The calc is wrong in regards to a 1/3 of Spain's GDP.
$1.2 Million per day x 365 = $438 million
Spanish GDP = $1.35 Trillion
438 / 1350 = 0.3244
Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 3621. (Read 9723733 times)
November 06, 2014, 03:06:11 PM
$1.2 Million per day x 365 = $438 million
Spanish GDP = $1.35 Trillion
438 / 1350 = 0.3244
November 06, 2014, 03:04:59 PM
i like the idea of a coinmerge, solves one of the biggest problems .. trying to increase the development team
which just isnt easy with every development team tied to its own coin. The benefits from such strategic alliance
would be immense.
which just isnt easy with every development team tied to its own coin. The benefits from such strategic alliance
would be immense.
Which is all fine and dandy if it happened without printing new DRK. If it came from the existing DRK supply so be it, but not changing the supply. It's a horrible idea.
I agree that it's a horrible idea regardless where the DRK comes from.
I dont understand what you guys mean by printing in this case. They would just be buying DRK at a fixed exchange rate, their coins have value. It would be exactly the same if they were to sell for BTC and buy DRK but obviously the liquidity wouldnt allow to transfer the whole SDC market cap at once their price would dump and DRK would pump, therefore a special arrangement would need to be make so that they can transfer at a fixed rate. I really dont see any problem with this, why is it so difficult to support progress and development?
November 06, 2014, 03:04:43 PM
************* Amber Alert - Bitcoin Hashrate ***************
For a while now I've started to become aware of an emerging "elephant in the room".
Everyone is so obsessively fixated with price that the world of cryptocurrency may have completely forgotten what constitutes value. The Darkcoin community is more aware than this than most because we have witnessed an almost perfect inverse coupling between price and value in our investment. 6 months ago, when Darkcoin didn't have 1000 masternodes, didn't have RC3 complete, didn't have masternode payments in place, didn't have background anonymisation of the *entire* coin supply and didn't have the prospect of instantx, its value was 5 times what it is now.
Similarly, Darkcoin's "mothership", Bitcoin has witnessed a collapse in its value to 25% of its ATH while a massive infrastructure explosion has taken place around the world in commercial, technological, promotional and regulatory sectors.
The real elephant in the room that's emerging throughout this though is the fact that Bitcoin's value is being expressed, but as hashrate, not trading price.
The Bitcoin hashrate right now is nothing short of absolutely f*cking phenomenal. 320 Peta Hashes with something like 800 Terra hashes PER DAY being added.
In monetary terms, that's around 1.2 Million Dollars PER DAY worth of mining power being put onto the Bitcoin network. In a year, you're talking about a third of Spanish GDP worth of mining power being put onto the Bitcoin network.
Folks - this is the elephant in the room. Bitcoin's value IS going up. Value is being ploughed into the currency like there's no tomorrow. It's only a matter of time before this starts being reflected in markets and when it does, top rated alts will benefit as well IMO.
To put that into perspective, Darkcoin has 0.72 Gigahash of mining power on its network. Bitcoin is adding 1100 times that EVERY DAY on average. Not only that, the rate at which mining power is being added itself is increasing.
Nobody seems to be aware of this growth - least of all this idiot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYJdOiLqSxE
Look at the number of views this fantastic summary has even though it's only 3 weeks old - barely more than 500: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_io3WQtTCI&list=UUiO-xF1LptwIJlyTwF5mWUQ&index=5
It's the canary in the coal mine:
https://blockchain.info/charts/hash-rate
Have a look at this chart (sort by descending hashpower) - Bitcoin, as far as mining power is concerned, has left the pack in the dust. The nearest competitor for hashpower is not even 1 terrahash. The alts are non-existent compared to Bitcoin as far as network security goes.
http://www.coinwarz.com/cryptocurrency?sort=hashrate&dir=desc
Although many people say that hashpower doesn't matter as long as you've got "enough", it surely does matter when you've got 1 third of the GDP of Spain being invested in it annually (and increasing daily).
We must prick our ears up and embrace a heightened awareness of this phenomenon which is incredible IMO.
