Search content
Sort by
Showing 12 of 12 results by ddink8
Re: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency
I've been trying to find whether there are any special instructions for upgrading MNs hosted remotely on moocowmoo's masternode.me service. So far I haven't found anything, but it seems at least one locally-upgraded wallet (Dash Core version v0.12.1.0 (64-bit)) is running as dashd v0.12.00.58 according to its stats page on mastercode.me
The usual fix for that sort of thing is a "masternode start" command (I think) but it reports:
{
"overall": "Successfully started 0 masternodes, failed to start 0, total 0",
"detail": {
}
}
Suggestions welcome - thanks!
The usual fix for that sort of thing is a "masternode start" command (I think) but it reports:
{
"overall": "Successfully started 0 masternodes, failed to start 0, total 0",
"detail": {
}
}
Suggestions welcome - thanks!
AFAIK he has not updated the remote servers to 12.1. I've been trying to reach him on Slack for a couple of days, but no luck.
Re: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency
This is going fast 
in less than 24h...
Credits: crowning
in less than 24h...
Credits: crowning
The chart has me a little confused...what percentage of the network has actually upgraded? I don't know which of the three colored lines to look at! Can somebody explain it?
Follow that info here
https://dashpay.atlassian.net/wiki/display/DOC/Mining+pools
My bad I get it now...I was reading it wrong!
Re: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency
The chart has me a little confused...what percentage of the network has actually upgraded? I don't know which of the three colored lines to look at! Can somebody explain it?
Re: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency
Dash just passed $17 and has passed ETHC on Coinmarketcap - A New All Time High!
Looking great and it appears like the market is getting hyped up about the coming 12.1 release.
Maybe we can pull up and pass #5 on it's way down.
(edit updated numbers as Dash continues to climb upwards)
Looking great and it appears like the market is getting hyped up about the coming 12.1 release.
Maybe we can pull up and pass #5 on it's way down.
(edit updated numbers as Dash continues to climb upwards)
is this already the hype or will it go even higher? i already sold my dash.
In the short term? Hard to say. 12.1 will likely generate some hype, and the major exchange integration in a few months will as well. Hard to know, but I'd guess 12.1 is mostly price in, while the exchange probably isn't yet.
you are talking about which exchanges?
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/proposal-business-development-major-exchange.12881/
Re: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency
Dash just passed $17 and has passed ETHC on Coinmarketcap - A New All Time High!
Looking great and it appears like the market is getting hyped up about the coming 12.1 release.
Maybe we can pull up and pass #5 on it's way down.
(edit updated numbers as Dash continues to climb upwards)
Looking great and it appears like the market is getting hyped up about the coming 12.1 release.
Maybe we can pull up and pass #5 on it's way down.
(edit updated numbers as Dash continues to climb upwards)
is this already the hype or will it go even higher? i already sold my dash.
In the short term? Hard to say. 12.1 will likely generate some hype, and the major exchange integration in a few months will as well. Hard to know, but I'd guess 12.1 is mostly price in, while the exchange probably isn't yet.
Re: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency
Quote
Stratosf43ric
Trust: 0: -0 / +0
Unignore
Re: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency
Today at 02:01:17 PM
Show/Hide
This user is currently ignored.
Terzo2
Trust: 0: -0 / +0
Unignore
Re: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency
Today at 02:07:51 PM
Show/Hide
This user is currently ignored.
Stratosf43ric
Trust: 0: -0 / +0
Unignore
Re: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency
Today at 02:14:08 PM
Show/Hide
This user is currently ignored.
Trust: 0: -0 / +0
Unignore
Re: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency
Today at 02:01:17 PM
Show/Hide
This user is currently ignored.
Terzo2
Trust: 0: -0 / +0
Unignore
Re: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency
Today at 02:07:51 PM
Show/Hide
This user is currently ignored.
Stratosf43ric
Trust: 0: -0 / +0
Unignore
Re: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency
Today at 02:14:08 PM
Show/Hide
This user is currently ignored.
