Questions from Community Members to DASH Core Team Members

DashChat

New Member
Sep 5, 2016
8
19
3
41
Hello. We created a new channel on slack, we call it #questions. How does it work? Community members submit question(s) in the #questions slack channel. Every 15 days a slack admin will submit the list of questions here. We know the core team is busy and because of that we do not expect to have all the questions answered, nor do we expect to have all the answers by tomorrow. If a question doesn't receive an answer we can just transfer it to the next set of questions.

I would, however like to make a quick point. The questions below are coming directly from community members. What are community members? At the moment they are many things. Evangelist, volunteers, customer service representatives. But most important; Community Members are DASH Users! We are the people using the software you are developing. We are the people who spread the word to get our friends and family members to use it. We hope that can be recognized by the core team and we would appreciate any answers provided. Thank you.

Guidelines on Providing Answers:
  • Please paste the Question your are providing an answer to in your response.
  • Unanswered Questions will be in the 'Unanswered Questions' section
  • Answered Questions will be will be in the 'Answered Questions' section
---------------------------------------------------------------​

Unanswered Questions

Lamassu Budget Questions:
1A)
Were any of the other Bitcoin ATM Companies considered for this proposal to utilize their network? Such as Skyhook, Genesis Coin, BitAccess, GeneralBytes, or BitXatm?

5A) How many Bitcoin ATM operators did 'Dash Core' contact for feedback, before submitting the "DASH-Lamassu ATM Integration" proposal? What was the feedback consensus?
General Questions:

1B) Will masternode blinding ever be a real thing?

2B) Does the law office of Marco Santori accept DASH?

3B) How much of the 2,024 DASH we paid out for the website proposal is remaining? Is it denominated in DASH or fiat? - partial Answer The majority of the website funds are remaining. That wallet address pre-dated my involvement in the finances, so I do not control the address or have an exact figure for you. I only know that very little was spent.

Tech Questions:

2C) @evan - Given Dash's volatility are there plans to use quorums to determine the current USD value of Dash and thus dynamically adjust the budget payouts instead of (mostly) overpaying many multi-month proposals

3C) How exactly (technical answer please) was the reference node removed back in the day in order for the network to work without it?

4C) When and how will the Masternode budget finalization become automatic without human intervention?

5C) Are there more details about how evolution can do millions of transactions per second - this was mentioned in Amanda's youtube interview with Dev team
---------------------------------------------------------------​

Answered Questions
Question: Do you know how much it will cost the DASH Network to have Lamassu sell machines with the Dash software? (Instead of a 3rd party startup like TigoCTM)
Answer: it will cost the exact same as all their other machines. They are willing to flash the Dash software on the factory floor at Lamassau… there is no extra charge to the best of my knowledge

Question: Is there a good idea of when the website will be finished?
Answer: Last recent estimate by Andy was 4-8 weeks, with some room for improvement. More details here:
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/new-website-discussion.8666/page-5#post-103616

Question: Are there any planned Peer Reviews in the pipeline?
Answer: A reputable security company was contacted, but the prices were not affordable atm. It will eventually happen, but it needs to be done by a top company and that will require a lot of funds.

Question: Do you feel it is a conflict of interest for someone at Dash core to act as a proxy for a Dash Whale?
Answer: If a person trusts another person with his votes freely I don't see a problem. I don't see why someone can perceive there is a conflict there.


Question: Who owns dash.org domain name?
Answer: It is registered to Evan, but the blockchain paid for it, so I'd argue that it is owned by the project.


Question: How will Mycelium integrate dash for the IOS app's if apple doesn't allow DASH?
Answer: Given latest developments in the AppStore (Jaxx, Shapeshift...) we can't know what will happen. @tomasz.ludek is working on that project, maybe he can expand.

LAMASSU

Question: What is tigoCTM relation to the lamassu budget proposal? Why is it linked in the proposal text? Quote & Link: "If this project is approved, Deginner will ensure it is deployed on at least one network of BTMs, starting with the one in Panama City, Panama."
Answer: Tigo is related to the Lamassau proposal because they 1) Use Lamassau ATM hardware, and 2) will support a stack of software and services to allow and Lamassau operator to run Dash… it includes things like coin inventory management, exchange interfaces, etc. They charge about 1% for that service. They also do things like help you place the ATM.

Question: Does the Lamassu Compatible ATM software accept InstantSend transactions?
Answer: Current version doesn't work with InstantSend. I have already sent an information to the vendor with short info how to implement InstantSend using dashd.


