Topic: [DASH] Dash - Building the IoM | Dash Nation Progress Thread - page 18. (Read 41820 times)

Look at this.

Far from "no-one buying it" there are so many people "buying it" that the devteam now have a problem on their hands sifting through all the proposals and have to shift up a gear into introducing a load of new project management framework for everything. Nor are they sh*t proposals - they're good ones. The fact that there's any at all is about a mile in front of most offerings.

Also...

He's buying it.

She's buying it.

They're buying it.

He's buying it.

So please don't talk trash "nobody's buying it". You must've got confused with your own recycled atrophying agenda  

There is no evidence anything I've written has been effective nor that it has been ineffective. In reality, I enjoy calling out bullshit when I see it, so that's its own reward, and oh boy does Dash provide me with ample rewards.

LoL ! Oh yes they are because otherwise you'd not be spending every other hour frantically monitoring these threads posting the same old crap you've been doing for the last year and a half.

The two are really one and the same. The coin has operated to reward founders and extreme early adopters from day one and every decision, action or "accident" since then^* has support this.

^* Including (but probably not limited to):

1. Misleading launch time statement, followed by early launch (insiders knew to be ready anyway)

2. Evan announces serious error after the launch (insiders could easily have gotten the fix earlier, giving an advantage of hundreds of thousands of coins; Evan certainly did have it before he released it)

3. Multiple bugs all cause too many coins to be created too fast; none cause too few coins to be created to slowly.

4. Evan announces instaminers get to keep not only high number of block rewards, but the erroneously-extra coins too

5. Total supply and mining rewards cut (retroactively increasing the instamine)

6. Masternode scheme with extremely high rewards paid to people who already own coins (and further cut to mining rewards, again retroactively increasing the instamine)

7. High minimum masternode coin requirement means small holders are left out entirely and medium holders can't earn compound interest like large holders can.

8. Voting scheme set up according to Evan, "by design" so that founders lose complete control only "eventually" (in reality it doesn't even do that)

You can claim that is all coincidence, accidents, or an unintentional consequence of some other decision, but no one outside of your little fan club and shilling society who is or becomes fully informed is buying it or ever going to buy it.

Nice that everyone takes a huge interest in Dash right now. Could construct a pretty good thesaurus for malignant terms just on the 4-crow's last few posts alone.


"Lets see, the instamine flack didn't work so lets say it's about rewarding fat cats..."

"...no no, call it taxation, that'll be good, no-one will notice that the 'tax' is incoming rather than outgoing"

"...greed !, snake-oil, kill Dash !"



LoL !  

Fcking sad bunch of clowns the lot of you.

I don't even know if you believe your own b.s. anymore. It's well seen your own interests are gathering dust.

Another week over with Dash still being the

• fastest
• strongest
• largest
• most valuable
• most adopted
• most innovative
• most reliably developed
• most quickly developed
• and technologically most superior

of all privacy-centric cryptocurrencies with the highest marketcap worldwide among those with zero noteworthy competition in sight.

Dr. Dashman concludes:
FeelsGoodMan.jpg

Sorry for getting sidetracked.


Very true Tante and the guy has proved himself time and time again, he earned that confidence.

LOL, just fucking lol! So the Bitcoin block reward debate has taught you that everyone knows what is best for the network and will only vote for what is good for the network? Point being that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

But my larger point is that the system is set-up to continually reward a bunch of fatcats who do nothing but collect tax/fees/freedom-points on the backs of the dash poor who have little to no say in what they pay in fees, which if I have my say, will kill dash and shortly. So not exactly in your best interest to be claiming to be decentralized, when in fact you aren't, but you're still doing it despite the risk, so weird and contrary to your benevolent oligarch argument.

But look around, who do you see, a bunch of greedy snake-oil salesmen hoping (with little regard to reality) that no one notices the flaw of only idiots would pay you extra for centralized services that other coins do better and almost free. Your selling hype, the reality is there is no decentralization without a trustless way to verify that it is trustless, so your left pitching the illusion of decentralization, the illusion that a system that doesn't employ end-to-end privacy is good enough, the illusion that 11 algos are better than one, the illusion of a fair governance, the illusion that Evan is a genius, and the illusion that if you pitch it to the whole world and everyone would just leave you alone that the average joe is going to pass up the same illusions from a trusted bank or credit company with the backing of their local government and jump on board with a coin with a dubious past, a technology they probably don't understand and laundry detergent as a name.

