There is NO WAY that a transaction can create new coins out of thin air, just check the crypto behind monero.
LoL ! It's nothing to do with "creating coins out of thin air".
Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 1994. (Read 9723733 times)
July 31, 2015, 09:47:02 AM
LoL ! It's nothing to do with "creating coins out of thin air".
July 31, 2015, 09:46:10 AM
yep, the rest is all the same crap. He's talking about the funny advantages of his View Keys. In Dash you can choose if your transaktion is hidden or visible on the blockchain with one single click.
How do you prove to an escrow agent you made a certain darksend transaction when there is a dispute about a certain trade?
You really don't have a clue of what darksend is right?
July 31, 2015, 09:46:07 AM
yep, the rest is all the same crap. He's talking about the funny advantages of his View Keys. In Dash you can choose if your transaktion is hidden or visible on the blockchain with one single click.
How do you prove to an escrow agent you made a certain darksend transaction when there is a dispute about a certain trade?
ummm, maybe the escrow agent checks the balance on the target address?
July 31, 2015, 09:40:34 AM
All Dash transactions are visible on the blockchain which is as it should be with any unbacked, base monetary media that derives its monetary endorsement from public consensus rather than a trusted third party. You cannot make them "hidden".
Historically, "hidden" transaction ledgers such as the fiat banking system were developed for scenarios where you didn't need public consensus to recognise the tokens as "money" because that function was delegated to a trusted third party which backed them monetarily.
That's why any unbacked cryptocurrency technology which uses that model as its functional metaphor (such as cryptonote) is not one that Dash needs to worry about in terms of 'competition'.
Historically, "hidden" transaction ledgers such as the fiat banking system were developed for scenarios where you didn't need public consensus to recognise the tokens as "money" because that function was delegated to a trusted third party which backed them monetarily.
That's why any unbacked cryptocurrency technology which uses that model as its functional metaphor (such as cryptonote) is not one that Dash needs to worry about in terms of 'competition'.
Seriously, you need to check the tech behind Monero before talking such BS.
The transactions are hidden (this is the feature), but the mining process isn't. You can clearly see the entering of new coins in the blockchain. Every new block states clearly how many new coins are mined.
There is NO WAY that a transaction can create new coins out of thin air, just check the crypto behind monero.
July 31, 2015, 09:35:28 AM
yep, the rest is all the same crap. He's talking about the funny advantages of his View Keys. In Dash you can choose if your transaktion is hidden or visible on the blockchain with one single click.
How do you prove to an escrow agent you made a certain darksend transaction when there is a dispute about a certain trade?
July 31, 2015, 09:28:57 AM
fly fly flyyyyy
July 31, 2015, 09:24:14 AM
Here's an interesting thought experiment...
3000 tx per second
450000.0 transactions in a block
107MB per block
4x the blocksize
100MB a minute.
3000 tx per second
450000.0 transactions in a block
107MB per block
4x the blocksize
100MB a minute.
I think they can fly too !
[/quote]
How 'bout something more Utopian than Distopian
July 31, 2015, 09:09:36 AM
Here's an interesting thought experiment...
3000 tx per second
450000.0 transactions in a block
107MB per block
4x the blocksize
100MB a minute.
I think they can fly too !
July 31, 2015, 09:08:35 AM
Here's an interesting thought experiment...
The only real problem with that logic is we need to store the transactions in a block after they happen and blocks have an upper limit on size. 3000 tx per second that would mean we have 450000.0 transactions in a block. I'm getting about 107MB per block with some rough math. If the network requires about 4x the blocksize in bandwidth, we could possibly need about 100MB a minute.
To get 100MB a minute consistently we could have a 3rd tier that lives on a high performance network (maybe a specific zone of AWS for high performance computing). If you want to use our high performance network, you would switch through a 2-way peg to this second chain, which has pretty much infinite speed. We could actually have a bunch of these, all on separate networks throughout the world, so that if one is having problems, there's always redundancy.
Hmm...
The masternode network + quorums is quite powerful for solving these types of problems.
The only real problem with that logic is we need to store the transactions in a block after they happen and blocks have an upper limit on size. 3000 tx per second that would mean we have 450000.0 transactions in a block. I'm getting about 107MB per block with some rough math. If the network requires about 4x the blocksize in bandwidth, we could possibly need about 100MB a minute.
To get 100MB a minute consistently we could have a 3rd tier that lives on a high performance network (maybe a specific zone of AWS for high performance computing). If you want to use our high performance network, you would switch through a 2-way peg to this second chain, which has pretty much infinite speed. We could actually have a bunch of these, all on separate networks throughout the world, so that if one is having problems, there's always redundancy.
Hmm...
