try Elmad's miner first, happy to answer questions at the end if can, what cpu do you have?
https://dashtalk.org/threads/sub-ethers-guide-to-cpu-mining.6170/

If there is a DoS attack or some other outage the transactions default back to normal miner confirmations so the attackers won't even bother trying.

Depending on a 3rd party outside DASH itself like you're suggesting seems very bad for a trustless decentralized currency.

Long term this shouldn't be an issue.  Pools that actually make a profit will have higher fees than P2P Nodes.  Pools with 0 fees now are not sustainable.

P2Pool does not appear to be a solution to the mining pool centralization problem. Almost no one uses it. Maybe if mining pools prove untrustworthy it will be used after that. Still I think my question deserves an answer. If the answer is yes I think it would be quite important.