Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 4783. (Read 9723796 times)

I think we covered most of that. Someone suggested memes only if you want to make those points again.  

Seriously, I do think, in a rather 'out there way', that MNs could be packaged up and floated on the NASDAQ at some point.

El Presidente pointed out that MN wallets can get earned coins sent to a second address. Multi-sig would mean that MNs could be put into a contractual relationship with a third party and these two aspects could keep the MN owners anonymous therefore not compromising the decentralised nature of the network.

The only missing part is how to contractually get MN owners to assign their MNs to a corporation, while maintaining them, without having to tell the corporation who they are. Multi-sig solves one aspect of controlling the money moving out without dual consent, but the corporation might have to have some form of lease agreement.

You're right. I should not tar everyone with the same brush just because I engage with a few rogue trolls and I apologise unreservedly to those I might have offended.

I think it's rather short sighted to be viewing DRK as the money making venture in and of itself.  The real money will be made in cottage industries surrounding DRK, which nobody here ever seems to talk about.  I mean, if someone came up with a secure way to pool resources for a MN, for example, I'd be willing to pay that person a fair fee to use his or her services.

Regarding Masternode fees: miners are mining coins which are so sought after precisely because of the Masternode network and the functionality that it brings to Darkcoin vs. our competition.  In large part, Darkcoin is what it is precisely because of the anonymization system Evan has built, and the Masternode network is the linchpin of that system.  It's rather silly to complain about supporting the very system that makes the coin you are mining unique and valuable, is it not?

And while we're on the subject, who ever said that Masternodes are the only way you'll be able to earn a proof of service return on DRK?

Great post Nthelight, thank you.

Can I have a question that seems very basic but can't get an answer to it... How many miners are required for the coin to function? Is it 1% of the current hashes? What is the mining rate after which there is little benefit for the coin? 10%? 50%? Do not get me wrong, I am not trying to suggest we could have done with less miners - I am just being curious

And sorry if this sounds stupid to you

I`m off for the GER vs ARG football match go away now for 90 min

I can't wait to see which way this goes.
I have reiterated a HOLD on this Coin until we hear from the Dev's
http://cryptoanalytics.trade/

I'm almost indifferent as to what is going on with Litecoin, but they believe that ASICs in the hands of an early few has caused significant downward price pressure as they mine and dump large quantities of LTC.

http://www.reddit.com/r/litecoin/comments/29hz9l/litecoins_solo_miners_the_downward_pressure_youre/

That's similar in many ways to the noobs who are mining DRK in multipools, dumping for LTC and are non-compliant.

@Nthelight: Nice post!

In terms of anonymity Darkcoin has huge algorithmic efficiency advantages over CryptoNote based coins.  It's is the most efficient solution that I know of.  I've reviewed the technical details of other coins who tout anonymity, but they looks more like pseudoscience.

Darkcoin will come out the winner in this technological battle.  With that I must leave you with my bullish Darkcoin anthem...


"      HOOO
      OOOOLD
for the longest time..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NG1qooBzE2w

I couldn't agree more.

Trolls, please read about the "miners" opinions. There are way smarter than you are.

Evan also created the DGW "Dark Gravity Wave" difficulty adjustment algorithm, which has become very useful to the whole altcoin scene.

Wonderful post. thank you.

I have as well.


No. They are not doing "all the actual work to secure the network" other than in a very specific sense (hashing) motivated by a profitability equation. They are not "taxed" in any remote sense of the word. Rather they share the reward with other contributors to "network security" on a 5:1 basis in the miner's favour.


Says who ?

If your idea of "the wealthy" is 10 BTC then it kind of conflicts with your second point "early adopters" who are by definition miners. So on the one hand your arguing that miners are hard done by because their share of the reward is only biased at 5:1 and you want more, on the other hand your complaining that "early adopters" - the very same people - are unreasonably favoured. Some flawed logic going on there.


Thats what some people like to think. The reality is mining has killed off all but the tiniest proportion of crypto currencies because it's a parasites game. Mining does not add value to a coin past a stable hashrate. Rather it depletes it because of the consistent and predictably parasitical behaviour of all but a very few number of miners: mine to dump not to hold.

Once a stable hashrate has been reached, it's in the hands of developers, traders, market development holders and enthusiasts generally to continue to build value - not the mining community who will continue to dump unless the former group are successful.

Of course all of these roles are often co-incidental. Miners are also coin holders, masternode holders, market developers and traders which makes this whole argument a bit of a ridiculous farce. All the same since some seem determined to turn it into a game of toytown politics these things have to be pointed out.


If you can make a reasonable commercial case for that which isn't based on something other than a vague idea of "fairness" and psuedo mining ethics, then I'm all ears. But you'd have to come up with something pretty spectacular because there are at least as many people that like the idea of masternodes as those that don't and it has a load of advantages over a wallet based approach which I've outlined before and am not going to do again.

Finally, just remember this. Every miner is a "tax" on every other miner's income and ALL of them are doing exactly the same thing. Additional mining power doesn't do jack to diversify the network's functionality. Diversifying the reward into contributors who do is therefore the obvious next step and only a blockhead dev wouldn't take it IMO.

We are the core of the network performing the basic functions for anyone using Darkcoin, yet you call us lazy hypocritical parasites? because of a few annoying people? Quite disrespectful to say the least. You're engaging with trolls, and in the process you're actually upsetting genuine supporters/miners.

I've put a lot of work and money in my mining setup supporting what I believe to be first true altcoin (despite issues). I only started somewhere in March 2014, mining Litecoins mostly. It was the only cryptocurrency with some interest to me aside from Bitcoin, but I soon discovered a really interesting cryptocurrency called 'Darkcoin'. I actually bothered to sign up for this forum, mostly to be part of Darkcoin.

