Imagine the miners were as committed to the dash project? Coinmine still has over 60% of the hashrate. This could kill all credibility for a coin to consistently have over 60% of it's hashrate generating from one pool.
I recall when BTC had this same issue, the community pulled together and miners started leaving the pool responsible.
All this community seems hell bent on protecting are their own feelings and rationale when called out on instamine etc.
If I were smooth or any of the other dash haters I would simply keep calling the community out on their laggard response to a network hashrate distribution issue.
Buckle up, do something as a community, spread the word to your miner friends on dash and tell them to leave coinmine for the time being and join another pool or go p2p mining(it's so dam easy)
Several long-time members have see this coming for a long time and have been trying to sound the alarm. Every time we try, we are completely ignored by the devs and largely ignored by the community. I finally just gave up and figured "why bother?"
The possibility of a bad actor launching a "51% attack" against any PoW coin is, to me, doomsday. People like to point out that no rational pool admin would do such a thing, and they are right, for the most part. But what happens if:
a) Pool gets hacked. If Target and God knows how many other major corporations with dekamillion dollar IT budgets can get successfully hacked, do you really thing suchpool (or whomever) can't be?
b) Pool op is irrational/delusional/destructive.
c) Pool op concludes that double spending will net him more income than the pool itself does. Look at exit scams like Evolution--the guy was making insane bank, so stealing everything and shutting down the site seemed irrational. But when he figured out he could make more in one scam than he could in five years of hard work, he took the easy route.
I've practically begged devs to explore another model. Proof of Service runs our masternode network--how come something like that can't run our blockchain? I don't know, maybe it's impossible, but nobody even bothers to respond to my threads on dashtalk, so I don't even make them anymore.
The only good news in this whole deal is that, as far as I know, InstantX transactions cannot be double spent because they are locked by the masternode network. In a worst-case scenario, that might could be used to stabilize the network until the problem could be dealt with.
P.S. A bit of reading between the lines implies that the devs are looking strongly toward the possibility of using the masternode network in their future scalability plans. With the new "sendinstantxto" (or whatever the exact command is), it's now easier to send multiple IX's at the same time. This looks promising.
We're definitely open to improving the pool distribution if anyone has ideas. However, PoS is incompatible with anything that uses masternode quorums. The quorums are chosen based off of the proof-of-work hash, so if we were to switch to a proof-of-stake model, we would end up with less secure hashes and other issues that would have to be addressed. That would allow an attacker to pick the masternodes that approve a transaction lock for example, something that we definitely want to avoid.