Topic: Why Dash fails decentralization - page 2. (Read 4178 times)

Did I say every single last coin? You should work on your reading skills and learn to not be so literal, but nice try--but at least you got to make another infographic.

Good point !

I could just be trying to fool everyone into thinking that anyone can buy Dash when it's in fact just a couple of us passing the same 6 million coins back and forward on Polo and charging more for them each time.

However, I just realised that I have personal experience of your theory needing at least a bit of polishing.

A few months ago I was saving up for another masternode. The reward share I was getting from my other node was helping with this (cos lets face it, getting paid a couple of Dash every few days for keeping a node running DOES help and DOES kind of make you want to get another one. So so far your theory's holding up).

But then something unexpected happened. PAMM ! The tenant in a small flat I rent out called me up in the middle of the night to say the ceiling had caved in due to water ingres from the roof above. Turns out I was uninsured for this catastrophe cos I hadn't told the insurer I was renting. So I did a review of which of my assets I could least afford to liquidate. It was a toss up between the '75 Fender Strat in my cupboard and the 600 Dash. Guess which one won

If only your theory about centralisation had held up - and Dash holders were not in an open economic system I might have had that other node. Instead somebody else has it.  

Then again, I've still got the strat. So maybe I'm not so disappointed after all  




By the way I hope you’re now staying away from those dodgy ‘obscured’ blockchains that tell everyone they can ‘rely on math’ when in fact they can only rely on trusted third-party implementors of math.

Bit of a scam that really, but I suppose everyone needs to get their kicks somewhere

Mining influence in DASH has nothing to do with how many tokens you own either. Miners govern the coin in exactly the same way as other PoW coins - they can fork a chain at any time.

Masternodes/DGBB create an additional governance layer, providing, right now, funds for all sorts of beneficial projects directly from the blockchain.

Nobody is saying it's perfect, finished or a replacement for mining. It is, however, a good working solution to the governance issues and decision making malaise that stunt the growth of other coins.

LOL! TPTB fancies himself a smart person, yet doesn't even understand the ongoing nature of opportunity cost. That's like finance 101.

We can't know except for example if they modify the protocol. That is what I argued to smooth and monsterer in the thread where I explained Satoshi did not solve the Byzantine General's Problem.



The salient distinction is that mining influence in Bitcoin has nothing to do with how many tokens you own. And mining expenditure is ongoing whereas staked masternodes are only deposited once.

We've already explained this before. I am not going to explain again why staking is not secure.

With the bolded above, you're assuming A. that the nodes and coins aren't just being traded between the same people, so people like yourself can say, "Look, verifiable evidence (if you trust us)" B. That people aren't lying to you when they say, "Hey, I just sold ten nodes!" C. that economic downturns that create selling pressure aren't manipulators looking to collect more cheap coins so they can expand their masternode fee collecting business and D. That price rise selling isn't recouped when the market invariably goes down. I know you aren't this naïve, do you believe others are?

Again, you are asking us to trust that the 2 million coins mined in the first two days were redistributed based on market information that can't conclusively conclude anything unless there is some sort of ID and payment verification system layered on top of an already layer heavy system.

Please come back when you've figured out that no one with any sense is just going to trust you because you have charts as I can just post the chart of how many coins were mined in the first 5 hours and say see, "Someone mined a whole bunch and no one will ever know if they still have them or sold them, and since they can buy nodes that collect fees, they can centralize the coin even more."

Well, actually, the great thing about Dash nodes - as with bitcoin nodes - is that they are decentralised. (Hopefully that will keep me 'on topic' as you say).

What that means is that the node can be reproduced as may times as there are machines to run it on - without recourse to a central authority. Nice ! 

The other nice thing about them is - unlike bitcoin nodes - they are incentivised. So thats why the Dash network has enjoyed a sustained growth for an uninterupted period of nearly 2 years.

The other nice thing about it is that - being an open, freely traded asset - large holdings of Dash get broken down over time whenever there's a price rise, just like every other asset in existence. You can in fact see this happening in 3 places:

 - the nicks in the mastered count that co-incide with big market movements
 - volume trades on exchanges
 - chatting to them in the pub where it turns out they just offloaded 10 of their nodes the week before in a profit take

The other nice thing about it is that this economic phenomenon (market distribution of assets) happens to be independent of how people acquired them. So people that grew their holdings by investing are exposed to the same prevailing economic incentives as those that grew their holdings through mining and they are similarly exposed to the same prevailing economic incentives as those who grew their holdings through collateralising a masternode.

So, all in all, maximisation of decentralised monetary properties is therefore what Dash is all about

Re. Centralisation, Personal ID, proof of purchase, trusted parties

You might be thinking of:

A. A bank
B. Obscured blockchains that require the public to depend on a layer of trusted third party technology rather than shared public consensus to establish an endorsed value (See more info here)

Hope that clears everything up ! 

(Mods: On topic)

Honestly, you are going to require validation of personal ID, proof of purchase, ect. for all masternodes and coins? And people are going to want this from you why? Big Brother forces them to?

I think I just did that

Again, Tok, there is no trustless way to verify that dash is decentralized, so prove me wrong instead of deciding that your definition of money makes dash lack of decentralization acceptable. I'm sure it is acceptable to you, but we aren't arguing about the properties of money as Tok would like them to be, we are arguing: can you verify trustlessly that dash is decentralized. I suggest you stop wasting everyone's time with infographics, that while cute, fail to stay on topic. If you keep going off topic, I will contact the Moderators to remove your posts. Sorry, but this doesn't have to be that difficult.

