• Forum has been upgraded, all links, images, etc are as they were. Please see Official Announcements for more information

I think Dash needs some changes

Hi! Anton's here.

Rust is one of the main languages used today in the crypto community for a number of reasons. It provides high speed and memory safety while having no GC. Rust doesn't have nullable types and disallows referencing null pointers by default, which makes it extremely well suited for financial applications.

vazaki3 said:
is the rust of 2022 the same as the rust of 2020
Click to expand...

Of course not. It's developing. Every alive system is constantly evolving. C++ of 2020 is not the same as C++ in 2022. That's kind of a point of developing something. Mozilla is in financial turmoil at the moment, and they did lay off some of its people, including some working on Rust. Then Amazon picked up most of the slack. There are Rust developers on an Amazon payroll now.

In fact, just last year Linus Torvalds approved Rust, and this year we're going to see the first contributions to the kernel in Rust: https://www.zdnet.com/article/rust-takes-a-major-step-forward-as-linuxs-second-official-language/. Even C++ is not allowed in the Linux kernel. Bare C and Rust would be the only two official kernel languages. I'd say if something is good enough for the Linux kernel, it's good enough for almost anything else.

vazaki3 said:
See how polkadot developers are complaining
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what point did you want to prove exactly with this link? The GitHub issue this link leads to is about how Polkadot devs used a non-deterministic std search function in a place where a deterministic one should be used. I mean, yeah, you can complain about the fact that you didn't get how the function you've used works. That's totally a fault of the person who used an inappropriate function, and in no way fault of the language.

TLDR; In the issue above Polkadot devs introduced a bug themselves in their own codebase because they've assumed one of the std functions was deterministic while it wasn't. I'm not sure what this example can be used to prove and what it has to do with accountability.
 
antouhou said:
Hi! Anton's here.

Rust is one of the main languages used today in the crypto community for a number of reasons. It provides high speed and memory safety while having no GC. Rust doesn't have nullable types and disallows referencing null pointers by default, which makes it extremely well suited for financial applications.



Of course not. It's developing. Every alive system is constantly evolving. C++ of 2020 is not the same as C++ in 2022. That's kind of a point of developing something. Mozilla is in financial turmoil at the moment, and they did lay off some of its people, including some working on Rust. Then Amazon picked up most of the slack. There are Rust developers on an Amazon payroll now.

In fact, just last year Linus Torvalds approved Rust, and this year we're going to see the first contributions to the kernel in Rust: https://www.zdnet.com/article/rust-takes-a-major-step-forward-as-linuxs-second-official-language/. Even C++ is not allowed in the Linux kernel. Bare C and Rust would be the only two official kernel languages. I'd say if something is good enough for the Linux kernel, it's good enough for almost anything else.



I'm not sure what point did you want to prove exactly with this link? The GitHub issue this link leads to is about how Polkadot devs used a non-deterministic std search function in a place where a deterministic one should be used. I mean, yeah, you can complain about the fact that you didn't get how the function you've used works. That's totally a fault of the person who used an inappropriate function, and in no way fault of the language.

TLDR; In the issue above Polkadot devs introduced a bug themselves in their own codebase because they've assumed one of the std functions was deterministic while it wasn't. I'm not sure what this example can be used to prove and what it has to do with accountability.
Click to expand...

I am a fun of the inherently formally verified languages like haskell (used in Cardano), or OCaml (used in Tezos). Formally verified languages are secure languages, because their behavior is proved mathematically.

I am afraid of the intervention of the agents who want to control everything and especially the cryptocurrencies. Thats why we should rely on mathematical proof of the security of an algorithm or of a language, rather than rely on the skill or on the honesty of the developers, and this applies to Linus Torvalds too.

But of course , as a compromise, I could accept that rust or C are also fairly secure enviroments, unless it is proven otherwise.

Rust's first compiler that was used to create rust and compile the rest rust versions, was written in OCaml, then OCaml was abandonded and LLVM was used. I suspect that the agents may discovered a bug in this first OCaml version (or in the LLVM version) of Rust, that is inherited to all the rest rust versions and they want to get profit of it. Thats why they fired many old rust developers, and hired new ones that are under their control. This is of course a filthy conspiracy theory, and in order to be proved wrong we have to find the first version of rust written in OCaml, formally verify it, then create again the bootstrap of Rust and use it in order to compile the current rust version.

