Dash Unit Denominations and Display

qrpnxz

New Member
Jul 28, 2016
8
3
3
Starting a forum post because strophy wants some of the conversations on Discord to be more permanent and I agree :)

Someone posted this essay on changing what "DASH" (unit) means to have a better psychological punch: github.com/riongull/notes/blob/master/dash_unit_denominations.md
(Can't create proper link because it's considered spam, sorry.)

My take was that I'm ok with changing "mDASH" to be the default display across the board on clients, but very skeptical of messing with what the names mean at this point in time. I think it would just be too confusing and expensive. I've already got my bitcoin client set to "bits". Many sites are also displaying "sats" (for satoshis), even by default given Bitcoin's current market value, but can display just Bitcoin for consistency and I think this is the way to go.

Regardless of whether we change the default display unit or not, we should get search engines to recognize queries like "100 mdash to usd" properly. I think the fact these don't work (I've tested DuckDuckGo and Google) discourages use of the more convenient units.
 

qrpnxz

New Member
Jul 28, 2016
8
3
3
Someone sent me this reply Ryan wrote on the topic in 2017:

Ryan_Taylor_Dash_stock_plit_email_2017_2020-12-30_at_5.02.52_pm.png

As expected :)
 

stan.distortion

Well-known Member
Oct 30, 2014
902
525
163
Different units confuses the hell out of me, I'd always like the option to switch views but one huge thing in favour of using mDash as the standard unit is it's searchable. Searches for "Dash" alone are practically useless but "mDash" would be unique.
 

qwizzie

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,661
799
183
If we are talking about a change in Dash cosmetic unit, then i wonder how this will affect Dash marketcap.
(Marketcap is supply x price)

Supply does not change with a cosmetic redenomination change

Note that this would not expand the money supply, this is merely a shift in nomenclature (naming convention). It is redefining the DASH, but DASH has nothing to do with the money supply. DASH is a cosmetic unit build on top of the fundamental protocol-level DUFF unit. The true money supply is how many DUFFs exist, and that number would not change.
Source : github.com/riongull/notes/blob/master/dash_unit_denominations.md

Dash price does change though.

Dash Denomination unit / Cosmetic unit is currently 100,000,000 Duff (each DASH is subdivided into 100,000,000 DUFF)
Dash price is currently $120

Lets say we change the denomination unit / cosmetic unit to 100,000 Duff (each DASH is subdivided into 100,000 DUFF)
Dash price will change to $0,12
Supply stays the same (9.9 million Dash)

Current Dash marketcap : $120 x 9.9 million Dash = $1,188,000,000
New Dash marketcap after redenomination : $0,12 x 9.9 million Dash = $1,188,000
 
Last edited:

xkcd

Active Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Feb 19, 2017
164
127
103
australia
mnowatch.org
Dash Address
XpoZXRfr2iFxWhfRSAK3j1jww9xd4tJVez
I don't support Rion's redomination scheme, it is deeply flawed and requires the the co-ordination of too many parties. rather I support a free claim for DASH at a certain block hieight. I might write a more detailed DIP later, but the basic idea is that at some block height a snap shot is taken. When the redom hard fork happens, for an indefinite time you can 'free claim' DASH though a interaction with the core wallet, similar to protx TXES where you prove ownership of an address and submit a claim on that owned DASH and a subsequent coinbase is generated depositing 100x DASH into the address you free claimed on.

Advantages.

  • Only active users (addresses) get 100x the DASH, so dead wallets are not also inflated.
  • Requires no co-ordinatiation of exchanges and what not, they are free to claim too, but trading continues uninterrupted, though we would expect to see the price drop during the free claim period.
  • Miners are not interrupted, the block after the free claim starts, they will get a coinbase that is 100x what they used to get, MNs too.
  • Masternodes are not affected, they have a grace period of X blocks before they need to register a new MN with 50,000 DASH collateral (yes I am reducing the collateral required to run a MN here, 1000 DASH is too much.)
  • The unit bias is greatly improved making it a 'cheap' in the eyes of noivices and thus making us pumpable like XRP, DOGE, DOT etc etc etc.
  • The Unit bias is improved making DASH closer to $1 USD which makes us more usable as a cypto for payments. $100 DASH for payments is just stupid, people are shit at math and can't deal with decimals.
  • The Stable coin fanbois are shut up, why? Because DASH will hover at about $1-$10 which is really what they want.
  • Countless others, but most notable, it will make us all rich.
Disadvantages.

