So, 12.1...


Grizzled Member
Sep 19, 2014
No matter your accomplishment or milestone, you must always ask "what's next?"

It took a long damned time to get 12.1, and I think a lot of people are wondering why it took so long for a large, expensive team to do what Evan used to do by himself in a weekend...

What's next?

What are the goals/features for the next release? Is there a timeline?

I'd like, as always, to suggest that fixing IX should be the first thing to get out of the way.

I do look forward to facebook-of-crypto, DAPI, DashDrive, and some layers of contract features including a reversibleTX based on humans-on-the-network intervention...

But, none of it will matter if IX is still backwards. Vendors will still not want to deal with the deal-breaker problems of a user failing to, or deliberately not, using the IX checkbox. The whole point of IX is to assure the recipient, and it still utterly fails to do so.

You've got to have this in order or you'll be tripping over the same lack of feature set that bitclones have right now. You invented IX. It's not just a good concept, it's the killer feature. It's currrent implementation is functionally moot. Make it usable. See it from the perspective of the vendor, not just the snowflakes. Attracting more stray cats won't fix the problem that keeps vendors away. Vendors are users, too. Well, they would be if there were a crypto out there that wasn't hostile to vendors... Since crypto has been traditionally hostile to vendors, this metric has never been considered and "vendors are users too" is treated like a lie, because, duh, where do you see vendors using it?... Paradox. They don't crypto it because crypto is broken. "Vendors WOULD BE users, too." if you wouldn't be so hostile towards them, treating them like their needs are irrelevant. They're never going to adopt it if it means giving away free stuff... I know the cryptotards don't see anything wrong with stealing from vendors, but vendors kinda do see a problem with it...

Are there still no functioning mobile wallets?
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: akhavr


Mar 5, 2017
Well, said @camosoul ... As a vender, it is the only feature that has prevented us from integrating any crypto. Make it work as intended, where vendors can enforce IX, and they will sign up.


Well-known Member
Mar 5, 2017
Isn't this the short answer to the question "what's next?":

Now that Dash 12.1 has been released, our next step will be to release an alpha version of Evolution toward the end of 2017. We will be making additional releases before then, including a full whitepaper, so please check back here for updates. Stay tuned!


Active Member
Oct 11, 2014
Well, I've not following previous discussion, so pardon me, if that was already discussed: what's blocking implementation of receiver-pays-for-IX?


Grizzled Member
Sep 19, 2014
Well, I've not following previous discussion, so pardon me, if that was already discussed: what's blocking implementation of receiver-pays-for-IX?
Having the receiver pay for IX is a lot more complicated than simply initiating it.

@UdjinM6 has described this in another thread.

In spite of the ugly turn the project has made, XVC had a fairly open IX concept; anyone can request a lock on a TX in the memory pool.

Making the person asking for the lock pay to submit the lock seems like a pretty straight-forward and nearly trivial upgrade. But, as @UdjinM6 pointed out, it's not trivial because of the way DASH/IX works now.

What I've suggested is that "the way it works" needs to be drastically altered. Not a small task, but would result in a much more simplified IX system.

Make IX work like this:

1) TX submitted to memory pool.
2) VIN lock requested on said TX.

Essentially, break it apart. TXes are still TXes. IX is a lock request on the VINs that can be made by anyone. Any observer of the memory pool who sees a TX, can request a VIN lock on said TX.

Lock requests would have a fee. This way, whoever requests the lock would pay the fee for the lock request. Simple! Doesn't matter if it's the sender, the receiver, or a totally unrelated 3rd party that just felt like randomly locking a TX it saw in the memory pool.

Thanks to MNs, you could screen the lock requests for signatures. Implementing this on a single-layer volunteer network would introduce delays and the potential for exploit. This would mean it becomes a truly MN-exclusive feature and prevents single-layer cryptos from effectively implementing it in basic bitclone peer-to-peer only environments. A hurdle, but not a barrier. But, still... It's a lot of back and forth that a volunteer-only network would add a ton of stacking latency to, but MNs don't have that problem. The confirmation of VIN locks could still happen faster than swiping a Debit Card. The cost of bandwidth becomes negligible when one considers that currently, a single MN pays enough to justify an unmetered pipe. If you run two or more masternodes, renting even and old pizza box and amortizing that unmetered pipe makes even more sense... It's a nonsense cost to consider even if the price drops 75%...

Only the privkeys of the addresses involved in the TX would be able to provide such sigs as proof that their Lock Request is made by the same party that made the TX. This would allow you to prevent frivolous lock requests. Not that they'd be likely to occur with a fee attached, but there is a reason...

This could meddle with multi-session mixing. Though I suspect there are other ways to prevent that. It wouldn't be hard to build, on top of this simpler system, a demand for a signature that matches the VINs or matches the receiving address. this way nobody could lock VINs at random to monkey-wrench a multi-session mix. I'm pretty sure multi-session mixing doesn't stack VINs that way in the first place, so "solving this problem" may not even be a problem. But, it shows that you could add the signature filter on top of the IX request even if it's not needed.

Leaving it open could be a feature for large vendors. There could be a dedicated BIP32 (DIP32?) "watcher" that fires off lock requests for every TX it recognizes as it's own, lessening the workload on POS function, and keeping IX lock accounting simple and centralized.

I know that even this explanation is oversimplified to the point that it's not even accurate anymore, but the bottom line is that IX needs to change or it doesn't exists in the eyes of vendors and DASH is no better than LTC from the would-be vendor/user perspective.

DASH needs to understand that vendors will not become users until crypto stops being hostile to their interests. DASH has the killer feature, but has failed to listen to the needs of vendor/users and seems only to care about attracting more cryptotards to a still-unusable architecture. Crypto has traditionally ignored the vendors' interests because it was known to be unfit up front. DASH doesn't have to follow that path. DASH could fix IX and infiltrate the real world, where other coins aren't even paying attention.

