Topic: Dash: The Future Internet Of Money? - page 2. (Read 15542 times)

Dash will rise when the time comes but i think i will not be that kind of mainstream like Etherium and Waves

I showed the high school level probability math that masternodes make InstantX insecure. I've already retorted the "why don't you break it then?" bullshit, so I won't again.

Masternodes destroy the network effects that a coin needs to attain adoption. I had already explained why, so I won't again.

The Dash scammers and accomplices are always trying to spin their scam as something other than a scam. Sigh.

Yes but not for years before there are any (significant number of) users. Hundreds or maybe 1000 should be enough for testing and build out.

It costs $5/month to run a node supposedly (number from this thread).  $10/month would probably be enough incentive for people to bring up a very large number of nodes, especially since people can own many nodes, which reduces the costs associated with running them.  I mean look at a coin like Monero (not shilling here, and I doubt there are any potential customers here anyway, just happens to be one I know). It has 100-300 nodes with no incentive at all. How many nodes would you get with $10/month incentive?

I just heard about Dash a couple months ago and since then, the more I learn, the more I like it.


Yes, I think Dash will be the Future Internet of Money, alongside other cryptocurrencies.

The future is promising and,
We are living in the middle of a revolution... There will be room for not just one, but many altcoins.


live long and prosper,
Peace

Not so sure. It was said that Dash needs something like 4000 MN to scale up. At the beginning you risk a lot in this highly volatile market thus you get a high reward (in Dash not $). Once network will be approx. at 4000 MN, you're going to get about 6 dash per MN per month. It looks excessive when there are low number of nodes but not when there are thousands. It will balance itself, market discounts everything and it will be reflected in the price.

The current miners will sell all the Dash that they make to pay for their ASIC, then they will sell the ASIC to someone who will attempt to do the same thing, then another ASIC comes out...ad infintitum

On this I agree, but the rewards are grossly excessive for the services provided.

Without Masternodes they would either secure a shitcoin without value or they wouldn't even bother to mine it.
Masternode network is what gives Dash value. Darksend and Instantx is there thanks to it.

I can see your point there, it really needed to be up to full scale as quickly as possible to get it tested and build the services to run on that layer and high rewards made that happen. Tbh, no one is really complaining about it, I've not heard miners objecting to the rates and I've suggested varying rewards for both miners and masternodes to put more funds into development in the past with no objections so imo the community would be open to tweaking the model. The masternodes are weird, the collateral doesn't seem like as your coins anymore and it seems more like they're a payment for participation in the governance, that's my experience anyway :/

Even with zero fee you could still scale the masternode rewards according to usage, or at least wait until such a system is actually deployed before paying people to allegedly provide a service that doesn't exist. Or possibly ramp up masternode rewards slowly along with usage (years). They were ramped but only over a few months.

It is hard to see how the past year or more and the next year or more of masternode rewards is anything but redistribution.

The aim is to have zero fees for normal use, there'd be fees for large numbers of transactions but regular users should never have to pay to use the network. Hard to see how that'll scale as coin output is reduced but everything is being done step by step, the governance system has had time to get established now and is getting an update based on how it's worked so far and it'll be the same for the fee system, test it, tweak it, etc, etc.

Same with the masternodes, the rewards have been big so far but they'll start dropping now that's established, it has to stay profitable to run the second tier but they could come down a lot and still give a very good return. Ultimately that could lead to centralisation, need for dedicated hardware rather than just renting a VPS at the going rate but if things look like they're going that way it'll be addressed.

That would be fine, but it contradicts what you said. There is minimal investment to operate a masternode ($5/month; possibly less). Massive amounts of coins are just being paid to people who had enough early coins for masternodes, without regard to any real investment in development or hardware.

This is where centralised, unfair money has brought us to. This cannot be the future, because that was the past. Nobody is going to let you be "Kings of the World" You're dreaming, nobody in the crypto-space even likes Dash. Doge has received kind help from litecoin and ETH, the top networks are aligning themselves..

The answer to that is right there in front of you. You invest time in Dash development, you get a return. You invest in hardware to run the network, you get a return. You invest in hardware to secure the network, you get a return. Dash thrives by incentivising essential parts of the network.

EDIT: The aim is to be able to offer limited free transactions to every user and advanced payment network features.

This has nothing to do with mining, nor security. If you run a masternode, you are supposed to be providing a service, but as you explained for at least the first year of masternodes and continuing for an indefinite period going forward, the cost to provide the service has been negligible, reducing it to a redistribution scheme funneling coins to people with masternodes (and some have hundreds of nodes -- not surprising since as you say the cost to operate them is so low).

To avoid being a redistribution scheme, a masternode system would have the node earnings (at least most of the earnings; a small subsidy might be justified) coming from fees paid by people who actually use the service.

Crypto was meant to be fair. Dash is unfair to new investors. How can this last, nevermind scale?

No, that's a story you made up Smooth. Remember, imagination... reality... there's a difference. It must be the GUI, you're getting as bad as icebreaker with his imaginary mining hardware :/ Digital cash needs more than just security Smooth and incentivising functionallity and development as well as security is a no brainer, you're own coins holders should be asking why it's still using such an outdated funding model

Fwiw mining is getting an overhaul with the next release. X11 is being kept of course, no point fixing what ain't broke and seeing as hardware manufacturers have enough faith to develop ASICs for it then it'd be rude to change it. The focus is on avoiding centralisation, Evan was very concerned about it after attending the Satoshi Island meetup and had definite plans for preventing it happening in Dash, no details so far but considering the core teams record of overdelivering I'm really looking forward to hearing about that one.

So what you are saying is that the masternodes are (and more importantly have been for the last year or more) a redistribution scheme that further concentrates coins with instaminers and early adopters, since their costs have been negligible. Later, possibly, costs will be higher and no one else will ever have the same opportunity.

Thank you for confirming that.

55% actually, 45% to the masternode operators for providing second tier services and 10% into the budget to fund Dash development via DGBB.

The 45% to masternodes is very profitable at the mo, a bit over 10% a year and the outlay is about $5 a month for a mediocre VPS but hardware requirements will go up significantly with third tier services. The potential capacity of the second tier is huge, thousands of transactions a second in its current state and an easy path to tens of thousands and on top of that it has to handle online wallets, the distributed API, storage and plenty more as time goes on. It won't be a free ride, the returns are extremely profitable at the mo but it'll need top end hardware if/when it needs full capacity.

That should take a while though, for now it's getting a lot of interest as a means of funding third party services. One of the fiat gateway providers is using it to provide free and zero charge fiat debit cards, there's a few gaming sites planning on using the same funding model, it's getting a lot of ideas along those lines. The 10% into development is a no-brainer, that's getting people on board too quickly to keep track of and v2 of the budget system can't come quickly enough, it's getting out of hand That should be out with v0.12.1 in a few months and some of the features should be available to regular users.