Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 2461. (Read 9723768 times)

I can't believe how can be so stupid to change name of the great Darkcoin in while when coin was on the way to get close to BTC price.Change name at this moment is the total disaster for this coin.I've sold all my 1600 coins and like to say ...good bye Darkcoin.I'm so sad because I was with Darkcoin since first day. Bye my dear Darkcoin .Developers buried you at crypto cementary in while when you was so strong .I'm very sad and promise do not buy even single dashcoin

+1
Who bailed once will bail twice...

Once again I can understand why he wanted to go. What bothered me was how he did it.

Thank you to those who have RTd so far...his posting here may mean nothing, but it will help for him to know that he was valued here.

Currently, ~2424 masternodes. Masternode coins aren't off limits by any means... at various price levels, owners may feel attracted toward cashing out vs continuing to collect income streams.

vertoe is dumping?

how many coins are in nodes now? im surprised the price isnt much higher because of all of these coins that are essentially off limits.

Probably better if he didn't come back. Don't need things like this happening again. I doubt he bailed because of the name change.. that would be absolutely silly. I didn't like the name either, but I wasn't about to sell all my Darkcoin and run away. There must be more to it than that. Why beg him to come back? Lets move on and look towards the future.

+1

Vertoe, it is so good to hear from you, I have missed you, and I am not alone, as many posts here make clear. That is not to say that I agree with you entirely (or even substantially) on the substance of your post. On the other hand, I cannot say that I do not find an element of agreement in your concerns, however at this point and on balance I find that at this stage of development I am happy with the situation I find here. I think that Tantestefana raises a valid question that I too would like to hear answered. Other than your frustration with the managerial situation, do you have any specific concerns with the tech as it stands, and more importantly, do you believe you have potential solutions that have not been given fair consideration?

Given that I would like to think I played a small part in convincing Evan that a name change was in the best interest of this project, and his initially strident opposition, it seems obvious that Evan (whatever his dictatorial aspirations may or may not be) is open to input from the community. I for one would like to hear your concerns--though I hasten to add that I think DashTalk.org should be the venue for such a discussion. I would like to add my voice to the chorus of calls for your reintegration into the community, recognizing that some admission should be given to your rash behavior. If you can recognize that you feel slighted by Evan, you should also be able to recognize that you would not appreciate being on the receiving end of the behavior you exhibited as well. I trust you are not counted among those who consider an eye for an eye as a valid system for the creation of a better society.

I sincerely hope that your post here was a step towards beginning a conversation, and not simply a drive-by shooting. You have been an asset to this community, and I would like to think that whatever your grievances, you can see that it has not been a one-way street, and that you will return to help bring to fruition the hope that we share, for a medium of exchange unfettered by the prying eyes and controlling hands of the powers that be.

You have a valid point about how devastating it would be to lose Evan. I also think the market is smart enough to understand that he is the lynchpin, and has priced the coin accordingly. I have to remind myself that we are not even 15 months into this project. Perhaps you can see that, at this very early time in the development cycle, it's actually necessary to have a lead architect with a vision to craft solutions to the major problems with Bitcoin.  The centralized coding elements like the sporks and the reference node are just temporary tools needed for prototyping. The reference node is about to be written out of the code, so it's apparent that Evan is striving for long term decentralization.

It's key to remember that this software, as smooth has put it, has no formal specification. I would consider InstantX to be a proof of concept, and still likely to have attacks brought against it until that concept is hardened.  As DASH survives some attacks, and as the DASH blockchain gets more mileage on it, the currency's reputation will follow.

I personally think the rebranding could have been handled better, but, well, here we are. The blockchain is still getting taller, no end in sight. I hope you'll be there with us when DASH graduates from the cottage industry phase.

In the end, I think Vertoe and Evan simply had different ideals and Vertoe couldn't convince Evan or change the direction enough.  I hope it wasn't as shallow a disagreement as a name change.  I'd suspect it ran deeper.  I can totally understand, but I'm happy here because I see this project much like Evan does.  I see us changing the world when going main stream.  But being an underground currency limits the revolution, IMO.  But it is important to me that the coin end up decentralized.  I know that Evan's "stop button" can only stop enforcement to the last version of the coin. It's not that much power.  It's just a safety switch.  So I'm not concerned about it.  I don't see how the Masternode Network is anything but decentralized, and having a two tiered system is quite brilliant in my opinion.  Checks and balances.  Perhaps a 3rd tier would make it even better?

Anyway, like I said, I'm in this to make a difference in the world, the main fat section of the bell curve world.  it would be super if Vertoe could change his view of the project, but I suspect he has ideals that simply don't match.  If he did start another project, though, I would be tempted

Once only tx is very clever...first darknet colored coin...

The major difference I see is that during that first one year period of Bitcoin that you mention when it was run by one person it wasnt worth anything in terms of fiat.  Now you have a similar situation with DARK or DASH however there are 15+ million dollars of peoples hard earned money at stake.  All in the hands of and at the pity of one person.  Do you concur that there is a difference?

I must be missing something.

DASH was originally Evan's idea and a little more than a year into the project he is still the primary decision maker.

Bitcoin was originally Satoshi's idea and a little more than a year into the project (that would be early 2010) he was still the primary decision maker.

Why are we being held to a completely different standard compared to the most successful crytpocurreny project to date?

Young projects like this one need a strong guiding hand or else they will not be able to evolve (or fix their problems) fast enough to survive. It is about efficiency. Look at the logo selection process. That was handled democratically and people are still having a go at each other a week later over this or that change. Do people really want every decision to be like this?

Vertoe's concerns will be valid if Evan is still the sole decision maker in 2-3 years time. Just like over the 6 years Bitcoin moved from things being under Satoshi's control to using the BIP process, I expect the same here.

In short, holding this coin to a standard that Bitcoin didn't even meet is disingenuous at best and FUD at worst.

Vertoe,

We all known that in the life no one perfect, and of course that include Evan.
And we also know that you are a talent developer. If you stay and fill up the weakness of Evan, you can leading the way you want, and you help the community becoming more diversity.

I agree that the vote was a debacle, and the two last selections only varied based on color, however the logo that won had strong support. If it makes you feel better, the interactions I've had on Twitter about the logo have not featured this complaint. People are responding to this logo in a positive way. The A has been an A, we don't have to worry about the public seeing DRSH. Believe me, in my position, clarity is my first priority as well...

I agree with this, although Vertoe's actions that day were largely based on emotion, I suspect. He is a very talented developer who has definitely done a lot for this project, but he is human. I would be thrilled to have him back. If this post is a twisted olive branch to engage in dialogue towards possibly coming back, then this project just got a lot stronger. Who hasn't made poor decisions in the heat of a moment?

I'm willing to let bygones be bygones...

how about weapon of mass devstruction - hydrodev bomb you guys dropped on dashcoin?

Nope, just one cross post on a relevant thread. Nice smear attempt though. Troll harder.

If I expected any response I would expect discussion on the very valid issues Vertoe raised and not an immediate overreaction and retaliation in the form of calling him a Troll and insinuating that he has financial ulterior motives (trying to buy back cheap coins or whatever that BS was.).

I don't think it's right to allow ex devs - regardless of their history - to get away with pursuing a scorched earth policy just because they put "endless hours" into the project when they were involved.

If Vertoe didn't expect some robust responses then he wouldn't have posted here. There's been the odd disrespectful comment but most have been dignified though assertive. Well what else do you expect with a post like that ?