By the way, at the moment DASH has a market cap of $16.3 million and monero is $4.7. Seems quite a few people agree with me.
While I think some sort of security audit surely would not hurt, I disagree that this is the only reason for the disparity in marketcap. Why?
There are currently 3,441 DASH masternodes visibly removing 3,441,000 DASH from the existing money supply. If i'm not mistaken that's ~55% of the current emission!
Less supply = higher price = easier to maintain a 'bigger marketcap'. Do you disagree?
edit to add: i remember when this attack happened, nobody lost any coins. so while there was an attack, this statement is untrue.
many people lost coins due to a security vulnerability already.
Read about it here: https://forum.cryptonote.org/viewtopic.php?p=909
Read about it here: https://forum.cryptonote.org/viewtopic.php?p=909
Well, the fact that this did happen does make one wonder about the security of the coin going forward. I still find it a bit hard to believe that no miner was working on a block and then when the problem was fixed no coins were lost.
quote from article:
The attacker had likely sent the transactions of the block 202612-B to mining pools on the sub-network A. These transactions had been included in the blockchain on height 202614 by one of the pools.
The sub-network A daemons accepted that block since they didn't have the 2a58f802202db09cbd1377630ae73becff1eaff52e8969980672496dc39a5f6f and 57ce3aab446d75726221c908a4bf6ac2f67485cab80a2e2bedfe5519cabd8848 transactions on the blockchain.
The sub-network B deamons rejected the block since those transactions had already been included in block 202612-B. Accepting these transactions a second time would imply double-spending.
Therefore, the network had been split on height 202614 when the two sub-networks turned into two different chains. Fortunately, the large majority of the Monero network had remained on the chain A, which helped to avoid larger negative consequences for the currency.
I agree somewhat with your masternode comments. It is an effect of the design to have people "buy in" to the technology by buying and setting up masternodes, thus removing coins from the supply. Relatively speaking, if the technology is not supported by users, they will dump the masternodes and flood the supply. But anytime anything implodes, that happens anyway doesn't it? Another way to look at it is this: By having coins in the masternodes is actually good for sellers and bad for buyers, so that should be considered. Another point is the masternodes do supply a service, and make money for the owner. It's a design decision, but at this point as a coin holder, it's better for them right? It's kind of a way to reduce supply because the coin is popular and being used in a masternode, and popular items always cost more, right?
I am a tad angry that there are possible bad actors writing the monero code. That is why you see some ire in my posts.