The rich few with millions of dollars to throw at ASICs are consolidating their position at an accelerating rate. Whoopee!
November 06, 2014, 03:03:34 PM
Please, let's be respectful with each other. We all love our coins. Our devs have been talking and they all recognize the value of the other coin. This is no bailing out. There is no way to know what would happen in the future, both for ShadowCash or for Darkcoin. The market is difficult and that is why we think this makes sense. We both have nice features planned, but the market doesn't always recognizes them because success needs more than features.
Thank you, and don't get me wrong I respect that Duffield and Dark see the value in SDC and are approaching with this offer. As an investor I just personally am iffy on whether the deal is beneficial to SDC or not, but I'm not on the SDC team so all I can do is watch. Either way this brings alot of new eyeballs to SDC.
November 06, 2014, 03:02:51 PM
ShadowCash Proposal Conditions
1.) Converted funds will be locked for a period of 90 days
2.) We're looking for some kind of commitment from the core team that they'd work on darkcoin for at least a year beyond this. They could work on whatever they like, at the pace they're working now.
3.) DRK Will be paid for in a 1:1 relationship, dollar wise from this moment forward. 494909 (SDC MarketCap) / 9833182 (DRK Market Cap), therefore 5.03% of the total number of DRK coins will be created on a future block, totaling 240277DRK. The exchange rate will be 31.33SDC for 1DRK.
4.) SDC users will be awarded DRK based on coins destroyed and signed (sign the private key proving you own the key). A user will send coins to a non-redeemable address, if those coins for example equal 1% (64435 SDC) of the total number of SDC ( that would amount to 2056DRK being awarded.
1.) Converted funds will be locked for a period of 90 days
2.) We're looking for some kind of commitment from the core team that they'd work on darkcoin for at least a year beyond this. They could work on whatever they like, at the pace they're working now.
3.) DRK Will be paid for in a 1:1 relationship, dollar wise from this moment forward. 494909 (SDC MarketCap) / 9833182 (DRK Market Cap), therefore 5.03% of the total number of DRK coins will be created on a future block, totaling 240277DRK. The exchange rate will be 31.33SDC for 1DRK.
4.) SDC users will be awarded DRK based on coins destroyed and signed (sign the private key proving you own the key). A user will send coins to a non-redeemable address, if those coins for example equal 1% (64435 SDC) of the total number of SDC ( that would amount to 2056DRK being awarded.
Evan, I had no idea you were considering "printing" more Darkcoins to bail out ShadowCash. There should be a better solution. This will create a bad precedent and what will stop you not 'print' more money in the future? Ok, I get it, we need new dev team but we don't have to bail out a failing coin. Let's think about an alternative plan.
I don't think "printing" is a good analogy to what we're doing. It's more like moving their marketcap in ours, remember they're destroying coins to create them in Darkcoin. Besides that, we've talked about reducing the eventual coin supply to compensate for the new coins, so there's actually no inflationary effect in the long term. I'll add this to the document.
Also, we're not acting unilaterally. There was an idea that has been proposed to their team and will only be done with the consent of the community.
November 06, 2014, 03:02:10 PM
i like the idea of a coinmerge, solves one of the biggest problems .. trying to increase the development team
which just isnt easy with every development team tied to its own coin. The benefits from such strategic alliance
would be immense.
which just isnt easy with every development team tied to its own coin. The benefits from such strategic alliance
would be immense.
Which is all fine and dandy if it happened without printing new DRK. If it came from the existing DRK supply so be it, but not changing the supply. It's a horrible idea.
I agree that it's a horrible idea regardless where the DRK comes from.
If you're against it, that reaffirms my position of being all for it....
I'm against it and I'm a long-time supporter of DRK. What does that say about me?
November 06, 2014, 03:01:22 PM
i like the idea of a coinmerge, solves one of the biggest problems .. trying to increase the development team
which just isnt easy with every development team tied to its own coin. The benefits from such strategic alliance
would be immense.
which just isnt easy with every development team tied to its own coin. The benefits from such strategic alliance
would be immense.
