Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 204. (Read 9723733 times)

Yes good luck with that. It is an interesting experiment. But as my understanding goes this will not be a success. It stands to reason. Why not give 1% to miners? Then 99% to everyone! Yay free money for everyone. It has to be a success.

I hope someone from the management is now selling his mansion for DASH and this was reported in the news on television

The phoenix is rising, i repeat : the phoenix is rising.

Alexey45 don't worry. You'll always have the qwizzie izzy izzies and the like what will want dash to fall lower so they can buy more. This is good to them because it used to be over $1600 and now it's below $50 

And let the guilty put up for sale their property not for dollars, but for DASH. Show the world how they love and believe in the future of DASH.
But if no one is found guilty and no one is punished, then people will not believe it.
Is it possible to invest millions if the team itself does not have a DASH coin and does not believe in what it does.
Show everyone your wallets with DASH or have you sold all the coins and invested in BTC?
What's wrong with this team

Interesting distribution of the block reward. Good luck with your project.

What will be the main aims of the DASH Team for 2020?

Which key additions or modifications will be made to keep DASH relevant in the face of ETH upgrade and other widely used crypto?

The one obvious thing DASH has in its favour is the dynamic international multi-lingual community that power it. They are active in several countries in Africa and in several countries in South America and so many other places. The are a very active bunch.

Not for nothing I here strongly swore when DASH lost positions 
If this criminal leadership had been kicked out back then, everything would be fine now.   
But now it's time to start returning capitalization, in all possible and impossible ways!
Make a deficit. Reduce your reward now, don't wait another 114 days! Run ads. Fight for the market!

That only works if you take the view that people are in the market to invest in "cheaply secured networks".

But from looking at the last 8 years of history that would appear not to be the case.

Rather they seem to want to invest in the coins with most scarcity and the market's definition of "scarcity" in that context is coins that have required the largest amounts of energy to mine.

If you need actual "in the field evidence" of how reducing the mining reward doesn't lead to a higher valuation then try looking at Dash. We've had 50% less mining reward than our competitors for several years now and we've lost market share to all of them. ergo: based on that, reduce it further and we'll lose even more market share.





Quizzie. You spend a lot of time in here. Please go back and read my previous post. We are not shifting reward back to miners, we're shifting it back to the primary market that pays for the mining cost so that we can supply it a competitive amount of coin, not compared with masternodes but compared with other competing blockchains.

The point, therefore is to stem the loss of market share to them. The mechanics by which we lose that market share are various, but an example is having to find market liquidity for BOTH the mining cost AND the sale price of the masternode reward. i.e. charging the market for 3 coins and only supplying it with 2.

We need to change our mindset from thinking about the reward split in terms of "mining/masternodes" and think of it in terms of "mining dash/mining XMR" or "mining Dash/mining LTC" etc.

Here's what our "cheaply secured network" did for us so far in terms of market share (% share of leading monetary altcoin marketcap):



Notice I left out bitcoin. If we include bitcoin then Dash is so comprehensively trounced in terms of market share that it barely registers. If we diminish the mining reward any further (or even leave it where it is) we'll have an ultra-cheaply secured network and correspondingly ultra cheaply valued coin that's so cheaply valued it doesn't even make it onto page 1 of cmc.com IMO.

Data: (source: waybackmachine, archive.org coinmarketcap.com month of March)

I just don't see much point in shifting value away from masternodes and towards miners, when those miners are centralized through large miningpools already and producing a mining hashrate at ATH level for some time now without any effect on price. This indicates to me that miners can and need to be restricted more and that is therefore where our focus should be. With ChainLocks we are now one of the few PoW projects that can actually make an important change within its PoW model, because we now don't need to give to miners almost half of the block reward to secure the network.

Our governance model already is hampered when we need miners approval, making our updating a very slow months-taking process. With an even more centralized miningpool outlook, just one or two miningpools could actually take our updating proces to a stand still. Not because of malicious intend, but just because its inconvenient in their updating schedule.

In the end i feel this is also about who do we want to have control over Dash ? Centralized mining pools who don't really care about Dash ? Or masternodes who invested long term into Dash and follow its project much more closely ?

Are you worried about 51% attacks? We have chainlocks for that protection. So far mining centralisation has not caused many problems that I am aware of apart from a few 51% attacks in small market cap coins. If a large mining attack were to happen it would cost massive amounts of energy to do anything significant wouldn't it? Or you think a government could attempt it to bring down crypto. Eg china seizes mining pools and directs attacks on bitcoin?

In my opinion our PoW needs adjusting to restrict the miners value over time and make sure they do not become more centralized then they already are.
Toknormal assumption about market focus on restricting masternodes value over time and shifting more value to miners.

These are two opposite and clashing views.

Its not a popularity contest between Ryan Taylor and Toknormal. Maybe it help if you explain why you put more weight? What is toknormal (and I presume myself) judging badly?

