Hold on to your chair guys. This is HUGE!

InTheWoods

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Oct 12, 2014
721
941
263
It`s official guys. DASH is the future! DASH already has many features some Bitcoin core devs can only dream of.

Some highlights from the ongoing Q&A session on Bitcoin.com with Mike Hearn Bitcoin core dev from the Bitcoin XT camp:


Node Voting System
  • Ensuring that for any decision that is made, the wider world has a clear and simple process for rejecting it. Any group must be able to be given "no" for an answer. In a country this is usually an election or a market. Gavin, myself and many others think a market for nodes which may cast different votes on changes to the block chain is the right way to do this.
DASH already has a decentralized governance system where each user operated node can vote on proposals.

Rewards for Nodes

  • I discussed mining decentralisation above. Nodes: perhaps one day running nodes will be a business as well. Rewarding them with micropayments has been discussed on and off over the years.
DASH nodes are already rewarded for supporting the network.

Bitcoin's centralized leadership model
  • So the decision (non) making process used by Core has come under a lot of scrutiny because at the moment Bitcoin is a centralised system run by just one or two people (count differs depending on how you view things).
DASH allows anyone to submit proposals and shape the future of the project via decentralized governance.

Bitcoin won't improve transaction time anytime soon


Of course it's not technically impossible. 10 minutes is somewhat arbitrary. With faster block propagation, in theory the 10 minute number could be lowered. The questions are really:

1) Is it practically possible? Currently the Bitcoin protocol can only evolve when Blockstream want it to. So I'd say the answer is "no", especially if the justification is higher capacity, which they seem to be dead set against.
2) Would 5 minutes really be better than 10 minutes? I suspect the difference is too small to matter. 1 second is clearly a lot better than 10 minutes and 10 minutes is clearly better than 1 day as often the case in banking.


DASH uses InstantX. Instant transactions.

Bitcoin can't evolve anymore
  • I wouldn't participate in Bitcoin Core development again, if that's what you mean. It's important to understand that the issues are deeper than block sizes. Core has lost its way. They are just deeply uninterested in growth and mainstream adoption.
DASH Evolution. The next step in the history of DASH will be presented at the Bitcoin Mexico conference in December.


What we have here is clear recognition of the fact DASH is the way to go even though some Bitcoin core devs trashed and mocked DASH at times.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Miner237

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
May 28, 2014
509
223
213
Hey right on good read, How is it they are talking about implementing or wanting what DASH already has.

I for one am big on retail adoption for crypto, Hell if I can use paypal at places like the home depot, DASH is right around the corner.

Here what stood out for me after reading this.

Faster Confirmation Times
"One possible disadvantage is that faster confirmations may mean higher orphan rate ... do you think it is an impossible idea to make Bitcoin block confirmation times faster than 10 minutes to increase the scalability of Bitcoin?"

Of course it's not technically impossible. 10 minutes is somewhat arbitrary. With faster block propagation, in theory the 10 minute number could be lowered. The questions are really:

1) Is it practically possible? Currently the Bitcoin protocol can only evolve when Blockstream want it to. So I'd say the answer is "no", especially if the justification is higher capacity, which they seem to be dead set against.

2) Would 5 minutes really be better than 10 minutes? I suspect the difference is too small to matter. 1 second is clearly a lot better than 10 minutes and 10 minutes is clearly better than 1 day as often the case in banking. But the difference between 5 and 10 minutes probably wouldn't change how people do business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dunedoo and studioz

InTheWoods

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Oct 12, 2014
721
941
263
@Miner237

Exactly. They are talking about implementing what DASH already has. Funny. Not only that but consider these core devs are in the XT camp which want to implement new features. By the looks of things they won't be able to do it because the majority want things to stay as they are. So they can't even do it even if they wanted to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dunedoo and studioz

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,862
1,854
1,283
@Miner237

Exactly. They are talking about implementing what DASH already has. Funny. Not only that but consider these core devs are in the XT camp which want to implement new features. By the looks of things they won't be able to do it because the majority want things to stay as they are. So they can't even do it even if they wanted to.
I want to know why they don't just join our team? They can't not know about Dash. Why do they continue to ignore Dash?.

