
Proposal “DCGtopreparepresentanalysistonetwork“ (Closed)Back
Title: | DCG to prepare contingency plan in case global regulation goes towards banning mixing |
Owner: | Dash-Marketing |
One-time payment: | 5 DASH (113 USD) |
Completed payments: | no payments occurred yet (1 month remaining) |
Payment start/end: | 2019-10-16 / 2019-11-14 (added on 2019-10-06) |
Final voting deadline: | in na |
Votes: | 76 Yes / 458 No / 74 Abstain |
Proposal description
1) DCG incorrectly declared (position paper) that Dash should have identical regulatory status as Bitcoin--omitting that a) that Mixing is in 1 Core Wallet presently (and is planning for more, ie. smartphone wallets), b) DCG actively works on Mixing development. Bitcoin Core team has+does neither of a) or b)
2) DCG employees are putting themselves at future legal risk if governments go to the next level of cracking down on Mixing (see link below on Europol, Interpol recommendation on banning mixing)
3) vote yes/no on: DCG to prepare contingency plan in case global regulation goes towards banning mixing
some background info:
- Stricter Bitcoin Regulation, Ban on Mixers Recommended at Interpol, Europol Conference
'the Global Conference on Countering Money Laundering and Digital Currencies in Qatar. Held from January 16 to 18, 2017, the event was organized by the Working Group on Virtual Currencies. This is a joint initiative of Europol, the law enforcement agency of the European Union; Interpol, an intergovernmental organization facilitating international police cooperation; and the Basel Institute on Governance'
- EU Report "Cryptocurrencies and Blockchain"
page 51, Dash classified as anonymous, Bitcoin as pseudo-anonymous
- French Finance Committee: Ban on Anonymous Cryptocurrencies Appropriate
- https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-19/privacy-coins-face-existential-threat-amid-regulatory-crackdown
2) DCG employees are putting themselves at future legal risk if governments go to the next level of cracking down on Mixing (see link below on Europol, Interpol recommendation on banning mixing)
3) vote yes/no on: DCG to prepare contingency plan in case global regulation goes towards banning mixing
some background info:
- Stricter Bitcoin Regulation, Ban on Mixers Recommended at Interpol, Europol Conference
'the Global Conference on Countering Money Laundering and Digital Currencies in Qatar. Held from January 16 to 18, 2017, the event was organized by the Working Group on Virtual Currencies. This is a joint initiative of Europol, the law enforcement agency of the European Union; Interpol, an intergovernmental organization facilitating international police cooperation; and the Basel Institute on Governance'
- EU Report "Cryptocurrencies and Blockchain"
page 51, Dash classified as anonymous, Bitcoin as pseudo-anonymous
- French Finance Committee: Ban on Anonymous Cryptocurrencies Appropriate
- https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-19/privacy-coins-face-existential-threat-amid-regulatory-crackdown
Show full description ...
Discussion: Should we fund this proposal?
Submit comment
![]() |
No comments so far?
Be the first to start the discussion! |
https://blog.dash.org/dash-complies-with-the-financial-action-task-force-fatf-guidelines-including-the-travel-rule-a4c658efc89d?gi=8af39c2a3a59
VASP = Virtual Asset Service Providers
the VASP can choose to identify, block, and report on all transactions sent with Dash PrivateSend and can track and report on all the components of a mixed transaction.
• Reporting on your users’ blockchain transactions
• Establish an automated record keeping system for suspicious activity
• Activity reporting, customer due diligence, and currency transaction reporting.
• Track anonymity enhanced convertible virtual currencies and wallet addresses sending more private transactions.
• Customizable risk scoring
With these tools, any VA (including Dash and Bitcoin) transactions that are privacy enhanced are identified, blocked, and reported to the VASP.
We are happy to introduce any of our partner exchanges to these companies to explore their services and help ensure they remain compliant with the Travel Rule and Dash (as well as multiple other VAs).
I also spoke with coin tracking services at Malta delta conference and with several legal firms. The confirmed that mixed coins are given a considerably higher risk rating. They stated it is up to the exchange if they decide to accept that risk.
Bearing the above in mind these are my concerns
Exchanges may well block transactions if they have been mixed rather than take the risk of accepting them. Does this therefore mean DASH mixed coins are less likely to be accepted by exchanges? If so, does this not mean that by mixing DASH it actually reduces fungibility because fewer places will accept them?