The masternode network + quorums is quite powerful for solving these types of problems.
Question; Would that be 100 mb a minute be the same size on the blockchain? How would we store such a behemoth? I mean seriously, no matter how you shake it, blockchain size is going to have to be dealt with some day, and somewhere, I think most would agree, the whole thing must be stored in it's entirety, decentralized. This will be a problem for everyone. What do you think needs to be done?
I can see chopping it up and storing sections of it, redundantly, amongst groups of nodes, perhaps in a compressed format, digitally signed and archived (again redundantly) with the "working" chain being a trimmed version. What other options might there be? Thanks for your opinion!
That's the on-chain size, but by then we'll have pruning. So we'll just be storing unspent outputs. Even if the blockchain is a terabyte pruned, it's only being stored by the masternodes on this separate chain. We're talking about having billions of transactions per day, that means that Dash is worth tons of money. This network would be ran by the masternode operators and they would still be earning a share of the revenue for providing the services. At this point, the services are very costly, but the rewards will be even greater. This is going to be a business for the masternode operators, something like what's happening with Bitcoin pools but much more decentralized.
So a full blockchain for the masternoders and a 'pruned' one for general full client use, is it known how much space can be saved by this technique of streamlining the blockchain ?
I have no idea, I just know pruning is definitely possible. I think generally we would just have clients use an API for moving money around, the API would hit a random masternode in the network. Then we just build a nice lite client on top of it. If you need a full-client, you could use the Dash network itself.
July 31, 2015, 09:06:10 AM
Here's an interesting thought experiment...
The only real problem with that logic is we need to store the transactions in a block after they happen and blocks have an upper limit on size. 3000 tx per second that would mean we have 450000.0 transactions in a block. I'm getting about 107MB per block with some rough math. If the network requires about 4x the blocksize in bandwidth, we could possibly need about 100MB a minute.
To get 100MB a minute consistently we could have a 3rd tier that lives on a high performance network (maybe a specific zone of AWS for high performance computing). If you want to use our high performance network, you would switch through a 2-way peg to this second chain, which has pretty much infinite speed. We could actually have a bunch of these, all on separate networks throughout the world, so that if one is having problems, there's always redundancy.
Hmm...
The masternode network + quorums is quite powerful for solving these types of problems.
The only real problem with that logic is we need to store the transactions in a block after they happen and blocks have an upper limit on size. 3000 tx per second that would mean we have 450000.0 transactions in a block. I'm getting about 107MB per block with some rough math. If the network requires about 4x the blocksize in bandwidth, we could possibly need about 100MB a minute.
To get 100MB a minute consistently we could have a 3rd tier that lives on a high performance network (maybe a specific zone of AWS for high performance computing). If you want to use our high performance network, you would switch through a 2-way peg to this second chain, which has pretty much infinite speed. We could actually have a bunch of these, all on separate networks throughout the world, so that if one is having problems, there's always redundancy.
Hmm...
The masternode network + quorums is quite powerful for solving these types of problems.
Question; Would that be 100 mb a minute be the same size on the blockchain? How would we store such a behemoth? I mean seriously, no matter how you shake it, blockchain size is going to have to be dealt with some day, and somewhere, I think most would agree, the whole thing must be stored in it's entirety, decentralized. This will be a problem for everyone. What do you think needs to be done?
I can see chopping it up and storing sections of it, redundantly, amongst groups of nodes, perhaps in a compressed format, digitally signed and archived (again redundantly) with the "working" chain being a trimmed version. What other options might there be? Thanks for your opinion!
That's the on-chain size, but by then we'll have pruning. So we'll just be storing unspent outputs. Even if the blockchain is a terabyte pruned, it's only being stored by the masternodes on this separate chain. We're talking about having billions of transactions per day, that means that Dash is worth tons of money. This network would be ran by the masternode operators and they would still be earning a share of the revenue for providing the services. At this point, the services are very costly, but the rewards will be even greater. This is going to be a business for the masternode operators, something like what's happening with Bitcoin pools but much more decentralized.
So a full blockchain for the masternoders and a 'pruned' one for general full client use, is it known how much space can be saved by this technique of streamlining the blockchain ?
July 31, 2015, 08:49:55 AM
Here's an interesting thought experiment...
The only real problem with that logic is we need to store the transactions in a block after they happen and blocks have an upper limit on size. 3000 tx per second that would mean we have 450000.0 transactions in a block. I'm getting about 107MB per block with some rough math. If the network requires about 4x the blocksize in bandwidth, we could possibly need about 100MB a minute.
