We need Merchants USING Dash!

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,876
1,867
1,283
For the record, @dashly I'm quite sure the guys know this is required. Evan knows. It's just on a back burner because other things need to be in place to get this to work properly. I mean, I know JZA is a core member, but, forgive me JZA, sometimes coders are looking down a tunnel :) But I know the business guys know what's needed, and I know Evan knows, but they all aren't ready for this. It requires Evolution and smart contracts - and especially the MN quorum processing to be set and 100% before adding more abilities. The basics need to be in place first :( I'm disappointed that this isn't fool proof yet also, but I know we're on the right track :)

I think we all suffer from wanting everything working right now, but it's actually quite complex under the hood. And everything has to go in order.

Personally, I think it'll be 2 more years (a year after Evolution Beta) before we get this part right. In the scheme of things, I still think that is fast though :)
 

lynx

Active Member
Dec 11, 2015
364
250
133
@TanteStefana
Two whole years? That preposterous! Dash needs this feature now, without it the claim we have instant transactions is almost like false advertisement. Even if it were a quick, dirty fix that broke compatibility with current wallets (it will happen eventually anyway), it should be done ASAP.

For example, if I wanted to receive an InstantSend payment to address XuZ4nPJqPbgY3AbWxaRdXEz5CNMU6aM3YJ (tips accepted), the protocol could just add an "i" in front of it, IXuZ4nPJqPbgY3AbWxaRdXEz5CNMU6aM3YJ

That would mean "IX" for InstantSend, so legacy wallets won't recognize it. So, if you wanted to buy at @dashly 's , you would need to have an updated wallet. And everything is solved. He can accept payments enforcing IS, Dash users have another place to spend their money, win-win.

PS: I know that that only solves half the problem. You would still need code to detect that an IX transaction was actually made.
 
Last edited:

UdjinM6

Official Dash Dev
Core Developer
Dash Core Group
May 20, 2014
3,639
3,537
1,183
@TanteStefana
Two whole years? That preposterous! Dash needs this feature now, without it the claim we have instant transactions is almost like false advertisement. Even if it were a quick, dirty fix that broke compatibility with current wallets (it will happen eventually anyway), it should be done ASAP.

For example, if I wanted to receive an InstantSend payment to address XuZ4nPJqPbgY3AbWxaRdXEz5CNMU6aM3YJ (tips accepted), the protocol could just add an "i" in front of it, IXuZ4nPJqPbgY3AbWxaRdXEz5CNMU6aM3YJ

That would mean "IX" for InstantSend, so legacy wallets won't recognize it. So, if you wanted to buy at @dashly 's , you would need to have an updated wallet. And everything is solved. He can accept payments enforcing IS, Dash users have another place to spend their money, win-win.

PS: I know that that only solves half the problem. You would still need code to detect that an IX transaction was actually made.
It doesn't work this way, there are no addresses on blockchain, they exist only virtually so to say and the only reason the exist is to help users to verify addresses - base 58 encoding guarantees "X" (because of address version byte) and exclusion of similar symbols like l (lowercase L) and I (uppercase i). On blockchain level it's only a hash (of a public key).
 

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,876
1,867
1,283
I know. But that's what I'm "feeling" from my inquiries :( I can't say for certain, only they know where they're at. It's a good idea and one of the core guys was saying something about making a special account number to make this work who was talking in slack.

I don't know if this has anything to do with it, I would hope not, honestly, but Camosoul brought this up many times, and was.... well, he's a cranky guy, LOL. And I think he irritated some core guys who just argued with him. Camo is right, but with guys, I've noticed they butt heads and nobody can back down, LOL. Anyway, all I know is that the core team KNOWS this is needed. There is a plan in their heads, on how to do it. I'm guessing smart contracts? or maybe special account numbers, but this is mostly in Evan n Andy or a few of their heads, and not ready for prime time. When Evan shared in the past, he'd get some great feed back, but he'd also get trolling, outsiders taking his ideas, etc... so the core team has since become more secretive. So for me, after bugging them about things like this, when I feel like I really got through to enough of the guys who say yes, they know it's important but "other things have to be done first" I figure it's time to trust that they understand it's got to be done, and that it will be done. When is another question.

I can see wanting it now, yesterday, last month if you have a business. I totally understand. But there is so much work to be done :( I don't think anyone will get the jump on us, because it's not as easy as it sounds.
 

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,876
1,867
1,283
It doesn't work this way, there are no addresses on blockchain, they exist only virtually so to say and the only reason the exist is to help users to verify addresses - base 58 encoding guarantees "X" (because of address version byte) and exclusion of similar symbols like l (lowercase L) and I (uppercase i). On blockchain level it's only a hash (of a public key).
Nice to see you hear! Can you verify for us that the core team understands this problem and have it in mind to solve?
 