Which is all fine and dandy if it happened without printing new DRK. If it came from the existing DRK supply so be it, but not changing the supply. It's a horrible idea.
the way i see it this is a one time print / burn thing so Shadowcoin can be merged into Darkcoin, after that its just one coin / one blockchain
and a whole lot of new users
I think we will need to discuss this some more, but there is a certain need to combine forces for the alt coins in order to survive.
At the expense of changing the max supply on a whim. How is that any different than the US government deciding it needs to print more money? DRK's max cap has been known and now we are thinking about altering that. That goes against what crypto is. That's no different of an altercation than rolling back a blockchain. You're still altering the fundamentals of the coin.
November 06, 2014, 03:00:23 PM
Evan, I had no idea you were considering "printing" more Darkcoins to bail out ShadowCash. There should be a better solution. This will create a bad precedent and what will stop you not 'print' more money in the future? Ok, I get it, we need new dev team but we don't have to bail out a failing coin. Let's think about an alternative plan.
No offense but this is not a "bail out" to SDC, otherwise there are plenty of Anoncoins that Dark could buy out for no good reason. What this is is a last minute attempt to gain control of Shadowcoin's main selling point, ZK Snarks which offers true trustless, zero knowledge anonymity. It's not about HTML wallets or fancy GUI graphics, those can be bought rather easily.
I admit as an SDC investor it would be nice to have the Dark name recognition behind the coin but I also don't like the idea of my chunk of investment in SDC being worth 31x less. Valuating SDC's proportion based on market cap is folly because when ZK is released it is going to set the crypto world on fire and put SDC at the very least on equal footing with Dark market-cap wise.
Here is a simple answer: I never heard about ShadowCoin before. a) If your ShadowCoin is really great and has value then why are you agreeing to destroying it? Just continue to work on it. b) If it is doomed to fail then why would it be saved at the expense of Darkcoin investors?
Please, let's be respectful with each other. We all love our coins. Our devs have been talking and they all recognize the value of the other coin. This is no bailing out. There is no way to know what would happen in the future, both for ShadowCash or for Darkcoin. The market is difficult and that is why we think this makes sense. We both have nice features planned, but the market doesn't always recognizes them because success needs more than features.
November 06, 2014, 02:59:41 PM
i like the idea of a coinmerge, solves one of the biggest problems .. trying to increase the development team
which just isnt easy with every development team tied to its own coin. The benefits from such strategic alliance
would be immense.
which just isnt easy with every development team tied to its own coin. The benefits from such strategic alliance
would be immense.
Which is all fine and dandy if it happened without printing new DRK. If it came from the existing DRK supply so be it, but not changing the supply. It's a horrible idea.
I agree that it's a horrible idea regardless where the DRK comes from.
If you're against it, that reaffirms my position of being all for it....
November 06, 2014, 02:58:42 PM
i like the idea of a coinmerge, solves one of the biggest problems .. trying to increase the development team
which just isnt easy with every development team tied to its own coin. The benefits from such strategic alliance
would be immense.
which just isnt easy with every development team tied to its own coin. The benefits from such strategic alliance
would be immense.
Which is all fine and dandy if it happened without printing new DRK. If it came from the existing DRK supply so be it, but not changing the supply. It's a horrible idea.
the way i see it this is a one time print / burn thing so Shadowcoin can be merged into Darkcoin, after that its just one coin / one blockchain
and a whole lot of new users
I think we will need to discuss this some more, but there is a certain need to combine forces for the alt coins in order to survive
and Evan will not stay lead developer forever.... so there needs to be some thought for the future of Darkcoin and its development team as well.
November 06, 2014, 02:56:14 PM
i like the idea of a coinmerge, solves one of the biggest problems .. trying to increase the development team
which just isnt easy with every development team tied to its own coin. The benefits from such strategic alliance
would be immense.
which just isnt easy with every development team tied to its own coin. The benefits from such strategic alliance
would be immense.
Which is all fine and dandy if it happened without printing new DRK. If it came from the existing DRK supply so be it, but not changing the supply. It's a horrible idea.
I agree that it's a horrible idea regardless where the DRK comes from.
