camosoul
Well-known member
They were ambiguous about this right up to the last second...
Yup. And it makes DASH look stupid. It's the sort of thing we'd expect from Apple, Bitcoin, or the US Government.this hurts
They keep claiming some "network fragmentation" nonsense, but it's just not reality... I ran dual stack and pure IPv6 nodes previously, and the dual stackers acted as bridges when bound to IPv6. thouogh not intended by design, this treatment worked perfectly as it was, and was flatly denied knowing that few people would actually examine it and find that the claim is bullshit.
There is a lot of "retrograde" happening as the false problems behind "adoption" are being hammered instead of examining the real problems.
It's a lot like having a car that won't run, so you check that the gas tank has gas in it... It's a bit low, so you fill it up. The car still won't run. So you just squirt gas in the windows and all over it, seal up the trunk so you can make a big pool of gas back there... They have no grasp of the greater marketplace, so they just keep on doing the one thing they do know....
Clearly the problem is elsewhere, but since they know nothing about engines, they just keep squirting gas on everything hoping that'll fix it. It's reached an extreme that they're starting to put inherent advantages on the chopping block in order to create more places to put more useless gas...
This is amplifying the Vendor Hostility problem. But, since they have no clue of the marketplace at large, they simply imagine that the Vendor Hostility problem doesn't exist. The extremism of it is stating to show in many details of the project, the IPv4 horseshit is only a minor point of exposure.
Continuing to expand Snowflake-desirable feature set was merely a waste of time before. Now, they're actually planning to remove Vendor-desirable features in order to create even more Snowflake-desirable features. What will this do for Adoption? Nothing. There will just be a bunch more whiny, clueless Snowflakes standing around with nowhere to use their DASH, repeatedly asking "Golly, I wonder why Vendors won't accept Crypto payments..." I'm telling you why. Pay attention!
They are either unwilling, or unable, to notice the problem, and it is growing unchecked...
If one were to put on the tinfoil hat, one might conclude that they're trying to force ATMs into relevancy...
I've done all the research needed to create a 3rd Party retail payment service backed by DASH. But, the direction DASH keeps moving would destroy such a service. Any sane business person would realize that it's a guaranteed bad move to invest in a venture for which the foundational entity is trying to destroy such venture. There's no future in it, so why would someone do it?
There's a chance that a more diverse model could exist, subsidizing the DASH/Retail element from it's primary business. But, again; why? Where's the incentive to create a parasitic sideshow?
I could be doing this by tomorrow. But, why do I want to waste money on a dead end project that DASH is openly and willfully trying to destroy before it is even created? BitPay or Coinbase could do it, but, again; why? Sure, you could sell it to them on being the first service of Crypt in Retail that actually works... But when they realize, as they mus, that DASH wants to undermine the inherent qualities of crypto that make it desirable for such use in the first place... That'd be a stupid move for them to make, which is why they haven't made it.
IX is still initiated backwards.
Payments planned to be reversible in the future, by an arbitrary 3rd party which has already demonstrated Vendor Hostility.
This model already exists. It's called Visa.
Interpretation: We don't care @jimbit
Interpretation: Fuck you, @jimbit
Last edited:
