DASH WILL NEVER BE SUCCESSFUL if it does not solve this Problem

[TanteStefana]

Actually, can't you do something with the API to only accept denominated coins? That would force private send coins?

Dash Message and Payment Exchange Without Usernames or Registration

A no registrations solution that deals with authentication around the time of a transaction rather than before or after. It also hopes to deal with phishing attacks.

1. Person A calls Person B by telephone (mobile or voip, it's not important). Both parties have a dash app running in the background.

2. When Person A initiates the call, their dash app registers with the MN network and it says, "My telephone number is XXX and I'm calling YYY".

3. Every time Person B receives a call, their dash app also registers with the MN network and says, "I am YYY and I've just received a call from XXX".

4. The MN network has now established a two way channel of communication that is open for a maximum of two hours, or until either party hangs up.

5. Both parties can now exchange messages and payments via the MN network.

6. Only Person A (the initiator) can send money to Person B, thus stemming phishing attacks.

7. Only Person B (the receiver) can send files / invoices to Person A, thus limiting malware from Person A.

NOTES:

1. The phone numbers are arbitrary; a company with a switchboard number would simply announces that number to the MN network.

2. When Person B receives a call, the dash app would display how many live connections Person A is making. Thus, Person B might be able to determine if it really is a call centre.

3. To stem spamming, a micro-micro transaction would be paid by Person A (the initiator) when Person B answers the call.

4. It is possible that Person B sends fake documents / invoices to Person A. However, it was Person A that initiated the call, so the onus is on Person A to do their due diligence.

5. The existing methods of using dash would remain as an option (QR codes, usernames etc).

I've been thinking on this, and it just doesn't seem like any of what Dash wants to build, to be like Paypal, could be built on such a system. How do you see your account information off any device. This seems like a very complex and extra secure direct 1 time payment - not something that can handle subscriptions, etc... I mean, I can see something like this being built as a different wallet that people could use if they want to and are technical and feel they need the extra security, but only a small subset of technocrats would use it, IMHO. But I don't see any reason why it couldn't be done?

At this point in time, I would rather all resources possible go toward getting Evolution to work for the "regular folks".

 

[TanteStefana]

I don't particularly want to get into the whole privacy vs transparency debate again, it's already been extensively covered elsewhere. Suffice to say that as a merchant, I can't enforce the receiving of mixed coins.. if I am receiving tainted coins, I have to hope I can pass them on to others, or I have to return them and engage the customer again, thus consuming time or requiring a third party to check my received coins. In short, Private Send is only good for the sender and does nothing to protect the receiver.. a wallet solution is therefore not a great solution.

I would think that it would be pretty easy, in my limited knowledge of programming, to enforce receiving only denominated amounts. That would almost certainly always be from mixed funds?? Also, I don't see where this would be an issue for anyone except exchanges. Normal merchants selling goods are not required to know where the cash they receive is coming from, I don't see why this burden would suddenly be placed on them.

 

[stan.distortion]

If a merchant wishes all his incoming transactions to be anonymous then said merchant would be wise to follow the guidance laid down at the dawn of crypto and use a different receiving address for every transaction.

 

[TanteStefana]

I want to add that in Hayek's paper "choice in currency", gresham's law is only applicable if the currencies have a prescribed rate of exchange. If there is a free market system dictating the exchange rate good money will always win.

As an example, Hayek talks about how in the times of great inflation between the wars, people use cigarettes and other items as money even so there were great consequences for getting caught. So why would Dash catch on? Because it lives in a free-market system and it is good money.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

I understand the desire to be able to enforce the receiving of mixed coins, but I don't agree this is a significant issue. One doesn't have to hope they can pass them on to others, they can either choose to mix them at that time or return them.

A lot of your commentary as of late seems alarmist and/or ridiculous to me. My ratings on your posts are my legitimate view. Your ratings on my posts today are clearly just an attack on me. Pretty sad.