Getting started with Formal Verification Part 1: Introduction and Solvers - YouTube

antouhou said:
TLDR; In the issue above Polkadot devs introduced a bug themselves in their own codebase because they've assumed one of the std functions was deterministic while it wasn't. I'm not sure what this example can be used to prove and what it has to do with accountability.
Click to expand...

A formally verified/secure software (or hardware) should be deterministic, or at least a deterministic tree of states should spawn from a non-deterministic state. Polkadot devs believed that rust was secure, but after discovering a hidden non deterministic function they may changed their mind. Of course they are tighten to rust language now, and they cannot step back.

Lets not do their mistake, here in Dash. Lets formaly verify everything, lets be based on deterministic/secure/inherently formally verified languages.

Cardano did that, with haskell, and it is on top of coinmarketcap now.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MN1
Hey @Marine!
Great to see you joining the discussion :) - I think your input might be precious here.
Let me start by thanking you for the positive shift you have made in the main channel communication - it is really visible and I truly appreciate that. I can only say that I regret I had no chance to work with you as one team. Please keep doing what you are doing - it is good :)

I absolutely agree with you that marketing agencies do not always work effectively. The same with literally any agency, contractor, employee, or company - some are good, some are ok others can be ineffective or simply bad. That does not mean we should assume failure when trying to work with any - this would be a catastrophic attitude.
In-house teams could be ineffective the same way as agencies could - this is the reality.

I think we have the same goal in mind, and I also think our propositions are not contradictory. Let me explain what I had in mind and let's have further discussion.

I think we need both actually - in-house, internal team (not necessarily big - I think 3 people for start is an optimal size) + carefully selected agency, which would work with us only from time to time, when the time is right. This would give us a lot of flexibility and IMO would be much more efficient and cost-effective.
Why? Let me see what I would see (not saying it is a great and only possible solution - just my vision of the marketing strategy)

1. The internal team (I am assuming we are talking about the DCG team here) that would be a backbone of the marketing efforts. It should be relatively small because DCG is a software house and should not build a big marketing capacity. I think that an attempt to build a full-capacity marketing team internally would end up with lay-offs pretty quickly - it looks like the bear market is there and budgets will be shrinking. Therefore focus should be on effective and efficient solutions - marketing should be a mainly supporting function.
An internal team should create a constant flow of messages about Dash, create graphics, videos, comms, input for the agency, and whatever else is needed on a daily basis - deliver good performing content for masses, as you wrote :). But not focus on big campaigns - this is a different beast and I think externals could be better and more effective on that.

2. The external agency should be carefully selected (I know Leon recommended quite a good one), and educated. The relationship with them should be considered a long-term relationship. This should be definitely a crypto-oriented agency, with existing knowledge and expertise in the crypto industry. They should NOT work with us non-stop - only on demand. When should we use agencies then? Imho it should be done only in two cases:
- confirmed bull market on Bitcoin, when everyone is excited about crypto and it leads to quick wins and solid gains
- during the major releases (however, if a major release is expected during the bear market, these activities should be very limited because the bear market will kill any good news anyway)

I think we need to have realistic expectations and take the market situation into consideration VERY seriously.
When the market is in a downtrend, DCG and network should look for any possible way for savings - cost reductions, limiting headcount, looking for opportunities to save money, and doing only what is absolutely necessary, saving money for the future bull run. Even limiting development activities should be seriously considered. Support, maintenance, and building only quick, small features should be the main goals during the bear market. No extensive marketing is needed during the bear market on Bitcoin because it will be highly ineffective - no campaigns, no agency involvement. Only a constant flow of information about Dash and communication done by the internal team is what is needed during the difficult market situation.
Agency should be used as an additional super-weapon only when the time is right. This will not be cheap - as @GrandMasterDash mentioned - but we should plan it and collect money upfront, prepare materials, and use their expertise and channels (even if those are built on templates).

Marine said:
I would love to create kick-ass campaigns with agencies of course, but the budget is quite short for that needs. But if organics work properly, then it may open the door to funding for a perfect paid traffic plan.
Click to expand...
Me too ;) - let's figure out how to do it.
 
kot said:
What is the dark side actually?
Click to expand...

In this instance it means less emphasis on compliance and more energy on doing all the things DCG was resistant against, for example, improved end user privacy (ZKPs etc). I mean to say, for the same reasons Chris Hough was hired; to stop repeating the mistakes that got us here, take a leap of faith, and do some things that your natural instincts are rejecting.