I hope they can't ignore us after December and mostly January conventions.
 

Sub-Ether

Well-known Member
Mar 31, 2014
1,516
1,254
183
Mike hearn will be wrong here when Evolution is rolled out,

Q) ''Also, what are some of the coolest dentralized apps and projects you are excited about?
A) matrix.org seems cool. It's a bit tough to be excited by decentralised apps/projects right now because all the ones building on the Bitcoin block chain are being strangled by the block size problem, and the ones that built on altcoins/ethereum face the problem of lack of a currency.''
 
  • Like
Reactions: studioz and Dunedoo

Sub-Ether

Well-known Member
Mar 31, 2014
1,516
1,254
183
Does Evolution solve bitcoin's mallability problem if it is at the protocol level, and so will the transaction IDs always be the same ?

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/article...ng-transaction-malleability-attack-1444253640

Are transaction malleability attacks a problem?
The essence of the transaction malleability problem arises when someone uses the transaction ID – and nothing but the transaction ID – to check whether a transaction has been included in a block. This is a problem, of course, because the transaction ID may have been changed by the attacker, and his new transaction ID could have been included in the block rather than the original transaction ID. It might then seem as if the transaction itself never went through – though it effectively did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: studioz and Dunedoo

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,862
1,854
1,283
Naive question: why did they?
In my opinion, arrogance.

I think Bitcoin is between a rock and a hard place. There is too much invested in Bitcoin, and the developers can't really do anything innovative anymore. I also think that they're jealous because they're realizing other people have been doing very innovative and exciting things in the alt coin space (though there are tons of scams to be sure) and they chose to stick with Bitcoin development, only to lose out on being a part of new and more relevant innovations.

At this point, Bitcoin developers must be coming to the realization that they've been stagnating for 3 years and have become irrelevant. Peter Todd has bashed Dash, with name calling and false claims which clearly show he doesn't understand what we've been doing here. He's been particularly nasty.

Others seem to not know what we are doing, which I can't understand. We're #5 in coin market cap, this is their lives, how can they not know what we've been doing? It's almost like there is a cabal and they want to squeeze any competition out. When the truth is, Bitcoin has a limited usefulness. But it does have first movers advantage, and it paved the way. It will likely become the main tool of the financial industry. However, other cryptos are far superior to Bitcoin in what they are able to do. Dash is amazingly close to Bitcoin in full nodes with a tiny fraction of the market cap. Dash is strong, with a high hash rate (remember, still no ASICS for Dash) healthy full node network (Masternodes, 3300+ strong) is instantaneous to use and completely fungible. Dash also has a budget that will be there as long as people are around to make proposals.

So, it's logical to me, that if any Bitcoin developers want to get into the cutting edge, they should be working for our team or Etherium, as they are the two most innovative projects out there.
 

InTheWoods

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Oct 12, 2014
721
941
263
Naive question: why did they?
I think Bitcoin is between a rock and a hard place. There is too much invested in Bitcoin,
This here is the answer to your question. All these guys including Trace Mayer and many others are too invested in Bitcoin to admit to themselves what is really going on outside of Bitcoin. They want badly Bitcoin to work and see the faults but just can't accept there is something better out there. It's a very strong emotional attachment they have formed which is not rational. It is called Sunk Cost Fallacy. I have lost lots of money myself by falling into this trap. Many follow this very same thought pattern which is pretty hard to escape sometimes, especially when you are heavily invested.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dunedoo and nmarley

fible1

Well-known Member
Dash Core Team
Masternode Owner/Operator
May 11, 2014
710
722
163
To me, it's scary to think they might just get their shit together before we reach a critical mass and actually implement these features. That would surely be the end of us.

Pablo.
 

raganius

cryptoPag.com
Foundation Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
In my opinion, arrogance.
(...)
Not only that, but dishonesty as well.

