Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 98. (Read 9723787 times)

Indeed.

And if one side of a shopping street charges $5 for soap powder while the other side charges $2 for exactly the same brand, it doesn't necessarily mean that that's the reason why the former side is losing business. But to ignore it would be stupid all the same. So I cannot give you "anecdotal evidence" other than to say that if we keep doing what we're doing, we're likely to keep going where we're going which is now a 3-year near-permanent trajectory to the bottom of the mined marketcap rankings in terms of our early contemporaries.

While I don't dismiss your basis for asking for "evidence" you must realise that we're dealing with aggregate principles here so evidence doesn't turn up in nice neat anecdotal packages where a specific traders say they didn't invest in Dash because they wanted to invest in coin, not masternode profits.

The theory is that Dash has only half the mining budget that our competitors do and therefore can store far less capital in its chain. The empirical evidence for that is that we've lost our lead and competitiveness in marketcap.

The "supply gaming" theories that have been presented to support increasing the masternode reward even further do not adequately account for this since we've always had a reward split. The idea that the competitive deficit was for want of an additional 10% is ludicrous IMO - not least for the reasons that I presented previously that the market simply sets the reward ratio in dollar terms anyway.

****************
A question for you:
****************

The masternode network costs around $100,000 per month to run. So why are we paying $2.1million per month for it ? The wasted $2 million could be spent on attracting competition for the primary supply which would support its price directly and put us back on a near-level playing field with our mined competitors in this respect. Then our "feature advantages" might actually start to matter.

Not only that, it would work EVEN when the masternode count reaches equilibrium whereas the "supply gaming" tactic depends on a growing masternode count.

You sir are being a very dishonest interlocutor.  in the minable coins on the Market...DASH is ranked #9.  

1. Bitcoin
2. Ethereum
3. LTC
4. Bitcoin Cash
5. Cardano
6. Bitcoin SV
7. Monero
8. Filecoin
9. Dash

BTC, BCH and BSV are  what they are 3 coins from one, Monero is a centralized manipulated sess pool, Cardano is also highly manipulated and centralized...don't know anything about Filecoin.  

Your dishonesty is becoming toxic.

You have spent months...months stating your "theory" with no evidence of this correlation.  We have a situation where the valuation is low, in your opinion, for DASH, you have presented a "theory" of why this MAY be.  

Now...please provide evidence!  I'm not the one making the claims.  There are dozens of other possible reasons for DASHs current situation.  Have you exhausted all of them?

Please provide evidence.

We are all very well informed of your theory, stating your Hypothesis as evidence is NOT evidence.

These are aggregate principles. That the Dash protocol is as described above as academic. The theory above predicts that we should fall behind on marketcap over the years and we have.

I'd say it more behoves anyone who predicts otherwise to present their case because the only one that's been presented so far is that we haven't "gamed our supply growth" well enough. That to me is a paultry case when we have a great big elephant in the room staring us in the face like how to fund a $27 million per year bill for masternode margins which doesn't get invested back in the chain. That's 27$ million per year that our competitors spend directly on securing ALL their blocks opening prices at high difficulty levels.

Remember also, that bill grows with price because masternodes have fixed costs, mining costs are variable. So as Litecoin etc prices rise, so does their mining budget. Nearly ALL the fiat they draw from markets goes towards raising the difficulty level across all blocks in the chain and keeping the new block price in sync with the rising market price.

However with Dash, as the market price rises, the opening price of HALF its blocks stays at zero. Worse than that, any of these blocks that DO hit the market don't draw any fiat into the chain in the form of difficulty contributions. The fiat raised bypasses the Dash ecosystem completely.

You may argue that they have a positive marketing effect by creating demand for masternodes. But I would argue that the market simply prices in the capital loss on the collateral required against the reward and in the long run concludes that it cancels it. Moreover, as I've stated before, we need to consider the equilibrium condition anyway. You can't base the viability of the coin on masternode growth because it's limited and we're probably at saturation right now.

