Topic: [FACTS] Dash has the whole scene scared ! (Read 4314 times)

Agreed with it all ..it didn't put any gas in my Lambo

I don't want to say anything but look at how the Silver to Bitcoin's Gold is languishing (not my words - that's the gist to a lot of crypto watchers). I may be wrong (I frequently am!) but there may be an LTC accumulation going on quietly while the world runs for DASH and BTC. Don't underestimate how popular LTC is outside of this place.

Glad I was here to see DASH take off. I was watching it's MarketCap slowly rise from below $100m to this. With only 7m in circ I knew it was headed to at least $50.

The only heartbreaking thing is that I don't own any!!!

 

I'm not following the news recently and I have not even read the thread, but I smell that shits are going to hit the fan pretty soon...

Dash price has significant increased to $57 right now, 52.09% increase in 24 hours, amazing.
I'm not learning about dash yet but it seems attract people to invest on it. Could someone give/tell me the link of dash (the first time, it was launched)? I would like to read about that and looking for the answer of the current rally.

Maybe a few bitcoin whales made enough profit with the existing bitcoin rally, that they can afford to pump another coin ?  I have no idea, but someone decided that it was time for DASH to rally, and that someone needed to have sufficient money to pump it.

I did't ask why is Dash a top 10 altcoin. My question was why is dash rising now? What is the reason? You made an abstract of the dash front page, not answering why dash is rising now. What is the reason? And don't copy paste same old roger ver and blockpay stuff unless saying why are they suddenly so important. And besides having less or more of the same stuff as other coins and lol being 3+ years old(so I have to look the launch announces 3 years ago and invest in the next altcoin after dark .. - such reason to invest still laughing) what is the reason that suddenly now dash becomes 5 and more times more expensive. Can it suddenly wash my dishes? Can I pay my lunch somewhere? Pathetic community - pathetic copy paste old answers (I can't even say that these were answers.)

To be honest, I liked DASH, but I don't like it too much at the moment.  However, I'm very happy with the current rally and I hope, even though I think it is somewhat ambitious, that DASH overtakes ethereum.  Overtaking bitcoin will be a bit hard *at the moment*, but one never knows.   I'm not entirely without hope, and if it is true that the current rally is due to trading an infinitesimal part of the entire amount of DASH around, with all the rest locked up in master nodes, then this lever arm is sufficiently big that relatively small whales can pump this to unknown heights.  If they can keep it there for a while, people will get used to these high prices.

I think such rallies are in general bad for a currency: they attract speculators like bullshit attracts flies, and once a currency is in the hands of speculators, there's no relationship any more between its fundamentals (essentially Fisher's formula for a currency) and its market cap.  But as this is screwed up with DASH in any case, it is a great thing that DASH rallies, because it can then demonstrate that "established orders" need not to be permanent.

I like DASH for its historical origin which was anonymity.  Even though its technology (mixers) is depreciated as of now, it is important that anon tech becomes visible.  What I don't like about DASH is that it is pseudo-distributed, but essentially centralized.  This is what allows DASH to do VISA-like processing (its "instant transactions") which are simply approved by the equivalent of a banker network (the master nodes) instead of having to undergo distributed cryptographic consensus-processing.  But this is also exactly what I don't like about DASH: it is a new kind of "bankers network".  Like with fiat banking, the bankers take most of the seigniorage and they have their say in the "central bank", which determines the rules of the system (the code).  DASH's system really is too much like a copy of our current fiat system: a "central bank" that sets the rules (that writes the code, can augment, diminish, can decide about everything) and is financed (10%) ; a set of "first line commercial banks" (the master nodes) that most probably collude concerning their interest, and have their say in the central bank (voting system of the "community") and reap in almost half of the freshly printed money so that the interest keeps flowing, and moreover, know all the "anonymous details" of their customers (the master nodes know the mixing origins of course), so that anonymity is relative with respect to your banker.  On the other hand, this centralized system is almost as efficient as the actual fiat system, and can indeed offer instant payments.
In as much as the fiat system works well, DASH will work almost just as well, contrary to bitcoin for instance, who suffers the full weight of decentralisation and all the crypto hassle that comes with it.
And in as much as DASH's central bank and commercial bank system is abroad, it is maybe still a better option for small illegal stuff than using fiat with a domestic bank.