What quantity of mixed coins is likely to be blocked by an exchange?
If a MNO has mixed their masternodes DASH and they want to now cash out into fiat how are we going to be able to do this now if exchanges are likely to not accept large quantities of mixed coins? What is the recommended procedure?
One of the coin tracking firms stated they would be able to track if a user has mixed their coins and then sent them to multiple other addresses which they also own in an attempt to distance the mixing event. According to one of the legal firms I spoke to they stated that sending coins multiple times to the same address that an owner has after a mixing event will increase the risk further of those coins because it now appears they are attempting to hide the mixing event. They said why would someone attempt to do that?
It seems to me, in the current climate, that mixing DASH coins is reducing the fungibility rather than increasing it and not only this it endangers customers with large volumes of DASH to losing the fungibility of their investment. Mixing appears to cause more harm than good in this current climate for large quantities of DASH. For smaller quantities it may not be such a big deal. If that is the case then shouldn't there at least be a clear warning on the DASH mixing feature to properly inform unwitting users of DASH that mixing their coins will increase their risk value and may not be accepted by an exchange may not accept their coins.
I have to admit to mixing my coins not because I want to hide anything but simply to assist the network in maintaining fungibility of DASH. Now I regret doing this because I did not know the risks and consequences of doing this. I would like to know how to deal with this situation now so my coins will not be tainted?
Voting no because your boot licking approach is wrong from the beginning.
I think the Coincheck in Japan delisted Dash because of their lack of research. Also the FSA that oversees Coincheck may not have done any active research on Dash.
The DCG's release of “PrivateSend Legal Position” should be highly appreciated. I think it is important to continue to provide information to exchanges and regulators.
In the future, if bitcoin is heavily used for crime, it may be delisted in Japan. It is not important whether the third party provides the mixing. The issue for Japanese regulators is whether the coin is prone to crime.
Lets take a look why Bitmart (a globally integrated trading platform, officially registered in the Cayman Islands and with offices around the world) added Dash :
“We also took tremendous time and effort to develop our own compliance review system to make sure that our listings of certain tokens/coins do not run afoul of local laws. Our compliance team prudently reviewed all the materials we were provided on a case-by-case basis and reported that DASH is structured and promoted as “Utility Token”, and therefore, should be not categorized as “Security”. We finally decided that listing DASH is in compliance with local rules and regulations in areas where we operate.”
But then again, this is not a privacy issue, this is a fungibility issue. The exchanges already know WHO I AM. Chain analysis is all about filling in the gaps between Txn-A and Txn-Z.
People always say, "bitcoin is anti-fragile", and that is what makes crypto both loved and hated in equal measure. No one is going to de-list bitcoin when it's privacy is improved. There will be no DCG to poll.
Dash will only replace bitcoin when it has proved to everyone that it is also anti-fragile, unbendable, unstoppable,
Removing PS will make the clear statement that one unit of dash is akin to a share in a company; that dash holders are more concerned with USD value than anything else.
And btw, there is no "3rd party". DCG *is* the 3rd party, a dash contractor like anyone else.
If this analysis is so important to poll creator, he can ask DCG for such an analysis on dash.org/forum or on one of Dash quarterly summary calls (which frankly i feel he should have done in the first place).
People like me got into Dash in the first place because WE AGREED with its optional but strong privacy stance. This proposal, which comes from a recognized troll btw, only would serve to renig on that contract. In business you're not allowed to do that, I see no reason why we should allow such destructive and detrimental behavior here either.
Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should. Hell, we could lower the blocksize tomorrow. Wouldn't be much of a 'coding question' either. But it would be a fundamental betrayal of the founding and formative principles and social contract upon which this network was built.
I strongly take issue with the idea that "who the proposal owner is" should have anything to do with judging the proposal on its own merit. IMO we should get used to the idea of proposals coming out of left field, from sources that are unknown or not part of the "in-crowd". The proposal system was not designed such that only proposals from groupies are supposed to be considered valid.
I don't doubt that you and many others were originally drawn to Dash because of its privacy feature. I also value this feature myself quite highly. But I don't think we should be permanently locked into making decisions based on what a bunch of early adopters wanted. Failure to adapt to market realities and consumer demand is why a lot of businesses fail. There are indeed some significant user-experience issues with PrivateSend (as MasterMined pointed out), and I don't think it is wise to hold the privacy "ideal" as a priority above all else that could be going on around us. I think it is a good idea to always be on the lookout to re-evaluate our product. I am not saying that I am supporting removing PS, I am only saying that I support doing an evaluation as opposed to taking it for granted that "privacy-supported-natively-no-matter-what" is best.