The way out of this problem IMO is to set margins at parity because that way we get competitive again with the other mined assets like Litecoin, Monero, et al and we can sustain price rises. It means swinging right around and making a massive restoration to the mining reward but still make masternodes profitable to run which gives us a big competitive distinction over bitcoin. Masternodes can then restore their rewards in dollar value and sustain growth. (Remember there are plenty multi-milllion dollar mining operations that run on a 10% profit margin over cost and they keep getting bigger).

Thank you for stating your hypothesis, yet again.

Now please show evidence that this is in fact true, and the reason for the low value of DASH.  

You are again engaging in fallacious reasoning.

Thank  you.

In Bitcoin, Litecoin et al, 100% of the blockchain reward is "spent" on maintaining the difficulty level across all blocks. (The clue is in the word reward. It's not a gift, it's a receipt for the miner's contribution to increasing the value/opening price of the next block by making it more scarce).

In Dash, only 50% is spent on maintaining the difficulty level and the other 50% is "spent" on masternode rewards (as you will know, being a recipient). That capital does not go back into the chain as it would do with mining rewards. (i.e. it does not get spent on raising the difficulty). Instead it leaves the chain completely and these coins emerge with an opening price of zero. (i.e. they arrive in the hands of the holders at a price of zero).

So the coin flow "out" in a 100% mined coin is:

from blockchain --> miner --> market

and this is balanced by an equal and opposite capital flow in dollars that goes:

from market --> miner --> blockchain....in the form of a difficulty contribution which establishes the opening price of new mined blocks.

Remember, mined crypto is a synthetic asset and this is the mechanism by which capital is stored in the chain in such a synthetic asset. (The other way of doing it is as a bond. But that's not the archetype on which Dash is based).

*****************************
However in Dash, the coin/capital flow is split:
*****************************

from blockchain --> miner --> market (these coins have a costbase which equals the mining cost)
from blockchain --> masternode --> market (these coins have a zero costbase)

and this is balanced by 2 equal and opposite capital flows in dollars that go:

from market --> miner --> blockchain....in the form of a difficulty contribution
from market --> masternode --> END....and exits the network here as this is used to fund pure profits which do not benefit the network.

Note that none of this depends on anecdotal appraisals of "who sells how much" or even whether coins are sold or not. The fully mined blockchains charge for ALL their blocks whether the initial holder sells into the secondary market or not. If the miner doesn't sell then the miner IS the market and has effectively sold to themselves. Either way the chain gets its investment in the form of a difficulty contribution.

This is the only fundamental systemic distinction we have with 100% mined competitors and goes a long way to explaining why we suffer a chronic and continuous decline in ranking year after year by comparison, even though we may have far more interesting end user features.

There is a huge cost borne in paying those idle masternode rewards across 5000 nodes. (Currently running at half a million dollars per week). The cost is felt in loss of marketcap from the chain.

Please provide proof and evidence for this assertion, one and two that this is the reason why DASH's value is where it is.

Your hypothesis must be now supported with direct evidence that the premise is the cause of DASH's value at the moment to be valid.  Asserting it is not proof.

The selling wouldn't be any different, it's the capital flows that would be = what the blockchain reward was spent on.


I'm quite happy to be "called out" on my assertions as they are easily justified and accounted for. Your accusations however are not.

Tok has not proven his premise.

If 100% of the rewards went to miners vs MNO's how would the selling would be any different.  Many of the MNO's I know including myself save our mno rewards....many of the miners i know sell their rewards.  

The A=B because C=D argument.  DASH's value is the lowest price/performance etc in this space must be because DASH values MNO rewards vs mining/miners.  Stating this does not make it true.  

You are engaging in a number of Logical Fallacies here and you should be called out on it.  

Including but not limited to Strawmaning, False Dilemmas Slippery Slope as well as Circular Arguments - Petitio principii....and the Causal Fallacy argument.