So DASH has indeed a potentially great future, in the sense that it is a central bank system that can sell itself to the crowd as a distributed crypto, with optional anonymity, and the speed of VISA.  Why not, after all.  If it can show that the "established order" can be overthrown, that would be great.

1) Instant transactions - only Dash masternodes can provide this - Dash has over 4000+ of them and allows dash to scale and provide point of sale and instant double spend safe confirmations & purchasing in 1-3 seconds. No other coin has this.
2) Private Send - optional privacy that has never been broken and been working for years, still allows a transparent blockchain to allow point of sale transactions to occur instantly and be verifiable on the blockchain. All other anon coins cannot do this. Without this, there is no mainstream adoption!
3) Incentivized nodes (Masternodes) provide solid infrastructure to the network and get paid to do so unlike BTC. You need 1000 Dash to become one and have voting rights on the network for governance.
4) Governance - we have 10% blockchain funding to help market, develop and grow the network, the more we grow, the more budget we have. Masternodes vote on which projects are funded to help grow! The other 90% block rewards is (45% Masternodes & 45% Miners)
5) Dash Evolution - on the horizon - this is the BTC Killer Application which is targetting the masses and aims to allow you to be your own bank. Usernames instead of addresses, Single wallet online that can be accessed from anywhere, Vault accounts for interest savings and theft protection, Marketplace, etc et... Its insane...goto Dash.org for more. The vision for this is to make crypto easy for the masses and allow your mum to use Dash like their existing bank account!
6) Because of Governance we form new partnerships that can be funded by the blockchain, new massive exchange integration in a few weeks, Blockcypher, ProtonMail, BlockPay etc etc...
7) The best community in the crypto scene, friendly etc.
8 ) Test of time - Dash has been around for 3+ years and is solid and has delivered time and time again with a world class dev and commercial team who have names to faces and arent going anywhere.

Bitcoin old timers who are frustrated are now moving out of BTC into Dash - Roger Ver stated that Dash is his top Altcoin to hedge against BTC.

Dash is the real deal, dont believe trolls who missed out and are hating on Dash. Yes it had a rocky start and everyone knows about the high amount of coins mined at the start, but 3 years later no one really cares except for trolls as thats their last resort.

Besides the constant pointing out that Blockpay (whatever this is - I've never heard of it) integrates dash but no mention of its usefulness and actual usage and that this Roger Ver is"promoting Dash" (same guy said couple of months ago that Monero will reach $1 Billion mcap by the end of 2016), so no one knows why dash is rising... Sure! It is not a pump at all !!! But I'm stupified how many people joined the retarded discussion with the FUD and jokercentric (much more than egocentric) maniac Sputnik. Yeah - world hasn't gone crazy at all.

Crypto is based upon the idea of trustlessness.  That is, the development of protocols where y there *is no central authority imposing the rules*, but the *rules themselves* and the *respect of the rules* results from a hypothetical dynamics of a consensus algorithm.  That is what distributed trustlessness means.  It is the hypothesis that a given *published rule set* will lead to a system dynamics where a derived hypothetical rule set will result from the natural antagonist dynamics, and that derived hypothetical rule set is considered "honest enough" to induce a monetary belief system.

With bitcoin, the hypothesis is that the consensus mechanism of PoW will enforce the monetary rules of bitcoin, and that the PoW mechanism is a kind of "fair distribution system" of coins.   The belief is that the bitcoin software implements this correctly.

But you could just as well take the hypothesis that bitcoin was a huge ninjamine between just a few people in the knowing, which colluded or not, and there's no way to know if you weren't part of them.  However, you can also see that a lot of the mined coins the first few months are still in their coinbase address.  It is impossible to know whether the secret keys of these addresses are still in the hands of some or not.  It is impossible to know whether there was a kind of collusion between the first people that mined bitcoin in 2009.  You should study the source code of the bitcoin core software to see whether this code does what it says it does.

