Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 1696. (Read 9723973 times)

...LoL Need to find parts for grumpy trainspotting bitcoin devs as well of course  

Nice font.  I see you're literally going for the ambitious Big Lie strategy.  

For all you lurkers, here's the the truth.

Peter Todd calls dash "snake oil."

Peter Todd calls dash's instant-x fake.

Peter Todd calls dash "bad crypto."

It is mine, and it is for «7×576×365×0,45×100÷1000÷MNs_number» formula - so not very accurate (without DGW)...

This picture is more correct:


Minimal based on 3.87 DASH

Average on current 7.24 (I used crowning's site http://178.254.18.153/~pub/Dash/masternode_payments_stats.html)

I've done it to replace out-to-dated table here: https://www.dashpay.io/masternodes2/

It is without hosting expenses.

Christmas is coming up. Never mind instamine - we need 'pantomime' with AdamWhite as AdamWhite.

Could be a great promotional tool - I think I feel a blockchain budget proposal coming on 

The best part is how EvanTheInstaminer advertises the following:



At the same time he's spamming the thread with "i'm buying!" along with his amateur hour TA:




When called out on what a bad trade this was:



Now why would he need to buy coins on an exchange at all when [email protected] AKA Minotaur26 is selling coins OTC? So the DASH team advertise that they're selling coins OTC whilst promoting buying coins on an exchange. Brilliant!

Oh man, you're so much better at this than I...
Exactly.

They may have almost infinite resources (not really) but they all, even the most totalitarian regime has to deal with public opinion.  And if they can win there without spending any money, that's the way they'll do it.  And that is the course they've taken.  But it isn't working, is it?  LOL  It would be more likely to work if they actually did a good job governing, but they're horrible.  Also, there actually are some intelligent people in government who actually care about their countries, and they can see that this technology may end up being the only thing that saves us all.  Being that they're trying to position themselves, they'll allow the "stupid" politicians to cause trouble until they figure out how to deal, then one day, woe, we're acceptable!  But on that day, they'll at least almost have a way to enforce taxation.  And their own centralized crypto undoubtedly.

It was a volume issue. In light of the whole Cryptsy controversy had they held out that would have reversed it very quickly.

If anyone ever buys a majority share in any asset - whether it's a cryptocuyrrency  or anything else, they're not really subverting it, they basically own it by that point so nobody else will care what they do with it.

Personally, I hope someone DOES try to buy up 90% of Dash (or 90% of masternodes for that matter) since by the time they get round to doing anything 'subversive' with their new toy, I'll be off ski-ing on my new private mountain in the Alps  

Agreed--who wouldn't?

I doubt that it's possible to build a system that can never be subverted by anyone for any reason. It's probably more constructive to measure existing systems against existing systems (or at most, against systems that are likely to be invented).

If the State wants to destroy Citi or Chase, they have countless powers with which to do so. Information can be subpoenaed, executives can be arrested or sued into oblivion, laws can be changed, antitrust cases can be brought, etc. If the State wanted to break Bitcoin, they could buy the entire world's production of ASIC miners, as well as buying ASICs from existing miners, or they could just hack into the top 2-3 mining pools and redirect their hash. If the State wanted to break Dash, they could buy up 51% of the coin supply.

All these things would be expensive, but certainly within the power of a State with nearly infinite resources.

IMO this is key to the next step.

We need to have all the services BTC has....

DASH ATM ...DASH DEBIT Cards....Is this even possible? Why has it not been done or mentioned even ?

Why did BITFINEX delist DASH? ...do they see it as a threat?

That was my point.  The biggest holder of Dash Masternodes, has only had up to 20% of the network.  I don't think he has that many anymore.  

And by the way, when the price goes up, people are going to sell their MNs.  What does someone like otoh want with 1 billion GBP locked up in a masternode?  He will want to do other investments, as that's what he is interested in.  He'll undoubtedly take some of that and keep it, and sell off the rest to do other things.  Evan will eventually need to sell some of his, he'll have kids, they'll want another house, maybe a private school, etc... how is he going to do this without "selling" or spending his Dash?

Point being that as time goes on, solid assets, such as land, gold, jewelry, etc... gets sold off, or passed down to another generation and sold off because it's a luxury to hang on to things when you gotta live.  

Now will governments buy it all up?  Maybe, more likely groups of people, or corporate type entities.  But they can't get it all, in fact they'll get less and less of the pie as time goes on.  Entropy, it's a physical law

ATM : At The Moment I don't think so. But it could be funded by Decentralized budget votes

Does DASH have any plans for ATM machine or DEBIT card ?

No he don't..
Roughly he own 20% of MN (or less only him know the exact number?) what make ~600K

He don't own 20% of 6 Millions DASH (nearly) in circulation.

Interesting stuff indeed.

Except that we can deduce pretty well how many different people own Masternodes.  To break the system, we know a person would need to control at least 90% of them.  At this time, it is no longer possible to do, government or no.  The budget would very quickly become huge, and that would require conspicuous approval to spend so much money (and I think only the only countries with that kind of wealth also have enough checks and balances to need approval)  Otoh alone owned as much as 20% of what we have today.  So I doubt we caught Governmental attention early on enough for them to have made a move.  You could argue the same thing with the huge mining farms that seem to control bitcoin mining.  Or the pools.  I think it doesn't give enough of a guarantee for a Government to invest so much, to receive so little, and questionable little at that.

No, thinking that Masternodes are in any way a weak link is completely illogical.  And when it comes to Crypto, logic wins over emotion.

Then you would have to ask yourself, who would want to get into a filthy bed wit a government?  You would be giving up your control over YOUR privacy by letting them into YOUR house.  I don't think people who invest in this coin, certainly 99.9% of them, have warm fuzzy feelings and trust enough in their government to do that, and to get enough to turn to make it worthwhile for the Government, well, it's just not going to happen.

Since I'm not a socialist, I can't be bothered with the "but it's so unfair that some people will become rich!" argument.  Those people who support new technology enable the technology to happen, and thus have EARNED their wealth.  They supported something that will eventually harness a LOT of work, which is what ultimately makes money worth what it is.  If Dash can harness and make available work, easier and cheaper, it will be worth more and the project will have BENEFITED mankind.  Just like the desktop computer did, just like the car did, just like the railroads and steam boats and horse and buggy and wheel did.

 

Peter Todd endorses DASH's Instantx implementation


Read the final paragraph in his epic interview below.

... and in cryptocurrency / money matters, the term "trusted third party" conventionally alludes to the presence or absence of an endorsing party who is prepared to "back" or exchange the monetary token in question for a more commonly accepted currency (e.g. fiat or gold) - in other words a "bank". It does not refer to the idea of Bitcoin full nodes, Dash full nodes, Dash masternodes - or any other form of node - being maintained by third party individuals or organisations (which they are in any cryptocurrency).

Conversely, the term "decentralised currency" refers to the presence or absence of a trusted party (bank), not the number of logic tiers in a network protocol.

And size is only 1Gb