Quote from: elbowface on April 21, 2016, 03:50:19 PM

Quote from: generalizethis on April 21, 2016, 12:11:15 PM

we are arguing: can you verify trustlessly that dash is decentralized.

Can you verify, trustlessly, that any coin is decentralized?

While you're at it, define 'trustlessly' and 'decentralized', since they're your favorite words (apart from instamine).

As concepts that we're aiming to achieve, I would say decentralized means that the power structure (whether it be mining in coins like Monero or Bitcoin, or in nodes like dash) is distributed enough that one party can't determine the outcome of votes without discussion and consensus--the mere appearance of discussion and consensus hardly counts, so let me dull that sword before you even get it out.

Trustlessly, I would define as the ability to review the functions of a coin (whether it be privacy, governance, speed, ect.) within a statistical tolerance level that accounts for risk in the form of time and level of risk.

While no current coin can claim either of these as a 100%, either or metric, the point I've been maintaining is that dash, due to the instamine and the masternode scheme will never be able to achieve these to any great degree without being able to identify each node and coin to a person and trace that history throughout time.

So here's a question for you, can you show me without the aid of trust that dash's nodes aren't in the hands of the instaminers or that those instaminers redistributed their coins?

I know someone in dashland will throw up a graphic that shows things in motion as they done over and over again, but getting in front of this so I don't have to make another post, that information can't show any more than that coins were exchanged, whether it is between the same people or new owners is a matter of pointless speculation.

Now Monero and Bitcoin and a few other coins are working to solve this, but will dashers be willing to give up their masternodes or identify themselves to show an honest redistribution? Those are the only ways in which to do it, but I'm sure someone will spout off about what we don't know about the future and some fairy dust statements, and my reply will be, "There is a way to do it today and you aren't doing it (just as you didn't do it two days after the relaunch and exasperated it with a reduction in coin emissions), so it isn't a matter of technology, like with POW mining issues, it's a matter of the community not having the will to do something about an obvious problem. At the end of the day I made my point. I think it's weird that a community that has such a shady past wants trust to be their biggest claim to the promise of decentralization.