noisesauce
New member
Hi, I've not been around here for a long time.
My crypto journey started with DASH - I remember I was sad to find I had to buy BTC from coinbase first (yuk.)
Things have moved on of course, although I've also basically moved on from DASH - but thought I'd make a quick post back here to give a perspective that hopefully might help the people here continue to direct a successful project.
I think the really commendable aspects of DASH are the attempt at a governance structure and commitment to P2P cash. The MN incentives and associated tech like instant send/private send are also awesome.
But then the bitcoin fork happened, and I feel the battle lines have been redrawn and I felt a need to support the bitcoin fork which best followed this roadmap, which I felt was what cryptocurrency was all about, and has the best chance of actually gaining wide adoption.
There are a few reasons for this shift for me, one being that DASH is not nearly distributed or available enough from any exchanges to contend with the coin distribution of something like Bitcoin. The value of the token is in the network you can transact with. More effort needs to be put into this, an uphill battle because DASH doesn't have the incumbent group of holders as large as competitors such as BCH inherited on 08/17, for example.
Another issue that became apparent to me and I think most people was the huge damage done to BTC by the Bitcoin 'Core' development team and their major employer, Blockstream. This somewhat turned me off any centralised or corporate solution, no matter how effective (as DASH's team largely seems to be).
DASH's ability to centrally control development and network parameters is a problem in other areas, as it de-incentivises developers to build utility on the chain at low cost. The reliance on some hardworking but fallible MN owners to decide on funding allocations, is something which has also not been without issue, however the funding is very much needed if it is going to attract developers and applications.
This brings me to the intangible, the 'cool' factor. P2P doesn't have to be cool, just functional. I feel though that DASH has an image problem, which results in fewer users and developers than there'd otherwise be.
Of course BCH has a number of problems too, such as no funding or consensus mechanism (despite being the cause for the fork in the first place) and no privacy features (yet). BCH also has a pre-mine far exceeding that alleged to any DASH holders. But overall I prefer the permission-less development environment, larger use base and sad to say the bitcoin name, in terms of chances for adoption.
Anyway just wanted to get some thoughts out, I respect what you guys are doing and want DASH to succeed. I've not got any solutions but I'm sure there are other holders that feel a similar way, might need to do some work to keep people on the DASH train.
Can happily label me a concern troll, but don't deny there's work to be done here.
My crypto journey started with DASH - I remember I was sad to find I had to buy BTC from coinbase first (yuk.)
Things have moved on of course, although I've also basically moved on from DASH - but thought I'd make a quick post back here to give a perspective that hopefully might help the people here continue to direct a successful project.
I think the really commendable aspects of DASH are the attempt at a governance structure and commitment to P2P cash. The MN incentives and associated tech like instant send/private send are also awesome.
But then the bitcoin fork happened, and I feel the battle lines have been redrawn and I felt a need to support the bitcoin fork which best followed this roadmap, which I felt was what cryptocurrency was all about, and has the best chance of actually gaining wide adoption.
There are a few reasons for this shift for me, one being that DASH is not nearly distributed or available enough from any exchanges to contend with the coin distribution of something like Bitcoin. The value of the token is in the network you can transact with. More effort needs to be put into this, an uphill battle because DASH doesn't have the incumbent group of holders as large as competitors such as BCH inherited on 08/17, for example.
Another issue that became apparent to me and I think most people was the huge damage done to BTC by the Bitcoin 'Core' development team and their major employer, Blockstream. This somewhat turned me off any centralised or corporate solution, no matter how effective (as DASH's team largely seems to be).
DASH's ability to centrally control development and network parameters is a problem in other areas, as it de-incentivises developers to build utility on the chain at low cost. The reliance on some hardworking but fallible MN owners to decide on funding allocations, is something which has also not been without issue, however the funding is very much needed if it is going to attract developers and applications.
This brings me to the intangible, the 'cool' factor. P2P doesn't have to be cool, just functional. I feel though that DASH has an image problem, which results in fewer users and developers than there'd otherwise be.
Of course BCH has a number of problems too, such as no funding or consensus mechanism (despite being the cause for the fork in the first place) and no privacy features (yet). BCH also has a pre-mine far exceeding that alleged to any DASH holders. But overall I prefer the permission-less development environment, larger use base and sad to say the bitcoin name, in terms of chances for adoption.
Anyway just wanted to get some thoughts out, I respect what you guys are doing and want DASH to succeed. I've not got any solutions but I'm sure there are other holders that feel a similar way, might need to do some work to keep people on the DASH train.
Can happily label me a concern troll, but don't deny there's work to be done here.