If you keep marking me as trolling, I'll keep returning the favour.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

I've been thinking on this, and it just doesn't seem like any of what Dash wants to build, to be like Paypal, could be built on such a system. How do you see your account information off any device. This seems like a very complex and extra secure direct 1 time payment - not something that can handle subscriptions, etc... I mean, I can see something like this being built as a different wallet that people could use if they want to and are technical and feel they need the extra security, but only a small subset of technocrats would use it, IMHO. But I don't see any reason why it couldn't be done?

At this point in time, I would rather all resources possible go toward getting Evolution to work for the "regular folks".

From an end-users perspective it's far simpler than anything that Evolution is doing. If I didn't list those steps, I'd get lots of replies saying "it won't work, what if...".. but in reality it's super easy for the user, everything is automatic.. you just make a call and offer to send money to them... no need to ask for account numbers or read out credit card numbers etc.

 

[toknormal]

There's only 1 way to address Grasham's law - hold whatever you like and denominate payments in the 'government currency'.

The thing about Gresham's law is it doesn't really compare 2 forms of money. More realistically it's comparing a fixed supply, commodity based money with an arbitrary inflationary unit with which to denominate prices.

So, lets say we live on an Island. You have bundles of grain and I have shells. We start an economy where we grow stuff, build stuff, work labour hours etc. Since there are so many different "things" to measure the price of, we invent a new unit of measure out of thin air - lets call it the 'Gresham'. We start off by establishing an exchange rate between your grain and my shells and the Gresham. Say we agree that a bundle of grain has ALWAYS to be 20 Greshams and a shell has ALWAYS to be 5 Greshams. We also agree to measure our labour hours in Greshams = 2 Gr per hour.

At the start of proceedings, there are:

10 bundles of grain = 200 Gr
50 Shells = 250 Gr
0 Labour hours worked = 0 Gr

So our micro economy is worth 450 Greshams.

We now work for a few weeks, at the end of which we have:

20 Bundles of grain = 400 Gr
100 Shells = 500 Gr
50 Labour hours = 100 Gr

So our economy is now worth 1000 Greshams.

Over on a big Oak tree, we chalk up the number of Gr in the economy as well as what's owed to each other in labour. The tree is our "central bank", so by adding new marks to the tree we can say that our central bank is "printing new money" to keep track of economic growth.

What do we notice about this ? A few significant things:

[1] - a bail of grain still costs 20 Gr even though the Gresham 'money supply' has inflated
[2] - we now additionally have 100 Gr of credit money in the ecnonomy (the 50 Labour hours) of which 20 Gr are yours and 30 Gr are mine
[3] - prices are stable if measured in Gr but decreasing if measured in either corn bundles or shells (thats by design)

Now, I decide to buy a bundle of grain from you and you buy two shells from me with your credit money. (It's actually "flow money", that represents "proof of labour" ! LoL ). From that point on, all our trades are denominated in 'Greshams', even if our respective stores of value are still bundles or grain & shells.

********** MORAL OF THE STORY *********
It's not whether or not the money is "in circulation" thats important, it's how you denominate the trade. In fact the more an asset stays OUT of circulation the better it will perform as a store of value.

The way to get the best of both worlds is to hold the asset in a deflationary currency and spend it in trades that are denominated in the inflationary currency. So say I had all my money in a Dash wallet. In 2015 I buy a PC Monitor costing $500 which at that time is 25 Dash. I "point" my wallet at amazon.com and fire $500 at it (not 25 Dash). The wallet deducts whatever Dash that corresponds to and flips it through shapeshift or something into $ denominated trade.

Then 4 years later I want to replace the monitor. Monitor still costs $500 so I point my wallet at amazon.com once again and fire $500 at it. This time shapeshift (which supports fiat currencies by this time) only deducts 15 Dash from my savings but still lets me buy a $500 monitor.

Thats how you decouple deflationary and inflationary currencies so that all parties benefit:

1. You benefit from holding your savings in a deflationary asset that accrues value as the economy grows
2. amazon benefits from not having to re-price their goods every month or pander to all kinds of cryptocurrencies begging to be "accepted"
3. Dell benefit from being able to budget and sell in a stable currency to minimise any adverse impact of their 'time to market'

As for making "deflationary currencies" stable - forget it. The whole point of them is that they are NOT stable, otherwise they would never be able to store any value against the prevailing trade-denomination currency ($USD. EUR, £GBP etc).