November 06, 2014, 02:55:40 PM
Here is a simple answer: I never heard about ShadowCoin before. a) If your ShadowCoin is really great and has value then why are you agreeing to destroying it? Just continue to work on it. b) If it is doomed to fail then why would it be saved at the expense of Darkcoin investors?
No one has agreed to anything. This is just a proposal from Eric, as far as I know no one in the SDC camp has accepted it. I just find it convenient this doc hits when ZK Snarks is in private testnet. I don't think any merger would benefit SDC until ZK is released and the market reacts accordingly to find its price point because that is the true value of SDC.
To put it in perspective, this would be like Litecoin coming to Dark a week or two before the release of Masternodes and offering to merge with DRK. It might sound good initially but may not benefit Dark long-term at that point. I think if a merger were to happen SDC can get a better concession if the SDC camp just waits a few days.
November 06, 2014, 02:54:20 PM
************* Amber Alert - Bitcoin Hashrate ***************
For a while now I've started to become aware of an emerging "elephant in the room".
Everyone is so obsessively fixated with price that the world of cryptocurrency may have completely forgotten what constitutes value. The Darkcoin community is more aware than this than most because we have witnessed an almost perfect inverse coupling between price and value in our investment. 6 months ago, when Darkcoin didn't have 1000 masternodes, didn't have RC3 complete, didn't have masternode payments in place, didn't have background anonymisation of the *entire* coin supply and didn't have the prospect of instantx, its value was 5 times what it is now.
Similarly, Darkcoin's "mothership", Bitcoin has witnessed a collapse in its value to 25% of its ATH while a massive infrastructure explosion has taken place around the world in commercial, technological, promotional and regulatory sectors.
The real elephant in the room that's emerging throughout this though is the fact that Bitcoin's value is being expressed, but as hashrate, not trading price.
The Bitcoin hashrate right now is nothing short of absolutely f*cking phenomenal. 320 Peta Hashes with something like 800 Terra hashes PER DAY being added.
In monetary terms, that's around 1.2 Million Dollars PER DAY worth of mining power being put onto the Bitcoin network. In a year, you're talking about a third of Spanish GDP worth of mining power being put onto the Bitcoin network.
Folks - this is the elephant in the room. Bitcoin's value IS going up. Value is being ploughed into the currency like there's no tomorrow. It's only a matter of time before this starts being reflected in markets and when it does, top rated alts will benefit as well IMO.
To put that into perspective, Darkcoin has 0.72 Gigahash of mining power on its network. Bitcoin is adding 1100 times that EVERY DAY on average. Not only that, the rate at which mining power is being added itself is increasing.
Nobody seems to be aware of this growth - least of all this idiot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYJdOiLqSxE
Look at the number of views this fantastic summary has even though it's only 3 weeks old - barely more than 500: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_io3WQtTCI&list=UUiO-xF1LptwIJlyTwF5mWUQ&index=5
It's the canary in the coal mine:
https://blockchain.info/charts/hash-rate
Have a look at this chart (sort by descending hashpower) - Bitcoin, as far as mining power is concerned, has left the pack in the dust. The nearest competitor for hashpower is not even 1 terrahash. The alts are non-existent compared to Bitcoin as far as network security goes.
http://www.coinwarz.com/cryptocurrency?sort=hashrate&dir=desc
Although many people say that hashpower doesn't matter as long as you've got "enough", it surely does matter when you've got 1 third of the GDP of Spain being invested in it annually (and increasing daily).
We must prick our ears up and embrace a heightened awareness of this phenomenon which is incredible IMO.
Well said.. and thanks for the calcs for the lazy ones.
The calc is wrong in regards to a 1/3 of Spain's GDP.
November 06, 2014, 02:53:12 PM
************* Amber Alert - Bitcoin Hashrate ***************
For a while now I've started to become aware of an emerging "elephant in the room".
Everyone is so obsessively fixated with price that the world of cryptocurrency may have completely forgotten what constitutes value. The Darkcoin community is more aware than this than most because we have witnessed an almost perfect inverse coupling between price and value in our investment. 6 months ago, when Darkcoin didn't have 1000 masternodes, didn't have RC3 complete, didn't have masternode payments in place, didn't have background anonymisation of the *entire* coin supply and didn't have the prospect of instantx, its value was 5 times what it is now.