Hello Dash Community,

Thank you so much for the technology called "Chainlocks" in our understanding we don't need to give to miners almost half of the block reward (45%) to secure the network. It enables us to incentivize other parties of the network.

We are testing your new technology "CHAINLOCKS"  in order to try a different distribution of the block reward. which consists in:

10% MINERS
60% MASTERNODES
20% SYSTEM PROPOSALS
10% CHARITY PROPOSALS

We really appreciate the hard work of Dash Core-Team and we will let you know. How "chainlocks" works in practice within a small project..

Best regards,
Meraki Core-Team

A lot of people are only guessing and making assumptions about the market .. including you, me, toknormal and Ryan.
Lets face it, thats what toknormal posts are : personal assumptions about the market.

In this case i put more value to Ryan's assumptions / assessment about the market, and put much less value on toknormal assumptions about the market.

I can't really do any better than toknormals excellent post above about primay market. So trying to be devils advocate and arguing firstly from Ryan Taylors point of view. (as I understand it)

• Miners (or mining pools) are seen as contractors who are paid in dash for services to the network, mainly for creating blocks of transactions. They are paid (by the network) 45% of the block rewards for this service.
• Masternode operators are contractors too who provide services to the network, namely providing a reliable, fast network of nodes which are utilized to provide coin mixing, and instantsend/chainlocks, soon the dash platform aswell. They are paid 45% of the block rewards.
• The treasury provides funding for development (and leadership?), and other things which 'hopefully' benefit the network. They are paid 10% of the block rewards.

Technically the miners mint the whole 100% of the block reward. It is a competition to receive that block reward, those with the best hash power take most the earnings. As a miner you have to constantly find ways to increase your hash power to achieve some earnings. This also means you have to pay more in energy terms in your electricity bills if you are mining. This causes 'difficulty' adjustments to increase, (it also causes miners to become more cost effective in areas of cheap electricity). If miners leave the network the difficulty drops and it becomes slightly easier for miners to achieve earnings with less hash rate.

High or increasing hash rate generally means the network is considered much more secure than low or dropping hashrate. The energy cost to rewrite the block chain or reverse transactions or do any other malicious thing on the network is all that much more 'expensive' to achieve. It is a sign that miners are willing to pay more (in terms of increasing their hardware capability and their increased electricity bills and their time) in order to earn more dash rewards. This may be because they are in profit, or a speculative bet that they think dash will go up in value. One can only guess the motives of any investor category.

(I think) Ryan Taylor  sees it this way... If you decrease the miner share, and miners leave the network. Then the hashrate will drop. But that wouldn't matter because chainlocks secure the network after 1 block anyway. He thinks that chainlocks has made hashrate less important for dash than other PoW coins. Regardless of the hashrate the supply is designed to stay constant.  With that portion of the block reward that came from the miners share you can distribute that to ordinary users who will be 'stakers' rewards for holding dash. So Ryan Taylor thinks that decreasing miner share won't have a negative impact  on security. And then there will be increased demand from stakers who may want to try and earn dash by holding it. He is trying to influence the supply versus demand dynamics of the market to increase demand without affecting supply.  

--

I think where I start to disagree is viewing miners as contractors. To me it seems they do the 'work', meaning work in the sense of physics and thermodynamics, using time and energy. Masternode owners do not do any comparable work in that physical sense. Who pays the miners? No-one? The network? They earned the dash with real time and energy. But who pays the masternode owners and the treasury? Is it the network that paid them? Or it is the miners that paid them isn't it? Maybe this is just some question of semantics and does or doesn't matter, but to me seems an important distinction. I see miners as the ones who really create and maintain the blockchain. The masternodes and treasury as more like contractors providing services to the network. The masternodes are paid very lucratively really. With no 'work' they receive a very large share of the spoils.

I also do not think dropping hashrate will definitely not be seen as unimportant by the wider market even with chainlocks.  Hashrate is synonymous with network security. Hashrate is often viewed as a leading indicator of price. Maybe I am underestimating the impact of chainlocks I don't know. I did expect a bit of a positive reaction in the market when it was released. So far that didn't seem to occur. You can move to a complete proof of stake model and get rid of hashrate completely. There are many coins that have tried that or similar. I dont see many of them in the top 10, unlike bitcoin, bicoin cash, litecoin and bitcoin sv. The proof of work is all. Just like it takes work to dig up gold. The mining metaphor is very accurate. These things are valuable because of the work that went into it.

Markets are all about supply and demand but it is far too easy to dream up reasons for who is behind the supply and who is going to be in demand and then think you know the reality. Will staking increase demand? Maybe it will attract a category of investor  ? Maybe it will deter another category of investor, like those who value high hashrate? Maybe the 'earnings' of staking will not be held or spent on ways to benefit the network but go on food, wine and fast cars. Ryan Taylor is only guessing and making assumptions about the market. But that is a risky business. What if he is seriously underestimating the 'work' in proof of work?



