Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 2322. (Read 9723858 times)

http://cointelegraph.com/news/113977/peter-todd-foresees-greater-state-interference-in-crypto-stellar-adopts-scp-protocol

Can you have mass adoption without placating the regulators?

LoL. Or maybe Vertoe just hasn't spent 25 odd years witnessing all the incoherent trainwrecks that are "enforced consensual innovation"  

Thanks Fernando.

Just to clarify,

* I think the name change was necessary for mass adoption and the branding was eventually a fantastic outcome - genius in fact, provided the cash approach stays.

* Can DASH compete with Bitcoin? 100%. $3 > $500 / DASH is not out of the question.

* Is the current tech approach a good one? 100%. Cash is going out of fashion in the Western World. Mobile payment systems are forcing it out. People like cash, so digital cash is a winning formula - genius in fact.

 > I can now go on the London Underground and tap my bank card to get access to the metro network. No need to buy a ticket, just swipe my card. Sounds great. But, there is one big issue, my bank card is tracked by the London Underground network people. That means, anyone with a warrant can, and probably has, obtained access to me, my personal details, and my complete banking history. Great utility being able to swipe, pay and go. Bollocks implementation - but hey, 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, right?' See, bollocks.

> DASH on mobile, with scan and instant pay means all the utility of instant digital cash, none of the bollocks.

* Keep focus on this goal. It's a great one. It's the mass adoption thing that has me concerned. I know it sounds like a contradiction, but its not: Its not what you do, its the way that you do it.

Exactly. It is a strawman argument to compare Bitcoin in year 6 to DASH in year 2 when it comes to the development situation. If you want to complain, there are other things one can legitimately dislike about this project -- but criticizing this coin because it still primarly based around the goals of one person when it is only 18 months old reeks of sour grapes or a contrary agenda.

lol me no. Not much volume to be calling "dumping" anyway.

Why am I talking to a bot?

Are you dumping right now ?

Who you Terzobot?

You are silently dumping !

Well, if you want to include them in the code you'll have to go through the standard github process. What I'm saying is that the foundation has absolutely no say in that.

Thank you for clarifying fernando.

There you have it coins.. nothing stopping anyone from contributing/make their own services/etc.

I think you are giving the foundation too much weight. That probably comes from Evan leading it and the dev team. Truth is, the foundation was created to represent Dash/Darkcoin when a legal entity was needed and support the development of the coin in any way we devised, but that has not happened yet. In the meantime the board of the foundation, in which I serve, is just another discussion forum of a few volunteers, one of which is Evan.

Some of us do other things for Dash besides being in the foundation, but they are not foundation actions, they are ours. We, the foundation board, are just a bunch of guys trying to help. Our members have trusted us with some funds in exchange for being members and we still need to come with a plan to use them in the best possible way to help Dash. If you need to change something in the code the foundation has absolutely no say in that.

3 USD 

Can I buy a kebab with DASH and can you post it to me from Turkey to the UK? Maybe we will make history as it might become a $3,000 kebab 

Is has that now but it didn't when Satoshi was creating it. It was essentially a one-man-show (albeit with increasing levels of participation from others as it evolved).


I think you need to be more specific for that argument to carry any weight because at a purely philosophical level it doesn't hold much water with me at least.

How would a "democratic fallback infrastructure" have worked in this project's favour other than killing potentially smart ideas that didn't have "developer consensus" ? Human innovation never has consensus - that's why there's a flotilla of options to choose from out there in the alt-coin market.

For "democratic fallback infrastructure" you might as well read "corporate subversion by stealth" or "self interested debasement". There are far too few people involved in the creative aspects of such endeavours to have consensus enforced upon them as a rule as if it were some kind of mining algo. Sure it's better that "the vision" carries everyone along with it, acknowledges all contributions fairly and stays open minded, but not at the expense of losing the vision itself.

I made that video

Thanks, DefendKebab.

Your sig made me laugh, as well as the 10hour long defend kebab song on youtube.

 

So the foundation is busy with currency development  - good.

Distractions? Depends how much of the work we do. If it's a pull request to allow our qt extension and that doesn't infringe on privacy and security but adds to the scope of the currency - why frakking not.

3rd party apps are open to go for.  And by talking about this here expect [PREANN] ExtendaCoin™ with moon worthy QT extensionStore™.

could be 0.013 otherwise it could retest 0.010 resistance.

* SPR is not in limbo

Back on topic.

* Approach the foundation.....I guess that is what we are talking about.

* Create apps - there was a pretty big decision last summer to steer clear of apps in the medium-term and maintain focus on currency development, in particular mobile. I 100% agreed with that and still do. Distractions now would be just that, distractions from the primary goal from last summers decision on the mobile front.

* The mass adoption issue is a slightly different issue. There are overlaps, but for now its a Foundation direction and contribution to direction discussion, IMO.