Search results

So I'm trying to get started on testnet...I changed dash.conf to include "testnet=1" and the client loads just fine and says [testnet]. But then once qt loads, I get "No block source available 2 years and 17 weeks behind." Wasn't testnet just reset with a new genesis block? Why is it looking for...

Sorry if this is outside the scope, but I've never understood what the market making bots do? How do they help? Do they buy Dash and then try to sell it at a profit? If not, how do they keep from losing money? Where does the capital come from?

Thank you sir!

Over the last few days, I've been thinking about the budget system, its relative importance, and its effect on governance. I've edited a post I made on BCT a few days ago and using those ideas as the core of this post. TroyDASH made an excellent post...

I think 99% of people will worry about irrevocable contracts if they see them happen. Right now there is ZERO reason to believe that the devs aren't including some sort of "out" into the code. Sure, it would be better if they commented here and assuaged people's fears, but honestly, what's the...

Evan already said that it can't be done. If you can figure out a way, by all means please implement it. You can't compel the impossible. Even with a gun to my head, there's no way that I can walk through a wall.

This is a really good point. Never underestimate the semantic properties of a brand.

I can only imagine..."Darksent" to "PrivacyProtected" being only the tip of the iceberg on that one..

I agree with this. I think the "dark" part of "Darksend" is toxic and needs to go as soon as possible. If it means a temporary rebranding that's eventually removed, that's fine with me.

As I understand, that was an entirely different issue. Apparently a group at MIT is trying to setup a registration process using real names and convince miners to only include transactions that are registered. That is separate from Lightning.

That's absolutely great! Good news for everyone. DashSecure is a dumb name, without any privacy connotations at all. I think Evan's PrivacyProtect or PrivateX is better.

Great post, and thank you for the update. It will be interesting to see how effective the media coverage will be once our detractors point out that it's all based on paid marketing, not organic interest. Transparency is great, but is also a double-edged sword.

Please read the link I posted above. Dash isn't selling anything out--what you are wanting, while it would be wonderful to have, is technologically impossible (or at least it was a year and a half ago).

True...but the block size hasn't yet been increased. They haven't written and deployed the code yet. When they do, the masternode network essentially votes again: they either update, or they don't. So to answer your question: yes, an overall "no" vote would effectively have been binding (not...

No disrespect intended, but regardless of the passage of a proposal, you cannot compel another person/group to write code.

I see your meaning now...thanks!

Dash is decentralized; there is no "boss" who gives permission for people to do things. Community members are free to do what they want; they are not subject to any central authority. That's the entire point of crypto! There is nobody who can give permission to do anything, nor is there anyone...

All the usual caveats, this is just one guy's opinion, I don't know him so it could be wrong, blah blah. But here's a take on DAOs from somebody who says he's a lawyer: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-sue-dao-stephen-palley Basically if anybody wanted to sue the Dash DAO, a court would...

Not really. The masternodes either update to the new version or they do not. If they do not, then things just continue as they are today. So the masternodes are always in charge, no matter what. Then the masternodes will not update, and the new code will never go into effect. This one is a...

Troy, I may be wrong on some of the technical details, but I'm 99% sure I'm right: Masternodes control the entire Dash network. Any network activity that does not comply with the rules set by the masternodes (correct protocol version, enforcing MN payments, etc.) is automatically rejected...