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.
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.