There's fearmongering against DASH everywhere now. People appear in our forums spreading misinformation and fallacies (and the BTCtalk thread is not an isolated example). These days, even in the Brazilian chat it's happening. Whenever I can, I try to bring the correct info, or direct people here for better resources, just because I hate their uscrupulous propaganda. But this does not worry me too much, because:
  1. I know better, and so I am investing in what I believe;
  2. The truth will always prevail after all
:cool:
 

raganius

cryptoPag.com
Foundation Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
To me, it's scary to think they might just get their shit together before we reach a critical mass and actually implement these features. That would surely be the end of us.

Pablo.
Sure. That's scary. But I don't think the btc devs are capable of fixing btc's problems so soon.
 

Sub-Ether

Well-known Member
Mar 31, 2014
1,516
1,254
183
Sure. That's scary. But I don't think the btc devs are capable of fixing btc's problems so soon.
Any user uptake increase over a linear straight line will result in over 1 megabyte in the next few months.
https://blockchain.info/charts/my-w...ageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

if the transactions per second goes over 5 consistantly, fees will increase as a temporary fix, smaller users will look for cheaper and faster alternatives to send crypto, this is where Dash comes in.
https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/historical/1d-f-blksize_per_avg-01071-tps-01071
 

InTheWoods

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Oct 12, 2014
721
941
263
To me, it's scary to think they might just get their shit together before we reach a critical mass and actually implement these features. That would surely be the end of us.

Pablo.
It will not happen. Mike Hearn and his crew are a minority that most of the BTC community loves to hate and even if they do implement these features, they will do so after many months, slowly and gradually, each at a time. DASH would be light-years away by then in this very unlikely scenario.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

nmarley

Active Member
Jun 28, 2014
366
424
133
This here is the answer to your question. All these guys including Trace Mayer and many others are too invested in Bitcoin to admit to themselves what is really going on outside of Bitcoin. They want badly Bitcoin to work and see the faults but just can't accept there is something better out there. It's a very strong emotional attachment they have formed which is not rational. It is called Sunk Cost Fallacy. I have lost lots of money myself by falling into this trap. Many follow this very same thought pattern which is pretty hard to escape sometimes, especially when you are heavily invested.
This, x100. I used to be in the Bitcoin-only camp. Bitcoin was the only way.

Then I got disenchanted, because of multiple factors: the falling price, the lack of features and innovation, the tabloid-style "news" popping up all over /r/bitcoin, and the constant... irrationality... of the hardcore Bitcoin crowd. So I took a step back, forgot all about it for a few months, and focussed on other life projects.

When I came back, I'd stepped out of the forest and could see it clearly, instead of just seeing the trees. I could see with a clear, unclouded mind and saw that problems did exist with Bitcoin, which other currencies solved, and quite cleverly. But I couldn't have seen that without dropping the conviction and walking away for a while.

To any external observer, looking at things rationally, Bitcoin has problems. We all know this here @ Dashtalk. Block size, speed of block confirmations, anonymity. Not to mention that it's very improbable and impractical to implement new changes and innovation into Bitcoin itself because of the massive size and scale. Gavin said something to the effect of, it's like working on a 747 while it's flying through the air.

But some of these most hardcore proponents and developers have been 110% into Bitcoin being the solution for life, the universe and everything, that they've developed deep convictions — and fought for them. Their identity is wrapped up in these convictions — and they'll probably be the last to see the light.
 

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,862
1,854
1,283
Pablo, like nmarley says, it's pretty much impossible for Bitcoin to catch up let alone surpass any altcoin with innovation. They'll be lucky to deal with the block size issue in the upcoming year, we have it solved already. If nothing else, our masternode network is healthy and large, and can be paid to store terabytes of information to serve up electrum style (which I think is the plan, or something like that). Er.. , that's the name of the light wallet, right? LOL.

So the blockchain size isn't even a problem. Right now, my server has 1.5 TB of bandwidth and 65GB of storage. I can use this baby for quite some time yet. And it's not expensive. I get paid plenty to keep it going and earn a little interest on my investment (or however you want to look at it).

