Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 1627. (Read 9723706 times)

These discussions tend to get characterised by a myopic obsession with cypher technology and "visibility" that doesn’t necessarily lead to the right solution. A bit like someone trying to improve the performance of a bus by turning it into a formula 1 car and then saying that ‘capacity doesn’t matter.


Ok, here’s the deal.

If we examine purely the privacy dimension of money systems, everything falls into one of two categories - cash or credit. These are fundamental and important archetypes for monetary privacy because they are almost mirror images of each other:

A. Cash: *

[1] - works peer-to-peer
[2] - is independent from any individual or legal entity
[3] - manifests as tangible tokens in the public domain
[4] - is openly endorsed through public consensus (i.e. does not require ‘backing’)
[5] - is anonymous but not private

B. Credit:

[1] - does not work peer-to-peer
[2] - is synonymous with an individual or legal entity
[3] - manifests as private bookkeeping entries hidden from public view
[4] - is privately endorsed by a trusted third party (“bank”)
[5] - is private but not anonymous (by virtue of property [3])

* Strictly speaking, cash means gold or other such base, unbacked medium but for the purpose of the analysis we can think of it as paper notes since they are conventionally used on a peer-to-peer basis.

If you are a monetary engineer who portends to invent a new monetary medium, the first place to start is with those two paradigms and to plant your flag firmly in one or the other. The reason for doing that is that - being mirror images - any cross-contamination of properties from one paradigm to the other will weaken the archetype and therefore form an inhibitor to adoption. As a secondary consequence it will also form an inhibitor to its speculative valuation.

For example, privacy (as distinct from anonymity) enhances the value of credit money but diminishes the value of cash since it’s the public manifestation of cash that forms the basis for entries in credit accounts.

The reason I bang on about this is that Dash is the only currency which unambiguously implements the cash archetype as a priority over everything else. Cryptonote does not and Bitcoin with sidechains does not. In fact Cryponote specifically implements the weakest combination of properties from both archetypes - an obscured blockchain (consistent with the credit paradigm) but no backer (consistent with the cash paradigm).  Bitcoin on the other hand implements anonymity over privacy (consistent with cash) but then goes and ruins its fungibility by boiler-plating on a frankenstinien appendage from the credit-paradigm.

When we further examine why the bitcoin devs have done this, it gets even worse. Their reasoning is that they think Bitcoin should be the dominant global crypto-currency and should therefore support all technical requirements and markets. Well whether that turns out to be true or not, it’s not their job as engineers to decide that outcome - it’s the job of markets. Their job is to design a near-perfect monetary medium which does not conflict with known optimal design requirements.

The big question is if it will still be possible to turn that option off:
if darksend is very slow and costs fees, people will probably not mix as much as he hopes.

lol wtf?

If you don't grasp that DASH has fungibility issues, you are the idiot, not me...
Please read a book on economics.

You can easily see in the coin history that they have been mixed or not...

Thats another thing that makes me think this bitcoin rally is for real - the massacre of the alts. I've been killed on my Bitshares holdings which have now crumbled away to a sixth of their purchase value  

Still, Dash is alive and kicking and number 6 on MK. It's being bought as well as sold - remember that  

who is doing all the dumping? 

0.00600000 WOW

(yeah, yeah, I know, in dollar terms it's not that bad, blah blah... but damn!, 0.00600000)

Ah - you mean the solid histogram block ? But that one's yet to complete. Also, on the longer range charts I never really regard the momentum as 'changing direction' until the MACD fully reverses - i.e. drops to crossover level. Remember when the MACD is on the backside of the green curve, price momentum is still positive - it's still pumping since the MACD is a derivative (fourth I think) of the moving averages.

For minute-to-minute daytrading, I usually take the sell point at just after halfway on the 5-minute MACD (where you have your 'direction change') but I move it forward as the chart range increases, so for the 4-hour for example, I'd move it right to the end of the cycle (the crossover point). To make any money you always need more anticipation on the short range signals but more confirmation the long range ones.

So in summary, my sell points for reasonable confirmation (from purely a trading momentum perspective) would be:

5-Minute: 12 O'Clock+ on the MACD histogram
1-Hour: 2 O'Clock
4-Hour: 3 O'Clock

P.S. See what I mean ?...it's blown wide again just while writing that post  

With respect Tok, your own chart shows the 4 hour macd has changed direction, although its not definitive and could be a false signal

Huobi 4-Hour MACD looks fine to me...



(P.S. If you check back my long-term calls going back to 2013 you'll see I've always been overly optimistic. I categorically said the $1000 bitcoin top of 2013 would no way drop below $900. But I decided to keep on the same vein anyway - got to be right sometime. Bitcoin needs more liquidity and since supply is limited, it can only get it from a price rise    )

I'm going to keep calling the final (short term) top at $454, at some point my last call will be correct 
4 hour macd has turned and them there whales must be getting tired by now 

I'd rather say $10,000.00 'til the end of 2016 or sooner, as Roger Ver had predicted several years ago. (but was too early)

 

Level off at $6000 now that everyone has seen it's not going to zero.

Then a retrace to 2k  

Are you serious ?

First of all, with sidechains, we're talking about the difference between one currency and another. A sidechain token and a mainchain token are not capable of mutual substitution because they are entirely distinguishable (having different identities). For example, a bitcoin cannot pass as a confidential transactions coin since it doesn't remotely share its properties and vica versa.

In Dash, all tokens are on the same blockchain - whether they're pre-mixed or not.

Secondly, in money (as opposed to cyphering systems used by spy networks), untraceability is maximised by the aggregation of continual mixing and exchange of tokens on the financial network, not by hiding the network transactions. Dash follows this paradigm because it is a cash paradigm (not a credit one based around bookkeeping notions of privacy) and maximises transparency at the same time.

Thats the beauty of it.

Yeah its gone down since I changed to btc two days ago

Father Jack would love it in Mexico
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdkN57xvekI

viva Mexico
Tequile, sol, playa y bitcoin, ¿qué más quieres
 

That's apparently the plan for Evolution. I guess that stemmed naturally from the quorum system.

fixed.

You're welcome.


EDIT
----------
For somebody who spends every waking minute trolling this thread, one would assume he would already know the answer.  Obviously, he's not very bright.

dnaleor raised a good point about mixed vs unmixed DASH's fungibility.

And all you do in response is copy-paste your generic 'boo-hoo-hoo nasty trolls maek me cry' nonsense, which does nothing to address his post.

Your post doesn't even mention DASH (AKA Digital Avarice Scamming Humanity), so it's off-topic.