Question: Where are the details on the trading engine needed to make the Lamassu Compatible Software work on ATMS?
Answer: High level technical documentation of the software components is available in the following location:https://github.com/GitGuild/gitguild_website/wiki/Git-Guild-Technical-Overview#tapps


Question: Does the Dash software run on the Lamassu and if so, where is a video demonstration of it?
Answer:

Question: is there currently at this moment any development going on at GitGuild for the ATM software?
Answer:
a. Software exclusively dedicated for Lamassu machines is finished. However it is relatively difficult to install (last week one of the community members went through the process and (probably) can share the detials), therefore:
b. GitGuild works on the software that will not be exclusively dedicated to Lamassu machines but for other ATMs too. This is going to be easy to install and distribute
 
Last edited:

fernando

Powered by Dash
Dash Core Team
Moderator
Foundation Member
May 9, 2014
1,527
2,058
283
General Questions:
  1. Is there a good idea of when the website will be finished?
  2. Are there any planned Peer Reviews in the pipeline?
  3. Will masternode blinding ever be a real thing?
  4. Do you feel it is a conflict of interest for someone at Dash core to act as a proxy for a Dash Whale?
  5. Does the law office of Marco Santori accept DASH?
  6. How much of the 2,024 DASH we paid out for the website proposal is remaining? Is it denominated in DASH or fiat?
  7. Who owns dash.org domain name?
  8. How will Mycelium integrate dash for the IOS app's if apple doesn't allow DASH?
Minor improvement for future posts would be to number them uniquely (so in this case general ones would be 2.1, 2.2 and so on). I can't quote list items separately because it changes the number. A few answers below:

1. Last recent estimate by Andy was 4-8 weeks, with some room for improvement. More details here:
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/new-website-discussion.8666/page-5#post-103616

2. A reputable security company was contacted, but the prices were not affordable atm. It will eventually happen, but it needs to be done by a top company and that will require a lot of funds.

4. If a person trusts another person with his votes freely I don't see a problem. I don't see why someone can perceive there is a conflict there.

7. It is registered to Evan, but the blockchain paid for it, so I'd argue that it is owned by the project.

8. Given latest developments in the AppStore (Jaxx, Shapeshift...) we can't know what will happen. @tomasz.ludek is working on that project, maybe he can expand.
 

camosoul

Grizzled Member
Sep 19, 2014
2,261
1,130
1,183
Are there more details about how evolution can do millions of transactions per second - this was mentioned in Amanda's youtube interview with Dev team
I'm not any part of the core, but I have the answer. Kinda surprised nobody else has this figured out...

TL;DR - You can do millions of TXes per second in DASH because you can bloat the memory pool with no consequences.

Bloat the memory pool with any Legacy Bitclone/Crypto 1.0 Architecture, and you guarantee double spends.

DASH actually uses the bloat to it's advantage, while every other coin becomes a guaranteed double spend factory under the same conditions.

This is the fatal flaw of the Satoshi experiment.
Am I still the only person who remembers when Satoshi referred to BTC as an experiment? Learn from the results.

Since DASH has separated TX Security from Ledger Security, DASH does not depend on block inclusions for "confirmation." This entire concept becomes vestigial because of IX/IS. You can send all the IX/IS TXes you want, and they just pile up in the memory pool until they can flush to the ledger. Essentially the same thing that happens to Bitclones when their blocksizes clog up, but because IX/IS transmissions are secured instantly, the detrimental effects do not occur. The memory pool just becomes a giant secure buffer awaiting flush-to-ledger. If the blocksize clogs up, so what? IX/IS is what's securing the transaction, not the blockchain, so it doesn't grind everything to a halt or open up huge windows for even more exploits.... It's the same clog, just none of the bad results because the ledger isn't being misused for tx security.

Essentially, everything just fell into place by simply NOT forcing the ledger to run double duty as both ledger and TX security, like Bitclones still do. The rest of the system can be pretty much left alone so long as you create TX security that is, appropriately, independent from the ledger security. While it looks much the same, the dynamics of it are completely different as a result of doing that one obvious thing that Bitclones don't do.

How can such an exploit as double-spends be deliberately engineered into Bitclones, and last so many years without and serious outcry? It seems so easy. Because it is. This does nothing more than shine a spotlight on how utterly technically clueless and incompetent Bitclone ponzi-head fanboys are. This is why grown-ups don't take it seriously, and why DASH needs to grab that bull by the horns if it wants to stand apart.

It doesn't seem like part of the original question, but IX and Double Spends are at the root of the answer to this question. Double Spends can be done in more ways than what was demonstrated recently by Glass Hunt. One of the worst of which happens when the blockchain clogs up and starts prioritizing TXes in blocks based on fees. When the pileup starts happening and the memory pool swells, it becomes a free-for-all guarantee that double spends will work perfectly absolutely every time. This further demonstrates exactly why IX/IS can perform millions of TXes totally independent of blocksize, rate, or "confirmaitions." IX/IS nails this because it doesn't allow the same inputs to be used more than once.

You can also automate a zero fee double spend. Fire off the same spend to 1000 addresses. 1 of them is the Vendor. 999 of them are your own addresses. Even with no fee at all, the odds are 1 in 1000 that the vendor will actually get the money. Depending on the network propagation lag, once would explicitly target slow nodes or fast nodes, to virtually guarantee in the same way. Again, IX/IS nails this because once send is all that's allowed in the first place. All subsequent sends would be rejected by the network and never part of the memory pool in the first place, thus, also, never end up in a block.

This is why you can pile up all the IX/IS you want in DASH's memory pool and nothing bad will happen. But, do it to any Bitclone, and you make double spends into a guarantee. This means DASH's TXrate handling capacity has nothing to do with it's blocksize or blockrate; a concept that is burned into the small brains of cryptotards as a fact. DASH breaks this "fact" and they can't grasp that. Therefore, millions per second if you feel like it. Waiting for blocks becomes nothing more than flushing the buffer to a secure archive (ledger, the blockchain), has nothing to do with securing the TX. The ledger is relegated to being nothing but a ledger. We don't rely on it for anything else.

Ledger security for the Ledger.

Transaction security for the Transaction.


It's such a simple, duh, concept; but I dare you to get any of the cryptotards to understand it. They have no idea how it works and cling to FUD like it's life...

Gotta keep the bags pumped! Pay no attention to the Elephant behind the Curtain. Yeah, that's the Emperor back there with the microphone, but he's got no clothes. You don't want to see the Emperor naked, do you? Best not to go looking for the truth then. Stay happy and stupid.

There is only one thing that prevent absolutely every single TX on a Legacy Crypto 1.0 network (such as Bitcoin and all of it's clones: Bitclones) from being a double spend; most of the users have no clue what's going on or how to do it. The only glue holding the Bitclone house of cards together is the extreme ignorance of it's userbase.

@amanda_b_johnson - make a video about this. Nobody will listen to me as evidenced by the fact that I've been saying it for over a year now. But, nerds always listen to the pretty girl...
 
Last edited:

fernando

Powered by Dash
Dash Core Team
Moderator
Foundation Member
May 9, 2014
1,527
2,058
283
I'm not any part of the core, but I have the answer. Kinda surprised nobody else has this figured out...

TL;DR - You can do millions of TXes per second in DASH because you can bloat the memory pool with no consequences.

Bloat the memory pool with any Legacy Bitclone/Crypto 1.0 Architecture, and you guarantee double spends.

DASH actually uses the bloat to it's advantage, while every other coin becomes a guaranteed double spend factory under the same conditions.

This is the fatal flaw of the Satoshi experiment.
Am I still the only person who remembers when Satoshi referred to BTC as an experiment? Learn from the results.

Since DASH has separated TX Security from Ledger Security, DASH does not depend on block inclusions for "confirmation." This entire concept becomes vestigial because of IX/IS. You can send all the IX/IS TXes you want, and they just pile up in the memory pool until they can flush to the ledger. Essentially the same thing that happens to Bitclones when their blocksizes clog up, but because IX/IS transmissions are secured instantly, the detrimental effects do not occur. The memory pool just becomes a giant secure buffer awaiting flush-to-ledger. If the blocksize clogs up, so what? IX/IS is what's securing the transaction, not the blockchain, so it doesn't grind everything to a halt or open up huge windows for even more exploits.... It's the same clog, just none of the bad results because the ledger isn't being misused for tx security.

Essentially, everything just fell into place by simply NOT forcing the ledger to run double duty as both ledger and TX security, like Bitclones still do. The rest of the system can be pretty much left alone so long as you create TX security that is, appropriately, independent from the ledger security. While it looks much the same, the dynamics of it are completely different as a result of doing that one obvious thing that Bitclones don't do.

How can such an exploit as double-spends be deliberately engineered into Bitclones, and last so many years without and serious outcry? It seems so easy. Because it is. This does nothing more than shine a spotlight on how utterly technically clueless and incompetent Bitclone ponzi-head fanboys are. This is why grown-ups don't take it seriously, and why DASH needs to grab that bull by the horns if it wants to stand apart.

It doesn't seem like part of the original question, but IX and Double Spends are at the root of the answer to this question. Double Spends can be done in more ways than what was demonstrated recently by Glass Hunt. One of the worst of which happens when the blockchain clogs up and starts prioritizing TXes in blocks based on fees. When the pileup starts happening and the memory pool swells, it becomes a free-for-all guarantee that double spends will work perfectly absolutely every time. This further demonstrates exactly why IX/IS can perform millions of TXes totally independent of blocksize, rate, or "confirmaitions." IX/IS nails this because it doesn't allow the same inputs to be used more than once.

You can also automate a zero fee double spend. Fire off the same spend to 1000 addresses. 1 of them is the Vendor. 999 of them are your own addresses. Even with no fee at all, the odds are 1 in 1000 that the vendor will actually get the money. Depending on the network propagation lag, once would explicitly target slow nodes or fast nodes, to virtually guarantee in the same way. Again, IX/IS nails this because once send is all that's allowed in the first place. All subsequent sends would be rejected by the network and never part of the memory pool in the first place, thus, also, never end up in a block.

This is why you can pile up all the IX/IS you want in DASH's memory pool and nothing bad will happen. But, do it to any Bitclone, and you make double spends into a guarantee. This means DASH's TXrate handling capacity has nothing to do with it's blocksize or blockrate; a concept that is burned into the small brains of cryptotards as a fact. DASH breaks this "fact" and they can't grasp that. Therefore, millions per second if you feel like it. Waiting for blocks becomes nothing more than flushing the buffer to a secure archive (ledger, the blockchain), has nothing to do with securing the TX. The ledger is relegated to being nothing but a ledger. We don't rely on it for anything else.

Ledger security for the Ledger.

Transaction security for the Transaction.


It's such a simple, duh, concept; but I dare you to get any of the cryptotards to understand it. They have no idea how it works and cling to FUD like it's life...

Gotta keep the bags pumped! Pay no attention to the Elephant behind the Curtain. Yeah, that's the Emperor back there with the microphone, but he's got no clothes. You don't want to see the Emperor naked, do you? Best not to go looking for the truth then. Stay happy and stupid.

There is only one thing that prevent absolutely every single TX on a Legacy Crypto 1.0 network (such as Bitcoin and all of it's clones: Bitclones) from being a double spend; most of the users have no clue what's going on or how to do it. The only glue holding the Bitclone house of cards together is the extreme ignorance of it's userbase.

@amanda_b_johnson - make a video about this. Nobody will listen to me as evidenced by the fact that I've been saying it for over a year now. But, nerds always listen to the pretty girl...
You are absolutely right about the importance of separating the validation of the transaction from the permanent storage of it.

Just one small thing. At the moment, transaction locks expire after 60 min if they are included in a block. In 12.1 that will happen in 24 blocks. However, I guess this is to prevent the memory pool to go too big and to be able to recover funds if for some reason the transaction doesn't get picked by miners. However, if the transaction volume were big enough, I imagine it would not be a problem to increase that time. Also, we could even change the block time and size so we could flush more transactions to the blockchain. Ideally instant transactions should not be too much on the memory pool so the receiver can spend those funds as soon as possible when they are included in a block.

References to code of tx lock expiration (thanks @UdjinM6)
it’s 60 minutes in 12.0 https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/master/src/instantx.cpp#L242
and depends on network in 12.1 https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/v0.12.1.x/src/instantx.cpp#L346
mainnet - 24 blocks https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/v0.12.1.x/src/chainparams.cpp#L79
testnet - 6 blocks https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/v0.12.1.x/src/chainparams.cpp#L202
 

spiralus

New Member
Jul 25, 2016
3
1
3
31
If I'm following the answer right, then it seems the 'millions of transactions/sec' is predicated on the use of InstantSend. Is that correct? Seems like that could be a limitation, thanks
 

Solarminer

Well-known Member
Apr 4, 2015
762
922
163
The real unlimited transactions comes from the fact that masternodes can store the blockchain and be paid for storing it. You can't expect volunteers to store 100 of GBs of data with huge bandwidth for long, which is why bitcoin nodes are dropping. The plan with Evolution is to have all the blockchain data stored in masternodes, effectively eliminating the "blockchain too big" problem. Then the blocksize can be increased as needed or a variable size (like it should be) to meet the needs for the volume of transactions.

You can't add transactions with InstantSend faster than you can record in blocks forever. So eventually, even with InstantSend the fees will have to go up to limit transactions to a reasonable amount. But also agree, that InstantSend takes the burden of blocksize away and is the key for real instant transactions. We should just be calling Dash InstantSend. It is such a fundamental solution, that can't be done any other way.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: slamdunk

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
2,973
1,144
1,183
If I'm following the answer right, then it seems the 'millions of transactions/sec' is predicated on the use of InstantSend. Is that correct? Seems like that could be a limitation, thanks
I think InstantSend will become default
 

kot

Administrator
Dash Core Team
Foundation Member
Mar 17, 2015
711
1,879
263
1C) Does the Lamassu Compatible ATM software accept InstantSend transactions?
Current version doesn't work with InstantSend. I have already sent an information to the vendor with short info how to implement InstantSend using dashd.
 

kot

Administrator
Dash Core Team
Foundation Member
Mar 17, 2015
711
1,879
263
4A) is there currently at this moment any development going on at GitGuild for the ATM software?
According to the information I have,
a. Software exclusively dedicated for Lamassu machines is finished. However it is relatively difficult to install (last week one of the community members went through the process and (probably) can share the detials), therefore:
b. GitGuild works on the software that will not be exclusively dedicated to Lamassu machines but for other ATMs too. This is going to be easy to install and distribute
 
Last edited:

Solarminer

Well-known Member
Apr 4, 2015
762
922
163
Current version doesn't work with InstantSend. I have already sent an information to the vendor with short info how to implement InstantSend using dashd.
Obviously, there is absolutely no reason to even convert an ATM to Dash if it doesn't take InstantSend. I can shapeshift in a few minutes with Coinomi from Dash to BTC or BTC to Dash and use any BTC machine. You will still need to wait the 10+ minutes for block confirmations and get the text when your transaction is confirmed if you are using Dash with no InstantSend.

Maybe I need to spell this out. When you want to exchange your Dash to Cash, the ATM will wait 3-6 confirmations. You put your cell number in and it texts you when it is ready. So there was never a thought of maybe this is frustrating for the customer and InstantSend could do that in 1 second instead? No text, no waiting.

9 months of software development and there is no InstantSend support! Outrageous. And for the last 2+ months GitGuild has been sitting on their hands waiting for the new Lamassu software. They could have spent that time implementing InstantSend.
TigoCTM/GitGuild/Denninger/Daniel - Did any of these guys(ok maybe it is just 2 guys) even think about what the customer wants? InstantSend should have been first.
Kot - Why wasn't this a concern on your report? 100% software complete - but no InstantSend capability. Think about the intent of the project...not what the vendor is telling you to say. There is no reason to have project managers if they say yes complete without thinking about the real world application.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AjM

kot

Administrator
Dash Core Team
Foundation Member
Mar 17, 2015
711
1,879
263
@Solarminer - I think you make too many assumptions in your statements.
I appreciate your dedication to review the details of the project and to share your feedback and point of view. However please remember it is your point of view and try to not generalize. You has the right to have your opinion but it does not mean it is the ultimate truth and everyone has to follow - just a food for thoughts...
About specifically
Did any of these guys(ok maybe it is just 2 guys) even think about what the customer wants? InstantSend should have been first.
- I am not going to speculate what they think. I just know that nowadays majority of people don't care about the technology behind the services they use on daily basis. People have no idea how SWIFT or SEPA work, they just use it. I suppose that 99% of future users of Dash ATMs will have no idea what InstantSend is and they won't care. It should simply work, be stable and cheap.
Besides of this - have you ever heard about continuous improvement process in IT management (as a part of ITIL)?
 

Solarminer

Well-known Member
Apr 4, 2015
762
922
163
@Solarminer - I think you make too many assumptions in your statements.
....
About specifically - I am not going to speculate what they think.
.....
Besides of this - have you ever heard about continuous improvement process in IT management (as a part of ITIL)?
I tried hard not to speculate here. I would have not responded that way if the response about InstantSend was, "We are working on adding InstantSend but had some trouble and are going to release phase 1 software without it." Then I would have understood. "Or alternatively, the 1 way machines won't need InstantSend, and the 2 way machines will have it with a release in about 2 months." Again, I see the plan for implementation. Oh, and why not advertise the InstantSend feature and that you don't have to wait 10+ minutes to get cash from a crypto ATM.

@Solarminer I suppose that 99% of future users of Dash ATMs will have no idea what InstantSend is and they won't care. It should simply work, be stable and cheap.
It concerns me that you wrote this statement. This is a fundamental difference of Dash vs all Bitclones. I would expect every user to know what InstantSend is and that is why they own Dash. Dash without InstantSend is just a bitclone as far as the user is concerned. Without InstantSend the user will need to wait for confirmations. Which means waiting for that text for 10+ minutes....or 1 second to Dash into Cash. Yeah, seems like a big deal to me.
 

TaoOfSatoshi

Grizzled Member
Jul 15, 2014
2,840
2,648
1,183
Dash Nation
www.dashnation.com
I tried hard not to speculate here. I would have not responded that way if the response about InstantSend was, "We are working on adding InstantSend but had some trouble and are going to release phase 1 software without it." Then I would have understood. "Or alternatively, the 1 way machines won't need InstantSend, and the 2 way machines will have it with a release in about 2 months." Again, I see the plan for implementation. Oh, and why not advertise the InstantSend feature and that you don't have to wait 10+ minutes to get cash from a crypto ATM.



It concerns me that you wrote this statement. This is a fundamental difference of Dash vs all Bitclones. I would expect every user to know what InstantSend is and that is why they own Dash. Dash without InstantSend is just a bitclone as far as the user is concerned. Without InstantSend the user will need to wait for confirmations. Which means waiting for that text for 10+ minutes....or 1 second to Dash into Cash. Yeah, seems like a big deal to me.
This seems to be explained in an easy to understand way. The ATM experience, along with retail, really has the potential to be revolutionized with InstantSend. It appears to people that are not involved in the inner workings, @kot, that there is no real push to have that key piece of technology integrated in this software. Is that the case? Or is it just slow coming? I agree with @Solarminer that this is a big deal, and I would like answers to this as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HinnomTX

kot

Administrator
Dash Core Team
Foundation Member
Mar 17, 2015
711
1,879
263
Guys, Are your concerns coming from the real experience with ATM and you had to wait 10+ minutes for confirmation?
 

Ryan Taylor

Well-known Member
Dash Core Team
Foundation Member
Jul 3, 2014
550
1,649
263
Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Obviously, there is absolutely no reason to even convert an ATM to Dash if it doesn't take InstantSend. I can shapeshift in a few minutes with Coinomi from Dash to BTC or BTC to Dash and use any BTC machine. You will still need to wait the 10+ minutes for block confirmations and get the text when your transaction is confirmed if you are using Dash with no InstantSend.

Maybe I need to spell this out. When you want to exchange your Dash to Cash, the ATM will wait 3-6 confirmations. You put your cell number in and it texts you when it is ready. So there was never a thought of maybe this is frustrating for the customer and InstantSend could do that in 1 second instead? No text, no waiting.

9 months of software development and there is no InstantSend support! Outrageous. And for the last 2+ months GitGuild has been sitting on their hands waiting for the new Lamassu software. They could have spent that time implementing InstantSend.
TigoCTM/GitGuild/Denninger/Daniel - Did any of these guys(ok maybe it is just 2 guys) even think about what the customer wants? InstantSend should have been first.
Kot - Why wasn't this a concern on your report? 100% software complete - but no InstantSend capability. Think about the intent of the project...not what the vendor is telling you to say. There is no reason to have project managers if they say yes complete without thinking about the real world application.
@Solarminer Thank you for your comments. I agree with one of your positions and disagree with another.

I strongly agree that InstantSend is a critical feature that should be implemented at the ATM. It really is our killer feature and provides a far superior user experience compared to Bitcoin. I think that it needs to be incorporated into one of the upcoming versions that incorporate improvements, though I suspect ease of use for the operator is a slightly higher concern at the moment. I'm not saying that both can't be worked on at the same time, but if there is a choice, I would push to make the software easier to install and maintain first. That said, I think for the time being, it needs to be optional for the operator to implement, as they may not yet feel confident enough in the technology to turn InstantSend on. I think we've made it clear that we would like to add this functionality and push for its adoption.

I completely disagree with your statement that there's no point to ATM software without InstantSend. If users wanted to convert cash (bills) into Dash, they would need to incur the ATM fees to buy Bitcoin, and THEN incur the fees to Shapeshift to Dash. It would also take a heck of a lot longer in such a multi-step process. Therefore, even without InstantSend, acquiring Dash with a Dash-enabled ATM is both cheaper and faster than the approach you suggest. This has obvious value.
 

Solarminer

Well-known Member
Apr 4, 2015
762
922
163
@kot
Here is a video with the robocoin machine. They had to wait 22 minutes before their bitcoin was confirmed. (skip to the last 2 minutes)

Pretty obvious benefit to not wait that 22 minutes by using InstantSend.

@babygiraffe Thank you. I appreciate your efforts to get us on the path for InstantSend. The reduced fee is relative. TigoCTM is taking 1% for the privilege of accepting Dash. The shapeshift fee is close to that. Using Dash without InstantSend falls into the preference category. Certainly, not a need like reducing the 22 minute wait to exchange Bitcoin to Cash.
 
Last edited:

Ryan Taylor

Well-known Member
Dash Core Team
Foundation Member
Jul 3, 2014
550
1,649
263
Scottsdale, AZ, USA
@Solarminer Yes, with Bitcoin's congested network and infrequent blocks, I think 22 minutes probably happens a lot. With our blocks 4x more frequent and no where near as congested, I think the probability of waiting that long for a Dash transaction is extremely low right now. So I don't think that same experience will apply to Dash ATM transactions even without InstantSend enabled. But your overall point is nonetheless valid... that InstantSend is better than waiting, even if with Dash it will only be one tenth as long as that video.

Concerning Shapeshift, the fees are upwards of 4.5% from time to time. 1% is kind of a best-case scenario. I think it's also important to remember that Tigo's fees are to provide services above and beyond exchange services (which is all you get with Shapeshift), so it might be unfair to compare the two directly. Tigo provides software support, compliance in some jurisdictions, inventory management, etc.
 

Solarminer

Well-known Member
Apr 4, 2015
762
922
163
Having faster block times doesn't give you faster times to get the same security. You still need 10 minutes of blocks to get about the same security as a 10 minute bitcoin block. It only allows partial security, which in this case might be enough.

That is why instantsend is a game changer. Full security in a second. We should be creating products that are better than fiat equivalents, not accepting that user will want to use something that takes them 5 minutes longer to use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: camosoul

HinnomTX

Active Member
Jul 22, 2014
166
196
103
This is a very frustrating thread to read. It should be clear to everyone attached to this project that InstantSend is our meal ticket. It's the reason to use Dash. Without it, we're Litecoin. InstantSend must become the default transaction type, and it must go into every wallet and ATM and payment clearing software that supports Dash.
 

David

Well-known Member
Jun 21, 2014
618
628
163
This is a very frustrating thread to read. It should be clear to everyone attached to this project that InstantSend is our meal ticket. It's the reason to use Dash. Without it, we're Litecoin. InstantSend must become the default transaction type, and it must go into every wallet and ATM and payment clearing software that supports Dash.
While I agree that InstantSend is a critical feature and one of our most important ones, let's not exaggerate. Litecoin has no PrivateSend, no budget system, no second tier which can be used to do different things in time, and essentially no active development.

Honestly, if I had to pick one thing that's our killer feature, it would be the budget system. People just don't understand how extraordinary it is that we can pay for our own development, marketing, integrations, etc. Not only that, but the positive feedback loop it creates is extraordinary. At current prices we have $1 million per year to work with...that's HUGE!
 

kot

Administrator
Dash Core Team
Foundation Member
Mar 17, 2015
711
1,879
263
Right, this is frustrating (or rather strange) thread to read.
No one from the development team said that InstantSend won't be implemented on machines, yet those who have nothing to do with development try to build strange theories for unknown reason... There is no reason to talk about obvious things - let's focus on questions.
 

TroyDASH

Well-known Member
Jul 31, 2015
1,254
797
183
Right, this is frustrating (or rather strange) thread to read.
No one from the development team said that InstantSend won't be implemented on machines, yet those who have nothing to do with development try to build strange theories for unknown reason... There is no reason to talk about obvious things - let's focus on questions.
I'm not sure what "theories" you are referring to. A couple people expressed a concern about InstantSend perhaps not being as high of a priority as they would like. That's all.

To make sure I understand your answer, am I correct that you are saying that (1) no, instantsend is not currently supported, (2) we have provided them with the information they would need should they decide to start developing instantsend support, (3) the focus right now is on getting a working product first, so we are not particularly pushing or hurrying them along to include InstantSend right now. Please tell me if I am not characterizing your intended answer correctly --

There was also babyg's point about non-IX transactions being faster than Bitcoin because of the shorter block times, although I'd have to agree with solar about faster block time does not mean equal faster security. However, I do not know how many blocks would be "sufficient" here - if it is only one block then it might not matter.
 

camosoul

Grizzled Member
Sep 19, 2014
2,261
1,130
1,183
@SolarminerI just know that nowadays majority of people don't care about the technology behind the services they use on daily basis.
So why bother making InstantSend?

Maybe "people" don't pay attention to how the tech they are abusing works. But they're still noticing the consequences of it. This is why Bitclones are not taken seriously.

It's why those persons who have usurped control, if they intend to keep it, should start giving a damn about the technologies that are being used, even if if the users don't.

The consequences.

Businesses, once tipped off to this weirdness, very quickly learn what a double-spend is. There is no way a sane, informed grown-up is going to let that into their business. Due Diligence. Are you really trying to just spin that past business owners? This is why Crypto has such a stigma. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice; not gonna happen! Every successful business owner lives by this mantra. They are not going to go confirmationless unless they are damned fools!

"People" don't want to sit around waiting for block inclusions to make the transaction secure. So, they don't use it. There's no demand. Sure, the user doesn't know why they're being forced to wait. They just know that they are. So they're not interested anymore.

BUT YOU KNOW!

AND YOU WORK ON THE PROJECT THAT NULLIFIED THAT NEED!

YET STILL REFUSES TO MAKE THE MOVE, AND DOES EVERYTHING IT CAN TO STOP THOSE PARTIES THAT WOULD MAKE THE MOVE.