I realize Chris has subsequently left and I wonder how much of old DCG culture was to play in that. It may be too late for Chris but not for this reboot.

It's not to say that fresh ideas and actions will automatically work because surely there will be mistakes. But if someone keeps making mistakes and then goes and repeats the same actions that got them there... then the same mistakes will happen all over again.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the clarification @GrandMasterDash ,

My post had a slightly different goal. I did not have in mind changing one geeky technology to another geeky technology. This is exactly what we should NOT be doing anymore. And it doesn't matter if it is for dark markets or any other market.

The intention of my post was (very shortly): no more and more focus on technology, development/developers, and experiments with perfect decentralisation but focus on markets, products and users instead.
Software development and technology should be the tools to reach market demands and business goals - they should not be the goals themselves.
 
@kot, thank you for your support, it means a lot to me! I’m really happy and proud to be part of the team behind Dash.

I believe we can do more for Dash, talk more and get more people involved.

Let me explain my point about agencies. OFC there are good and bad ones. But crypto is a quite specific industry, and classic marketing stuff may simply not work here. A particular expensive agency may have tons of successful case studies with big brands, but all them may mean nothing if they have no experience in crypto with its specific audience and behavior.

The previous fintech I worked at (not crypto) hired the best agency in our region for content and SEO stuff. These guys built their strategy only by using SEMrush's (marketing software for paid campaigns and organic promotion, yet another service I worked at before lol) algorithm analytics. The problem was that SEMrush and similar services just analyze keyword databases to suggest competitors to beat, but this information is not enough for building an actionable content strategy. Because one cannot be a competitor of Wikipedia, or Investopedia, if we’re talking about fintech. The guys from the agency didn’t care much about that and built content strategy based on that data which was completely wrong and led us nowhere.

And this is just one of such cases.

I believe there are many crypto-focused agencies, but it’s hard to tell how many scams there might be. I’m only saying that we gotta be super picky when it comes to working with an agency.

Regarding the internal team, you're absolutely right. I think I have a solution that might work for DCG. I wanted to tell about it a bit later (once there’s some proven track record at least), but since we’re talking about marketing changes right now I can’t help but tell you about DashWorks.

This is a DashIncubator fork we want to propose with the guys from DMH. Basically, DashWorks is a small team consisting of me, Doeke Koedijk, and Sam Kirby as mods. We aim to create and deliver valuable output for Dash. Anyone can join DashWorks and contribute to Dash for reasonable costs. DashWorks workflow is still under construction, but I think it can be a great solution for our further marketing efforts. DashWorks may put all organizations together and produce collective outputs.

IMO, we gotta focus on our strategy first, set up goals, spread roles, and see what tools we can use right now given short budget, market bloodbath, etc. Maybe it sounds too obvious, but that's just the way it is.

What do you think?
 
Last edited:
kot said:
Software development and technology should be the tools to reach market demands and business goals - they should not be the goals themselves.
Click to expand...

And how do you know the demands of the market ? Do you have any method that calculates these demands? Because many claim "these are the demands of the market!" and when you ask them "how do you know that?" they cannot explain ...... Please, stop the empty words and give us your calculations and your numbers...

You know what?...Not only you dont know the demands of the market, you dont even know the demands of the masternodes or the demands of the dash community! Because government questions remain very expensive, and nobody asks the masternodes or the dash community what they really want!

You have been a member of the DashCoreGroup during all these years, and we all know the results of DCG's leadership. So please be more humble next time, because you are part of the reasons Dash failed.

demo said:
Your way of thinking is simply wrong. Α governance decision should precede any implementation proposal. Why a free lancer developer to spend his time investigating how to change the Dash code, if he is not sure that the masternodes want that? Thats why those kind of questions are tottaly needed to be answered by the masternodes. They are not implementation proposals, they are just governance questions, that will incentivize free lancer developers outside the core team to start searching implementation solutions, and then make their implementation proposals to the budget system that are compatible to the governance decisions.
The governance type questions will boost dash, they will free it from the salary paid developers (which tend to have a civil servant behavior). What is really at stake in this very vote, it is whether the free developers or the paid employees developers will lead dash's future. And I prefer the free market rather than the employees-servants.
I hope to have mass participation in this vote, because this will show that the masternodes operators (regardless whether they agree or not to the specific question) they understand the huge value that those governance-type questions have.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
vazaki3 said:
Because government questions remain very expensive, and nobody asks the masternodes or the dash community what they really want!
Click to expand...
I do.
We're planning to run a series of talks to the community whether it is a discord chat, group call or anything else. If we want to make a powerful marketing shift, talking to the community is vital. I was just about to start with MNOs.
 