Bitcoin developers would also have to be super-human coders to implement something without all kinds of hiccups which will probably anger some users. So, yah. I'm not afraid of Bitcoin becoming as good as Dash. Hell, our MN network grew naturally from the begining, and thus each has a substantial % of the available Dash 'coins' locked up in them, thus giving Dash 2 huge advantages:

1. nobody can come in and buy up a bunch of Dash and overwhelm the Dash network enough to hope to influence data. It's almost impossible today for anyone to gain information on mixing (unless they're very lucky, and the coins are only mixed 1 or 2 times)
2. It's impossible for Bitcoin to implement such a system and expect enough variety of individuals to be able to buy themselves a "special BTC node" that locks up 1/2 of the coins supply. They would end up with only a few varied BTC "special node" holders and never lock up as large a percentage of coins.

This sounds centralized wealth, that is, a few will be rich and others just users, but frankly those coins can't really be liquidated like that. They're doing a job, an extremely important job, and I suspect those coins, or others when swapped out / exchanging hands, will be locked up forever. They become, as Evan said, small businesses unto themselves. I suspect that in the future, MN owners will have to implement services, or not get paid, and they'll have to keep their nodes running and spend time making sure things are working. So they'll be like small businesses all over the world.

Nah, what Evan has done is so intricate, so much a well greased machine, it's impossible for Bitcoin to simply take Dash code and merge it, as they missed that window of opportunity. It can never be so secure. What they need and can do, is solve the blocksize problem, solve the blockchain size issue (via trimming?) and pay nodes for running (but not securing) the network (not sure this can be done without gaming the system)

Any more, they may need to use "side chains" which I feel are completely new coins, and thus, haven't even been started, and would have to build from the ground up. Thus, No way BTC can catch up.
 

Jeztah

Active Member
Oct 9, 2014
181
145
103
I agree that it's scary to see them mentioning every DASH feature, but not DASH. I am certain that it wouldn't require a tremendous stretch of imagination for them to just start implementing DASH's code or hell........even recruit Evan. Why wouldn't they?

DASH is on the correct side of the bleeding edge and I'm happy to be involved. They aren't mentioning XMR's features...... for a reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: studioz and Dunedoo

InTheWoods

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Oct 12, 2014
721
941
263
@Jetzah

I don't think it's scary at all. Should be scary to those who put all their chips on Bitcoin. The Bitcoin devs are merely validating DASH.

It was mentioned already by TanteStefana and I, Bitcoin can't change much due to a bunch of reasons. They can't implement these features in a timely fashion even if they had the support from their community, support they don't currently have.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jeztah

Active Member
Oct 9, 2014
181
145
103
@Jetzah

I don't think it's scary at all. Should be scary to those who put all their chips on Bitcoin. The Bitcoin devs are merely validating DASH.

It was mentioned already by TanteStefana and I, Bitcoin can't change much due to a bunch of reasons. They can't implement these features in a timely fashion even if they had the support from their community, support they don't currently have.
I understand what you two said, but they will have to. DASH is ensuring this.... Evolve or die.
 