IX functions as the groundwork for DASH's facebook-of-crypto features. The goal there being to make DASH the easiest and most familiar crypto for clueless noobs to use. And there's the rub; those last to words; "to use." If there's nowhere to use it, becuase DASH failed to lay the groundworks for vendors, it won't make any difference how easy "to use" it is, because there will still be nowhere "to use" it...
Well, said @camosoul ... As a vender, it is the only feature that has prevented us from integrating any crypto. Make it work as intended, where vendors can enforce IX, and they will sign up.
Vendors aren't basement-dwelling neck-beards. Vendors have shit to do.

The only feedback you get from them is silence because they have better things to do than instruct DASH on how to act like a grown-up.

Vendors already have a system that works better than DASH. They're using it. Cash and CC/DC. If DASH fails to be better than this, DASH will continue to not be used, and continue to be unusable to the consumer/users no matter how many of them there are.

It does not matter how many people you line up to point at and say "Look, all those people could be your customers!" They already are customers; by means that actually work. Crypto imagines itself some gatekeeper to an exclusive market that isn't exclusive at all. Back when DASH was a one man show, Evan understood this. Since the likes of Ryan have been bending his ear, he has lost his way and forgotten this.

It does not matter how many consumer/users you line up if you continue to be so hostile towards vendors that vendor/users simply do not exist. DASH has left IX to rot on the vine, and the only reason it hasn't been stolen and implemented by another coin, is the pervasive one-sided snowflake mentality of crypto-at-large. "Vendors? What's that?" They don't even know that commerce has two sides to it... Totally oblivious to the most rudimentary realities... Such blatant failure to capitalize would have been suicide-18-months-ago in any other industry.

It will take a while to penetrate retail. It's about trust. There is no such thing as a vendor who hasn't heard about bitclones at this point. And virtually all of them have laughed it out of their offices for reasons that they refuse to address largely because they're just a bunch of snowflakes who are totally oblivious to reality and can't even comprehend the simple problem of "vendors' stuff being stolen is bad." They think it's a feature! Free stuff! Can't understand why vendors have a problem with that, and see no reason to fix it. What an unbelievably stupid problem to have, and still, nearly a decade later, no effort to deal with it! I'm reminded of a Job Interview with an SJW... You're not going to win this by declaring that you're being discriminated against... You have to grow the fuck up if you want the job.

That is a stigma that DASH will have to overcome. Crypto-snowflakes have a very crude misunderstanding of economics. Commerce is already occurring. There is not some secret key that DASH, or any other crypto, holds that will unlock massive profits that vendors would put up with these risks in order to gain access. these same "crypto-customers" already have debit cards, cash, and bank accounts. They're already doing business.

Bitclones promised a lot of things that would be attractive if not for that whole "giving away free stuff" problem.

DASH's IX does not fix that problem in it's current implementation. So, the "giving away free stuff" problem still exists in spite of having the killer feature. The killer feature is broken, horribly. Fix IX. It also needs to be bundled with a service that makes the instant-settlement-to-fiat process every but as seamless as VISA does it. This already exists, but it being neglected... Why? Because the end-of-the-chain feature that makes it feasible is still broken! IX is broken. Fix it. The settlement to fiat process needs to be a private entity for legal reasons, but who needs that trouble then the feature and the end of the chain is still broken and nobody is going to use it? How many vendors are going to sign up to a coin and service that jointly help people walk out the door with free stuff? The service is helpless to do anything about it, so nobody is going to invest time and money into creating something that is Dead On Arrival and we already know it. The vendors are already running their businesses... Crypto-at-large arrogantly demands that Vendors tolerate that fatal flaw because they imagine themselves king of an empire that doesn't actually exist. DASH has adopted that same attitude and will rot just like the rest if it fails to grow up and act like adults.

I know this could be explained much more succinctly, but the simple explanations don't seem to get through the thick heads that are bending Evan's ear and ruining DASH in the name of useless pork and ego. Relying on every other crypto to out-hubris DASH as the only thing keeping DASH afloat is a game that cannot end well. Fucking fix IX now!

DASH needs to fix IX and lay the groundwork NOW, because it's going to take time to overcome the stigma of obnoxious stupidity and cluelessness that has been sown to Vendors by bitclones. Fix it NOW.

It's very, very easy to flap your arms and jump off the roof. But, it won't result in flying. DASH expects Vendors to pretend that they're flying, when they've actually got a broken neck... Stupid! Would you trust someone who expected you to jump off your roof, break your neck, and if you somehow manage to still be alive, tell the world how great it is? Ridiculous. This is currently DASH's sales pitch, and since they only care about the crypto-snowflakes, they doesn't seem to realize how bad it makes them look. Heads in the echo chamber... Please tell me, which Vendor has the time to hold DASH's hand and explain how absurd this is? It's too ridiculous to take seriously. You're not going to get feedback from people you've punched in the face repeatedly and told that they better like it that way... Grown-ups simply avoid you like the plague that you are, DASHtards! You need to grow up instead of being offended.

"Let us help you jump off the roof, break your neck, and tell the world how wonderfulk it is!" it's a really shitty sales pitch, and nobody is going to bother telling you how to fix something that should be obvious... The fact that it is not obvious to you is why nobody in the real world will take you seriously.
Last edited:


New Member
Mar 22, 2017
Dont see lightning network, or scalable blocksize. These network developments are the future. Dash might be a little late to the party, already great coins are being developed with these atributes like veltor and pas
Plz dont be so slow Dash i dont wanna switch over, but those coins look like they are about to explode any second now....