Hold on to your chair guys. This is HUGE!

InTheWoods

InTheWoods

Well-known member
Foundation Member
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:
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.
 
@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.
 
InTheWoods said:
@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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.''
 
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.
 
daf said:
Naive question: why did they?
Click to expand...
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.
 
daf said:
Naive question: why did they?
Click to expand...

TanteStefana said:
I think Bitcoin is between a rock and a hard place. There is too much invested in Bitcoin,
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
TanteStefana said:
In my opinion, arrogance.
(...)
Click to expand...

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 said:
Sure. That's scary. But I don't think the btc devs are capable of fixing btc's problems so soon.
Click to expand...
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
 
fible1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top