I'll give you props for selling yourself the dream.

That's an irrelevant set of forum posts from before the governance system was even suggested, let alone implemented. You have the entire voting history available to you with timestamps and node identifiers and a while back you where offering to peer review Dash (lol), you've more than enough data there to back up your claims and find conclusive proof whether a single individual or group controls a majority of the masternode network.

You've already had the challenge put to you to break a darksend transaction but so far you've not been able to back up your claims with that, see if you can do any better with this one.

There is a HUGE difference between centralization and a great leader. 

Oh, that's not all.


"Eventually" is very comforting, and by the way it is false (math is hard, Evan) if founders receive at least 50% of the blockchain funding proposals, or if they mine the difference. Even at slightly below 50%, "eventually" could be deferred for a very, very long time.

Also Evan has decreed that nodes will exist only in data centers. Maybe he should rename it Amazoncoin:


Regarding the airdrop, it was a stupid idea whether it happened or not. Let's break it down. The nature of the instamine problem was too many coins distributed too quickly, so the "solution" was millions more coins distributed too quickly? WTFF?!

Oh, let's not forget:


Wonderful idea Evan.

OK, here you go:

Masternode owners will only vote for what's good for Dash because they're long term holders and want their investment to increase.  How can they do that?  By growing Dash.

Example, Greedy MN owners want to take more of the block reward for themselves so they vote to increase their share to 80/10/10 allowing all the miners to leave. Now the security of the hash has been compromised, compromising the system, users leave in droves and the whole network collapses.

And it wouldn't take long either.

You can see, every decision will and has been weighed heavily against what is best for the project BECAUSE they're so heavily invested in the project.

The main point here is that there is nothing that the Masternodes can vote on where their interests are not aligned with the Dash Project. 

Like I said, prove it. The voting information is available in the client and if you're so sure it should be trivial to find a voting pattern to support it.

Vertoe's post is evidence Dash governance is 100% centralized.

Evan's Duffsplanation for not doing a fair relaunch or airdrop is that some whales/early investors (ie Otoh) objected.

As pointless as is it replying to the trolleros (because no matter what answer they get, they'll endlessly repeat the question) and despite Verto launching an undeniable scamcoin after leaving Dash, let's have a look at that question. What would happen if Evan walked away from Dash?

Undoubtedly Dash would loose a tremendous talent and confidence would probably drop quite a bit but would that be the end of Dash? No, it wouldn't.

Firstly, Dash has an awful lot of tremendous talent. This isn't a one man operation, Dash has many core developers and many more developers external to the core who're more than capable of continuing with one less member and the entire community has a strong focus on progress and innovation.

Secondly, Dash has a solid governance model. There's a lot of confidence in Evan and that gives him a lot of leeway to take steps that bypass the governance model to some degree but that model is perfectly capable of managing the entire project in it's current state and it's about to take a major step forward with the next version, Dash has no problem whatsoever in making important decisions.

Thirdly, it wouldn't make the slightest difference to the current state of Dash. Dash is way more advanced than the vast majority of altcoins, quite possibly the most advanced and has a model that ensures it's rapid development for a long time to come. Dashes governance is focused on evolution and that focus can only improve with time.

Now, a question for our trollero followers, can you provide evidence to support your claim that Dashes governance is controlled by early adopters? It shouldn't be hard, the voting history of proposals complete with timestamp and collateral transaction identifier is available in the client with "mnbudget getvotes" followed by the proposal hash.

And then masternode operators would be left with worthless coins in their possession pissing off everybody (miners, investors etc).

Do you even understand what are you writting or are you just having fun?

Logic fail. You're assuming that the owner has one node to reach your 10 year a new node, when the instaminers combined for 2million dash, so how many nodes does that buy?

2000, and in 10 years those nodes could buy 2000 more (barring the instaminers not manipulating the market to buy even more in that time period), but I'm sure you knew that and used math of convenience to validate your investment. Also, I'm sure that the masternode opperators will vote on things that benefit them the most to increase their holdings and the power that those nodes wield (why wouldn't they unless to feign decentralization), but you're on the benevolent dictator program and I'm sure it will all work out fine and dandy and nothing bad will come of this corruptible design, because humans never make things worse than they already are....

I realize you have to validate your investment by any means necessary, but pulling the jealousy card is shitcoin logic and fails the smell test.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14472374

yeah, i still have some fond memories about Darkcoin. Here is one for the good old days, i call it "Darkcoin rising"