Hmmm...so there is also a market force that pushes for the Sybil-attack bugs not to be solved!!!Hey,
- Sybil-attack i.e. spin up many masternodes and compromise network (by disrupting quorums?) - that's not quite true that malicious MN owner is not punished for acting dishonest. To perform such attack he has to own a lot of MNs (i.e. a lot of MN*1000DASH) and the very next moment when attack is revealed the $ price of his holding will drop together with $/DASH rate. So even if there is no direct punishment like "burn his coins for misbehaving" there is a market force that pushes him to cooperate rather than to attack.
UdjinM6, actually, they do have a point about spending 45% of the block reward on mining instead of 100%. The $9K/mo isn't used correctly. See an excerpt from a more formal response I am working on with Macrochip.Hey, @amanda_b_johnson, you did pretty well there imo, good job!
- Guys seems to think that the only way value comes to Bitcoin is from burned electricity which is not true imo - the value comes from user's trust and burned electricity is only one way of giving them that trust, other ways are points of sale, services, market/speculations, investment flow in all kind of startups etc i.e. the whole ecosystem is what gives Bitcoin its value. Normal people don't really give a sh*t about "packed" electricity - it's miners' problem - people care is it useful or not, and that's basically it: useful - ok, buy, no one really cares if miners are able to pay for their electricity or not at that btc/$ rate, again, it's miners' problem.
- $10K per day attack - of course it's incomparably cheap to attack any network be it Dash or e.g. Litecoin oher than Bitcoin... just as easy as it was to attack Bitcoin when it had a price of $1, so nothing new here. But again, security rises with price, but at the same time price rises because of usefulness and security is only a part of it. I believe we need to improve usefulness and that how security will improve too.
That's an interesting point, thanks!UdjinM6, actually, they do have a point about spending 45% of the block reward on mining instead of 100%. The $9K/mo isn't used correctly. See an excerpt from a more formal response I am working on with Macrochip.
20:00 CDR "If you remove the subsidies by half then you are necessarily cutting the energy burnt in half [...] and that makes it 50% less secure!"
The security of the network is based on the hashrate on the network(related to how many funds are allocated to mining, the Algo = X11, and value of the coin)
So with bitcoin, 100% of the rewards are allocated to mining with just the SHA256 algo. Although $2.3 Million is sent to miners each day, the network cap is $10 billion. The ratio of mining income to market cap is 0.00023. That drop in half a few days though.
With Dash 45% of the rewards are allocated to mining. The mining algo is X11 (which has 10 more hashing algos than just SHA256). Dash has about $9,000 going to miners and the same to masternodes. It also has $900 going to a development budget to fix bugs and add features(a bonus for security). The network cap is $46 Million. The ratio of mining income to market cap is 0.0002. Actually very similar to Bitcoin's ratio now (double next week). If Dash increases to the same market cap then then it will also be paying $2.2-2.3 Million to miners. And with Dash's more secure algo and the 2nd tier masternode network this isn't even close when comparing Bitcoin's security to Dash.
Well, I'm not quite sure about $millions actually because you don't have to buy hardware, you can rent it......
26:00 CDR: "So Amanda, to censor the network right now for Dash it costs around 9,200 dollars per day"
That ~$9,000/day is close for mining rewards, but a 51% attack isn’t about the Dash given out. It is about the hashrate needed to get 51% of the mining power. The current network hashrate for Dash is 500GH/s and the cost of an ASIC miner is about 1 Dash/Mh/s. So it would cost over 500,000 Dash($3.5 Million) to buy enough mining power to get enough mining power to have 51% of all mining power and do a 51% attack. Of course if this starts to happen, it would only take a few days to add a collateral requirement/GH for miners, easily voted on with the budget.
The points have some validity....but the usage is incorrect.
You are right. You shouldn't be legitimizing their allegations by responding to them.These two guys hosting the podcast seem to be a couple of nuts.
If they had had any serious points to make, they would have published a paper about it, in the style of competent researchers, instead of simply spouting off on a podcast. We shouldn't be legitimizing their allegations by responding to them.
Dash was never touted as being ASIC-proof (at least not by anyone who knew what they were talking about). ASIC-resistant, yes, which it was. There was never any intent to avoid them forever.I also think the asic subject is hilarious considering DASH was promoted as being asic proof for so long. I went to the extent of handing out DASH flyers at a conference on my own accord that had this bs printed on it. I had one guy laugh about the asic proof claim and I agreed with him at the time that it was probably not true. I had faith in the DASH project but more and more this is starting to look more like a cult similar to ethereum.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=529570.msg5935102#msg5935102The whole point of X11 is to try and get the same network growth cycle as Bitcoin. Once Darkcoin is worth enough, people will invest the capital to create the ASICs. I never really had an issue with that, in fact that was the point of creating a new hashing algorithm, I think it will be healthy in the end to move to ASICs.