Marine said:
I do.
We're planning to run a series of talks to the community whether it is a discord chat, group call or anything else. If we want to make a powerful marketing shift, talking to the community is vital. I was just about to start with MNOs.
Click to expand...
Organising a series of talks .. Not a very original idea isnt it?....We have the budget system. Why dont you ask the governance questions directly into the budget system?

If you plan to run a series of talks, in order for your talks to be effective and essential we need a number. How many among the masternodes participated in your talks? Or, if your talks are addressed to the dash community, how many among the dash community (those who hold some dash in their wallet) participated? The participation will determin the quality of the talks you will organise, otherwise these talks, especially if paid by the budget, they will be yet another useless spend.

If you ask your governance questions directly into the budget system, we will know the participation of the masternodes, so we will know whether the questions you asked were effective and essential or not. Rational people tend to abstain when they are being asked irrelevant/troll questions. Rational people tend to participate and talk when they are being asked crutial and meaningfull questions.

If you dont want the participation in your talks to be measured, it is maybe because you want to get paid without being judged. I have an approximation of the individuals who operate masternodes. About 106 individuals. This may be a usefull info for you.
 
Last edited:
Every marketing activity should be measured.
The one thing here I don't get - who said questions would be trolling or irrelevant?
Feels like prejudice for no reason.
 
Marine said:
Every marketing activity should be measured.
The one thing here I don't get - who said questions would be trolling or irrelevant?
Feels like prejudice for no reason.
Click to expand...


You'll get used to Demo (Vazaki) and his rhetorical style, he has been a fixture on the Forum for years, Tungfa used to
kick him off the Forum until I became a Moderator, he has a reason to be suspect of Dash Core Group, but hopefully we
are turning a corner as a network.
 
Hey @Marine
So many great news in one post!

I have bad and good experience from working with agencies - from the fintech and pharma markets (for pharma they are absolutely critical btw). My experience tells me that it is absolutely critical to know your needs and expectations while working with the agency + coordinate this work very carefully.
And don't expect immediate spectacular successes or miracles.

Marine said:
I believe there are many crypto-focused agencies, but it’s hard to tell how many scams there might be. I’m only saying that we gotta be super picky when it comes to working with an agency.
Click to expand...
That's why I have mentioned about the agency recommended by Leon. Recommendation usually works better than selection (as in your case for example ;) ).

Marine said:
Regarding the internal team, you're absolutely right. I think I have a solution that might work for DCG. I wanted to tell about it a bit later (once there’s some proven track record at least), but since we’re talking about marketing changes right now I can’t help but tell you about DashWorks.

This is a DashIncubator fork we want to propose with the guys from DMH. Basically, DashWorks is a small team consisting of me, Doeke Koedijk, and Sam Kirby as mods. We aim to create and deliver valuable output for Dash. Anyone can join DashWorks and contribute to Dash for reasonable costs. DashWorks workflow is still under construction, but I think it can be a great solution for our further marketing efforts. DashWorks may put all organizations together and produce collective outputs.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely great news! I love it - we were going to launch a similar project with the DAO Maker in the past, but eventually did not start. I find it a great idea. Probably will participate myself from time to time :).
I hope it will grow and will be very helpful in building Dash awareness and promotion.
BTW - I think the recent events and spectacularly failing projects gave us really solid foundation to build a proper message to support our claim about being MUCH better, proven crypto.

Marine said:
IMO, we gotta focus on our strategy first, set up goals, spread roles, and see what tools we can use right now given short budget, market bloodbath, etc. Maybe it sounds too obvious, but that's just the way it is.

What do you think?
Click to expand...
I think you are absolutely correct :)
Preparations, strategies, goals, measures are as important as actions in any project.
Good luck!
Let me know if you need any of my help.
 
Last edited:
Interesting, there is no discussion about the issues with our developers.
Do you really think everything is fine and you want to keep it untouched? Do you really think it is OK to wait "3 more months" to develop another geeky feature or do sophisticated change or whatever else, just because it is great for developers?
I encourage especially DCG people to join the discussion and share their own perspectives.
 
