I've posted a new article discussing the insular cryptocurrency community and how Dash is trying to break out of it:
Out of the Cryptocurrency Sandbox
Out of the Cryptocurrency Sandbox
Out of the Cryptocurrency Sandbox
- Thread starter ericsammons
- Start date
- Status
Oh, you must mean dash is open to ideas and looking beyond the pail... a quick off-the cuff history....
- like when I tried to build bridges between dash and nubits because they both offered different but complimentary ideas - failure
- or when I suggested that Evolution could also manage bitcoin keys (without extra bloat), thus bringing the ease-of-use to bitcoin and converting people to dash
- or when I invented a method of transfer between two users / callers without any account creation or manual copy-and-paste (vs dash's old-fashioned and problematic unique username approach)
- or when core team members work on something without a clear mandate from it's users, such as conspire with companies like Coinfirm to help erode bitcoin and dash's privacy
- or when the crypto bankers talk about the power of the block chain for voting and verifiable supply chains, yet they refuse to lock key assets - such as the binaries - to the blockchain, thus forcing updates through a voting procedure
S
snogcel
Guest
Great article!
"It's impossible to know the true nature of a box when you are inside it."
"It's impossible to know the true nature of a box when you are inside it."
- http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/nubits/
Market Cap
$760,900
1,127 BTC
Volume (24h)
$12,570
18.62 BTC
We are welcoming any developers to join us and bring
- merging tokens from 2 blockchains in a trustless and secure way is not an easy task, I doubt anyone have a robust solution for this. 2 way peg is the solution if you think of Bitcoin and Dash as of sidechanes of each other, doubt it's applicable though. Using atomic 2 chain exchange smart contracts could probably solve it but if you think of Dash as of another bitsquare. And that's not what we are trying to build.
- ?
- I doubt team needs another "mandate" to act besides https://www.dashcentral.org/p/core-team. And you get team dialog with Coinfirm all wrong - nothing in Dash protocol is changed to weaken or "erode" the privacy. No one really needs any kind of permission to analyze open blockchain but explaining how mixing works and that it's a built-in feature of the protocol could help someone who is looking for such analysis to interpret information correctly (i.e. mixing is not as suspicious activity in Dash as it is in Bitcoin).
- Dash Core wallet binaries are produced in deterministic (replicable) way and yet binaries != protocol. Protocol updates through miner's voting is one of the key features of Nakamoto consensus, if you don't get it it doesn't mean that it doesn't work.
But yeah, apart from that, you are completely right
- http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/nubits/
Market Cap
$760,900
1,127 BTC
Volume (24h)
$12,570
18.62 BTC
We are welcoming any developers to join us and bringnew ideasimplementations of their ideas though.
- merging tokens from 2 blockchains in a trustless and secure way is not an easy task, I doubt anyone have a robust solution for this. 2 way peg is the solution if you think of Bitcoin and Dash as of sidechanes of each other, doubt it's applicable though. Using atomic 2 chain exchange smart contracts could probably solve it but if you think of Dash as of another bitsquare. And that's not what we are trying to build.
- ?
- I doubt team needs another "mandate" to act besides https://www.dashcentral.org/p/core-team. And you get team dialog with Coinfirm all wrong - nothing in Dash protocol is changed to weaken or "erode" the privacy. No one really needs any kind of permission to analyze open blockchain but explaining how mixing works and that it's a built-in feature of the protocol could help someone who is looking for such analysis to interpret information correctly (i.e. mixing is not as suspicious activity in Dash as it is in Bitcoin).
- Dash Core wallet binaries are produced in deterministic (replicable) way and yet binaries != protocol. Protocol updates through miner's voting is one of the key features of Nakamoto consensus, if you don't get it it doesn't mean that it doesn't work.
But yeah, apart from that, you are completely right
I have no interest in re-entering such debates at length. Suffice to say, with all the above points, there was no will to engage such ideas. Instead of exploring such ideas and looking for the positives, the responses have consistently been that of looking for problems, exactly as you did just now. And that is why dash is no different to any other crypto i.e. superiority complex. The common denominator is how insular dash is.
Consensus is just one component and does nothing to tame the structures and whims of the core team. End users are realising that core developers are the new bankers. Look, for example, at ethereum's fork addiction; consensus to say that if you want to retain the core properties of a crypto, you must change your name and become the unwanted illegitimate child. Well, block chain is going to radically change voting and supply chains, or so we're told... but guess what, dash (and crypto at large) is part of a supply chain that refuses to subject itself to the exact same principles.
A Coinfirm-Dash relationship is clearly a higher priority than strengthening the privacy and fungibility of dash's block chain. How lovely, the politics of crypto that refuses to apply it's own principles.
I'd just like to say, strange as this might sound, I would love to see dash succeed! In fact, if there was a fundamental shift in development, with a commitment to strengthening dash's fungibility and governance, and at a faster pace, then I would support a larger share of the block reward to meet those ends.
I see you're using this as an opportunity to air your personal grievances. However, you've quite missed the point of my article.
I'm arguing that in order to be successful long-term, a cryptocurrency has to look beyond the insular crypto community. However, there are very many ways to do this. To continue my analogy, you can leave a sandbox in many different directions. Some will lead to success, others in failure. But staying in the sandbox is guaranteed failure. Just because Dash isn't following your ideas doesn't mean it's not moving outside the sandbox.
The direction Dash goes might not be the direction you - or I - think is best. That's fine. If we have better ideas, as well as time, and resources, and talent, we can create a new crypto in the direction we desire. But at least Dash is trying to reach out beyond the sandbox. At least that's what I see - the development team is attempting to become a payments solution that reaches the "real-world," not just the world of Peter Todds and Gregory Maxwells and Gavin Andresons. As I mentioned in my article, their attempt might fail, but you can't say they aren't trying.
Perhaps it's just interpretation, but to me, what you describe are dash's unique selling points / differentiators. I'm not entirely sure those differentiators are the same thing as reaching out beyond the sandbox. I mean, if that's the case, Ethereum reached out of the sandbox doing things that bitcoin refused to do. In fact, anything that goes beyond bitcoin's realm could be categorised in such way.
More to the point, I think reaching beyond the sandbox could mean being open to ideas instead of constantly closing down ideas and living in denial. In this regard, I think dash is losing ground.
I say this as someone that worked on networks before they went mainstream, where the most apt phrase was "hit the ground running". To me, this is where crypto is now; it's going through a phase of very rapid development. It's not so much what dash is doing, it's all about the competition. That's why I'm constantly saying dash development is much too slow.
Increase funding, open up to ideas and be more experimental. If that requires a larger proportion of the block reward then so be it. Then we might say dash is truly reaching beyond the sandbox.
- Status