  • Futures/derivatives traders of DASH would be impacted, since it is certain the DASH price will fall, would the shorts not profits and longs not get REKT? yes, but the mitigation is since this is known event and well televised, the margine traders can position themselves appropriately.
  • DASH chart - The Chart will look like shit after this demonination. it will look like we dumped from $100, back down to $10 and this migt scare of noobs not familar with what we just did. Solution is we could handle this the same way trading View handles stock splits or just deal with it through an education campaign, either way, I don't see this as a major issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: daf

qwizzie

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,661
799
183
@xkcd What happens with marketcap in your specific redenomination ? Due to the free claiming of Dash i suspect the Dash supply will expand ?
So expanding supply x lower price = same marketcap as now ? Correct ?
And how does this it affect our max coins ever to be generated ? (currently estimated at 18,9 million Dash, according coinmarketcap)
Sounds to me like your proposed redenomination hard fork will change Dash coin emission schedule directly, as it changes the (circulating) supply and possibly also the max number of coins to be generated.

I would not touch the collateral requirement of masternodes by the way, i disagree that 1000 Dash (or the equivalent of that number after redenomination) is too much and i would be surprised to see consensus formed on reducing the collateral for masternodes with 50%. Even Dash Core Group does not want to lower the collateral for masternodes.

We would just end up with masternode operators setting up twice as much masternodes, thereby doubling total number of active masternodes on our network (which is way too much), thereby creating a much longer interval between masternode payments (from 8.5 days to 17 days). And the network would have less protection against sybil attacks. Also too many masternodes on our network could make our network underperform (it could slow the network, make it less efficient with regards to quorum usage, block propagation, etc).

I feel that redenomination and the collateral of masternodes are two seperate topics, that should not be merged that easily into one DIP.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: daf and xkcd

xkcd

Active Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Feb 19, 2017
164
127
103
australia
mnowatch.org
Dash Address
XpoZXRfr2iFxWhfRSAK3j1jww9xd4tJVez
What happens with marketcap in your specific redenomination ? Due to the free claiming of Dash i suspect the Dash supply will expand ?
So expanding supply x lower price = same marketcap as now ? Correct ?
Yes, all things being equal the MC would remain the same, but we know that would not happen, because people favour the cheaper coins, so we would see increased demand for DASH at the lower prices, so I reckon, the MC would probably actually increase by 20% just on the redominination.

And how does this it affect our max coins ever to be generated ? (currently estimated at 18,9 million Dash, according coinmarketcap)
Sounds to me like your proposed redenomination hard fork will change Dash coin emission schedule directly, as it changes the (circulating) supply and possibly also the max number of coins to be generated.
Yep, the max supply would increase, however, the rate of emission should stay the same, I would not support a change that also lowers our inflation, which means coinbase rewards should be 100x what they are now and the DAO would get 100x the monthly coins too. So, our final supply should be roughly 100x the current max supply, but in reality it will be less due to a significant amount of DASH that is forever lost and hence not all DASH will be free claimed.