Nevertheless, there's a lot that you CAN verify with bitcoin "after the fact", and you can believe that the consensus mechanism did function.  If you understand enough about cryptography, you can assume that it works more or less as announced.  However, that's entirely YOUR OWN belief.  Nobody came to you to invite you to believe that.  If ever it turns out that 90% of what happens on bitcoin is the work of a small group who has in fact cracked the PoW function of bitcoin, and can churn out a block in 5 minutes, no matter what difficulty with a secret algorithm, or that the digital signatures on bitcoin are totally fake and you're the only dude really sending money to an exchange to buy bitcoins while they are lauching their ass off, that's entirely your silly belief that is wrong.  Because that's the essence of the whole concept of trustlessness: that the data are there for you to verify, but that that verification is entirely your affair.

Ideally, you should write your own "bitcoin core" software to check the block chain, and you still have to believe that nobody has a simple way to crack the cryptography of bitcoin.  It is still your belief that the block chain hasn't been done over a few times by a single centralized authority.  It is still your belief that the consensus mechanism works as you read it should work.  All this is your verification work, and your fundamental beliefs.

If this is not the case, you're the only one to blame that you accepted a "trustless system" on trust.  


Yes, but saying so is exactly what is to be expected in a trustless scheme.   In the same way that someone propagating a rewound block in an attempt of a 51% attack is not going to announce that he's performing a 51% attack, and in the same way that someone trying to do a double spend attempt before inclusion in a block is not going to tell you that he did so ; and you believe the system is *supposed to be designed* to prevent this dynamically, and not by "calling the police".

As these facts are known now, the players that accept it, well, accept it consciously,  and those that didn't inform themselves are trusting entities in a trustless system and are hence asking to be ripped off.


My point is: "no", because the whole point of crypto is that you don't believe anything, and that you verify everything yourself.  If you do place trust somewhere, you're placing yourself outside of the fundamental paradigm of trustlessness.  


Many people will say they were, because they didn't realize what fundamental postulate they were subscribing to: trustlessness.  If they got scammed, it means that:
1) they trusted some entity (which is a no-go in trustlessness)
2) they didn't verify everything themselves
3) they made wrong assumptions about the emerging dynamics (maybe they BELIEVED some claims, which brings them back to 1) ).

 I don't think Dash is a scam because the core team is well known to the public. Also, they have more to gain if dash performs well.

Dash also prevents double spending, as long as bitcoin doesn't it will never be mass accepted.

"So no, DASH is not a scam.  It can't be, it is crypto." -

If you wish to take that thought path to reach that conclusion then I will not stand in your way. If you say dash is not a scam because there are no scams possible in crypto and you're serious then sure I will not try to refute what you are saying.

I realise on this forum there are a lot of very smart people who can explain why left is right and that black is white. I don't doubt on some level where I don't want to exist (and spend hours reinventing/reanalysing the minutia of every thought/concept that the vast majority accept as correct or real/solid)they can be mathematically be proven correct to some level of significance.


If you don't consider a scam to be possible in crypto then that is fine. I accept that you don't view dash as a scam.

For the vast majority that would view the start of the dash thread and the ton of other threads examining dash they will accept that there was a large scam conducted by the devs. They said fair launch (fair opportunity for everyone to mine) then made it as unfair as possible to mine for others whilst they took all the easy bulk of the coins. They said one thing and did the opposite. Later they decided that was not enough and from the remaining coins they took away 75% of those that were supposed to be available to all to mine so that their unfair advantage at the start was magnified even more. If you know this to be the case and still say there is no scam possible in crypto then fair enough. Is a lie possible in crypto? is dishonesty possible in crypto?


Conduct a poll. Nobody has been scammed in crypto ever because a scam is not possible... true or false?

Most people accept scam as

scam
skam/Submit
nouninformal
1.
a dishonest scheme; a fraud.
"an insurance scam"
synonyms:   fraud, swindle, fraudulent scheme, racket, trick, diddle; More
verb
1.
swindle.
"a guy that scams old pensioners out of their savings"

You are saying the pensioners should not have trusted the guy so there is no scam. I am using the widely accepted definition of a scam. I can't help it if others have their own independent and individual benchmark and requirements of a scam.

