Search results

That's not how it works... for anyone exploring the blockchain, your coins are NOT "gone" in the first round, they just have a 1/3 probability to of belonging to each output party. They are never gone, and they are never back. You will always be connected to them, but so will a lot of other...

I think this mixed solution is difficult to implement, but will ultimately benefit OB, Dash and the consumer. The initial lack of Dash-accepting merchants will be supplanted by the option of paying in Dash anyway; merchants that want to accept Dash don't need to give up on potential BTC...

You can't follow your "dirty dashes" from round to round. They are joined, there is no way to tell who received what. Round 1 (mixing dirty coin A): Inputs: A: 10 Dash; B: 10 Dash; C: 10 Dash Outputs: D: 10 Dash; E: 10 Dash; F: 10 Dash Round 2 (following D): Inputs: D: 10 Dash; G: 10 Dash; H...

All good on my end. But if I were you I would wait to see a few more supportive voices in this thread first, since the idea was already "rejected" once.

Great! IMO the vendor would choose what currency(s) to accept, the costumer would choose a currency to pay, and OB would make it happen. But yes, it gets really tricky when we consider the escrow. Since you can't force the vendor to accept price fluctuation risk in currencies he/she doesn't...

Sounds interesting. At first I thought it would be a huge security risk, but since it will depend on MN votes, it could be properly implemented. But it will add some complexity. Any thoughts @UdjinM6 ?

@Technologov Context, different issue. Make a separate thread if you want to reallocate block rewards.

No, people would just automate voting to receive the reward. Let voting be.

We already spend somewhere around 33% on marketing, and it is too much.

So, like this established service? https://bitnation.co/notary/ I honestly don't think revinventing the wheel is warranted on this case.

If you know a developer that would do this task, you can propose it to the MNs and see if it will get funded. There is no "marketing only" sign at the ballot.

I think it would only create confusion. Maybe we can come up with something when we need to split the Duff.

I'm still deciding if showing the MN badge on the forum is worth giving up plausible deniability. Maybe I'll do it when we have MN polls.

You don't need to vote on each and every proposal. Everyone can pick a few and vote on them YES/NO, and then review those that are closer to getting funded. PS: This way assures that a bad proposal won't pass, but maybe a good proposal will go unnoticed. That's why I said that someone endorsing...

This reaction is very unprofessional, not at all what I expected from industrialists.

Vaults will probably have a different security scheme, like a different HD seed / passphrase / keyfile and timelocks.

Sounds about right. Would even pay a little more since you are hiring some help. We need a reference mobile wallet that implements all of Dash's features and updates quickly.

@holgum What about all of us that do have the inclination to micromanage proposals once they have been properly evaluated by the committee? Let us vote, you abstain, problem solved.

The idea of enforcement can be set aside for now, we already trust the proposal owner to do what he proposes.

Why? It's only a recommendation... Why wouldn't you want the committee to evaluate if a big proposal is a scam, or is overcharging in comparison with market prices, or isn't cost-effective in comparison with other proposals?