The trolls are out in full force...must mean another leg up coming soon!
Re: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency
I seriously doubt the feds are going to be able to coerce view keys from transactions to put any links together.
They don't have to. The job's done for them by providing them with a nice neat "black hole" to stand guard over.
For crypto to work as money, it has to have a "face" in as many sectors of commercial and economic life as possible because one economic sector "levers" the value from another in a way that goods and services can't, being sector-specific. Thats what makes the $USD the criminal currency of choice - because it can be earned illicitly in one sector and pop-up somewhere completely differently to be spent on kids christmas presents.
The second thing is, as far as surveillance goes, no cryptocurrency networks (obfuscated or otherwise) tell you a thing about identities unless you're already in possession of significant off-chain information. That can only be gleaned from the entry and exit points to the coin supply - i.e. commercial trading, exchanges, wage earning etc. So if you create an unbacked monetary network that is entirely obfuscated then you're basically kissing goodbye your long term value proposition from widespread adoption on 3 counts:
1. all your boundary points will get regulated out of existence by virtue of tainting the entire network as a suspicious trading indicator
2. you'll end up getting used exclusively as a sector-specific payments system instead of a store of value which leaves you wide open to any competing technology that happens to provide the same service as yours does but cheaper, more conveniently or more reliably
and that's without even considering the biggest ticking-timebomb calamity of all...
3. Confidence. As I explained in this post, the whole point of the Satoshi transparent model was to 'fix' the one thing that has always prevented a trust-free decentralised token from taking hold and garnering real monetary value - public confidence and how to "not" puncture it. It's unlikely that bitcoin would have made it through all its various rollercoaster rides of the last 8 years IMO without complete and un compromised transparency. Gox, malleability crises, heists - you name it. Whether the Feds are crawling all over it isnt the point. The point is it has the public crawling all over it every minute of every day which is why it remains robust in the face of rumours, scams and technology crises.
The reason why Dashs privacy model is miles ahead of anything else is because it looked beyond the horizons of "technological obfuscation" and dealt with each of those 3 points independently.
All the cryptonote model does is deny those challenges even exist and bury the whole blockchain from sight. An exercise in nerd-wizardry but monetary gimmickry and not exactly an inspiring prospect. But then again as Ive stated, that approach was never invented for defining trustless money anyway.
It was invented for carrying bank-backed credit money which is why obfuscation (encryption) was made the priority over authenticity.
^This.
In case the trolls are thinking "tl;dr" I'll summarise: The predominant thing Monero is used for is the darkweb drug trade, so all Monero transactions, however private, are suspect. Anybody who is known to own Monero is thus suspect. The vast majority of Dash transactions are for ordinary, legal goods and services. Our obfuscation is just as effective as Monero's, but since we aren't known as "that darkweb coin," holders of Dash are much less suspect.
Re: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency
Solarminer, weren't you one of the guys that sold all his Dash in dramatic fashion a few months ago (and lost out on a 100% gain)? If so, does that mean you are now part of the paid Monero troll squad? Just curious so that I know how to categorize you.
Re: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency
I think that in order to get more efficiency from the budget system we need to do one or more of the following things:
a) Lessen the time factor--There is a real sense of urgency, in that we have only one month (at most) to plan and make proposals to the network before the funds or irretrievably "lost" for future development.
b) Given that any unallocated funds are lost forever (by simply not being created), we have a situation in which there is essentially zero cost for failure. If a proposal doesn't work out, then so what? The funds would have been lost anyway. The flip side is that almost any proposal with even the slightest chance of bringing value to the ecosystem is worthwhile, from a strict cost-benefit analysis. Take the latest proposal to integrate with a major exchange: that's just over 2,000 DASH or $30,000 USD. Not spending that money would effectively increase the value of all DASH in existence by half a cent, which is infinitesimal.
c) Communication must be improved. The creation of the new subforum is an excellent start.