Also, cash MUST be fungible (or any crypto that aims to replace it), or it isn't cash.
Could you define what you mean by "abandoning privacy" exactly so that we might have a better understand of your concern. I genuinely want to understand why you, and others reaction is against even discussing this issue in a reasonable manner. If we do not discuss this in a rational way how can we not come to a more fuller and broader understanding of the issues involved?
I really don't give a fuck about "it can be used for shady business argument" as the biggest criminals here are state-sanctioned and use banks regularly.
I'm looking forward to mobile wallet mixing (hopefully by default), as that is actually the proper use case for that feature.
Therefore mixing = loss of fungibility.
To all those that are advocates of mixing what you are therefore saying is you are advocating DASH being a non fungible coin i.e. not cash.
Hopefully OKEx Korea re-evaluation of Dash will keep it listed after all (keeping my fingers crossed).
If we make privatesend as default on our wallets we loose the optional part and could end up getting viewed more as a privacy centric cryptocurrency with all its associated risks.
According to an EU report published in 2018 they specifically classified DASH an anonymous coin in its summary table found on Table 2 on page 51 of this document due to the optional mixing features in the core wallet. It classified Bitcoin as pseudonymous.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/150761/TAX3%20Study%20on%20cryptocurrencies%20and%20blockchain.pdf
The report also stresses the dangers of anonymous coins with respect to tax evasion and money laundering. There are other EU directives I read a few years ago that specifically stated that anonymous coins would not be accepted within the EU under AML directives.
It has been stated in this proposal by several MNOs that private send is needed to ensure fungibility.
Fungibility means that 1 unit of currency is valued the same irrespective of its history or location. However if that is the definition then mixing actually makes DASH less fungible because many exchanges I spoke to at the Delta Blockchain conference a few days ago specifically stated they treat a highly suspicious coins that have been recently mixed and would not accept them. Therefore mixing reduces fungibility because now the coins are labelled as tainted by many exchanges. There are other factors e.g. the size of the transfer but they were all clear. Mixed coins = highly suspicious and they would be taking a risk to accept them.
Whilst at the Malta Delta blockchain conference I also spoke with 2 coin tracking services. They both told me that mixed coins are labelled as highly suspicious and therefore the coins are tainted. Sending coins to your own address multiple times to try and distance the coins from a mixing event is also fruitless according to one coin tracking service I spoke to. They said they have developed algorithms that can detect if a user has been sending their coins to wallet addresses which they own. Therefore trying to hide mixing events also leads to coins being tainted and therefore losing their fungibility. Therefore in the current environment mixing reduces fungibility because those coins are now tainted.
DASH is already private, even without mixing. If we removed DASH mixing from the core wallet we would remove a lot of the potential issues that are coming our way through the EU legislation. If DASH is blocked from the EU we could not class DASH a fungible either.
Pseudonymous appears to provide a balance between privacy and being accepted by the EU and exchanges and is not going to DASH banned or labelled as an anonymous coin.
DASH is being de-listed by huge Korean exchanges such as OKEx . If you look at the majority of the trading activity for DASH it was coming out of Korea. We have now lost much of that trading activity.
There are other issues also to consider which greatly affect DASH uptake e.g. in the UK there are "source of wealth" laws. These laws require that the source of an individual's wealth be traceable from source. I don't see how DASH can meet those laws if people use private send because the history is now obscured.
Other issues such as making governments accountable for our spending is essential for any money system. Therefore by having anonymity features in DASH we would also be giving the same tools of anonymity to governments.
DASH is already private even without private send. I am deeply concerned that the built in mixing features of DASH into the core wallet will to do more harm than good for DASH at this stage of cryptocurrency's evolution.
I feel that we need a full and complete comprehensive legal review of what level of privacy is required by a cryptocurrency in order to ensure maximal world uptake. I feel the balance may well be having a coin that is pseudonymous is the right balance.