  

Move the time of reduction to today, you will see a crazy panic and growth!

2020/04/27 15:26 estimated time to reduce time (114 days, 9 hours, 46 minutes)
https://stats.masternode.me/network-report/302047

I'd put a lot more value in Ryan's arguments than mine as well if he had managed to explain in what sense hashrate is a cost to the Dash community/holder.

The "cost" of securing the network as I see it, isn't borne by Dash holders. It's passed on to the market which pays for the hashrate. Nor are miners "contractors of the network" IMO as he asserts. That's merely a metaphorical/philosophical perspective. A cryptocurrency network doesn't need hashrate for security, since as RT himself has noted that can be done in cheaper ways. Rather the market needs hashrate to discover increasingly scarce coins.

Commercially therefore miners are (by definition) in the role of contractors to the primary market which is outside of the network, buying in. (Bear in mind that there is an enormous, sustained and increasing worldwide demand for hashrate and Dash is now proposing to limit even further its exposure to this demand). That market receives a portion of the new coin supply in return for financing the mining cost. As such, it already receives 50% less from Dash than it does with other POW coins and this competitive handicap will become even more acute by persuing Ryan's solution, losing us even more market share IMO.

So since you were so convinced by Ryan's presentation qwizzie, perhaps you could explain here the mechanics by which that "cost saving" ends up as a more buoyant coin value for the Dash hodler  

Here is the basic problem I imagine as seen by the non Dash-holding market when presented with the option of investing in Dash (ignoring any mining profit/losses which are negligible compared to non-mining margins who's costs also need to be covered):



Finally, under the latest proposals...

We are indeed on opposite sides here. By the way, those are not my proposed solutions but Ryan Taylor's proposed solutions during his Evolution Open House speech.
Lets just say i put a lot more value in Ryan Taylor's arguments then in any of toknormal's arguments that i read so far.

Link : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/consensus-mechanisms.49135/page-2

I feel our proof of work at one point needs to change (which has been on the long term agenda for Dash awhile now, i think even Evan Duffield referred to it as future PoW 2.0) and this is
a good time to analyze the possible ways of how we can slowly and gradually change PoW over time, as our current PoW model already created miningpool centralization for Dash.

I also think by implementing either Masternode Shares or Deterministic Holding Lists as a solution, we can attract a lot of new Dash investors, new Dash users and improve Dash store of value.
Something i don't see happening with removing value from masternode owners (which will be against the direct interest of those masternode owners anyways) and giving that to miners.
You seem to see our budget spending largely as a failure, i see it as instrumental for surviving this bearmarket, keeping our developers involved and working on Dash Platform and supporting community-driven projects.
Some failed, some succeeded. C'est la vie.

I don't agree with your assessment that the market has judged that masternodes and treasury are not worth as much as proof of work, nor do i see any evidence of that.  
Currently Dash (in my opinion) is signaling a still very strong long term investors engagement to the market (58,8% of Dash Circulating Supply is in the hands of masternodes).
Once this bear market has been fully processed and is behind us, i think we can expect a new market evaluation of Dash. A market evaluation that to many outside of this Dash community will come as a shock.

All correct except it isn't so much the miners that carry the cost of masternode margins, its Dash's primary market. That's to say the market that buys the mining supply. Difficulty adjustments can keep miners at a profit but the net result is that the external market (not Dash holders) is ultimately having to carry the cost of the masternode/proposal margins and getting nothing in return, while in other coins they get a part of the coin supply (Proof of Work) in return. This is losing Dash market share on a chronic basis.

Note: There is always a primary buyer.

 • If the miner holds, then the miner is the primary buyer (they paid the cost of the mined coins, both the ones they themselves received and also the cost of the ones that masternode holders receive)

 • if the miner is simply running a business (rather than "investing in Dash") and sells as they mine, then the market trading partner is the buyer

MINING AT A PROFIT/LOSS
It also doesn't matter (when you do a bookkeeping audit of the process) whether the miner mines at a loss or a profit. If they mine at a profit then the mining/masternode reward cost is paid for by the primary market. (As stated previously, the miner themselves may adopt a dual role as miner + buyer in this regard or they may not)

If they mine at a loss then the miner/masternode reward cost is borne by a combination of the primary market (trading partner to which the miner sells) and the miner. i.e. the reward costs are made up from external market revenue and mining losses

Either way it represents bad value to the external market compared with other mined crypto where much more of the supply is returned to the primary market in exchange for covering the mining costs. This loses us market share.

Think of it this way. Bitcoin charges transaction fees, but at least that's all they charge. Dash charges half the new coin supply to the external market and gives it nothing in return. It's like charging 100 times the transaction fee of bitcoin, yet we appear to congratulate ourselves on being a "low fee" currency ? Something is slightly twisted here.