Separate names with a comma.
Please sign up to discuss the most innovative cryptocurrency!
Discussion in 'Official Announcements' started by eduffield, Jan 18, 2016.
No problem, just make a budget proposal for that.
for 22 USD
edit : at least we dont have to worry about spam budget proposals these days
I am in favor of this change and voted yes. But I second the question here. Can we get some comments with regard to what you are thinking minimum fees will be?
Also the plan for evolution was "Zero-fee instant anonymity". How this will be affected?
The trademark issue resolution is an unbelievable important achievement opening a lot of new doors. Evan had the right foresight to enforce the rename to DASH against a lot of resistance, finally ending up with and awesome brand name and a cleared legal situation. Chapeau to all people involved!
This is yet another blow to Bitcoin, Dash can reach consensus within 24 hours on a real future issue that the Bitcoin foundation hasn't been able to come to any agreement on for months. Also I'm pleased to hear that the legal matter surrounding the trademarks rights to Dash being used in the crypto currency realm has been resolved. So much positivity at the moment, it's getting exciting!
2 votes to go according info on Dashwhale
Total masternodes : 3497
33% : 1154
Yes : 1150
No : 2
Total participation : 1152
To go : 2
edit : updated info
We didn't propose an exact fee structure yet, that will determined when the coding begins. It will be enough to stop a sybil/bloat attack and also enough to allow users a very low cost to transact on our network.
A couple more points, I wanted to bring over from BitcoinTalk.
1.) The problems with propagation do not pass from the Bitcoin network to the Dash network, due to the high quality second tier infrastructure. We can require specific infrastructure from our masternodes, which will allow for very quick block propagation no matter the size. The miners simply will need to be connected to the masternode network from each of it's edges (which we will describe how to do this eventually, it's not very difficult). Imagine propagating a 20MB block through a network of 3500 computers with 10GB/s networking. It's not hard to see the advantage we have.
As for the question, how will we require the masternodes have specific hardware? The next proof-of-service implementation is going to be as simple as a few of us testing the network's masternodes using open source tools to determine the quality of service. We will then provide evidence that can be double checked by other masternodes, then we will use a voting mechanism to flag their masternodes. They will see the flags and know what they have to do in order to remove them, until they do they won't get paid. Once they fix the issues, they can propagate a message asking for a re-evaluation.
Also, that's to say our market cap would be orders of magnitude higher as well. To even have 20MB blocks on average we would have hundreds of millions of users. At which point the masternodes will make plenty of money to be required to run on Xeons and have 10GB/s networking.
2.) We need to start preparing for mass user adoption now and make sure we can support this type of load. By doing this now, we'll have years to prepare and won't have to have huge debates about making changes to an already working system. If Bitcoin did this when they were 25% full, they wouldn't be having this issue, right?
Thanks Minotaur, I didn't see this. My tollerance for reading BCT is not what it used to be and I mostly avoid it these days.
I think I read/heard somewhere that with evolution InstantX will be capable of hundreds of thousands of transactions per second. Does every transaction have to be included in a block still? If so we're going to need some really big blocks. With 20mb blocks it's still only 540 transactions per second. Are we just assuming that the growth in networking technology with outpace transaction volume growth?
Also surly quite a few transactions are required during mixing for Darksend? The Bitcoin network doesn't have to deal with these transactions (I know dome people may use third party mixing services).
I was wondering, if Evolution will have Masternodes decide the inclusion of all transactions, why not change the block timing to once per hour? Can the network safely store the "pre-block" information? Can the network propagate such large blocks? Would this make the block space being used more efficient? Would it introduce new attack vectors? Just wondering if this has been considered. It seems to me that the blocks would be more efficient, leaving less empty space in the chain.
This is just damn brilliant. I am so excited for DASH.
I don't understand your question. Bitcoin has gone over 1600 transactions in a single block already, only 1 mb size. Dash currently has 4X that capacity because of 4X the block speed. The thing that constricts the number of transactions per second is the ability for a computer to process them. However, with Evolution, there will no longer be a single miner processing transactions and including them in the blockchain, but rather, at current MN numbers, 350 quorums of Masternode computers processing the information. So with no restriction to the size of blocks, Dash can, with it's current infrastructure, process at least 1600 X 350 = 360,000 transactions per block and at 4X the blocks per day as Bitcoin, 2,240,000 transactions per day. In comparison, Visa does 150 million transactions per day, so yes, we do still need to grow
What I would like to know is, can we have a flexible block size? Can the block size change in accordance to pressure, much like the difficulty changes for mining? If we could do that, and not be subject to sybil attacks, we can keep the blockchain growth to a minimum.
So masternodes are full nodes as well?
When I talk about transactions per second I'm referring to the ability of the network to store transactions on the blockchain. A 20mb block can theoretically store 84,000 transactions. With a block time of 2.5 mins this works out to a storage capacity of approximately 540 transactions per second.
If InstantX can process say 200,000 tps but the blockchain only store 540 tps then there seems to be an issue.
Since you cannot spend coins until after they have been confirmed on the blockchain this would not be a great idea.
edit: I also run my MN from home on a Raspberry Pi2b - good stuff
My Pi prints money - what can your Pi do?
My all masternode voted "yes" 2mb budget.
happy birthday !!
Voted - yes - with 1 MN
ugh - still trying to get access to an new IP addy, to get the 2nd Pi -MN plugged in - ugh
Gotta love it when people flake on ya
I should know better than to depend on anybody else.... ugh
Voted as well. Had to use the daswhale. Wasn't able to do it from the wallet for some reason. Kept getting some errors. I'd like to see the wallet voting developed some more to make the process smoother. I think it's very important to have anonymous decentralized voting working straight from the wallet in a easy to use and reliable fashion.
You have my yes votes : P, glad to see nearly 2k masternodes have voted.
Happy Birthday Dash!!!
i votet yes with all my masternodes!! Great job.
Hope we will se it before Bitcoins has a 2 mb blocksize...
i am pretty sure will have a 2 mb blocksize before bitcoin has it!!
this would be huge...
proposal made on 18.01.
implemented on 18. 02. ))))
this would be huge for us!!!
one more question:
Is it now possible that apple will confirm the iPhone wallet because of the new name of the foundation?