 

[ashmoran]

There is one obstacle that no crypto currency nor any other anarchistic currency has ever overcome.

It is not the usabillity, it is Gresham's law.

"In economics, Gresham's law is a monetary principle stating that "bad money drives out good". For example, if there are two forms of commodity money in circulation, which are accepted by law as having similar face value, the more valuable commodity will disappear from circulation." - Wikipedia
​

In simple English: When Dash becomes more valuable over time, but legal money is inflationary (losing value), people will use legal money for exchanging goods and Dash for savings. They will always prefere to give away the money, that "burns it's value" over time..

I'm not sure wether this could work or not. But but what are your thoughts on Gresham's law? How will we solve this problem?

​

To the best of my knowledge, thats not how Gresham's Law works.

I believe Gresham's Law works like this: if 1oz of gold is worth 10oz of silver on the free market, but the government passes a law that 1oz gold = 20oz of silver, gold becomes twice as valuable according to the decreed exchange rate. So people will spend gold for more than it's market value and hoard silver.

Argentina has been held as a counterexample to Gresham's Law because the US dollar continues to circulate despite the local currency being artificially overpriced, so in fact Gresham's Law depends on more than just price fixing.

In the absence of some artificial exchange rate, people are free to trade whatever money and commodities they feel like, and will hold and spend according to their personal preferences (acceptance by merchants, expectation of future value, appetite for risk, and so on). People gravitate to what they consider "good" money, in the sense that they will want to hold and spend whatever is useful to them, and this for many people may be a mixture.

 

[camosoul]

Gresham's Law makes one unspoken presumption; that value is a fiat declaration.

If Stocks were fungible, you don't think they would be spent directly?

Crypto's value is commodity driven, just like the things it is used to buy and sell.

There is value in non-conversion. If I could spend it without converting it, I damn well would, even if its better money. Why? It makes my better money usable, so I can do a way with the crappy money altogether. Gresham's Law expects me to choose between two when I am forced to use two.

If I am not forced to use two, the bottom falls out. Would you deliberately work for shitty money when you didn't have to? If two cars of equal price tag are available to you, and you can pick one, and aren't forced to own both... Do you pick the shitty on or the good one, knowing the value you'll have to pay is the same?

The dynamic here is that the end user of DASH doesn't have to use fiat anymore, at all, if it us usable. The vendor is and always will be in bed with guv and forced to use guvpaper. The vendor will have to do both. The end user doesn't have to, so it doesn't apply to the end user if the vendor offers the service of direct payment. Why would the vendor defy Gresham's Law? Because the shitty money is shitty in part because using it at all costs him a pound of flesh. If DASH extracts only an ounce of flesh instead of a pound, he's willing to deal with it.

This is the first road on the path to adoption.

Duh.

 

[toknormal]

If Stocks were fungible, you don't think they would be spent directly?

I don't necessarily think they would.

Consider the fact that everyone - almost universally - has two types of money to hand, an inflationary one and a deflationary one. The reason there's a need for two is that the only attributes of a monetary medium that allow for "wiggle room" when the economy changes size are:

• supply
• value (e.r. purchasing power against goods & services)

(i.e. if you fix one of these, the other will vary).

The thing is, an economy needs both. I think when you say "shitty money" you actually mean the variable supply type. Ok it's "shitty" when you judge it by its ability to store value but it isn't shitty when you judge it by its ability to stabilise prices and there are a load of cases where thats the overriding priority (such as in manufacturing).

In other words, the variable liquidity type is needed for trading and the fixed supply type is needed for storing value. It's the holder's problem to switch between one and the other according to their immediate needs, not the monetary medium's problem.

The fact is you can see this being played out right now. Ask any Dash holder if they'd rather spend their fiat or their Dash down the supermarket. No-one in their right mind is going to swap their Dash for a packet of cornflakes, it's too valuable. Ok I agree that we'd all prefer to *earn* crypto but that isn't spending, it's earning. To earn it someone else has got to spend it and it's hard enough for most people to find a job that pays in an inflationary currency never mind a deflationary one (as long as inflationary currencies exist, which they will because there's a genuine and justified need for them).