You can claim your premise all day...and in your case all year and it still does not make it true.  Causality must be proven.

Many in this community are finding this behavior disingenuous and dishonest.

Proxying for bitcoin gains. The ratio is dire.

A greeting.

Says he as DASH blasts into $83 (https://stats.masternode.me/network-report/393075) up from $65 just two weeks ago (https://stats.masternode.me/network-report/389043).

X Greeting.

This is the problem that all the #pumpIsComing people don't realise.

They think that because it's a thinly traded market that the rush will be for sell liquidity. But in fact what we have with Dash is a heterogeneous profitability sector so you have 2 distinct sets of network operators effectively competing with each other for BUY liquidity, one of which is at a massive advantage in being able to stay at a profit while gobbling up those bids almost all the way down to zero.

This coin is effectively eating its own capital in order to pay for masternode margins that do nothing. Meanwhile the rest are all capitalising their chains from external markets by drawing in mining liquidity.

You cant get right results by doing wrong comparisome.

BCH had 2 forks and its poor result is result of major problems inside its community.Its latest offshot,almost meaningless BCHA,despite its huge problems to ensure mining, has 2x bigger Buy orders than DASH.


Lets make comaparisome with coins which existed BEFORE last bull run in 2017 and see its prices in BTC before bull run and now :

- XRP price BEFORE bull run in 2017 was 0.00000427 BTC, now it is 0.00001636, so today price is 3.83x bigger than before bull run in 2017,

- LTC price BEFORE bull run in 2017 was 0.003 BTC, now it is 0.0041, so today price is 36.7% bigger than before bull run in 2017,

- DOGE  price BEFORE bull run in 2017 was 15 Satoshi, now it is 16, so today price is 6.7% bigger than before bull run in 2017.DOGE Buy orders are also 18x bigger than DASH on Binance



- TRX didnt exist before 2017 bull run.Lets use its price before major bull run in January 2018 - 0.00000018 BTC,now it is 0.00000145, so today price is 8.05x bigger,

- Cardano also didnt exist beofre 2017 bull run.Its price before major bull run in 2018 was 0.00000570 BTC, now it is 0.00000600, or 5.2% bigger .Take a note that it is POS coin,

- NEO - its price before its major bull run in December 2017 was 0.001838,now it is 0.000885 or 52% lower.What is interesting about it is that 50% of its coins was sold in token sale and 50% went to NEO council and devs.So,50% of its coins which went to devs and NEO Council had 0 basis cost,very similar concept with DASH where 50% of coins go to masternodes with almost 0 cost too.


- DASH - its price before its major bull run in 2017 was 0.01 BTC,now it is 0.0047 or 53% lower.Its Buy orders are on very,very low level,which is even bigger reason to worry than its price.DASH performance is so poor,than it is hard to compare it with any other coins. From similarites in coin distribution with NEO,you can see devastating influence on coin when 50% of its coins are distributing with 0 cost.

I coud not find any coin which exists before bull run in 2017 which such poor performance as DASH.

Dash Masternode Zeus (DMZ) is a bit difficult to locate on the dash forums, may i suggest creating a separate thread with install instructions for it in here : https://www.dash.org/forum/topic/masternode-guides.66/
(instead of just relying on a reference inside 'System wide Masternode Setup with Systemd auto (re)start RFC'). Feedback specific to Dash Masternode Zeus can then more easily be collected.

I can tell that a lot of work went into DMZ, good job.

False.

The DASH Masternode Zeus is the greatest updater and maintained by an active community member, you can locate it on the dash forums under masternode guides.

The guide by xkcd is by far the best. Following this guide will enable your MN to be updated very easily and restart if crashes etc...very stable since the daemon is installed as a Linux service. I would recommend you start using this:
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/system-wide-masternode-setup-with-systemd-auto-re-start-rfc.39460/

I see xkcd has even created a replacement tool for Dashman called Dash Masternode Zeus which he's made available for testing. You can find the link to the tool in the same link above.