Similarly, Darkcoin's "mothership", Bitcoin has witnessed a collapse in its value to 25% of its ATH while a massive infrastructure explosion has taken place around the world in commercial, technological, promotional and regulatory sectors.
The real elephant in the room that's emerging throughout this though is the fact that Bitcoin's value is being expressed, but as hashrate, not trading price.
The Bitcoin hashrate right now is nothing short of absolutely f*cking phenomenal. 320 Peta Hashes with something like 800 Terra hashes PER DAY being added.
In monetary terms, that's around 1.2 Million Dollars PER DAY worth of mining power being put onto the Bitcoin network. In a year, you're talking about a third of Spanish GDP worth of mining power being put onto the Bitcoin network.
Folks - this is the elephant in the room. Bitcoin's value IS going up. Value is being ploughed into the currency like there's no tomorrow. It's only a matter of time before this starts being reflected in markets and when it does, top rated alts will benefit as well IMO.
To put that into perspective, Darkcoin has 0.72 Gigahash of mining power on its network. Bitcoin is adding 1100 times that EVERY DAY on average. Not only that, the rate at which mining power is being added itself is increasing.
Nobody seems to be aware of this growth - least of all this idiot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYJdOiLqSxE
Look at the number of views this fantastic summary has even though it's only 3 weeks old - barely more than 500: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_io3WQtTCI&list=UUiO-xF1LptwIJlyTwF5mWUQ&index=5
It's the canary in the coal mine:
https://blockchain.info/charts/hash-rate
Have a look at this chart (sort by descending hashpower) - Bitcoin, as far as mining power is concerned, has left the pack in the dust. The nearest competitor for hashpower is not even 1 terrahash. The alts are non-existent compared to Bitcoin as far as network security goes.
http://www.coinwarz.com/cryptocurrency?sort=hashrate&dir=desc
Although many people say that hashpower doesn't matter as long as you've got "enough", it surely does matter when you've got 1 third of the GDP of Spain being invested in it annually (and increasing daily).
We must prick our ears up and embrace a heightened awareness of this phenomenon which is incredible IMO.
Well said.. and thanks for the calcs for the lazy ones.
November 06, 2014, 02:52:16 PM
i like the idea of a coinmerge, solves one of the biggest problems .. trying to increase the development team
which just isnt easy with every development team tied to its own coin. The benefits from such strategic alliance
would be immense.
which just isnt easy with every development team tied to its own coin. The benefits from such strategic alliance
would be immense.
Which is all fine and dandy if it happened without printing new DRK. If it came from the existing DRK supply so be it, but not changing the supply. It's a horrible idea.
November 06, 2014, 02:51:41 PM
Evan, I had no idea you were considering "printing" more Darkcoins to bail out ShadowCash. There should be a better solution. This will create a bad precedent and what will stop you not 'print' more money in the future? Ok, I get it, we need new dev team but we don't have to bail out a failing coin. Let's think about an alternative plan.
No offense but this is not a "bail out" to SDC, otherwise there are plenty of Anoncoins that Dark could buy out for no good reason. What this is is a last minute attempt to gain control of Shadowcoin's main selling point, ZK Snarks which offers true trustless, zero knowledge anonymity. It's not about HTML wallets or fancy GUI graphics, those can be bought rather easily.
I admit as an SDC investor it would be nice to have the Dark name recognition behind the coin but I also don't like the idea of my chunk of investment in SDC being worth 31x less. Valuating SDC's proportion based on market cap is folly because when ZK is released it is going to set the crypto world on fire and put SDC at the very least on equal footing with Dark market-cap wise.
Here is a simple answer: I never heard about ShadowCoin before. a) If your ShadowCoin is really great and has value then why are you agreeing to destroying it? Just continue to work on it. b) If it is doomed to fail then why would it be saved at the expense of Darkcoin investors?