 

[camosoul]

I agree that we'd all prefer to *earn* crypto but that isn't spending, it's earning.

Bingo.

You're forced into it.

You'd prefer not to use shitty money if you didn't have to. You'd prefer not to use a shitty anything if you didn't have to.

Of course I want to get rid of the shitty thing first. This is Gresham's Law, basically.

But, if I didn't have a shitty thing in the first place, I wouldn't feel compelled to optimize it's exit from my possession.

 

[Cofresí]

Here's some wisdom from pragmatic rural Russia: клин клином вышибают, meaning something like 'fight fire with fire', or 'only a diamond cuts a diamond', e.g eating ice-cream to get rid of your cold, or the best way to fight your sex addiction to maybe consider .... I'm half joking of course, but such wisdom has helped me several times. What does all that mean in the context of deflationary DASH sky-rocketing in value being it's own worst enemy when it comes to spending same?

Well what about this: if it were possible to construct a monetary bridge that facilitates not only DASH holders, but simply anybody, to get rid of their shitty money, and in so doing and spending their dirty fiat, at the same time crank up DASH's money velocity by helping exchanging (spending) DASH. The person trying to get rid of his dirty fiat entering the buy-side of the DASH trading market if you will. Then wouldn't that at least partly solve our problem and drive DASH adoption, or at least DASH money velocity and trade volume even more? Possibly. But how should we go about to do that and is it possible at all?

Simple: Enter reverse Purse.io.

Maybe you heard of Purse.io, it's the webpage that allows you to buy stuff on amazon with a 15% discount paying for it in btc. Here's how it works.

To understand how it would work reversed, it helps exchanging the relevant words in that article thusly:

"The company DASH DAO is marketing its service at people who would like to purchase items at Amazon Evo Marketplace using bitcoin Fiat instead of DASH, which the retail giant doesn't yet accept clever merchant wanting only DASH but still seeking a way to remain fiat compatible doesn't want to accept. But integral to its solution are those who want to obtain bitcoin sell DASH using a credit card their favorite exchange, perhaps in areas where exchanges are not available and don't mind that their sell orders can automatically be routed to reverse Purse.io.

By matching these two markets, reverse Purse.io is able to offer bitcoin Fiat purchases on Amazon Evo Marketplace, powered by a kind of bitcoin DASH exchange that uses a buyers' seller's discount in the form of higher liquidity to incentivise bitcoin DASH owners to 'sell' their digital currency.

This process is similar to a peer-to-peer (P2P) marketplace, where reverse Purse.io acts as an intermediary, offering users the platform, bitcoin DASH wallet and escrow for transactions."

Confusing? Ok, so we are going to be using the sell side of the DASH trading markets to buy stuff with DASH directly from DASH accepting merchants (i.e. Evolution marketplace) that still want to be compatible for fiat paying buyers who send their dirty fiat to the DASH seller on such exchange or to the intermediary which runs the account for said seller on the exchange.

It seems that soon we will have all the puzzle pieces in place to enable such reverse purse.io services. If you haven't yet, try to make sense of the Wall of Coins api. As far as I understand it, @rgenito and his boys made it possible for just about anyone to match the sell side (DASH for fiat seller) with the buy side (Fiat seller, goods buyer) in their system. The clever, only DASH accepting still fiat compatible merchant would be in the middle of those two buyers/sellers, essentially buying DASH himself by sending his goods to the goods buyer (fiat seller), once the DASH for fiat seller or the automatic system that monitors his exchange account has given green light and cleared the bank wire or WU or whatever fiat transfer.

http://genitrust.github.io/woc-reference-client/htdocs/buy.html
http://genitrust.github.io/woc-reference-client/htdocs/sell.html

The difficulty in this is to find the proper balance of interests on all three sides. And the time lag of fiat transfers. DAPI and incentive programs from the DASH DAO could help here. Maybe 15% discount as used in purse.io's model will turn out to be too great a discount for the clever DASH accepting still fiat compatible merchants to go by in exchange for the privilege to be paid in DASH and being able to dodge all the hassle of direct fiat acceptance. But that is for the market to decide. What can be predicted with some confidence is that there will be such a discount for DASH payments in relation to the same goods in the fiat world. Maybe that is all it would take to set this shitty money recycling feedback loop into motion.