The fact is that coins that are anonymous will be more readily chosen by organised crime, corrupt governments, human traffickers and others crime organizations once a coin reaches a level of adoption because it facilitates and assists their illicit actions. Anonymity is a double edged sword. It also gives power to those that can misuse it. Pseudonymous coins still provide a high level of privacy without coins being tainted by mixing.
DASH is now in 18th position and falling. I feel that we definitely need a legal review of what level of privacy DASH needs to take in order for us to remain compliant with current climate and legislation on cryptocurrency.
Whatever happens we need to have our stance on privacy clearly spelled out in detail on the official DASH youtube channel. None of our innovations have been clearly highlighted and gone through in-depth. e.g. I wanted to see a full and complete set of videos specifically on DASH privacy and showing how it meets all legislative requirements if that is the case. A PDF document is useful but it is not enough. We need all our innovations to be broadcast, explained and to expand on the benefits of those innovations in video format on the official DASH youtube channel.
Personally I would like a full and complete legal review of what DASH needs to do in terms of privacy in order to ensure our project does not get blocked by the pending legislation. If there is a danger that DASH could be blocked from the EU or from other major exchanges due to the mixing feature in the core wallet I would prefer to remove it at this stage so that we can get greater adoption of DASH.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/150761/TAX3%20Study%20on%20cryptocurrencies%20and%20blockchain.pdf
I also stated clearly OKex Korea in original post. Please read again.
I spoke with exchanges at the Malta blockchain conference. The said they specifically stated mixed coins are marked as suspicious and would be high risk to accept - the word they used was "tainted" therefore mixed coins is reducing fungibility in the current climate - is that what you want?
You should have stated OKEx Korea here, not OKEx. Just like any article that came out reporting on this, specificly used the name ''OKEx Korea''. Doing otherwise just creates confusion to readers.
This seems more like concern trolling to me than an actual concern. Dash's OKEX volume is number 41 at only ~$2 mil USD a day. That's not a very good reason to artificially hamper our protocol.
41 Dash Dash DASH/USDT $1,832,001
Frankly, Dash's privacy is so strong because its a concerted, network-wide effort. I routinely use privateSend every day and it is fast, convenient and much better than CashShuffle. That's because DCG has worked to protect and curate it. If they give it to '3rd party wallets' I can only see malicious individuals coming forward (from the monero community) offering to 'help' and then crippling the features (lowering anonymity set, making it harder to use, etc.) in order to fud and attack our coin. "See!!! Monero is a better privacy coin after all! HA!"
From my 3 years of arguing and defeating these trolls I have learned an intuitive sense for how they feel and think. They are very petty and immature. They don't care about right and wrong, only winning at all costs. Even if it means infiltrating their competition and trying to remove their best features. Privacy is a right for everyone and Dash Core made the right move in incorporating it into the Core Wallet.
https://coinmarketcap.com/exchanges/okex-korea/
So we've got a troll trying to get us to remove our privacy features so we can have that 'sweet okex volume'??? This is concern trolling, we shouldn't even pay attention to this proposal or the masternodes who support it.
You have to think about the entire network, not just your personal concerns. Dash is attempting to provide fianncial freedom to billions of people. "Concerns" from regulators about non-violent, non-criminal activity are nothing more than stumbling blocks and concern trolling.
Korea is a small market for Dash. OkEx only had 2 million dollars in volume. Dash's price increase recently comes from many places and while Korea has its part to destroy the privacy of everyone else just because you're scared IS NOT beneficial behavior for the network. We have to do what's best for everyone and PrivateSend is part of the Dash social contract. You are not arguing in good faith if you wish to force others to accept a NEW contract just because you're afraid to be delisted from a ONE exchange (while we added 5 others).
If you're not concern trolling, be aware, this is exactly what concern trolling sounds and looks like.
The fact is that mixing coins taints the coins. This is a fact because I've spoken to legal firms, exchanges and coin tracking services at several blockchain conferences. They all concur. Mixing = highly suspicious activity = tainted coins = non fungible DASH = highly unlikely to accept the transaction.
So what you are saying by promoting mixing is that you want DASH to be non fungible and to promote illegal activity so that you and other can be anonymous.
You need to wake up to reality man. DASH is at 18th position and falling. Anonymity is not the way to go. If Bitcoin and other coins go down that route they will be taken down in the same way as liberty reserve was taken down from 17 different countries.
You are also incorrect in stating that Korea has 2 million dollar volume. in 2017 when the DASH price hit all time highs the majority of the transaction volume was from Korea.