UdjinM6

Official Dash Dev
Core Developer
Dash Core Group
May 20, 2014
3,639
3,537
1,183
Nice to see you hear! Can you verify for us that the core team understands this problem and have it in mind to solve?
Can't get into everyone's head but I personally am aware of the issue and agree that there must be a way to lock it from merchant side regardless of the user intentions or some another soultion. (I replied this to camo somewhere already, can't remember where exactly, but could be in this thread too :) )
 
  • Like
Reactions: lynx

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,876
1,867
1,283
Can't get into everyone's head but I personally am aware of the issue and agree that there must be a way to lock it from merchant side regardless of the user intentions. (I replied this to camo somewhere already, can't remember where exactly, but could be in this thread too :) )
Yah, so you guys understand.
I have full confidence that it will be resolved, even if I come back with the same questions again, LOL. I'm kind of forgetful that way, and it takes me a while to remember :p
 

dashly

Member
Mar 5, 2017
110
44
78
That's reassuring @TanteStefana that the core team does understand how important this issue is. It's the reason I found Dash to begin with and moved most of my funds over from BTC. For the record, I do think the LN would solve the problem, but I am not holding my breath. With 95% activation threshold, I don't see it ever being activated. I'm certain it will be solved in the future though.

@JZA, as a software developer, I would think you would understand the difference in integrating code that processes crypto transactions in realtime vs. code that would require an overhaul of the way transactions are handled. You keep naming companies that already do this, Amazon, Hotel Bookings, etc... But what about the millions of other companies who's code currently is built for immediate processing. Yes, they could re-architect it, but the bottom line is it is a barrier to entry. The BTC core team gets this I think, but unfortunately they will not be able to move forward.

Last year we started to integrate BTC processing with Bitpay, but we ended up backing out due to the lack of realtime processing and the need to wait for confirmations.

You can argue all day long that realtime processing is not needed, but the first crypto that actually does solve this problem will end up with the largest portion of the market share in the crypto space, and you'll be sitting here wondering what the hell happened.
 

indiamikezulu

New Member
Nov 4, 2016
38
5
8
62
' . . . why would they accept Dash? Who is going to spend Dash at their store?'

We think in terms of 'trading-loops': if Store A accepted DASH, could we arrange Their Supplier B to also accept DASH? Then, if customers and friends and families of A and B get in on the act, you're on the verge of DASH being used as a currency.

But I popped in to say that I am now (pretty much) 'post-BTC.' Got DASH (and other major alts). Got a stash of silver for P2P trades. And got a supporter-merchant (who also holds DASH, thanks to us . . . ) who is gonna trial my notion of 'occasional merchant-trader' -- feel free to ask.
 

Fount4inhead

Member
Mar 21, 2017
51
12
48
40
Simultaneously we need users. An app store game were users can earn dash in game or have a top 10 in a competition each month that win dash. This could be funded as a proposal.
 

indiamikezulu

New Member
Nov 4, 2016
38
5
8
62
Let's do both! Pardon my mentioning other cryptos, but we're here to learn:

do you guys recall either Hunter Coin or 'CRC,' the Minecraft coin? Certainly CRC is a study for us. I understand it sorta . . . 'got away' from just being an in-game token, and began to be accepted on the 'outside.' My outfit were already community devs when CRC launched -- at a time at which adoption was still at a very early stage -- and we saw it as an exciting development.

And I like to example 'BGCaffe,' which is an NXT token which seems to have succeeded in creating a 'trading-loop.'
 

camosoul

Grizzled Member
Sep 19, 2014
2,261
1,130
1,183
That's reassuring @TanteStefana that the core team does understand how important this issue is.
@UdjinM6 gets it, but I'm not sure anyone else does; that's why it's on the back burner. If they understood the importance, it would not be on the back burner. They're disconnected from reality.

It's like holding your breath for 2 years while being assured that we all know it's really important to inhale and exhale...

It absolutely does not matter what else they imagine needs done first. Fuck all that. Immediately. IX should have been the ultimate "holy fuck we have to do this right now, do not sleep until it is done" priority for the last 2 years. It has been completely ignored, instead.

