Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 773. (Read 9723733 times)

Funny, that's what I was thinking.  And then today, the price starts to go up again

So painful... And yet they still keep trying. Try harder boys.

My master nodes with Splawek were rock solid. Nood off to Splawek.

200 MN were DDosed = Denial of Service and NOT compromised.
Two very different things!

Not saying the network is great and not attackable and everything but you can not get from the one thing to the other by just your wishfull thinking.

Aggghhh....zero knowledge trolls are the worst!

Try sucking a sweet to take that bitter taste away  

looks like there are 2 groups: BTC,ETH and DASH in one and all others in second

DASH is such a disgrace to cryptocurrency and the whole community


Hope the DASH devs are jailed for running a ponzi scheme

wow dash up again 

right...

whale bot fake vol paaarrttyyy

https://github.com/elmad/darkcoin-cpuminer-1.3-avx-aes
Please tell me how to compile on ubuntu.
There seem to be several, but I do not know which is correct.

We will see Ethereum pretty soon too at this rate  

We will see 0.1 sooner or later.

Dash rises to the 0.043 BTC range.



Price / Marketcap :

No issues with ssh, password login disabled, just keys and just from specified IPs.

Be careful with gambling sites, I was burned for 150DASH a long time ago when dashcasino.me went rogue.

Everyone seems to think that the DDOS was a network attack with malicious intent. Perhaps it was just a deep-pocketed potential investor doing due diligence to test some of the theories of various trolls. Or maybe it was the new major exchange that is about it add DASH, to see if instant send would continue to work in such a situation. Bitcoin has been stress tested in the past by Bitcoin supporters, and I think that DASH will have to prove itself in the same ways.

The community has expressed some concern lately about some not-so-great budget proposals passing or coming close to passing. I wanted to comment on that and explain why I think the problem will be self-correcting.

Our "problem" is not that vast amount of money available for funding our ecosystem's development. In fact, that is one of the biggest advantages of DASH. I'm not sure what Bitcoin's development budget looks like these days, with the Foundation, MIT, and Blockstream variously funding developers. I do know that in 2014 Bitcoin's development budget was about $1.5 million per year. Our annual budget is approx. $4 million per year. This is huge, and it will drastically speed our growth and help us to catch up with Bitcoin in time.

Our problem, if you want to call it a problem, is that there isn't enough competition for budget funds. Because of the way the system is designed, any budget funds not used are simply not created. This creates a sort of "use it or lose it system" where the masternode owners (MNOs) are incentivized to vote for any halfway decent proposal, lest the budget funds simply not be created. Without the budget being full, there is no competition between proposals for funding, and without competition there is no "cost" to funding anything that's submitted. Granted, unused budget funds aren't "burned" per se; they are simply never created. Theoretically that increases the value of all the DASH in existence, since it decreases the supply. However, the decreased supply is infinitesimal, meaning that for every 1 DASH that's not spent from the budget, all the DASH in existence increase in value only by a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a cent.

Consider then:

1) There is no opportunity cost involved in filling up the budget every month, since essentially nothing would be gained by leaving some DASH uncreated.
2) The current formula that MNOs use when deciding whether to approve a proposal is this:

IF (expected value of proposal) > (value added by shrinking the future coin supply infinitesimally) THEN vote yes.

I would argue that once more people start competing for budget funds, this problem will naturally correct itself, since the formula will change to:

IF (expected value of proposal) > (expected value of competing proposals) THEN vote yes.

IMO, the ideal "fix" is simply to allow unused budget funds to carry over a certain number of months into the future. However, that would obviously require a change to the budget code. Evan mentioned in the 12.1 announcement that after a couple of months of stability, new budget features will be rolled out through Sentinel. I really hope the ability to "remember" unused budget funds is one of those features.

The Masternode Network held pretty well even when there still are people who run cheap vps's. Once they lose some ROI, they will upgrade, and then maybe we'll see another ddos, wchich will cost the attacker even more.

4200 full nodes is kind of an overkill and keep in mind that the balance is not reached yet. Assuming someone will attack this network with expensive, massive ddos, even if thousand or more nodes would be knocked out, it still doesn't do any damage to the network.

If you don't trust the anonymity of the system, wait for masternode blinding or other tech to be implemented in the future. Until then you can still use Dash as a better BTC with InstantSend (Poloniex just enabled it, btw).

Chance of getting fully deanonymized single transaction, atm.



Why are you scared? Do you think that your concerns hasn't been talked about at our forums?

It will be full of scripts and bots testing all kind of english names as login. If you change the port of sshd you will see a drastic reduction in the failed probing attempts.