You seem to be having an over reaction to discussing this subject in a reasonable manner. That tells me something about yourself. If anyone is a troll it is people that are non rational with closed minds unwilling to consider others peoples points of view in a reasonable manner. I have requested a review of the DASH privacy based on the current environment. I don't see how that can be classed as trolling. People who don't have a strong point of view and can't reasonably defend it like yourself result in labelling it some sort of irrational attack like trolling.
Provide reasonable arguments not attacks on someone's motives.
Voting no.
Also by moving the Dash privacy feature from officially supported Dash Core wallets to third party wallets (per definition not officially supported), Dash risks opening new attack / explotation vectors. We know from the MyDash wallet security breach, at which length attackers are willing to go to hack these third party wallets. Third party wallets are easier to manipulate, exploit and possibly leak privacy information from its users.
I for one am for it. I can't say how I'd vote in a final decision as to whether remove mixing from Core functionality but I am extremely interested in hearing what DashCore has to say on the matter.
If for no other reason than it saves Core the time and money of educating all the exchanges that knee jerk remove us at the first sign of trouble. That seems to be eating up valuable resources at present and not having to deal with sounds ideal.
Especially when in the future a DAP can easily handle mixing.
But they can't implement these features themselves because of the significant amount of changes it would take. They also can't bring themselves to admit they have 'backed the wrong horse'. So what do they decide to do? They decide to pretend to ignore our features WHILE WORKING FEVERISHLY TO CONVINCE US TO BE RID OF THEM!
We shouldn't be reactionary, you're correct. PrivateSend works fast, and its very strong (2nd largest anonymity set in privacy coins). Privacy is a fundamental human right and we shouldn't look to placate those jealous losers who refuse to admit that we did things the right way.
Link : https://www.coindesk.com/new-bips-hint-at-upcoming-taproot-bitcoin-soft-fork
The article doesn't go into any specifics of the privacy features these 2 BIP's would entail (ie. what level of privacy they would provide)
https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoTechnology/comments/9ibrh0/cutting_to_the_chase_or_how_to_properly_evaluate/
Dash has the second-largest anonymity set of all the privacy coins at 43 million, right behind ZCash at 4.3 billion. Monero's anonymity set is only 11 and Bitcoin Cash's is only 5. Which means that concern trolling about removing our privacy would be a good way to attack us and make their coins look like a better offering in comparision. Realize that Dash has already solved all the problems they have, in a way that *they can't readily replicate*. BCH is already locked into doing things without masternodes so they have to bolt on extra features to be able to compete with Dash.
The same with Monero. There is no way that Monero can scale or catch up to Dash, ever. Neither as a coin for commerce, nor as a privacy coin. Monero's anon set is too small, its chain too bloated and its privacy too broken to be considered a privacy coin. But they still try to attack us using CONCERN TROLLING in order to get us to WEAKEN OURSELVES. That's the only way they can beat us, by using psychological tricks to get us to commit self-destructive behavior.
I called this out 11 months ago here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/dashpay/comments/9qf2m7/reminder_dash_has_a_very_strong_ecosystem_and/
Privacy is a fundamental human right and Dash was created because BTC didn't have enough of it. If you are going to destroy the original social contract you need a hell of a lot better reason than this to do it. The amount of concern trolling surrounding Dash is picking up it seems.
May I ask could you define privacy and separately anonymity so that I can better understand what you are so upset about.
The goal of this entity is to troll DCG and to create division in the Dash community, and use the discussions and/or results of these "governance proposals" as fodder for tweets on DashCrypto.
Since Dash-Marketing has not introduced a higher treshold for his polling proposal, i guess its now up the masternode owners to discuss this as well.
"As far as determining if this proposal passes, we will consider more yes votes than no votes approval by the network as long as more than 33% of the network votes. If less than 33% of the network votes, we will consider the proposal denied and will not raise the blocksize limitation. "
Its not very usefull to have network polls, when only a handfull masternode owners take a vote and of those handfull of votes a yes vote gets on top. You need to have some decent voting participation among masternode owners as well. Two separate conditions.
They are the ones dealing with exchanges, businesses, and regulators.
If I'm going to be honest you seem like the troll in this conversation. You are making posts all over this proposal, making up rules (2 mb was for a protocol change, this is simply a directive asking core to look into something, there is no logical argument as to why it would require 1/3 of nodes) , and trying to whip everyone into a frenzy.