Spot on.  That said, he often generates great posts

My point is rather that people don't measure the depth of the notion of "trustlessness".  They are so used to trusted relationships, that they have a very hard time imagining what it really means, trustlessness.  My idea is that trustlessness is an illusion, which is why crypto is an ill-defined notion.  It is essentially impossible to adhere to trustlessness and not come to a grinding halt, simply because true trustnessless implies also that you have to verify EVERYTHING yourself, which you can't.  Trustlessness implies the end of the division of labor in a sense.

What is a scam ?  A scam is a violation of invited trust.  I invite you to trust me (that is, I promise you something), you trust me on that, and I do what I promised you not to do, or I don't do what I promised you to do.
Both conditions are necessary in order to be able to talk about a scam.  If I don't invite you to something (if I don't promise anything), and you GUESS that I will act in a certain way, while I act differently, that's not a scam, I didn't promise you anything.  You were just guessing (wrongly) about my behaviour.  Even if you asked me, I'm not obliged to tell you the truth.  You wanted to obtain something from me (information), I simply didn't want to give it to you.
If you don't believe me, and you don't trust me, then I cannot scam you either, even if I promised you something and I didn't keep my engagements.
A scam has as necessary and sufficient conditions: I invite you to trust me, and you trust me ; then I act differently.

The funny thing is that we are using "trustlessness in a sand box": we assume trusted entities (devs, exchanges, miners, users, github....) to play a "confined game of trustlessness" inside this trusted environment.   This is silly.  This is the same silliness of wanting "the law to regulate crypto".  "Trustlessness in a sandbox" is stupid.  If there IS a trusted environment, then there's no need to play a confined game of trustlessness: ground the trust in the system in the trusted environment.   And if there isn't such a trusted environment, don't pretend it exists, and if it doesn't behave as you GUESS it should, cry "SCAM".

Trustlessness is a notion in the same basket as "anonymity".  In its absolute form, it is an illusion.  However, you can make systems that do incorporate sufficient "protection in a more or less trustless environment" that they make it "too difficult to bother scamming" in certain cases ; in the same way that there are anon technologies that make it "too difficult to de-anonymize" in certain cases, if these cases aren't worth to bother.  But there are no absolutes in this domain.

At a certain point, there's no point in putting a lot of work in "protocol trustlessness" when the rest of the system needs more trust.  For instance, the PoW that goes in the bitcoin network is WAAAAAY too high as compared to all the trust needed for the rest of bitcoin to function.   There's more chance of someone compromising the core devs, or github, or whatever, rather than compromising the block chain itself "following its rules". 

Imagine that the core devs collude to bring out a new version of bitcoin core that allows to "crack" Satoshi's stash (by simply *accepting* bad signatures of it) ; imagine that this code is already in the bitcoin core code, but not activated yet.   People reading the code and discovering this (how many people do this ?) might want to keep it secret, and use it themselves.  By the time this code is running about everywhere, they activate this part of the code, nobody really notices directly, it seems that Satoshi's stash moves finally, they cash out part of it on exchanges, and by the time people realize (you only need a few hours for this), the deed is done.
They won't do this, but NOT BECAUSE OF bitcoin's protocol, but rather because there are too many trusted relationships that will go after them, including probably the law and so on.  One will finally count on trusted entities for this not to happen and not count on a fully trustless system.

So at a certain point, one has to stop the silliness of trustlessness.  In the same way that there's no absolute anonymity, there's no absolute trustlessness.  Some protection against "easy identity theft" helps.  And some measures in trustlessness can help.  But forget about systematic trustlessness.

tl;dr is @Spoetnik is more concerned with ego than facts.

He seems to be entirely oblivious to the egregious distinction of decentralization between the two coins he is writing about.

So he is an example of exactly what he complains about: the ignorance of speculators.

Anything that is not truly decentralized is not going to have the trustlessness property so as to be adopted by the world.

Would you prefer the word 'inadequate' or 'permissioned' (i.e. not trustless) to 'scam'?