 

[camosoul]

I'm itchin' to spend my DASH. But, there's nowhere to do it... Still.

 

[lynx]

Simple: Enter reverse Purse.io.

Yeah, that sounds nice, but I have to agree with camo, we have to have vendors who accept Dash as an option before they would want to accept it exclusively (how would they pay for their inputs?).

 

[shoggoth]

Tok, actually what you are saying in your post seems to me like a 1:1 reflection of BTCs path, correct?
I think we both share the conviction that BTC will be a kind of gold (asset, store of value, what ever one calls it) and there will be the "run" for who will be the "currency" - and as I understand Amanda and Tao - this is what DASH (core & foundation & EvanD) want to be?

If so let me "take off from my runway and try to catch you in air":

In a certain way, it seems the "deflationary core" of cryptos may be an issue you identified - I had this question at my (late) start with Cryptos - everybody kept writing/talking about the "limited amount" and hoe cool that is/was, but no one seemed to consider the issues involved (or I do not understand):

1. "Positive" in cryptos terms: It is limited=deflationary, stupid:

Then it becomes a system like feudalism (medieval times) as it is the only period of history I can spontaneously think about where a limited resource (then land, now coins) was spun out (mostly due to support in wars, call it "proof-of-loyalty")..kind of the miners/MNs work, today)...

You could then compare the inventors/creators of a currency to the king, the early adopters/miners//core team/MNs as the aristocracy/clergy (was the same then...) "owning" the land due to the contract (sharing) of the creator(s) and the rest as ... the peasants/farmers...sharing somehow the land (MNs) with the aristocracy, but having to pay at least a tenth back visibly or more invisibly to it and/or be at their (aristocracy) sub-contracts will...

2. Negative crypto terms: Not unlimited, stupid:

I remember how excited I was when I first read about the "Satoshi" - a 1/100,000,000st of a BTC. How cool is that? Micropayment goes pica-payment and more...all "creator-copyright-use" issues of the digital age could be solved - so easily!

Then came a question: How can a crypto be "limited" if the units can be broken down in infinite?
Yes, someone/consensus defined the Satoshi as the smallest unit - but its just a consensus, right? It could be more....or less...

But anyway - it may not be 21,000,000 BTCs, it may be 21,000,000 x 100,000,000 Satoshis that GRADUALLY become the currency - and with this "gradually" I mean, people will maybe start with a mBTC and so on...so this will shift the "currency" in the blockchain from "BTC" to "mBTC" and eventually to a Satoshi...and if so - I asked myself then, would that not be INFLATIONARY?

So I think, the core of DASH should think about hiring econimcs and sociology (and maybe history) pros...because we really need to think not only the "community-economics" through, but also the "society&global-economics"...

So back to the "Gresham" issue:
1. Positive terms - limited
Then I see it as you in pure economical terms...a limited crypto has to be more valueable than a unlimited paper-currency - thus leading to a "BTC effect", thus making DASH too valuable for exchanging goods. But as at the same time BTC would linger above as the "digital gold" it would probably lead to DASHs demise....

2. Negartive terms: Not unlimited
For me this seems the better alternative - I am not sure when and how - but you would have to separate on your own specific blockchain a value-token from a money token...this way you would create your own "cheap money" competing with your own value-token...and I personally do not think you can pish this too far into the future...you would have to define the 2 relatively early to ensure all knew and could build trust...

The downside (imho) would "just" be, that you would have to bury the idea of "deflationary"....

Anyway - an interesting topic...I think. Thank you, toknormal for sharing it!