It's impossible to overstate the sense of urgency that would exist in the minds of those who were aware of the need, and aware of reality, at the same time. One or the other is lacking, hence, the lackluster response in even acknowledging a need. It's just no big deal, right? It's already in the bag, right? We already bankrupted Visa and all other cryptos are forgotten, right? So, what's the rush? There's no competition... Nobody else trying to bring crypto the the mainstream because DASH is already doing it, right? I mean, I just bought groceries as Super Wal Mart with DASH, didn't I? It totally just happened!
the first crypto that actually does solve this problem will end up with the largest portion of the market share in the crypto space, and you'll be sitting here wondering what the hell happened.
I'm glad I'm not the only one... But it's several billion dollars short and about 600 days too late... Even if they did wake up and start taking it seriously.

I share @TanteStefana's confidence in their ability to do the job, but there are already at least 5 other competitors ahead of DASH in offering what DASH invented. Sure. They'll do it. Someday, when it doesn't matter anymore and it's way past too late...

Even if fixed right-now-today, DASH would be showing up 2 years too late to it's own party. It's done. They sat around slapping each other on the back about being worshiped by yes men while they let it all slip away.

IX needs to be revamped to a "anyone can pay to request VIN lock on TXID" model. Maybe add a sig filter to make sure that only privkeys involved can make the lock request. Not sure that would be needed, but could be done.

"See that TXID in the memory pool? I'd like to lock the VINs until it's buried in X blocks (see what I did there regarding block inclusion? The VINs stay locked until TXID is X deep, regardless of any clog. Could even add fee-boost feedback...). Here's my fee. Oh, by the way, this is the sig for the receiving address, so you know I'm actually a party to this." MNs now reject any TX attempt on the same VINs until included block + X. MNs check that there is only one TXID using those VINs to begin with, so it doesn't become the same problem as a double-spend, and detection of such is a closed-loop positive that someone is deliberately trying to defraud the recipient, not just get away with it by pretending they didn't mean to uncheck the IX box... It doesn't have to be hard and most of the existing TX submission/broadcast mechanism can be reused as a lock request submission mechanism... MNs simply become the arbiters of misbehaving clients. Lock request made when there are already competing TXIDs for the same VINs in the meory pool? Hey, guess what? That never gets included in a block, and the vendor is notified that the person standing in front of them just deliberately tried to steal! No sale! Most of this works within framework that already exists, and./or simply replicates the existing model to the new feature. It's 90% done already in every bitclone out there... The mechanism for submitting a TX with a fee is damn near the same thing as submitting a lock request with a fee... the only substantial difference is MNs as high-speed prime arbiters that can easily get in front of propagation and prevent consensus on bad actors.

It needed to be done 2 years ago. Even if 0.12.1.5 launched right now with this function, it probably wouldn't help...

I'm sure a lot of work is being done that we don't see. But, is it useful work? Any work other than fixing IX is work that does not need to be done right now.
 
Last edited:

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,876
1,867
1,283
Camo, who has IS working better than us now? Pivix or whatever they're called, screwed up the code on it and it's not working! And going back to our problem of locked IS transactions that can't be sent any other way, well I think they feel that the best solution is in Evolution and basic smart contracts that enforce IS. This is why we're not getting it right now. Also, people want sporks to be automatic, and that didn't get done for 12.1 I mean... when you're faced with a list of things to get done, sometimes certain things need to be done first.

I was told one of the biggest problems to the IS not being enforced is that bitcoin was constructed in such a way so as never to restrict payments to an address. There is no way to stop a person from paying an address. This makes it hard to "mark" a receiving address as one that only accepts IX. It's just not that easy as I understand it.

But they know this is an issue and are definitely working on a solution (not sure which way yet) On the other hand, your poking is a good thing. One of our jobs as community members is to keep our team straight, right? :) They can also be struggling with another problem for so long they forget about this one, which is obvious to the user base. We need to keep crypto-currencies from requiring 3rd parties to be usable. We need to have the option of being fully independent and decentralized or else 3rd parties will have us by the cojones.

Oh, just wanted to add that all those clones and other projects at our tail are the best thing for Dash. Without them, we will get lazy and corrupt.
 
Last edited:

camosoul

Grizzled Member
Sep 19, 2014
2,261
1,130
1,183
they feel that the best solution is in Evolution and basic smart contracts that enforce IS. This is why we're not getting it right now.
Have some feelings in one hand, and shit in the other, and see which one fills up first....
Also, people want sporks to be automatic, and that didn't get done for 12.1
Who is this "people" you speak of? People who still haven't even heard of Bitcoin? Yeah, they care so much about the stuff they are totally oblivious to...
I was told one of the biggest problems to the IS not being enforced is that bitcoin was constructed in such a way so as never to restrict payments to an address.
This is why IX prevents VIN re-use.