My suggestion is to allow the network to "bank" any unspent funds so that they can be used at a later time by worthy projects. This has several advantages:
1) There's an incentive for saving. Today's unused funds will likely be worth quite a bit more in the future, due to price appreciation. This month's proposals, therefore, essentially have to compete against the possibility of even better proposals in the future. We don't want to fund marginal projects today, since that takes money away from potentially better projects in the future.
2) It eliminates the time factor, since there's no longer a hurry to spend funds before we lose them (i.e. before the month's superblocks are created). That gives more time to craft better proposals, more time for communication, and greater ability to hold contractors accountable (since there's no rush to approve expenditures).
3) It alters the cost-benefit analysis, because now the cost of disapproving a proposal is lower and the cost of approving a proposal is higher, since the funds if unused would be available for future projects.
P.S. It is vitally important that masternode owners realize there is risk in everything, and that it is up to them to assess the risk. There have been, and will continue to be, budget proposals that simply don't work out very well. That's simply how the world works--there are no guarantees in anything. All we can do is assess the risk and make the best possible decision with the information we have. If something doesn't work out, we learn from it and use that knowledge later. Failure is to be expected; if we never fail, it's because we never aspired.
a) Lessen the time factor--There is a real sense of urgency, in that we have only one month (at most) to plan and make proposals to the network before the funds or irretrievably "lost" for future development.
b) Given that any unallocated funds are lost forever (by simply not being created), we have a situation in which there is essentially zero cost for failure. If a proposal doesn't work out, then so what? The funds would have been lost anyway. The flip side is that almost any proposal with even the slightest chance of bringing value to the ecosystem is worthwhile, from a strict cost-benefit analysis. Take the latest proposal to integrate with a major exchange: that's just over 2,000 DASH or $30,000 USD. Not spending that money would effectively increase the value of all DASH in existence by half a cent, which is infinitesimal.
c) Communication must be improved. The creation of the new subforum is an excellent start.
My suggestion is to allow the network to "bank" any unspent funds so that they can be used at a later time by worthy projects. This has several advantages:
1) There's an incentive for saving. Today's unused funds will likely be worth quite a bit more in the future, due to price appreciation. This month's proposals, therefore, essentially have to compete against the possibility of even better proposals in the future. We don't want to fund marginal projects today, since that takes money away from potentially better projects in the future.
2) It eliminates the time factor, since there's no longer a hurry to spend funds before we lose them (i.e. before the month's superblocks are created). That gives more time to craft better proposals, more time for communication, and greater ability to hold contractors accountable (since there's no rush to approve expenditures).
3) It alters the cost-benefit analysis, because now the cost of disapproving a proposal is lower and the cost of approving a proposal is higher, since the funds if unused would be available for future projects.
P.S. It is vitally important that masternode owners realize there is risk in everything, and that it is up to them to assess the risk. There have been, and will continue to be, budget proposals that simply don't work out very well. That's simply how the world works--there are no guarantees in anything. All we can do is assess the risk and make the best possible decision with the information we have. If something doesn't work out, we learn from it and use that knowledge later. Failure is to be expected; if we never fail, it's because we never aspired.
Couple of VERY important points you bring up on this that I've never understood and never agreed on...why can't the funds be "banked"
This urgency to spend the funds before they are "burned" is ridiculous. This should be addressed...unless there is some compelling technical reason as to why we can't do this, this requirement should be removed.And second back to my original point...and one you touch on here...we need a very clear way to assess the performance of the budget system. Certainly we are all grown ups here(well most are here...
lol ) and can assess risk using our own criteria. The problem is that the information to make this kind judgement of system is incomplete and not readily available. This is quite problematic. So to recap...2 things need to be addressed, we should be advocating the removal of the time limit on spending the funds in a limit time frame and 2 creating a portal to which not only masternode operators but the community at large can gauge the performance of our system.