  • Like
Reactions: studioz and Dunedoo

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,862
1,854
1,283
Not really, Bitcoin will simply be taken over by the banks. They will use it's one function, transfer of value. They need Bitcoin because it is the only crypto out there with decent market cap and mining hash rate (which can not be overcome to cheat the blockchain). They need the market cap, which is still teeny tiny, to be useful. There is no way, even for banks to replicate that, because they need the diversified network. They don't even want anonymity. They do, if any of them understand, want a lot of full nodes. None of this is achievable by them alone, they need Bitcoin. Bitcoin is the entryway for the rest of the world to crypto. Being a one trick pony is just fine. In fact it's desirable and if you don't think the guys at MIT know this, your mistaken. They know, and they keep those developers on a string with the illusion that they (the developers) are in charge of the direction Bitcoin goes in. The powers that be do see the writing on the wall. The Banksters want to keep it down as long as possible until they control the situation (IE, have had enough time to collect enough BTC to feel in control) then, slowly, they'll start using it in their systems. BTC has a huge potential for growth, because it will become the main banking/governmental coin. But in the end, they will not be able to control the outflow to other cryptos, so they will be losing a lot of power to the people in the end, as Satoshi Nakamoto originally intended. No matter how institutionalized Bitcoin becomes, Satoshi Nakamoto is, and will always be the biggest hero of the 21st century.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,862
1,854
1,283
And just a note, when I was watching Mike Huckabee talk about a "fair" tax by taxing consumption (goods - much like vat) then I realized that's the way to go. The government has it's easy way to tax and get funds for what they need to do. Sure, they will still get their power, but it's easier for the citizens to bulk at a single tax and demand less be taken, than it is for the government to play with complex tax laws and continue to rob the middle class via divide and conquer, which is their MO. If the Government is reasonable, and traditionally they get a lot of support from the people, they will do fine.

I'm starting to see a clearer picture of the future. It's not so different from the past, unfortunately, but a little closer to the distant past (IE what our (USA) founding fathers intended.)

It will always be up to us, the Citizens of the world, to keep governments in check. For the people, by the people, unless they give it up, as we have.
 

Bridgewater

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Dec 14, 2014
183
164
203
And just a note, when I was watching Mike Huckabee talk about a "fair" tax by taxing consumption (goods - much like vat) then I realized that's the way to go. The government has it's easy way to tax and get funds for what they need to do. Sure, they will still get their power, but it's easier for the citizens to bulk at a single tax and demand less be taken, than it is for the government to play with complex tax laws and continue to rob the middle class via divide and conquer, which is their MO. If the Government is reasonable, and traditionally they get a lot of support from the people, they will do fine.

I'm starting to see a clearer picture of the future. It's not so different from the past, unfortunately, but a little closer to the distant past (IE what our (USA) founding fathers intended.)

It will always be up to us, the Citizens of the world, to keep governments in check. For the people, by the people, unless they give it up, as we have.
If cryptos really start taking over as the primary currency instead of fiat, people will have finally given up on trying to remain compliant in a system that is designed to keep them from becoming individually wealthy/powerful.

At that point, nobody will be paying any income taxes. It is simply not enforceable unless over 1/2 of the population works for the IRS and inspectors are posted in every business to make sure the slaves--I mean owners remain "patriotic". Hopefully we'll reach the point where people just stop paying taxes long before we reach anything close to that scenario (but they're trying! look how much the US fed gov has grown. and even the dept of education has tanks and machine guns!)

Employers will realize they can use their crypto revenue to pay their employees any amount they wish directly in crypto--there will be no taxes or wage controls. Excise tax will be the ONLY type of tax. We're going to head back to the good old days of only taxing things you can see and feel and count.
 

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,862
1,854
1,283
Yup. We have to admit, people want a government for good reason. Government helps most people resolve differences, helps protect individuals and businesses from fraud and theft by creating a system where one can get help. It's VERY imperfect but works for most people most of the time. The thing is, if there isn't enough money, we can't have a huge central government, it's repetitive and wasteful. The only way to function is for most of the money and effort to always be at the local level. That's how it should be in my opinion. Not every one agrees, I know, but the closer to the community a governing body is, the better it is at servicing the needs of the people, the more flexible it is, the more efficient, and the more responsive.

I'm not saying poor communities should be isolated, but I'm certain that even a state can do the job better than a federal government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dunedoo

Dunedoo

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Feb 25, 2015
568
600
263
Sydney Australia
Dash Address
XyoSz4xviVGfks1pLhaXw2Baqmhfw5k7MG
Agree. States can do a better job in Australia as well.
The Federal Gov borrows $1 billion to giveaway for whatever reason and we have to pay interest on it for the next 2 generations. Doesn't make sense.
The States would tell them to bugger off as we need to build more hospitals and roads.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TanteStefana