To get 100MB a minute consistently we could have a 3rd tier that lives on a high performance network (maybe a specific zone of AWS for high performance computing). If you want to use our high performance network, you would switch through a 2-way peg to this second chain, which has pretty much infinite speed. We could actually have a bunch of these, all on separate networks throughout the world, so that if one is having problems, there's always redundancy.
Hmm...
The masternode network + quorums is quite powerful for solving these types of problems.
The only real problem with that logic is we need to store the transactions in a block after they happen and blocks have an upper limit on size. 3000 tx per second that would mean we have 450000.0 transactions in a block. I'm getting about 107MB per block with some rough math. If the network requires about 4x the blocksize in bandwidth, we could possibly need about 100MB a minute.
To get 100MB a minute consistently we could have a 3rd tier that lives on a high performance network (maybe a specific zone of AWS for high performance computing). If you want to use our high performance network, you would switch through a 2-way peg to this second chain, which has pretty much infinite speed. We could actually have a bunch of these, all on separate networks throughout the world, so that if one is having problems, there's always redundancy.
Hmm...
The masternode network + quorums is quite powerful for solving these types of problems.
Question; Would that be 100 mb a minute be the same size on the blockchain? How would we store such a behemoth? I mean seriously, no matter how you shake it, blockchain size is going to have to be dealt with some day, and somewhere, I think most would agree, the whole thing must be stored in it's entirety, decentralized. This will be a problem for everyone. What do you think needs to be done?
I can see chopping it up and storing sections of it, redundantly, amongst groups of nodes, perhaps in a compressed format, digitally signed and archived (again redundantly) with the "working" chain being a trimmed version. What other options might there be? Thanks for your opinion!
That's the on-chain size, but by then we'll have pruning. So we'll just be storing unspent outputs. Even if the blockchain is a terabyte pruned, it's only being stored by the masternodes on this separate chain. We're talking about having billions of transactions per day, that means that Dash is worth tons of money. This network would be ran by the masternode operators and they would still be earning a share of the revenue for providing the services. At this point, the services are very costly, but the rewards will be even greater. This is going to be a business for the masternode operators, something like what's happening with Bitcoin pools but much more decentralized.
July 31, 2015, 08:46:32 AM
Here's an interesting thought experiment...
The only real problem with that logic is we need to store the transactions in a block after they happen and blocks have an upper limit on size. 3000 tx per second that would mean we have 450000.0 transactions in a block. I'm getting about 107MB per block with some rough math. If the network requires about 4x the blocksize in bandwidth, we could possibly need about 100MB a minute.
To get 100MB a minute consistently we could have a 3rd tier that lives on a high performance network (maybe a specific zone of AWS for high performance computing). If you want to use our high performance network, you would switch through a 2-way peg to this second chain, which has pretty much infinite speed. We could actually have a bunch of these, all on separate networks throughout the world, so that if one is having problems, there's always redundancy.
Hmm...
The masternode network + quorums is quite powerful for solving these types of problems.
The only real problem with that logic is we need to store the transactions in a block after they happen and blocks have an upper limit on size. 3000 tx per second that would mean we have 450000.0 transactions in a block. I'm getting about 107MB per block with some rough math. If the network requires about 4x the blocksize in bandwidth, we could possibly need about 100MB a minute.
To get 100MB a minute consistently we could have a 3rd tier that lives on a high performance network (maybe a specific zone of AWS for high performance computing). If you want to use our high performance network, you would switch through a 2-way peg to this second chain, which has pretty much infinite speed. We could actually have a bunch of these, all on separate networks throughout the world, so that if one is having problems, there's always redundancy.
Hmm...
The masternode network + quorums is quite powerful for solving these types of problems.
Question; Would that be 100 mb a minute be the same size on the blockchain? How would we store such a behemoth? I mean seriously, no matter how you shake it, blockchain size is going to have to be dealt with some day, and somewhere, I think most would agree, the whole thing must be stored in it's entirety, decentralized. This will be a problem for everyone. What do you think needs to be done?
I can see chopping it up and storing sections of it, redundantly, amongst groups of nodes, perhaps in a compressed format, digitally signed and archived (again redundantly) with the "working" chain being a trimmed version. What other options might there be? Thanks for your opinion!
July 31, 2015, 08:34:37 AM
Fluffypony about dash / masternodes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEVm1dMn5Ks 8.33 minutes.
hear how his voice is changing when he talks about dash...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEVm1dMn5Ks 8.33 minutes.
hear how his voice is changing when he talks about dash...
That was interesting, instead of facts, it's all opinion, a sales pitch and not factual at all.
July 31, 2015, 08:15:21 AM
yep, the rest is all the same crap. He's talking about the funny advantages of his View Keys.
I think the cryptonote projects have their hands plenty full fighting each other to be worrying about Dash.