Explain how mining centralization statistics are 'verifiable data'. How do you know who controls the big mining pools? How do you know if they're not all controlled by one entity/guv etc?



Your claim that DASH's governance solution is a 'worse problem' is conjecture on your part. Arguably, since all the voting/governance is controlled by coin holders rather than (typically mercenary) miners, there is a vested interest in a healthy coin that provides services as designed.

Also, there is objective/verifiable data on masternodes. We can see a list of public IPs, geographical locations and in most cases determine the hosting providers. This provides insight into the distribution of nodes. Of course, we can't say for sure how many nodes are ultimately controlled by any given entity/person, but that's true of mining too.

Considering you call DASH 'pointless', you write an awful lot of words on the Internet about it.

A before & after of generalize. (Having been directed to the 'real' basis of cryptocurrency integrity, economic viability and transparency).



You can thank me later  

Lets try that other one...



Yep. That about squares

Thanks !

It did look like you'd benefit from a "dumbed down" version of the fundamentals. Here you go then...


Well, lets just test that theory out a minute. For the avoidance of doubt, a public blockchain in this analysis is one where every blockchain address is inspectable by every person, through multiple reference points and independently of whether or not they hold a private key to that address.



...looks to me like you meant "Bitcoin and Dash" actually.

What the Bitcoin, Monero and other well designed coins do is allow you to see the centralization as verifiable data, that's the difference that matters. As I pointed out in my second post.


Now your claim that Risto can destroy the coin by dumping, ect, is conjecture on your part, conjecture I don't agree with, but if he could acquire coins by accruing them through nodes and having voting power through those nodes, I'd agree--in Monero and Bitcoin the governance is done by the miners and miners have a verifiable percentage of power through mining pools. Dash created a new and worse problem by their solution, so not exactly apples to apples. But if you want to argue about mining centralization, there are threads (populated by many members of the Monero and Bitcoin community) for that. This isn't a dash versus xmr or btc thread. It is a thread about dash's failure to make distribution of power a readily available data set that anyone can objectively observe and make fair and honest assessments.

*Also, if something like an algorithm that sells/buys chosen coins based on their centralization levels came into use, then there is no reliable data set I can use to determine a dash percentage, so this type of second tier way to combat mining centralization is useless with dash--though this a second level argument and really doesn't keep with what this thread is about.

Dash has decentralized technology (PoW mining, full nodes, masternodes, blockchain governance). There is no debate here.

The point you're laboring is that there's no way to prove this technology isn't operated/controlled by a handful of people. You claim that because DASH's distribution is unverifiable, it's fatally flawed as a 'cryptosystem'.

For this argument to have any substance, you should demonstrate how competing coins solve the relationship between node/coin distribution & centralization. Bitcoin for example has massive mining centralization and millions of coins held by Satoshi / persons unknown. All PoW coins face mining centralization issues at scale. Monero has a massive whale in Risto who could manipulate/trash the market at any time and arguably kill the coin. Monero's core team could arguably kill the coin if they wanted to. As for governance, explain how DASH's blockchain governance is inferior to other coins where decisions either don't get made (Bitcoin) or there are just a few individuals pulling the strings (Monero).

Basically, make some reasonable, specific arguments instead of just bleating on about the instamine.

Tok, If you want to use info-graphics to dumb down the debate, that's your prerogative. And if you want to claim that dash is good because it does the same thing other money has done throughout history (rely on trust), that's fine and a different argument that should be made on another thread. But the point of this thread is that dash has no way to objectively verify that it is decentralized--so argue that that isn't true or stop wasting everyone's time.

Generalize must be missing his soldiers since he’s spending so much time waging Symbolic Ideological Warfare in attempting to convince people that Dash is a closed system where only 1 economic characteristic dominates over all others.

I think the free market might have something to say about that theory

In fact Dash looks after its monetary properties better than almost any electronic asset, being that it places the three tenets of electronic cash as it highest priority.



Unbacked money does not gain value from technology or ideology. It gains it from a shared experience of the blockchain mechanics that leads to a shared consensus that leads to unconditional acceptance.

The only coins that warrant being the subject of “real” ideological warfare are the ones that torpedo the one monetary property that supports that shared consensus in an unbacked token. (As opposed to a ‘backed’ one like the CT sidechain or fiat clearing networks).

Convince people they’re holding a “bearer token” while denying them them security of a publicly endorsed blockchain ?




…and thats where generalize should be directing both his toy soldiers and his real ones.

LOL, as the first post illustrates, you can't build decentralized governance by starting with a 2 million coin mine in two days and then creating a paynode scheme that aggregates coins into the hands of the instaminers--any argument that states that the coins are redistributed expects you to trust that markets aren't being manipulated and the instaminers aren't lying about their holdings, which is Satoshi's nightmare and the reason Bitcoin was created in the first place--and while Bitcoin has its problems, you can look at its data and determine trustlessly whether it is centralized or not.

Qwizzie, the problem with any graph that supposedly shows that dash is decentralized by coins being moved is that no one can verify that the coins are moving to different owners or being moved between an owner's controlled addresses. Again, market manipulation just as easily explains this movement as anything else, so it fails the trustless test.

TLDR: Unless you can prove that coins or masternodes changed hands, dash still fails the trustless test.