No, "conscious being" and "ethics" is an oxymoron, apart from the natural ethics:
"good" is what is good for me, "bad" is what is bad for me.

2000 years of fake philosophy have tried to define ethics in any other way, but that's the basis of ethics with conscious beings.  All other kinds of ethics are nothing else but social lies, in order to get the gullible act according to my real ethics: my advantage.

There are two kinds of people:
1. egoists who assume being egoists
2. egoists accusing others of being egoists.

Nothing in crypto is a scam, because crypto is based upon trustlessness.  In other words, if you adhere to the fundamental principle of crypto, the idea is that *everyone out there* is trying to rip you off, and that you are supposed to *rip off everyone out there*, but the belief is that the greed of everyone is large enough, and the trust between parties is low enough, *and the protocol is designed such* that there cannot be sufficient collusion for you to be able to collude sufficiently with others to rip off anyone else *by consensus protocol failure* and that no group will emerge that is colluding strong enough to rip you off *by consensus protocol failure*.   However, in order for that to succeed, you are supposed to study the system YOURSELF, because of course, one way to do so is to MAKE YOU BELIEVE that the protocol is designed as such, and the *initial conditions are designed such that* this property holds.

There's no reason to accept the notion of trustlessness on the level of individual actors with a given protocol, that is, to believe that people will try everything to make you believe in a fake consensus, and that this will fail by hypothesis of strong enough protocol, and at the same time NOT accept trustlessness by people defining protocols.

This is a bit like being favourable to strong cryptographic algorithms so that people can always try to crack them, and believe that the algorithms are sufficiently strong that people trying to crack them will not succeed, but at the same time downloading new cryptographic algorithms from "people on the internet" and cry "SCAM!" when they've designed back doors in them.  After all, this is just ANOTHER METHOD of getting at your data.  One is to 'crack an algorithm', the other is 'giving you an algorithm with a back door'.  

So, no, DASH, with its ninjamine is not a scam.  It is not any more a scam, than an attempt at a 51% attack on bitcoin.  This is the fundamental premise of crypto: the others are supposed to try to rip you off.  Whether that is with a 51% attack on bitcoin, or by promoting an alternative of which the protocol and the initial conditions are such that you will be ripped off, is the essence of the game.  In as much as they succeed, they've simply used the trustlessness aspect of crypto.  In as much as a 51% attack on bitcoin succeeds and goes unnoticed, or people don't care, it was the challenge of bitcoin.  In as much as people buy into a ninja-mined half PoS coin with a whole structure to make you believe it enough so that you pump value in it, it is the name of the game in crypto.

It is not a scam.  It is crypto at its best.  Like back doors in "free" cryptographic software offered by "a guy on the internet".  Because the game is trustlessness.

A protocol with large PoS and ninja mining is of course highly centralized in the hands of the ninja miners.  But that is not a secret, and is verifiable on the block chain.  As such, people buying into it are taking their responsibility.  If they "didn't know", then they are stupid, and them being ripped off is well-deserved.  If they knew it, well, they knew what they were doing.

Does that make DASH not useful as a currency ?  I don't know.  The problem with a highly centralized system like this is of course the high potential volatility, and the low effective liquidity.  But this can change, when the centralized owner decides to cash out.  I wouldn't touch the anonymity of DASH with a finger, because probably most master nodes, being centralized, can easily be compromised (by water hosing, bribing, or whatever), even though its technology is way, way better than bitcoin's.  It can also be that DASH's owners care about the system enough to make it function well enough as a currency.  I fail to see its interest over fiat, because if you have to trust some centralized parties, it is probably better to trust a kind of state than a kind of "unknowns on the internet".  But that's a matter of informed choice.

So no, DASH is not a scam.  It can't be, it is crypto.

Libertarian and ethics are an oxymoron. Gullible ideologue would be more accurate.

Good analogy, but I think gen 3 cryptos are NES (Mario and Duckhunt) While BTC is Pong or Packman. BTCs gen 1 and can't handle the volume it already has. I can't imagine it being mass adopted when you can't even send a minor transaction. I'm going to turn all of my BTC to Dash to buy my Baikal miners, I don't want my BTC being unconfirmed for a week.