Well , sorry for the pedantic autoquote... but i think it is going to lengthen a bit and I need to expose another point for a more complete overview of the problem that I exposed in this last post. And it is the precariousness of DASH as a social trigger, as a magnetic point to live a "crypto revolution" that is already seducing worldwide by the brilliance of BTC.

Is the indifference / contempt of DASH towards those who are not part of its reduced hierarchy bonded a good strategy of reception, integration and exploitation of masses potentially interested in crypto? (and attention, not only because of the USE of crypto as money ... although the DASH brilliant thinking heads organize and assign their cascade of roles of everybody ... people are very free, sorry,  to interpret a sector based on their own interest ... whichever they want , either as users or as "investors" - and on how productive certain collective synergies can be in crypto, we have little to clarify here - ).

I wrote a fairly empathetic post on Reddit about my surprise when, after an absence from the day-to-day running of DASH from Spring 2017 to mid-2018, I resumed my interest and involvement in "the community" of DASH.

I found a project where the particular expectations of integration, the projection of that potential for synergy and "popular" contribution that was transmitted in 2016 and early 17 had not only disappeared, but a surprising tone circulated in the forum or in discord of "appropriation arrogant " of that collective trigger that was SO attractive one day.

You were trying to contribute, analyze points of obvious mistake/limitation/improvement of the situation at that time (the biggest surprise was, obviously, that Evolution was still "in the laboratory" after the asynchronies that arose from the global projection meeting in London ... just as it is still two years later) and the most common response line was: "Do you want to participate in DASH? ... Buy five Mnodes!"

That project, that open meeting point of 2016/17 had simply disappeared. The "particular" integration had been reduced to a massive looting of resources, authorized by the decision-making body of Mnodes, financing an endless and millionaire succession of "occurrences", each one more absurd, in favor of any newcomer, many without any linking to the project, who came to DASH specifically to "put the pot" (ask for "their share").

The point is that that situation after the ATH and Evo's fall prevented any practical integration of the real community, the popular one, the "on foot" community. - in fact, and imo, it was the end of the "Real Community" of DASH ... or, at least, so I perceived it with absolute clarity. You walked into Dash TROLLK DIscord, an absolutely disgusting cave of arbitrary censorship, and you were trying to promote reorientations (in favor of the collective interest of the project, not ridiculous "Keynesian" mass deliveries or anything like that) and group attacks, insults and slights included, by the shameful collective that frequents the aforementioned discord, they left your eyes wide. Beyond the logical disagreements that any particular position can generate - of course, with all legitimacy -, integral idiots, mods included, insulting and disqualifying in a group with total impunity ... other retardeds proudly boasting of the right to marginalize (ideas, not personal participation) that their status as Mnodes conferred on them ... bans without the slightest rigor and out of sheer whim by pathetic and conceited mods (to the surprising applause and collective laughter of other members - let's not even talk about expecting the least collective empathy before an avoidable censure on another participant - ... many of them, perfectly authorized to harass and insult) ... open acknowledgments of receiving incentives from the DAO - through payments of initiatives financed with the common treasure - to harass and marginalize "alleged "trolls (of course, qualified as such by those same censors) ... absolutely shameful and unconscionable insults and harassment in tweeter towards executives of relevant partners of DASH, as in the embarrassing case of the CEO of Bitrefill, responded with the most absolute silence of the censor ghetto "comrades" and not the slightest recrimination of this type of indefensible acts (my first ban it was in Discord for reproaching that mindless attitude, without the least personal respect OR COMMERCIAL CONVENIENCE to his still proud cause, who identified his participation in the incident with that of a true champion, a warrior in defense of a DASH "trolled by the human species "- delirium close to persecution mania - that did not allow the manager of a DASH partner to be a conceptual supporter of Bitcoin. Absolutely hallucinogenic).