P.S.
In Dash you can choose if your transaktion is hidden or visible on the blockchain with one single click.
All Dash transactions are visible on the blockchain which is as it should be with any unbacked, base monetary media that derives its monetary endorsement from public consensus rather than a trusted third party. You cannot make them "hidden".
Historically, "hidden" transaction ledgers such as the fiat banking system were developed for scenarios where you didn't need public consensus to recognise the tokens as "money" because that function was delegated to a trusted third party which backed them monetarily.
That's why any unbacked cryptocurrency technology which uses that model as its functional metaphor (such as cryptonote) is not one that Dash needs to worry about in terms of 'competition'.
July 31, 2015, 08:12:55 AM
Bitcoin currently handles 7 unconfirmed tx per second + confirmation/waiting time
DASH handles 10 confirmed tx per second and you can walk out the shop with the merchant safe and happy.
DASH handles 10 confirmed tx per second and you can walk out the shop with the merchant safe and happy.
Not quite right, the entire Bitcoin network handles a maximum of 7 txes per second. Each IX only requires a tiny subset of the 3000 MN total to work. You're looking at tx throughput two orders of magnitude+ better than BTC, each one in seconds, not minutes/hours.
So if the subset is 10 for example, at 3k M-Nodes the TPS would be 3,000 as well, I assume? That's 1k more than VISA handles atm.
This is a very interesting read on that matter: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability
Here's an interesting thought experiment...
The only real problem with that logic is we need to store the transactions in a block after they happen and blocks have an upper limit on size. 3000 tx per second that would mean we have 450000.0 transactions in a block. I'm getting about 107MB per block with some rough math. If the network requires about 4x the blocksize in bandwidth, we could possibly need about 100MB a minute.
To get 100MB a minute consistently we could have a 3rd tier that lives on a high performance network (maybe a specific zone of AWS for high performance computing). If you want to use our high performance network, you would switch through a 2-way peg to this second chain, which has pretty much infinite speed. We could actually have a bunch of these, all on separate networks throughout the world, so that if one is having problems, there's always redundancy.
Hmm...
The masternode network + quorums is quite powerful for solving these types of problems.
July 31, 2015, 06:50:32 AM
What a pompous arrogant asshole. His dumb jokes, infantile quips and general behaviour void him of any professionality.
They can only make dumb jokes because it's all they can do. You can smell scams from a mile from this kind of talk.
Do you see their target audience now?
July 31, 2015, 06:34:16 AM
Fluffypony about dash / masternodes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEVm1dMn5Ks 8.33 minutes.
hear how his voice is changing when he talks about dash...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEVm1dMn5Ks 8.33 minutes.
hear how his voice is changing when he talks about dash...
What a pompous arrogant asshole. His dumb jokes, infantile quips and general behaviour void him of any professionality. I haven't seen Fernando or Evan make fun of Moronero in front of other people. Is it because they're professionals or because no one in the audience would have a damn clue what Monero is? Probably both.
Anyway: Real devs do not descend to that kind of behaviour.
The mere fact that he claimed DASH had a "premine" despite knowing better prove him a liar und extremely dishonest and untrustworthy. Any one even scratching the surface of DASH also knows what he said about Masternodes is utter bullshit.
I love how he goes on circlejerking and climaxing all over "viewkeys" this and "viewkeys" that and how they protect your transaction history. Well guess what dickweed: Encrypt your wallet or just say you don't have any cryptocurrency, TADA problem solved. No need for a useless contraption called "viewkey" necessitating an invisible, retroactively breakable, unusably bloated and slow as fuck blockchain.
But that's as much as I could bear of hearing that arrogant guido talk so I didn't watch any further. I'm sure the rest is all crap, too.
Oh btw: "Fluffypony"... who wants to bet he watches My Little Pony and masturbates while wearing animal costumes? Just don't google the term "furry", people...
July 31, 2015, 06:13:32 AM
Fluffypony about dash / masternodes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEVm1dMn5Ks 8.33 minutes.
hear how his voice is changing when he talks about dash...
Can he do a math? What a biased dickhead https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEVm1dMn5Ks 8.33 minutes.
hear how his voice is changing when he talks about dash...
July 31, 2015, 05:39:20 AM
July 31, 2015, 04:45:54 AM
Splendid. Three+ orders of magnitude better tx throughput than Bitcoin then. 
I just sent 2000 IX and they all validated upto about 300 within minutes and only reason it stopped was there were so many change addresses created that it refused to send any more IX because of zero confirmations, haven't worked a way round that one yet ,don't know about stressing IX but it certainly stressed the computer, I heard the fan speed up, lol
Jump to: