Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 1729. (Read 9724017 times)

Yes, Cryptonote has so called on-chain anonymity, and DASH has so called off-chain anonymity. They are different approaches aiming to achieve the same thing. The difference is, that the mixing of inputs and outputs (where the money is coming and where it's going) is retained in the blockchain and protected by math in on-chain anonymity, whereas in DASH's off-chain anonymity the mixing is done outside the blockchain by the masternode network and the link between inputs and outputs is not recorded into the blockchain.

I'm not sure if the coming Evolution version will change that though? Evan has hinted that all transactions will be private by default which would imply that there will be some changes to how the anonymity is achieved.


DASH attempts to fulfill all those requirements above and is actively working towards them, and features currently 4 (and a half as it has a basic GUI wallet I suppose) of them. Cryptonote coins seem to aim only at 1/6th of those requirements of digital cash.

Evan, I appreciate mystery just as much as the next guy, but can you give us any idea when one or more of the whitepapers will be released? Or at least when we will get more details about Evolution? You said that you were going to release the whitepapers "the right way" but didn't explain what that entailed. Thank you!

oh boy, more mystery .. just what we need  

i agree, great work Rango !!

Then I suggest you take out a Cryptonote hedge (or even go all in ). You can always invest in both. That will save you the headache.

Sorry for the late response, I was researching cryptonote a little bit today. It's confusing, but i think I know the basics now.

I give you that. it wasn't really a good example indeed. But I still fail to see how a private blockchain results in fiat...

The fact that the owner's name isn't stamped on it makes it fungible, not anonymous. Anonymous is something a person can be, not an object.


I agree, when the balance is not publicly known, we are talking about privacy. No one can see how much money I hold, how much i'm sending or receiving.

But is that a bad thing? i think we need privacy when handling our money. This doesn't necessarily  result in credit (fiat) money.
Credit money can probably only function as long as it has private accounting, otherwise the "fractional reserve" is exposed. Banks can print money by lending it out, central banks can print money to buy assets or give loans to banks.

But money with private balances doesn't need to always result in fiat, as long as the emission is public. I already pointed out that monero has apparently a public emission.

[1] As far as I understand (I didn't actually test monero yet) you can see your balance, and this balance are 'real coins', because the emission is public. It's an asset. Claiming a cryptocurrency isn't an asset, while it has a public emission, seems illogical
[2] I agree that people will associate themselves with monero accounts, but there is inherently no difference with this if you compare it with DASH or BTC. The only difference is that you need only one address because the balances are apparently private. This seems to be a convenience, not some sort of problem.

you can always have multiple 'accounts' I guess, so I really don't get your point.

Personally, I think it's because they can't and won't unless they want to steal the idea for their own project.  I personally don't want Dash to take that chance.  I want it open-source on main net, it has to be, but any time before that, but after it's been developed and coded at least to 90% I'd like to see kept hidden.  Of course, you've heard me say that, and you want Evan to answer.  I don't know why I can't shut my mouth.  My fingers are itchy or something, LOL.  Forgive me please

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EheLN-MDzrA (OMG, and I think this is "new" music, check out those phones!  ROFLMAO)  And that's pointed at me, nobody else so don't take offense

Launch as in Testnet?  Or Mainnet?  I know we can't get away with closed source on mainnet anymore.  Anyway, what you're saying is basically what I figured would happen.

1.) There is code that scans all incoming blocks for transaction locks when accepting transactions and blocks. This means that a block that contains a conflicting transaction will be automatically rejected.
2.) The answer to this one is 3 fold.
    a. Currently if there are conflicting locks on the network, they will actually cancel each other. 2 conflicting locks doesn't really give miners a choice, it just removes instantX and goes back to proof of work.
    b. The quorums are selected by inputs though, so you'll get the same quorum for the same transaction even with a different fee. This means, they would have already decided and no conflicting lock would be issued.
    c. The new improved way is to use the quorum timestamp, then take the earliest one always.
3.) Masternodes are paid from the blockchain reward, which will be worth more as the services are utilized more. My position is that monetary services of the network should be provided at no or low cost, then we can add on other services over the coming years by financing them from the budget. The masternode network will own Virtual Corporations that are working to expand the reach of Dash. Then they will be paid from the dividends from those companies (a few years off).
4.) DAPI was just one of many components -- it isn't what allows for such scalability  

So true! Over the last year and a half, there have been so many failed trolling campaigns. We've heard:

Darksend isn't anonymous. <-That claim died long ago.
Hard forks will kill your project. <-Ditto
Darksend is closed source. <-Ditto
Masternodes are centralized. <-Ditto
The reference node is centralized. <-Ditto
There needs to be masternode blinding. <-Ditto
Instant transactions aren't possible in crypto. <-Ditto

Now all they have left is the instamine. That implies that they are blown away by the actual technology, to the point where the only thing they have left to complain about is the launch!

Sounds good, so Dash maintains first-mover advantage without the calls of "closed-source!" which at one time were louder than "instamine!".  

that's good news!
But why not build it publicly, so other developers/volunteers can help?

Also, now that you are online, can you please answer my newb questions:

There are no plans to close source anything. We're just going to build it privately, then open source it as soon as we launch  .

and I think that worked out well, don't you?  I mean, we did have a bunch of complainers/trolls again, saying you can't close source it, but it is after all a company, Dash is, and we should use tactics that protect our intellectual property until it's needed to be open sourced, which is required to be taken seriously in the crypto world for good reason.  Still, while working on it, we don't need to let everyone see what we're doing.  We can hide until the big reveal just like Apple does.

Yah, just remove the many.  mnbudget vote d0...........

Masternodes reject them if they don't comply.  That's why we watch the % of masternodes that update when we have a spork.  If Evan pulls the switch, and we have 90% compliance on the network with the latest wallet, then miners that don't update have their blocks rejected.  Only a block from the right version passes.  (well, there is a chance that a non-updated miner will hit one of the 10% masternodes but then we turn off the spork and try again.  When we take control of the blockchain (usually on first try) we have it.

So what I said was true for Dash, I just thought it might be true for Bitcoin as well, at least on the level of all nodes should agree.  In Dash, Masternodes hold the keys to the door.

No they're too busy killing it, LOL.

Oh, I'm sort of glad that the fire was 2 years ago, I mean, hopefully they've recovered.

Oh no!  That's awful!  Ugh, poor people

I think time has refuted all of this ranting.  We have seen no instability nor weaknesses to the X11 hash algo.  Your problems with the announcement thread titles are just too funny.