Even so, why do we care how Bitcoin does it? The "plugs right into bitcoin-designed stuff" sounds good in nerd-land, but in reality-land, there is no existing infrastructure to worry about being backwards compatible with. This is a case of can't see the forest for the trees...
But they know this is an issue and are definitely working on a solution
If they had been working on it, it would be done by now.
One of our jobs as community members is to keep our team straight, right?
Do you really think anyone listens to me? I sure don't... I can name only one person who has acknowledged this, and he's being told not to bother with it...
They can also be struggling with another problem for so long they forget about this one, which is obvious to the user base.
Again, can't see the forest for the trees.

Priorities are fully head-up-ass.
In order to be grabbed by the balls, one must first have balls...
 
  • Like
Reactions: TanteStefana

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,876
1,867
1,283
@camosoul I listen to you, and I politely poke on our behalf. And I'll keep doing so. Most of the core team have said yes, this must be fixed, even if a couple don't get it. It's not getting done as fast as we'd like, true. But I want you to know you're not alone in this. I don't think we're alone in wanting Dash to be capable of NEVER using 3rd trusted parties for ANYTHING. Not that people can't have a choice if they want someone taking the responsibilities, whatever... snowflakes will always be with us, but that needs to be a choice, not a requirement.
 

Lariondos

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 8, 2014
89
62
158
May I ask a question @UdjinM6? To solve the IX problem, wouldn't it be possible and easier to implement a new range of addresses (like the multisig ones) to force every transaction to be IX. This way the IX logic itself wouldn't have to change. The network would simply reject non-IX transactions to those addresses. Just an idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lynx

JohnGaltsLawyer

New Member
Mar 23, 2017
18
6
3
54
@camosoul I listen to you, and I politely poke on our behalf. And I'll keep doing so. Most of the core team have said yes, this must be fixed, even if a couple don't get it. It's not getting done as fast as we'd like, true. But I want you to know you're not alone in this. I don't think we're alone in wanting Dash to be capable of NEVER using 3rd trusted parties for ANYTHING. Not that people can't have a choice if they want someone taking the responsibilities, whatever... snowflakes will always be with us, but that needs to be a choice, not a requirement.
Great discussion.
Camo is beating an important drum here.
Making the use of Dash seamless and secure will win the day.
 

Dash_Events

New Member
May 7, 2017
6
2
3
32
Online entrepreneur with multiple eCommerce sites checking in here, I will be integrating DASH into several of my stores soon, stay tuned!
 

camosoul

Grizzled Member
Sep 19, 2014
2,261
1,130
1,183
It's not getting done as fast as we'd like, true.
Like?

Ever watch a nature documentary? When the Cheetah chases the Zebra, and the Zebra is slower than the Cheetah...

It doesn't matter what anyone does or doesn't like, or feel, or whatever. The Cheetah catches the Zebra, the Zebra is fuckin' dead. You can call the Cheetah names. You can put the Cheetah on the ignore list. You can block the Cheetah on Twitter. You can demand that the Cheetah re-prioritize it's action items. The Zebra is still fuckin' dead.

LTC has a higher market cap. XRP has already implemented it. XEM did it months ago. ETH is, uhm, nobody knows why.

During the first pump, the community made clear it had lost it's objectivity and cried "let the market decide" as the excuse to silence me. Now, I guess that line of argument doesn't seem so wise, they've all disappeared...
 

Biltong

Active Member
Mar 22, 2017
363
134
113
Dash Address
XmPNBEQyaVNyFudWL3hhhcWfkdYK6T9nCF
...It's great to see woocommerce getting completed and I'm really happy to see the "Dash POS" proposal clearing so well! I think with these two we are covering the basics well. ...
With Evolution and the API, I figure the "top level" is being covered by the core team, but that the lower level wasn't being covered at all. But the community stepped up and now we're on our way! Now we have to start figuring out how to get people to use it :) Just need to wait a wee bit for the POS to be usable at a basic level :D
With all the tech discussion going on above, I think Tante's idea got lost and to me this is crucial. The tech is coming fast, but we need to plan on how we are going to get people to start using Dash. Multiple ideas for different scenarios/locations - 3rd world & developing world. That is where Dash's future lies. The 1st world is just a small slice of the pie! How do we get Dash adoption out there?!!
 
Last edited:

indiamikezulu

New Member
Nov 4, 2016
38
5
8
62
West Australian P2P enthusiast checking in. We're in our fifth year of dev work, and plodding along with our little schemes.
 

ThatGuyBrad

New Member
Dec 29, 2017
2
0
1
52
with a dash wallet receiving payments and recomending instantsend on your costumers.
Just tested the DMG for Mac from dash.org/wallets/ A newbie would get the error message: ""Dash-QT.app" can't be opened because it is from an unidentified developer." I could override this error message but a newbie could not.