November 06, 2014, 02:50:31 PM
i like the idea of a coinmerge, solves one of the (in my eyes) biggest problems .. trying to increase the development team
longterm which just isnt easy with every development team tied to its own coin. The benefits from such strategic alliance
would be immense.
Companies all over the world are doing this.. incorporating / joining other companies to enlarge technicall knowhow and increase marketshare
(think of Google, Facebook)
longterm which just isnt easy with every development team tied to its own coin. The benefits from such strategic alliance
would be immense.
Companies all over the world are doing this.. incorporating / joining other companies to enlarge technicall knowhow and increase marketshare
(think of Google, Facebook)
November 06, 2014, 02:47:02 PM
Evan, I had no idea you were considering "printing" more Darkcoins to bail out ShadowCash. There should be a better solution. This will create a bad precedent and what will stop you not 'print' more money in the future? Ok, I get it, we need new dev team but we don't have to bail out a failing coin. Let's think about an alternative plan.
No offense but this is not a "bail out" to SDC, otherwise there are plenty of Anoncoins that Dark could buy out for no good reason. What this is is a last minute attempt to gain control of Shadowcoin's main selling point, ZK Snarks which offers true trustless, zero knowledge anonymity. It's not about HTML wallets or fancy GUI graphics, those can be bought rather easily.
I admit as an SDC investor it would be nice to have the Dark name recognition behind the coin but I also don't like the idea of my chunk of investment in SDC being worth 31x less. Valuating SDC's proportion based on market cap is folly because when ZK is released it is going to set the crypto world on fire and put SDC at the very least on equal footing with Dark market-cap wise.
November 06, 2014, 02:46:22 PM
Yeah, not fan of printing more DRK. If the SDC devs want to join, great, but not at the expense of creating new supply even with a lockup. You're fundamentally changing the reward structure in order to attract talent. Remember the talks about a superblock for an airdrop.... lets not go down this path again.
November 06, 2014, 02:44:45 PM
ShadowCash Proposal Conditions
1.) Converted funds will be locked for a period of 90 days
2.) We're looking for some kind of commitment from the core team that they'd work on darkcoin for at least a year beyond this. They could work on whatever they like, at the pace they're working now.
3.) DRK Will be paid for in a 1:1 relationship, dollar wise from this moment forward. 494909 (SDC MarketCap) / 9833182 (DRK Market Cap), therefore 5.03% of the total number of DRK coins will be created on a future block, totaling 240277DRK. The exchange rate will be 31.33SDC for 1DRK.
4.) SDC users will be awarded DRK based on coins destroyed and signed (sign the private key proving you own the key). A user will send coins to a non-redeemable address, if those coins for example equal 1% (64435 SDC) of the total number of SDC ( that would amount to 2056DRK being awarded.
1.) Converted funds will be locked for a period of 90 days
2.) We're looking for some kind of commitment from the core team that they'd work on darkcoin for at least a year beyond this. They could work on whatever they like, at the pace they're working now.
3.) DRK Will be paid for in a 1:1 relationship, dollar wise from this moment forward. 494909 (SDC MarketCap) / 9833182 (DRK Market Cap), therefore 5.03% of the total number of DRK coins will be created on a future block, totaling 240277DRK. The exchange rate will be 31.33SDC for 1DRK.
4.) SDC users will be awarded DRK based on coins destroyed and signed (sign the private key proving you own the key). A user will send coins to a non-redeemable address, if those coins for example equal 1% (64435 SDC) of the total number of SDC ( that would amount to 2056DRK being awarded.
Evan, I had no idea you were considering "printing" more Darkcoins to bail out ShadowCash. There should be a better solution. This will create a bad precedent and what will stop you not 'print' more money in the future? Ok, I get it, we need new dev team but we don't have to bail out a failing coin. Let's think about an alternative plan.
Not if we vote.. Perhaps a small update to the masternodes to allow them to vote on items like this? This ensures voters stake in Darkcoins future as well as democratic decentralized decisions.
Agreed 100% This sets such a horrible precedent and the opposite of what Crypto stands for. The opposite of what we should stand for.
Agree too. Where is the 'you don't print money out of thin air with crypto ' ?
Jump to: