Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 48. (Read 9723748 times)

aaawwwwwwwwww...

we are in a bull market and someone like my friend qwizzie left?.. capitulated in bull market? yes you can still capitulate since dash is still less than 1/10th of it all time high.

i bet something is wrong with dash, if dash is still in top 10 he will be here with his flaming sword and keep the fight.

maybe he lost a lot of opportunity of making money by wasting time with this dash shitcoin, or about to sell his bags.

well...i hope you learn for the better and you get rich with your new endeavors..

I didn't understand that. If he's defining "circulating supply" as "coins not collateralizing masternodes" and 4.7 Million are collateralizing while the total supply is 10 M, how does he end up with a figure of 11% Even growth rate. Nodecount in 2019/20 was near 5k, now it's 4.7k. If nodecount is reducing, how can it be "trending in the right direction" ?

Where is there any addressing of how store of value works at the "equilibrium" level ? When nodecount is static ? Every time someone sells a node, the collateral fragments into hundreds of tiny pieces (just watch one getting dumped on any orderbook). That moves the nodecount equilibrium level down as the coin supply becomes increasingly fragmented and smaller amounts are held by more people.

Also, the "store of value performance" isn't defined by circulating supply anyway, it's defined by the price that the remaining supply is exchanged for. You can have 1000 coins in "circulating supply" out of 10 million but if they're exchanged for $1 each then the marketcap collapses to 10 Million. That's what's happening now in Satoshi prices as the market prices in our non-performing (in terms of investment capital gain) masternode margins. Add to that, coins collateralising masternodes "at equilibrium" ARE circulating. You can buy and sell a masternode just as you can buy and sell any other part of the supply.

This whole approach is flawed (well illustrated by the fact that dropping out of the top 50 is being hailed as a "success"). The way to maximise store-of-value is deploy the full emission budget and not throw half of it away in "givaways".

2020 Q4 Call Tech Update Slides:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gSW40h8YE0&t=3284s

The same old nonsense from the same old trolls who seem to be wallowing in self-pity because they missed on the benefits of Dash had they invested or acted sooner but in the end they push their agenda of endless trolling and nonsense discussions about miners this and masternode operators that and share allocation this and voting rights that but it is useless. They should take that nonsense to the top and send emails to the developers or better still they should fork and call it whatever they want.

Ridiculous trolling has endless nonsense about a better way forward that has no merit for those that push the agenda eventually made you realise you needed a break from those users that are using this thread to create mischief and to inflate their own ego. Obviously some them need some sort of psychological assistance from trained professionals but until they start getting a grip on the situation I suppose you will not return.

Sad to see you go actually, you put a lot of effort in maintaining this thread.

the old DOGE shitcoin beats DASH snake oil innovation hehe

In Ryan Taylor's recent Quarterly Call, he describes how the realloc hard fork is already having the intended consequences and improving DASH's store of value.

https://youtu.be/4gSW40h8YE0

Because mining efficiency is a ratio: (hashrate contributed) over (hashrate cost). A blockchain protocol is the rule base governing the issue of blocks. The two are unrelated.

Do you have a link for that? According to Binance https://research.binance.com/en/analysis/merged-mining there is no mention of this additional cost. Hashes that find a block on LTC are used without additional cost to find a block on DOGE.


No, you clearly do not understand. How is your distinction between "mining efficiency feature" vs "protocol behaviour" distort the reality of shared cost between the blockchains?

Your graphic only includes the roughly 5% or so of hashrate that DOGE receives from DOGE-only miners. Try including LTC and the LTC-hashrate as it is applied to finding blocks on DOGE. This makes up 91-95% of DOGE's hashrate.

I understood this perfectly. It's a mining efficiency feature, not a protocol behaviour. The Doge blockchain does not give up a block without you competing for it so it's not remotely comparable to what Dash protocol is doing.

Higher cost, obviously. It can be from the higher power consumption as more heat, higher temperature will appear on rigs when you do merged mining. In long time, it will cause more damages on your rigs. In short time, you can skip a little bit higher cost and maintenance cost as well as lower lifespan for your rigs.

People do merged-mining with one high price and one low price altcoin with hope that low price altcoin will rise more later. They obviously skip all potential damages on rig and a unnoticeable higher mining cost (power)

You are definitely arguing something different than anything I've said. You need to take my argument as a whole and not quote single lines out of context.

Ok, I'll try yet once again and then I'm done with this line of arguing because I really don't care.

What I said was the hashrate which has already been used to mine LTC is being re-used without any additional cost to mine DOGE. Or another way to look at it is that one day LTC miners who joined an LTC pool to mine LTC started also receiving DOGE rewards with no noticeable increase in cost/competitiveness as required to keep up with the LTC difficulty. Or it is the difficulty as required to compete for LTC rewards that largely dictates the difficulty that DOGE finds its hashrate at. This is no coincidence.

I'm afraid this doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

The Doge protocol doesn't self-adjust to detect "merge-mining" clients and issue the coin for free. It has no clue who's merge-mining and who isn't. Note that in your quote “for free” is in inverted commas. That's in acknowledgement of what I've just stated. It's in quotes because the gain comes from an efficiency saving on the miner. It's nothing to do with the protocol and is exactly the same thing as a miner simply finding a cheaper source of electricity. (Being able to mine more efficiently). It still has to supply the hashrate to the Doge pool.

The Doge protocol doesn't care about the electricity price as long as it gets its a competitive enough bid (mediated by hashrate) for the block it's releasing.

Dash, however DOES release coins at zero difficulty, bypassing the primary market bidding mechanism. This IS set by the protocol and merge-mining isn't remotely comparable. It has nothing to do with this principle.

Check out this article from Binance ... https://research.binance.com/en/analysis/merged-mining, particularly the following quote...