However, mining DRK hasn't been profitable at all (for me) and requires a lot of money, time and dedication. Some of the crappiest coins ever are still more profitable to mine than DRK. The price would still need to rise a lot for me to just break-even. I could mine other coins that are more profitable and exchange them for DRK, I could ride the scam waves, but I won't. I want to be part of DRK. I do it with tremendous pride being part of this incredible evolution (and community), despite the money I loose on it. I've learned so many interesting things due to cryptocurrency and this has more value to me than 'profit', but I'm not blind to 'profit'. It is an element of the equation, which should not be ignored.

In my opinion, setting up and running a MN is rediculously easy and is very profitable compared to mining, even in the future with ~2000 MN's. It's a profitable operation within a matter of days (worst case scenario). Mining is profitable maybe after a year, maybe more, maybe never. It's certainly not the smartest/most profitable way to "invest". When RC4 is out and fully working, I should actually consolidate my rigs and convert the money into a masternode and not ever worry again about my electricity bill. 5$/month for hosting cost, all the rest is profit. I currently pay close to €250/month to keep my 45 MH/s infrastructure running, earning me less than 1 DRK/day. Not complaining, just telling you my side of the story.

There is a difference between 'profit' and 'revenue'. Incentive to mine DRK has always been very low due to it's specific supply/distribution algorithm ánd still is today due to it's maintained high net hashrate versus low price. Why is Darkcoin always listed near the bottom of coinwarz.com? Right, cause it's not profitable to mine unless you have a rediculously low kWh price (I'm paying more than $0.1/kWh). Also, I'm not a trader, I'm yet to sell my first Darkcoin and I'm not going to for a very long time. Would prefer to actually use them some day.

Some Dark believers are more upsetting than an entire team of trolls. Nothing trolls say could ever make me change my mind about what I'm currently doing. Evan is doing something truely exceptional, introduced X11 chained algorithms for PoW to enhance the security of the network and Proof of Service masternodes providing a much needed level of anonimity which I consider the biggest flaw in Bitcoin. It's effectively a working "Proof of Stake" model and it will go beyond the current 'added value'. I couldn't care less about the 20% reward masternode owners get. This '20% cut' out of the mining revenue will some day be proven to be irrelevant, as MN's create a lot of additional value. It's an eco-system based on incentives and the reasoning should be correct. Price should go up and eventually even out your earnings as a miner. No reason to get upset over this, as long as it remains within certain limits, I'm totally fine with it. It's true that it is currently biased towards MN's, but this is also required to get things going. Marginal profitability for MN owners would not have gotten us to +600 MN's already. I get that.

I'm sure that many merchants will implement DRK as a payment method, once the core functionality has been proofed. Everybody knows we're still in the core development phase. I'm still extremely 'bullish' on DRK and will continue to be. Stop fighting trolls and help the Darkcoin team @ darkcointalk.org.

Regarding my previous post: so it is unfortunately 100% effective to mine on non-compliant pools, as long as enforcement is not activated. OK. No retro-active orphaning due to enforcement. Good to have this clarified. I'm still learning every day about blockchain technology and novel features of DRK are not always explained enough in detail for me. Thanks to those who replied. For the record, I'm obviously mining at a compliant pool and will continue to do so.

Yes, I agree. Keep it as decentralized as possible, pooling for MNs is not a good idea.

About the 100+ masternodes on one server. It would cost a ton of money to set that up. Even in the event that happened, people could just run darksend through multiple times to increase anonymity. Add that to the new mechanics for darksend (involving multiple MNs) and the likelihood of being compromised is even lower. That's not to say it can't happen, because probability is rarely absolute in the universe.

And oh yes, I agree the biggest asset to this currency and the reason I bought in a while back is Evan. He's proven to be an incredibly gifted coder, and an innovator. His commitment to take risks to create a better end product (IE, a complete, working, innovative and useful coin) is basically the reason I have so much confidence in this coin.

But that doesn't mean the price will follow that. People are extremely fickle and will flee at the first sign of trouble, but when you're trying to do something that's never been done before you'll generally run into problems. So, for that reason I don't really sweat the price fluctuations. In fact, I haven't really paid that much attention in the past  month or so because I've been busy with other things. In a few months I'm fairly certain Darkcoin will fulfill its potential.

I like the part where you have no clue whatsoever about RC4 and complete decentralization of darksend transactions through multiple nodes. It's always nice when uninformed people post their opinions.

Can we please report this guy for spam? I usually don't care about trolls, but when half the posts on a page are his, that qualifies as spam.

please stop spamming, trolling is one thing but spamming is really sad, you will be banned ;-)
ltrs noob troll.

Hmm... That shojayxt guy doesn't seem like a happy camper. Sadly I've had to ignore a few people on here and it looks like he'll be another. I don't really know what his problem is but it's clear he has one.

Pooling together for masternodes is going to end in tears when the operators disappear with all the perfectly anonymous currency. I see the usual suspects creating large pools for masternodes.

Also putting 100+ masternodes on a server isn't that hard, and now you have a supermasternode that the NSA can put a bump in the wire and intercept it all.

Centralization (of both masternodes, and mining) is bad.  This currency has future because the developers are willing to take risks. There's no reason the daemon couldn't just determine which nodes to use to most effectively mix all the coins, and limit the traffic so that any one given node doesn't get too much traffic and become a target.  

Creating an economic incentive to pool coins in the hands of few is VERY bad.  The 20% proof of stake needs to be distributed evenly to all coin holders.

Okay guys I'm all caught up on replies.  Gotta run but I'll be back later.

See you soon