The issue was a technical one if I remember correctly. People balked at members of Core being in control of the "bank" (for good reason) -- and it wasn't feasible for funds to be in a n of m multisig account as the the m (number of masternodes) is always changing. If fact, I don't think a proposal can even be paid out to any type of multisig account currently...
12.1 and Sentinel may allow such a functionality and it does make sense to explore this "bank" if it is technically feasible. A dev can probably offer more insight.
Just to clarify, by "banked" I mean "uncreated, but able to be created in a future superblock." Essentially, I'm suggesting that the network "remember" how many Dash have gone uncreated, and be able to create that many Dash in a future month.
For example, under the present system (hypothetical) with a maximum budget of 7450 DASH per month:
Month 1 -- 5218 DASH paid to proposals, 2232 unpaid and never created
Month 2 -- 6938 DASH paid to proposals, 512 unpaid and never created
Month 3 -- 6277 DASH paid to proposals, 1173 unpaid and never created
Month 4 -- 9000 DASH in proposals have enough votes to be paid, but the limit is still 7450 DASH, meaning *at least* 1550 DASH worth of proposals end up being unpaid
Under a new system where unused funds are "banked" or "remembered" by the network:
Month 1 -- 5218 DASH paid to proposals, 2232 unpaid and never created, network remembers that it can create up to 2232 more DASH
Month 2 -- 6938 DASH paid to proposals, 512 unpaid and never created, network knows that it can create up to 2744 more DASH
Month 3 -- 6277 DASH paid to proposals, 1173 unpaid and never created, network knows that it can create up to 3917 more DASH
Month 4 -- 9000 DASH in proposals have enough votes to be paid, network pays all proposals, since there are plenty of funds to do so (7450 DASH for the month, plus 3917 previously "banked" or "remembered" DASH that could have been created, but weren't)
Now, you don't want this to go on forever; uncreated DASH eventually have to "expire." The original discussion of DGBB involved the possibility of "banking" uncreated DASH, but the worry was that superblocks might end up creating an insane amount of DASH one month due to all the uncreated DASH being expended all at once. There's also the risk of perverse incentive: if a massive amount of uncreated DASH was remembered by the network, a few masternode owners could collude and create a worthless proposal that would vote all the funds to themselves. It would hurt Dash, but they huge payout would make it worthwhile.
I think it would be beneficial for the network to have a three month "memory." Nothing crazy, but enough to be a little flexible.
Re: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency
I think that in order to get more efficiency from the budget system we need to do one or more of the following things:
a) Lessen the time factor--There is a real sense of urgency, in that we have only one month (at most) to plan and make proposals to the network before the funds or irretrievably "lost" for future development.
b) Given that any unallocated funds are lost forever (by simply not being created), we have a situation in which there is essentially zero cost for failure. If a proposal doesn't work out, then so what? The funds would have been lost anyway. The flip side is that almost any proposal with even the slightest chance of bringing value to the ecosystem is worthwhile, from a strict cost-benefit analysis. Take the latest proposal to integrate with a major exchange: that's just over 2,000 DASH or $30,000 USD. Not spending that money would effectively increase the value of all DASH in existence by half a cent, which is infinitesimal.
c) Communication must be improved. The creation of the new subforum is an excellent start.
My suggestion is to allow the network to "bank" any unspent funds so that they can be used at a later time by worthy projects. This has several advantages:
1) There's an incentive for saving. Today's unused funds will likely be worth quite a bit more in the future, due to price appreciation. This month's proposals, therefore, essentially have to compete against the possibility of even better proposals in the future. We don't want to fund marginal projects today, since that takes money away from potentially better projects in the future.
2) It eliminates the time factor, since there's no longer a hurry to spend funds before we lose them (i.e. before the month's superblocks are created). That gives more time to craft better proposals, more time for communication, and greater ability to hold contractors accountable (since there's no rush to approve expenditures).
3) It alters the cost-benefit analysis, because now the cost of disapproving a proposal is lower and the cost of approving a proposal is higher, since the funds if unused would be available for future projects.
