Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 2103. (Read 9723787 times)

Ok thank you. İ an gonna test it

Testing is reopened!

https://dashtalk.org/threads/v12-testing-thread.5484/page-5#post-57085

Le Poisson d’Avril 

Dash Masternodes Now Receiving Half the Block Reward

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114589/dash-masternodes-now-receiving-half-the-block-reward

For

So, BTC will be at capacity next summer, it takes a while to organise a fork. So it needs to be agreed pretty much in the next month or so, for testing of fork in Sept, and hard fork in January.

Lightning network is capable of scaling Bitcoin, but the software is 2-3 years out. So block sizes need to go up, now-ish.

Against

Basically, its about orphan rates for miners, especially those in China where a small group own 60%+ of the hash power of BTC

Increasing block sizes means their crappy internet speeds will increase orphans, so their miners will be buzzing away and get loads of rejects.

Secondly, its about fees. When there are wait times, people pay fees to get their transactions through the mining process faster. Bigger blocks means fees are not needed, until the transactions increase again.

Concluding Thoughts

While the stress test had its limitations, the 7.5 hours of data revealed a number interesting takeaways:

1)  When the network is at or near capacity, transaction confirmation times increases for all categories of fees and transaction values.
2)  In a scenario where transactions are competing to be included in an upcoming block, it appears a higher fee results in comparably faster confirmation times (as per normal situations).
3)  Despite significant transaction volume awaiting confirmation, some blocks can go unfilled, highlighting the immense discretionary power of miners.
4)  Five of the top ten miners currently have limits at 750kb, while the remaining five are now in the 900-1,000kb range.
5)  Lastly, given the lower-than-expected number of blocks generated (30 over 7.5 hour period) and the discrepancies in miners’ hash rates, it appears plausible that one or more miners face an adverse impact on its hashing abilities during periods of network congestion.

 

Mad swirly interactive chart of the day 

https://research.tradeblock.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/mempool4.html

further reading ..
https://tradeblock.com/blog/bitcoin-network-capacity-analysis-part-5-stress-test-analysis

Gif of the day 

"plateformes d'échange comme Bitstamp, Coinbase ou Coindesk"   

whaaat??
check your sources, monsieur

I can't believe they're just going to fling the hardfork out there and cross their fingers they get a majority adoption. They must feel it's getting urgent.

They must have a fair level of certainty that it's going to be accepted though. I think the "consensus" issue is not with the miners it's with the commercial community. That's where there are lots of conflicts of interest involved IMO because many in the opposing camp are not actually opposing because they disagree with the change on its own merits, but rather because they have a vision of the ecosystem which a restricted blockchain capacity will help to propel forwards.

For example, I imagine that technologies like payment channels and sidechains will all take on a renewed urgency if it's decided that bitcoin blockchain's performance specs are now written in stone.

That approach in itself is just as dangerous as any blockchain revisions IMO. Either the blockchain needs fixed or it doesn't. It should be seen as independent of the ecosystem around it. Put it this way - if sidechains and payment channels weren't the least bit on the radar, how easy would it be to get consensus for the blocksize increase then ? Pretty easy I would have thought.

As a monetary analyst (which I only am in this thread - nowhere else   ) I definitely can see the appeal of leaving it alone and letting the ecosystem develop and take on the capacity growth.

On the other hand as a technologist (which I am outside of this thread as well) I'd have to side with Gavin and say - we don't know w.t.f.'s going to happen with the ecosystem and we don't care, lets fix this. I heard a guy from google talk about it (maybe it was Mike Hearn himself), with particular regard to scaling issues that he'd experienced at Google. That was enough for me - it will be cancerous to let the blockchain get anywhere near scaleability symptoms.

Get the thing fixed and let that be the end of it. Thats my view anyway.

EDIT: Adam's post is pretty condemnatory ! Amazing stuff. This is getting interesting - high tension. I'm sure Hollywood will revisit it at some point in the future.

In french sorry, but very important ;-)

http://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/2015/06/17/20002-20150617ARTFIG00368-les-grecs-se-tournent-vers-la-monnaie-virtuelle.php

So I've been trying to keep up with developments with the (likely) upcoming Bitcoin hard fork and I have to say it's incredibly complex and difficult to understand.

There seems to be two main camps - Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen ('for' the 20mb block size mod hard fork ) versus Adam Back and many others deeply concerned and worried by what's being suggested.

I'm no expert on the technological issues associated with the change but I'm picking up a sense that Hearn and Andresen are frustrated by the slow pace of development to effect improvement in the protocol and are pushing for this hard fork in a bull-dozing-through manner on the assumption that it just can't be achieved any other way and that they have many senior people across many major stakeholder organisations within the Bitcoin realm very much onside. But there are many many people in considerable disagreement, not the least of which are Chinese miners that are grouping together pushing for a more modest 8mb block size change.

Adam Back has written a very long and (IMO) well articulated posting to Mike Hearn on why the approach they're pushing for is so high risk and so problematic. You can read the whole thing here http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34208939/

Of particular note is this bit:



I wonder what others think about all of this? It's possible something fairly disadvantageous is about to happen to Bitcoin and it could come as a big shock for everyone not following what's going on.

As has been pointed out before, BTC is the backbone and entry crypto for every other alt. As BTC goes up, alts go up with it (and sometimes accelerate over and above the BTC rate of increase). Likewise, if BTC was to suffer some alarming fork where there was a failure consensus that went on for more then a few hours, the results could be disastrous and we could see value demolished with an even more devastating effect on alts.

Interested to hear views.

This says Bitcoin XT is being created next week

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-price-surges-250-magnificent-price-action/

What, Bitcoin forking next week? WTF.

I would love for someone to hold a DASH sign in front of capital building in Greece and then post it in Facebook. In greek it says, My money is safe, is yours?

I think this one's so much funnier.

Here is my answer to your question RenegadeMan ~LOL~

http://sandiegofreepress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/head-in-sand.jpg

see you again @ .0085

idk. pretty much all they have is a record of long term stability with few if any forks. stability is good, forks are bad. hopefully we can test and retest and test some more before anymore future releases. our stability over the last several months has been great and i hope we continue down that path.

oh and it would be nice to get china on board too, btc38!  

this is great. i was asking for this in the dash wallet on dct but to no avail. hopefully they or we can support instantx, darksend and a in wallet exchange.

Have just seen Janet Yellen on TV in a sound byte warning of "the grave circumstances" if Greece fails to meet its creditor obligations (or at least negotiate further). Meanwhile thousands are amassing outside the Greek Parliament to pressure them to not back down.

19 Euro finance ministers are meeting in Luxembourg and no guesses as to what the main subject of discussion will be.

And the Greeks have just handed down a report from their "Truth Committee on Public Debt" that declared all debt to the troika "Illegal, Illegitimate, And Odious". (The troika being The IMF, ECB and Euro Commission; read about it here http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-17/greek-debt-committee-just-declared-all-debt-illegal-illegitimate-and-odious). So, they're in effect saying "Take your stupid debt and shove it...."

Potentially, there is movement of capital into other channels in response, crypto being one of them. It could get very interesting over the next few days.

Why is Dash not listed at BTC38? Can we spam the hell out of them to add Dash? For god sakes Dash is a top 5 currency!