 

[lynx]

But anyway - it may not be 21,000,000 BTCs, it may be 21,000,000 x 100,000,000 Satoshis that GRADUALLY become the currency - and with this "gradually" I mean, people will maybe start with a mBTC and so on...so this will shift the "currency" in the blockchain from "BTC" to "mBTC" and eventually to a Satoshi...and if so - I asked myself then, would that not be INFLATIONARY?

No, I think you are misunderstanding things... If gold, for example, becomes so valuable that for everyday transactions (assuming we used gold for everyday transactions) people started trading in miligrams of it instead of grams, it doesn't mean that there was inflation. Whoever owned a gram of gold didn't get his gold debased because he always did - and still does - possess 1000 miligrams of gold. The same thing with crypto.

 

[GeauxSheaux]

But anyway - it may not be 21,000,000 BTCs, it may be 21,000,000 x 100,000,000 Satoshis that GRADUALLY become the currency - and with this "gradually" I mean, people will maybe start with a mBTC and so on...so this will shift the "currency" in the blockchain from "BTC" to "mBTC" and eventually to a Satoshi...and if so - I asked myself then, would that not be INFLATIONARY?

You have a cup of water. It has 3.01 x 10^23 water molecules in it. But now let's define it by its total number of oxygen atoms, 2 x molecules. You still have the same cup of water. You're just defining smaller and smaller portions of the same total amount.

 

[shoggoth]

I think, here the metaphor stops being useful - we had gold as a currency....also silver.....bronc...even salt..
They all had their limits to the granularity you could "tweak" them to....parts of (the metric) words like kilo, deci, centi, mili or micro stem from this...because in order to trade with others it had to be "broken down"...in alignments as above...but as there were physical limits, societies then searched for "convertible" goods...finally using print on paper as the final resort...backed by gold and/or other "real" values at first...and then...well...belief? ;-)

Now you have a "gold", that can be divided into infinite n pieces...n=consensus....if you go beyond 1/1,000st it will be an effect as a paper currency...because it is the main reason why paper currency was invented...to go beyond the physical boundaries of physical goods...

And since Greshams law seems to make sense, every crypto that does not carry seperated "gold" and "currency" in itself will not be more than a speculative experience for some, but never a solution for many - imo today ....

 

[lynx]

The analogy doesn't break down, because even being infinitely divisible doesn't make a currency inflationary. There are no new coins being emitted (for the purpose of this discussion), so no one is losing relative purchasing power.

 

[Anonymous Dude]

There is one obstacle that no crypto currency nor any other anarchistic currency has ever overcome.

It is not the usabillity, it is Gresham's law.

"In economics, Gresham's law is a monetary principle stating that "bad money drives out good". For example, if there are two forms of commodity money in circulation, which are accepted by law as having similar face value, the more valuable commodity will disappear from circulation." - Wikipedia
​

In simple English: When Dash becomes more valuable over time, but legal money is inflationary (losing value), people will use legal money for exchanging goods and Dash for savings. They will always prefere to give away the money, that "burns it's value" over time.

The only thinkable solution can be one that makes shopping with dash more beneficial than shopping with legal money.

Usabillty won't do the trick here. Because any usabillity advancement can be adopted in legal money based payment services very quickly.

They also have the advancement of beeing widley accepted and people are used to use it. Once we have shifted this, inflationary currencies will lose their positions. Because although on the one hand everybody wants to give away inflationary money, on the other hand no one wants to get it back either.

One idea I have is to use some of the new mined coins to artificially drop prices. If we could pay shop owners some percentage of their sellings (bought with dash) for a little price drop, people might prefere dash instead of the legal money. Shop owners might prefere Dash because it will attract new customers, too.

If the lower prices together with the time preference beat the 'deflationary loss of giving dash away', people might prefere Dash. This could be a potential solution. It would only need to be applied until enough people and shops got used to use Dash.

I'm not sure wether this could work or not. But but what are your thoughts on Gresham's law? How will we solve this problem?

​

You're dead wrong. People will start to realise holding dollars is bad, therefore they will sell they're dollars for Dash, therefore increasing Dash's price. Meanwhile usability will also increase Dash's value (transaction number).