-
Potential new attack vectors: as the merged-mined cryptoasset is essentially mined “for free” (i.e., without additional hashpower required), malicious miners could be more tempted to launch an attack (e.g., selfish attack) on the child blockchain. However, malicious mining pools could potentially be penalized by its participants which would transition to other mining pools, reducing pool-specific economies of scale as a malicious attack on a child blockchain would be interpreted as a “negative signal”.
-

So I didn't take more than 5 min to google this and found this reference which seems to indicate Binance research sees it in a similar light as I do. I'm sure they are not alone. Oh well, guess you can't take Binance seriously either...

It's not possible to take seriously an argument that's present as "So one way to look at it" when that way of looking at it doesn't represent reality.

You do not get Doge for "free" when you mine LTC (even if you want to "look" at it that way). The reward from merge mining is awarded on exactly the same basis as that for solo mining - according to prevailing competition for the supply. You would not get any Doge for mining LTC without contributing hashrate to the Doge pool.

What you're doing in that post is conflating how mining protocols award coin with how you might account for it in your own books.

Well, no, you just misrepresented what I stated. I'm not really interested in arguing like this. If you're really interested in what I said, then please re-read what I already posted and try to understand what I actually posted.

It's only "not very consistent" because you've misrepresented what merge-mining is and framed it as something it's not (a "buy one get one free" transaction at the protocol level). At best it just makes more efficient use of a mining rig.

In all other respects it's no different from running 2 mining rigs at once on 2 different pools. You are still competing for the supply on each chain. If there are more Doge miners - even if they are also merge-mining - the difficulty (and therefore the primary market price) will increase with mining demand. See this article on merge-mining and note the following paragraph: https://captainaltcoin.com/what-is-merged-mining/



There's no "free with LTC" on offer. Your Doge reward is proportional your Doge hashrate directed into the Doge pool.

ASIDE:

It just happens that prior to last week's Doge skyrocket into the top 20, I snapshotted Doge and Dash primary market parameters as reported on coinwarz.com. They were next to each other in marketcap and were also next to each other in profitability listings on coinwarz. (I've no idea if that's coincidence or not but it's irrelevant to the point I'm making here).

This is their relative primary market states today. We can see that transmission has occurred - of secondary market price through to demand for the primary supply.



================================================================================
Here are the Doge and Dash difficulty charts respectively. Now, they LOOK the same but they AREN'T the same. Why ?




Because the real Dash difficulty chart looks like this. Only half the supply is subject to that difficulty level.

In cryptocurrency primary markets, difficulty represents price (adjusted according to how much competition prevails for that supply). But in Dash, half of the supply has its price RIGGED = set to zero by the protocol and that supply is issued to a subset of existing holders instead of being competed for and "bought".

This is reflected in the profitability of those coins when it comes to dumping them in the secondary (exchange) markets. They are profitable at any price above zero and any fiat drawn is not re-invested in Dash's primary market (as it is with mining).

That also happens in POS chains such as Tezos but the difference is there is an on-chain sink for that new supply in the form of on-chain Dapps which consum token. Real economic work is done to balance the supply growth. Mining is also real economic work of a different kind because it serves as a sink for fiat by raising the price of the primary market supply in proportion to the amount of fiat drawn from markets by miners - who simply act as brokers for that transaction.

The problem with excessive MN profits is that they fall into NEITHER of these two categories. They are pure profit and therefore end up getting paid for effectively straight out of marketcap. The masternode sector of the block reward are always net dumpers because they never had to bid up the price of the primary supply in order to obtain their reward so any non-zero portion of the masternode reward at all that gets dumped has a net negative impact on price.

Sure, you can believe that. It's just not very consistent with your overall theory of mining and price discovery of the primary supply. The reality is that LTC is the primary chain mined and that DOGE is the child chain that for the most part re-uses the same hashrate that was already applied to LTC. So one way to look at it (as I did) is to say the hashrate goes 100% towards mining LTC and LTC miners pick up the free DOGE at no additional cost. And this is largely true as it was LTC mining pools that added DOGE child mining later. There is a small amount of hashrate (5% or so) which is directed only at DOGE, but the majority, 90%+ is what was used to competitively mine LTC first. Now, maybe you don't like to say LTC is mined at 100% and DOGE at 0%... that's fine. Maybe it's 90%/10%. But I can't imagine you somehow state that each are 100% as the hashrate is shared between the 2.

Now back on the topic of DASH... DASH did break upward out of the descending wedge formed on the daily chart against BTC since Jan 8 however has only made weak attempts to approach the 50 day SMA (0.0035 BTC). On the weekly chart, DASH is still in a descending wedge against BTC formed since the week of Nov 22 and seems to be testing resistance now. If it can break thru this week (Feb 7) or next perhaps it will quickly challenge the upper bounds of the larger descending wedge formed since the beginning of Jan 2020 at roughly 0.004 BTC. If it can break upwards thru that by this month, then perhaps we can finally see DASH enter a bull market against BTC sometime in March.

What isn't a smarter approach is to overpay for it to the extent of half the coin supply such that the service can only be maintained by depleting the marketcap.


Wrong. They receive a reward of BOTH LTC and Doge according to the highest bids placed for the primary supply. So the price of both is bid up by hashrate contributed.
They don't receive anything "for free".

Cardano (ADA) is not mined, at least not POW. It's a proof-of-stake blockchain ... https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/cardano/

Dogecoin (DOGE) is largely mined thru merge-mining with LTC so large amounts of DOGE are given for free to LTC miners.

For DASH, Dash Platform will introduce on-chain data where I believe some computation will still need to be on-chain. It's a smarter approach and more efficient way than ETH (and other smart contract platforms like ADA) where every computation is on-chain and data can't really be stored in a reusable way.