YOU HAVE TOLD THE ENTIRE DASH COMMUNITY THAT YOU WOULD. YOU HAVE SUCKED UP TONS OF MONEY BASED ON THOSE PROMISES.

And you come back to us with the statement that nobody understands so why bother?

If I describe the ridiculousness of that in a manner that is appropriate, my post will be censored.

Again.

Most people have no idea why why their car runs like crap when they fill the tank full of water with the garden hose. Does this mean that the engineers who designed the car should never explain it, and make no effort?
It should be clear to everyone attached to this project that InstantSend is our meal ticket.
And you just heard it in a very fancy, complicated wording designed to spin your head and keep you befuddled, that the very people who are supposed to be doing this, would rather say "Nobody cares about the tech, so why should we?"

Maybe nobody who uses facebook cares how it works, but the people who run it damn well better...
 
Last edited:

camosoul

Grizzled Member
Sep 19, 2014
2,261
1,130
1,183
We should be creating products that are better than fiat equivalents, not accepting that user will want to use something that takes them 5 minutes longer to use.
Bingo. Because they won't!

If it's not better than what they already have, why would they bother?

I've used this analogy before, and yes, it is crude, but dammit, you people just don't get the message.

If you unzip and whip out your ding dong in front of a girl you've never met, the fact that it "really easy" to blow you is not going to motivate her to do so! In fact, it's going to have the exact opposite effect!

There has to be a compelling interest that gives her the desire to do so.

Right now, the DASH project does in fact have what the ladies want, but DASH, like every loser who can't get laid, is trying to explain it's way in, instead of being an experience.

@kot You're 100% right! Nobody cares how it works. But, there are consequences when you make the customer do things the customer doesn't want to do. DASH has the ability to eliminate those negative problems from both the Vendor's side and the Customer's side. And it is failing to do so. Again, explaining to a woman why she should think you're so great will never work. Explaining to a bunch of cryptotards will be just as useless, and is every bit as counter-productive for all the same reasons.

DO! REAL MEN TAKE ACTION. Show the difference, don't explain it. Let the user experience not having to wait around. Let the vendor experience zero fear of not actually getting the money. InstanSend is the golden effing ticket for Crypto, and you've let it rot on the vine for over a year while sucking up tons of money! You've FUDded and trolled anyone who tries to go around you. The only contacts you've made to existing Crypto-to-fiat entities, is to tell them not to deal with us because we're not prim and proper.

People who get shit done don't wear a suit and tie!

I don't take my car to a mechanic with clean, manicured hands. Figure it out!

Hard work is done by hard people. Quit screwing around...

There are several competitor coins who have plans to implement a multi-tier architecture with the same payment lock features. You sat on it and did nothing for over a year! You've been given gold on a silver platter, and not only couldn't be asked to put on your platinum gloves to pick it up, you've deliberately flushed it down the toilet all in the name of stupid nerd ego tripping!

The fact that I have to keep explaining this to the very people who say they are doing it... When "it" could be done in a week. HELLO?
 
Last edited:

oaxaca

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Jul 8, 2014
573
832
263
let's focus on questions.
OK, do you agree with this statement: "InstantSend is the OBVIOUS answer to user and merchant concerns about using cryptocurrency. It should be the policy of Dash to require InstantSend on any customer facing device or software."

If so will you make this happen? If not, why the fuck not?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Solarminer

tungfa

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Apr 9, 2014
8,902
6,737
1,283
OK, do you agree with this statement: "InstantSend is the OBVIOUS answer to user and merchant concerns about using cryptocurrency. It should be the policy of Dash to require InstantSend on any customer facing device or software."

If so will you make this happen? If not, why not?
yes it is
but
as with everything , we have to do this step by step !
any development and integration starts with Dash 'normal' (double check) and second step is IX and third step is DS ..... same with Mobile Wallets and all others !
(i do not know the details of that ATM deal - just saying things need time and no need to jump from 0 to 200 - as we are still working/waiting for the ATM's to be out and live)
 

camosoul

Grizzled Member
Sep 19, 2014
2,261
1,130
1,183
@Solarminerit needs to be optional for the operator to implement, as they may not yet feel confident enough in the technology to turn InstantSend on.
Yes.

We should keep on screwing up really bad because it's what we're used to doing... Lets acknowledge the killer app, and then not do it because different is scary! We invented this solution, but we're so afraid of our own shadow that we'll let it rot on the vine in fear of wetting our panties when it actually works...

Excellent.

Garbage in, garbage out...

Lets keep doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result. Especially when that same thing is something that anyone with an IQ above room temperature could tell would never work in the first place.

Please, oh please make IS the default in 12.1.... Please show me that the DASH project doesn't have it head so far up it's ass that there's no hope...