I would not touch the collateral requirement of masternodes by the way, i disagree that 1000 Dash (or the equivalent of that number after redenomination) is too much and i would be surprised to see consensus formed on reducing the collateral for masternodes with 50%. Even Dash Core Group does not want to lower the collateral for masternodes.
I see a lot of talk about MNs being too expensive and the need for shared MNs (ugly solution). I do not support shared MNs, for one thing, there is no good way to implement it without a lot of ugly hacks that make the network far more complex than it needs to be. Shared MNs means you wish to invest into one with someone else eg, family or friends. Number one rule, never invest in something with family or friends, this is how you ruin relationships, do yourself a favour and keep money out of relationships, you will have a happier life. We already have trusted shared MNs eg crowdnode.io so the shared MN issue is actually sovled already and best thing is you share it with strangers, so no stress on your personal life ! Reducing the collateral requirement to 50% of what it is now even down to 20%, just makes the MNs more accessible to more people and this has the advantages of fixing everything I just mentioned along with increasing the decentralisation of the network. You will note that critics of the masternode system claim that Masternodes centralise the coin, if we make them cheaper (more accessible) we solve that too.


Also too many masternodes on our network could make our network underperform (it could slow the network, make it less efficient with regards to quorum usage, block propagation, etc).
This concern I have heard often and it mostly comes from DCG and I am here to tell you today that it is FUD, pure and simple this is a FUD. The Bitcoin network runs about 18k full nodes and TXes propogate through that network in a second or two. It is super fast. If the DASH network had 20K nodes I have no doubt it would do just fine propogating those TXes, infact it has more nodes than there are MNs, did you know?

1612618658460.png

Above is a network crawler I wrote that goes to each single node on the network and checks the version of the running node and extracts a known list of nodes to it and goes on crawling. What you see there is the top row, the N/As are the number of nodes that cannot be connected too, eg full nodes behind a firewall, there are 10k of those. Then we have 5200 v16.1 full nodes and 1100 v16.0 full nodes, most of which are Mnodes, but note that currently there are only 4749 mnodes, so the difference is full nodes run by exchanges and explorers, chainanalysis 3-letter agencies. Then you have some nodes from forks done of DASH by idiots that didn't know how to properly fork DASH 'LksCoin' and the rest is junk since it is forked off the network.

The point is, the DASH network is already larger than we think it is and working just fine and dandy.

I feel that redenomination and the collateral of masternodes are two seperate topics, that should not be merged that easily into one DIP.
I am fine with this, I just saw this a good oppurtunity to lay to bed the shared MNs nonsense and the Mnode is too expensive tripe, but ultimately the nature of this DIP would have to get more community feedback to see if the collateral requirements for Mnodes should be adjusted down or not. In reality, it can be done at any time, so no big deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: daf

Geert

Member
Aug 26, 2015
179
54
88
Most crypto transactions are denominated in terms of fiat. For example, "Send me 100 dollars worth of Bitcoin." IMHO this is not helpful. No one cares what the actual per-unit market price of a crypto is. Also, unless we are talking about a stable-coin, the market price won't stay where you put it anyway.
 
Last edited:

xkcd

Active Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Feb 19, 2017
164
127
103
australia
mnowatch.org
Dash Address
XpoZXRfr2iFxWhfRSAK3j1jww9xd4tJVez
Most crypto transactions are denominated in terms of fiat. For example, "Send me 100 dollars worth of Bitcoin." IMHO this is not helpful. No one cares what the actual per-unit market price of a crypto is. Also, unless we are talking about a stable-coin, the market price won't stay where you put it anyway.
This is false as the market has demonstrated time and time again. Keep your head in the sand, Gertrude. I don't mind.


On August 21, after a community vote, DOT was redenominated—meaning that the circulating supply of the token was inflated by 100 times. The process is similar to a stock split, which can see the value of a stock rise substantially after the event, as small investors perceive it as becoming more affordable.
1612917197616.png

It's thanks closed minded old fools such as yourself that DASH is a three legged horse in this race.
 

Geert

Member
Aug 26, 2015
179
54
88
I have said this before. It is a blessing in disguise that Dash is not in the top ten on CMC. Of all the cryptocurrencies, Dash poses the most deadly threat to TPTB. We need to keep under the RADAR until Evo is launched.
 

Geert

Member
Aug 26, 2015
179
54
88
Your argument that Polkadot's rise in value is due primarily to its redenomination is specious, and the article you cited confirms that. Also, no one was using Polkadot when they did their redenomination. This would be incredibly disruptive for Dash.