Looking at the Dash Platform Product Sprint reviews i have confidence that Dash Platform is on track to deliver Dash Platform to Dash Mainnet end of this year and activated Q1-2023 (due to the hard fork of Dash Core v19). There is only one more version to go (Dash Platform v0.23) and then they are ready to go (provided that same block execution on Protocol is integrated with v0.23 or later this year !!)

I am less sure about Dash Core v19, seeing how delayed Dash Core v18 has become over time and still has not been released to Dash Mainnet. I just hope Dash Platform devs will indeed help the Dash Core devs with Dash Core v19 and with documentation / manual setup guides / stress testing / integration testing / Dashmate, as by then they should have far more time on their hands, as there will be less coding to do on Dash Platform after release of Dash Platform v0.23 on Testnet.

After Dash Platform gets released on Dash Mainnet, i would like for devs to focus on delivering Masternode Shares & Smart Contracts as mentioned on the Dash Roadmap. Nothing more, nothing less. These are essential feautures for the Dash community and for Dash Platform in my view. Masternode Shares should attract new blood to Dash / increase number of Dash users. Smart Contracts and further developments in that area should attract more dapp developers to build dapps for Dash and will hopelly lead one day to run dapps directly on Dash Platform. This should be Dash Platform's end goal.

After the release of Dash Platform i hope to see funding flows more towards Dash marketing and less towards Dash development.
Developments should have far shorter release cycles too, no more waiting a full year on a Dash Core software update and please no more adding of feautures that may never get used anyways and possible cause more delayment in the release process. Dash Core developers should realise that a lot of confidence has been lost and people have become very distrusting of their release process. Developers should focus on restoring that confidence by streamlining the release process (specially for v19) and by making far shorter release times. Focus on the essentials.

Edit : i just noticed that the goal post has changed for 2023, it no longer includes Masternode Shares in the Dash Roadmap, instead it includes :

sqAjGOc.png

source : https://www.dash.org/roadmap/

I think this is a wrong direction. Masternode Shares should be included in my opinion and i see no need to include fungible tokens support or NFTS support. The whole DeFi / NFTS space is currently deflating and i don't see attention returning to it in 2023. To me it seems like the market is moving on from overhyped and overpriced NFTS and fungible tokens. Seems to me a really strange move of Dash to throw resources, time and funding to it, in order to support it.
 
Last edited:
Roadmap on Dash Core Group Quarterly Call Q4-2021 (Includes Masternodes Shares on the 'Future' part)
See : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/dash-core-group-q4-2021-quarterly-call-3-february-2022.52664/ (see slides)

rNUzFme.png


Current roadmap ( https://www.dash.org/roadmap/ ) : No Masternode Shares, but instead we get Inter-Blockchain Communication (not totally sure if that is needed or not), Fungible tokens support (not needed in my opinion) , NFTS support (definitely not needed in my opinion).

yGSMTD8.png


I would like to know why our official Dash Roadmap is not showing Masternode Shares and instead is showing a lot of unnecessary or not needed feautures ?
Unless the Dash Roadmap website shows outdated information ? ( i am kinda praying that is the case, but then the question becomes : why have outdated information there in the first place ? Why not simply replace the roadmap with that of the quarterly calls ? Or at least adjust the 2023 part ?)

Maybe CTO of Dash Core Group could find the time to explain this ? I would appreciate it.
Having two different Dash roadmaps, showing different goal posts for 2023 is just confusing to Dash users.
 
Last edited:
The Roadmap on the website Is the most Up to date version. However Please note that Masternode shares are related to Dash Core, while few last blocks of the Roadmap diagram are mostly about Dash Platform. Core And DashPay seem to be bit outdated though
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: kot
@AgnewPickens

Kindly please remove all off-topic posts made by @vazaki3 , especially anything related to voting with numbers, universal dividend, or similar fantasies.
If one person is flooding every discussion with his strange theories and redirects discussion in a meaningless direction, the forum is becoming less and less attractive place to discuss important topics. Let's care about the quality of the discussion.
 
I have deleted a few of his comments @kot - but some were on topic, I hope that cleans things up for you a bit.
If you have a problem with him or another member like this, please do not file multiple reports again, I can barely stay on top
of all the spam and sock traffic we get here on the Forum, just use the private message feature, please and thanks.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top