Well ... I think that the context, obviously from my point of view, is perfectly defined. But beyond subjective expositions that could cloud the view, it is advisable to try to anticipate the "conceptual"  consequences that a status quo of this kind could carry DASH as a crypto currency project :

THE first obvious consequence is:

- Beyond the executive hierarchy, with greater or lesser range of decision and participation ... IS THERE REALLY a simple community, at street level ... in this project?

- If so ... what is its role in the organization chart? (Even more so in an organization that shows less and less intentions to finance proposals, which are the last small crack of active participation that someone without a Mnode or a salary at DCG had left to join a project of supposed collective collaboration?

- If not ... or its role is merely decorative at the level of integration beyond simple consumption ... what does this resignation of "massive activism" mean for DASH? - imo, a luxury that only a stupid can afford, sorry -

- When we still see how a characteristic collective synergy in crypto is capable of driving projects to the top and their capitalization to very important levels (which in DASH would be an added bonus thanks to its feedback system on project financing) ...

... is it smart to assign the lowest expression in the project hierarchy the role of simple "clients"?
... It will be its satisfaction as users enough - attention! : in a system based on ridiculous service charges - to sustain the necessary enrichment in the upper layers of the project? ... We need a legion of satisfied customers , or a tsunami of really retardeds that make rich 4 smart guys with a smile on our lips ... while in other projects they can obtain consideration, integration and even economic benefits from their contribution as users and / or holders?
... Will this structure generate sufficient incentives for Mnodes and miners to face their task of maintaining the network?
... Will the DAO have adequate budgets to finance necessary developments? - even more necessary when you cannot count on "free" activities of a basic militancy that is marginalized from any economic return and participation in the system, including an elementary right to vote regarding the project with which it identifies? -.

... Despite the fact that a paid Instant Send was already a disastrous financial precedent...will the platform bring new financing resources to solve the project's budgetary precariousness?

And finally :

... Does this gang of just a few hundred chumps really measure the consequences of their arrogant, conceited, selfish AND EXCLUSIVE attitudes? ... because, perhaps, those who have not yet come down from the throne of late 2017 and stepped on solid ground, are them.

The general dump that they insist so much on reminding us to justify this precariousness of money, productivity, leadership and talent ... has it also reached their pathetic egos? Or is someone still taking a nap and enjoying their best dreams in the Top 3 ... believing that the world public will come to eat in their hand out of sheer inertia of our excellence?

To the people, to the public ... you have to deserve it over, friends ... EVERY DAY. It is not enough to put on the big mouth of 4 charlatans demagogically and to exhaustion the word "community" so empty of content in this project ... while treating them like "Don nobody".


Anyway ... a few little things to ponder over, imho. (Troll stuff , in the opinion of others...arrogant and self-proclaimed Lancelots in defense of DASH   ).

correct - Moocow MIA and no way to reach (as far as i know)
strophy is maintaining mn-bootstrap
some guy started maintaining dashman, but we don't know him or trust him
(checked with strophy)

Problem is that Moocowmoo has changed both his phonenumber and his emailaddress, so nobody knows how to contact him (info tungfa)
See : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/masternode-me-not-upgraded-to-16.50845/

You could contact strophy and check how trustworthy the person (dote?) is, who took over support of Dashman. He seems to know that person on a first name basis.

Ok. thx.

But....hmmmm.

Dashman was immense. Seems a waste. Can someone not ping Moocowmoo and get him back ?

I'll have a look at masternode-tool.

Well, you not going to like this..but there is the manual way. You can use puTTY.
And maybe the Dash Masternode Tool from Bertrand256 can do what Dashman does.

https://github.com/Bertrand256/dash-masternode-tool/blob/master/README.md

I mainly use it to control my hardware wallet, but DMT has been receiving additional features. Maybe updating the Dashcore wallet software is one of those additional features, or maybe not (not sure)