Quote from: smoothie on November 30, 2015, 09:47:56 AM

Quote from: toknormal on November 30, 2015, 08:45:38 AM

Quote from: smoothie on November 30, 2015, 07:47:44 AM

Quote from: AlexGR on November 30, 2015, 07:17:53 AM

Quote from: smoothie on November 30, 2015, 06:56:50 AM

Quote from: AlexGR on November 30, 2015, 02:47:13 AM

Quote from: smoothie on November 29, 2015, 11:51:46 PM

Empty promises:

The ring signatures V2, has a follow-up post which has been conveniently omitted. V1 didn't have the DarkSend that is now implemented, rather something like 3x10 DRK, one round. It was real-time, in the sense that you had to transact (DarkSending money) as you were mixing.

I wrote something to the effect that ring signatures are DOA / they don't scale, and then Evan thought of another way to improve mixing, and V2 came out with premixing (no need to mix when sending, which improved speed massively as the money were ready to get spent), multiple rounds, various denominations etc.

So people did get a much upgraded V2, although through a different implementation.

Link please to the follow up post.

Also please link me also to the PROOF that ring signatures don't scale.

I want to see actual numbers/math/facts. Not hand waving.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg6815040#msg6815040 => "I have 2 possible solutions to evaluate for V2 of darksend (ring signatures and encrypted system where the users themselves do the joining relayed through the masternodes.) . Both of these make the masternodes unaware of who is sending money to whom, so centralization isn't an issue at that point."
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg6862900#msg6862900
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg6864666#msg6864666

As for "proof", well Bitcoin as it is can't scale. It'd need petabytes to compete with payment systems like VISA. You think a coin that generates multiple bloat per transaction, can?

It's called pruning.

You can prune the block chain down to a certain subset of transactions and the network of nodes would still function normally.

Perhaps all crypto coins are not attempting to directly compete with VISA/MASTERCARD. I'm guessing that based on your statement that Dash is attempting to compete with VISA etc?

I'm not sure how Dash is expecting to accomplish this task in a decentralized/private way while still having DATA CENTERS or collocations setup specifically to run masternodes.

May as well just use VISA.

If the max supply of dash is let's say 25,000,000 (i can't remember the max at it is dependent on difficulty?) that means that the maximum amount of masternodes that could exist is 25,000 using my example cap. I'm pretty sure there are more bank locations than 25,000 world wide.

What happens when 1000 dash costs $1,000,000? Isn't that a problem when you have such a high barrier to entry? It doesn't sound like decentralization but quite the opposite.

It's like the barrier to entry of opening your own bank location (you have to have $X to do so).

Is that supposed to be a criticism ? Huh

smoothie logic: hey - gold has a high value, thats a "barrier to entry".

It sure is, I'll give you that Wink

Look at your broken logic.

I can buy 1 gram of gold for $50.

I can't buy 1 "gram" of a masternode for $X. (you can't buy a fractional amount of a masternode).

Buying gold has nothing to do with being a "mastergoldnode"....<----doesn't exist.

The barrier to entry exists for dash...not for gold.

Go back to the drawing board and come up with a better point of view that makes sense.

Spin moar, I like the way you dance. Roll Eyes

THEN:

Quote from: patrolman on November 30, 2015, 11:34:01 AM

Quote from: smoothie on November 30, 2015, 11:03:26 AM

Quote from: patrolman on November 30, 2015, 10:54:24 AM

Quote from: smoothie on November 30, 2015, 10:28:16 AM

Quote from: patrolman on November 30, 2015, 10:18:24 AM

Quote from: smoothie on November 30, 2015, 09:56:03 AM

You can't break a master node up into pieces and buy portions of it...

Please tell these websites that their pooled masternode services can't exist. If they ask why, just tell them because smoothie said so, that should convince them. If that doesn't work tell them their logic is broken.

https://masternode.me/
https://node40.com/#/
http://dash.org.ru/pages/mn-en.php
http://regato.io/

One phrase comes to mind: "If you don't hold it (in your possession) you don't own it".

lol let's now introduce a 3rd party into the whole discussion of owning a masternode. lol

Throw COUNTER-PARTY RISK into the mix as well.

Great idea!

Grin

Your point is MOOT.

The whole discussion was about ACTUALLY OWNING a masternode. And the BARRIER to entry that DASH presents users of ACTUALLY owning a master node as opposed the non-barrier of owning any size portion of gold you want (gram, mg, etc).

You can hold gold in your possession in a tiny quantity. You can't do that with a MASTERNODE.

The barrier to entry does not apply to precious metals.

The barrier does exist with Masternodes of Dash.

If you purchase a "share" of a masternode from a 3rd party you have the following problems:

1. It is not in your possession.

2. You don't actually control it (no matter how much a 3rd party tells you that you have a say). They can vote/use it how they want.

You are attempting to prove that my statement about Toknormal's broken logic was unjustified because "people can buy into the theatrics of owning a portion of a masternode via a 3rd party centralized service".

You failed miserably to make your point sir.

Wink

Try buying any shares today without a trusted 3rd party and you'll have to deal in person only. We do not live in a decentralised world just yet. Perhaps in the future the will be some sort of option for masternodes similar to preferred stock and common stock will be possible, in which common stockholders receive voting rights in exchange for a smaller payout compared to preferred stockholders.

I'm not sure why you're talking about gold, are you trying to sell some coins?

Gold is inferior to cryptocurrencies in many ways. To list a few:

It is divisible, but not really in a practical sense for most gold holders, shaving off a little to make a micropayment would lead to the stated weight being inaccurate - I imagine most purchases of gold are by weight and the weight of each piece usually appears somewhere on the piece, but correct me if I'm wrong.
It is not convenient to send, certainly not in large quantities without spending quite significant amounts to ensure its arrival
It is possible to conterfeit, for example by gold plating tungsten bars

Gold certainly has some great qualities but it is not the holy grail that every other asset should aspire to.

Maybe this will help you in why Gold was brought up to show the barrier to entry argument ^

1. That is why I don't buy anything that has counter party risk (especially shares in something). But that does not constitute a great argument for having a "barrier to entry" when you are subjected to counter party risk and you have to trust the person who is selling you the shares. Wasn't crypto currency about not having to trust someone?

2. Gold comment is addressed above in the quotes.

3. Gold and Crypto have pros and cons. You can't get something for nothing. When you get decentralized/electronic crypto you lose tangibility and in many cases fungibility/privacy. I agree gold isn't the holy grail...but it DOESN'T HAVE A FINANCIAL BARRIER TO ENTRY.

My point was that having a 1000 dash barrier to entry at all is silly. You don't have a financial barrier to entry when you buy gold, bitcoin, litecoin, etc...

Since there is supposedly only a limited supply of dash...that then means there is a limited amount of dash masternodes that can be put into place at any one time. There is an upper cap to this.