Wow.Dash was never touted as being ASIC-proof (at least not by anyone who knew what they were talking about). ASIC-resistant, yes, which it was. There was never any intent to avoid them forever.
Quote from Evan on March 27, 2014:
There are 4 ASICs currently available: https://dashpay.atlassian.net/wiki/display/DOC/ASIC+Miner+HardwareWow.
I did not know that was ED's opinion on the subject.
...not quite sure I would agree with it, either...
Possibility of ASIC capability turns the entire matter over to the dragon,
or, is DASH already mined by ASIC's ?
Newbie.... I just don't know.
As many others did, I watched the dump, just before the halvening. And I watched the discovery of a new block by the antpool with sufficient time for mining shortly before the halvening.
IF the dragon controls manufacturing, and mining of altcoins, too ??? Gosh are the rest of us in a shabby position.
Perhaps I am incorrect. I must admit I am a newbie. If I am incorrect, would someone please explain how the rest of us will benefit.
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/march-2016-budget-proposal.8198/#post-86929Another very important point to make about the Satoshi Roundtable was the very large issue with mining centralization in the Bitcoin space. When Satoshi originally invented Bitcoin, he did not anticipate the excessive mining centralization that has become a dominant force in the Bitcoin space. Due to this, we now have a small group of people that literally control the protocol consensus and their short term interests may be in conflict with the long term interests of other stakeholders, industry, users, etc. We definitely do not want our ecosystem to follow the same failed course and we definitely would have under the pooled ASIC mining paradigm. This is mainly because there are differences in efficiency that a miner can gain depending on where they live, which can give a huge advantage when their higher investment returns are compounded. Efficiencies such as cheaper labor, cheap or free electricity and even withholding newer advanced ASICs for their own mining operations, then selling them after they become less effective. After many iterations of these phenomenon in BTC we have come to a situation where the ones who have access to these advantages effectively control Bitcoin.
After hours of discussions, we believe we have found the solution to the unfair mining advantages that produce centralization around certain jurisdictions that control the production of ASICS. We will be releasing much more information about this soon, but are feverishly working on this project for v12.1. We’re going to be releasing much more information about this in the coming weeks; it’s going to be a giant advantage for the Dash project.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/co...e_ceo_core_developers_may_be_bitcoins/d0po591We're planning on revealing a new type of proof of work model that resolves the centralized mining issues in Bitcoin. Exciting times
I think it depends whom you compare them to. If you've never heard any good interviewing, they might seem legit. I frequently listen to podcasts from BBC, NPR, PRI, and other sources, containing lots and lots of interviews, and compared to those interviewers, these guys are essentially incompetent.These guys are pretty legit, listen to their interviews with Peter Todd, Jeff Garzik, Adam Back, Big Lambda, etc.
Thank you raze.There are 4 ASICs currently available: https://dashpay.atlassian.net/wiki/display/DOC/ASIC+Miner+Hardware
Apparently, there are plans to mitigate centralization without changing the algorithm, but not much information about what exactly it entails yet.
You listen to NPR, enough saidI think it depends whom you compare them to. If you've never heard any good interviewing, they might seem legit. I frequently listen to podcasts from BBC, NPR, PRI, and other sources, containing lots and lots of interviews, and compared to those interviewers, these guys are essentially incompetent.
A good interview should always be about the person being interviewed, not about the person doing the interviewing. That doesn't mean asking softball questions, but it does mean you don't keep interrrupting the guest every five seconds. It also means covering some ground rather than repeating the same questions ten times after you have an answer, whether you like the answer or not.
It's a most basic principle of good interviewing that you spend a little advance time learning about the subject of an interview. But these guys seemed completely unprepared, as if they had discovered dash just a few minutes before they began talking with Amanda. If they can't be bothered to do even a little reading about the subject of the interview before it begins, then I would not consider them legit.
Oh I am sorry, ASIC RESISTANT. Thanks for clearing that up technicality. I am sure everyone knows what I was referring to. No wonder everyone outside of the DASH community calls it "scammy"Dash was never touted as being ASIC-proof (at least not by anyone who knew what they were talking about). ASIC-resistant, yes, which it was. There was never any intent to avoid them forever.
Quote from Evan on March 27, 2014:
I would like to mine with cpu/gpu.The ASIC resistance was by design, and with a 2 year expected resistance (which became the case). It was never advertised by the developers as ASIC proof. For that feature, go read up on Vertcoin.
The creation of X11 was done intentionally to repeat Bitcoin's history, so that interest in Dash would build gradually by enticing miners to mine with CPUs, GPUs, FPGAs, and finally, ASICs.
Okay !@rusty You might like to keep an eye on Zcash.