P.S. It is vitally important that masternode owners realize there is risk in everything, and that it is up to them to assess the risk. There have been, and will continue to be, budget proposals that simply don't work out very well. That's simply how the world works--there are no guarantees in anything. All we can do is assess the risk and make the best possible decision with the information we have. If something doesn't work out, we learn from it and use that knowledge later. Failure is to be expected; if we never fail, it's because we never aspired.
a) Lessen the time factor--There is a real sense of urgency, in that we have only one month (at most) to plan and make proposals to the network before the funds or irretrievably "lost" for future development.
b) Given that any unallocated funds are lost forever (by simply not being created), we have a situation in which there is essentially zero cost for failure. If a proposal doesn't work out, then so what? The funds would have been lost anyway. The flip side is that almost any proposal with even the slightest chance of bringing value to the ecosystem is worthwhile, from a strict cost-benefit analysis. Take the latest proposal to integrate with a major exchange: that's just over 2,000 DASH or $30,000 USD. Not spending that money would effectively increase the value of all DASH in existence by half a cent, which is infinitesimal.
c) Communication must be improved. The creation of the new subforum is an excellent start.
My suggestion is to allow the network to "bank" any unspent funds so that they can be used at a later time by worthy projects. This has several advantages:
1) There's an incentive for saving. Today's unused funds will likely be worth quite a bit more in the future, due to price appreciation. This month's proposals, therefore, essentially have to compete against the possibility of even better proposals in the future. We don't want to fund marginal projects today, since that takes money away from potentially better projects in the future.
2) It eliminates the time factor, since there's no longer a hurry to spend funds before we lose them (i.e. before the month's superblocks are created). That gives more time to craft better proposals, more time for communication, and greater ability to hold contractors accountable (since there's no rush to approve expenditures).
3) It alters the cost-benefit analysis, because now the cost of disapproving a proposal is lower and the cost of approving a proposal is higher, since the funds if unused would be available for future projects.
P.S. It is vitally important that masternode owners realize there is risk in everything, and that it is up to them to assess the risk. There have been, and will continue to be, budget proposals that simply don't work out very well. That's simply how the world works--there are no guarantees in anything. All we can do is assess the risk and make the best possible decision with the information we have. If something doesn't work out, we learn from it and use that knowledge later. Failure is to be expected; if we never fail, it's because we never aspired.
Re: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency
For any newbies, here is some history:
Then accused of trying to take over Dash by submitting a proposal to get technology into vendors called vendor-experience. Instantx anyone?
Then accused of trying to take over Dash by submitting a proposal to get technology into vendors called vendor-experience. Instantx anyone?
You submitted a proposal for 729 Dash for a 99 month duration. Numerous voters told you they would change their votes if you decreased the duration. We told you that the price of Dash was going to rise a great deal over those 99 months, and that we didn't want to effectively vote you an unlimited budget (72,171 DASH over the course of 99 months). At today's valuation, that would be $1.1 million. You have done some great things for the project, but most people were not willing to allocate that much money to your project.
Quote
- Called a scammer for supporting Dash and community with a slack and then stopping it when the proposal was defunded.
Let's not try to change the facts...the proposal got defunded AFTER you said that it would no longer be a Dash Slack. You had already received two payments from the Network, which you refused to refund. You then tried to sell the Slack (that the Network paid for) back to the Core Team. "Scammer" is such a loaded word--if you have another word for somebody who took possession of something that somebody else paid for, then feel free to use it instead.
I want to be clear: you've done some great things for Dash. For a long time, I considered you a member of the "loyal opposition." When you decided to steal the Network's property, that's when I began considering you a scammer and a troll. Others may see things differently, and that's fine. Most of the time I have you on ignore, but I will from time to time pop up and remind any new community members of your past actions, just so that they have all the information available and can make up their own minds about you.
Cheers!
Re: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency
Hey all this is ddink7...I'm told that somebody hacked my ddink7 account and started PMing people asking for money. That obviously is not me.