Whether or not this person had I'll intent or not is besides the point. The community clearly has differing opinions on this and as such it should be discussed and voted on.
I'm simply arguing that DCG should not be directed to waste time and energy on elucidating why PS should not be removed from the core wallet, and that we should therefore vote NO on this proposal.
We are talking about whether we should ask Core to do an analysis of the Pros and Cons of disabling privatesend
The proposal does not say "ask". It says "DCG to prepare+present analysis...".
1) I've been involved in the Dash proposal system literally since the first budget vote. So I don't know what woodwork you think I've been hiding in or what exactly you think you have proved.
2) I know this is going to shock you, but people can have different opinions on something without being a troll.
In what way has my conduct here made me come across as a troll other than the fact that I disagree with you?
2) I know this is going to shock you but I never said they couldn't. I called you a troll for the simple reason that I've spent the last 3 years stepping on trolls. You get used to the smell.
As one of the 1% of Dash users that actually use Privatesend regularly I can confirm it is not ready for primetime. It is slow and does not work for business purposes.
It works if you only send a few small daily transactions and continuously mix, which is a PITA.
It does not work for doing payroll, like the Dash Force payroll, which I do every month. I can usually get 5-7 transaction sent before getting denomination errors. At that point I have to send whatever balance I have to a new address and mix everything again. It usually takes 24-36+ hours to mix 150-300 Dash. I have to mix at least 2 or 3 times to get everyone paid, it took about 5 days this month, it works but it sucks. There are many other (faster and easier) ways to keep transactions somewhat private and I will unfortunately be forced to use them to make a timely payroll next month for Dash Force, sad but true.
Bottom line, Privatesend does not work as intended and there is no sense getting delisted for something that is so rarely used and that makes up around one percent of daily transactions. I will 100% support a proposal to optimize Privatesend with a 3rd party DAPP on the upcoming Dash Platform.
It's way better to outsource PrivateSend (or rather a replacement thereof with a fast and much more innovative and reliable privacy technology) to a competent 3rd party DApp, distancing ourselves officially from any privacy features and demanding the exact same regulatory treatment than Bitcoin receives.
A feature that 1% (at most) of Dash users use regularly, doesn't justify to put the whole project in jeopardy.
Not by long shot.
And anti-privacy regulatory pressure will likely increase a lot in future, not go away !!!!
In the last four weeks alone, Dash already received 10 exchange integrations. To me that signals that more and more exchanges regard Dash as compliant with FATF recommendations. This year alone has been one integration after another for Dash.
I dont really see the urgency here.
They are clearly concern trolling. As I pointed out in this thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoTechnology/comments/9ibrh0/cutting_to_the_chase_or_how_to_properly_evaluate/
Dash has the second largest anonymity set at 43 million. ZEC is number 1 at 4.3 Billion, but it has severe privacy issues (a recent bug deanoned a significant amount of z-addrs and was fixed two weeks ago despite being active from the beginning of the project in 2016). Monero is a paltry 11! Bitcoin Cash is limited at 5 due to lacking Masternodes.
There is CONSIDERABLE incentive for these communities to attempt to infiltrate and concern troll us into an inferior position relative to themselves. Especially monero, not so much BCH but I've noticed a few select members of that community also attempting to spin manipulative narratives. Like the user 'satoshiSoul' who wants to pretend that Dash is only accepted at around 400 stores world-wide. Why? Because he doesn't want to admit that Dash is more widely accepted than BCH.
But most in the BCH community commend Dash, so I believe that posters like him are working together with Monero to concern troll us and make us feel self-concious about our privacy, which is way stronger than theirs. The monero community ROUTINELY uses garbage as a springboard to launch fud against us like I pointed out in this thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/dashpay/comments/ame5bw/this_youtube_video_is_the_kind_of_propaganda_i/
In that thread I show how the user flenst made a crappy, unliked fud thread about Dash in r/cc that was somehow picked up by a semi-prominent youtuber and parroted as gospel. This is how they operate, they try to manipulate your perception of reality. Even though we've been rapidly added to 10 exchanges recently, they want you to ignore that and focus only on this tiny exchange in Korea, which recently suspended their delisting of Dash upon further review.
They were waiting for something like this so they could spring their fud on us, scare the MNOs and concern troll us into self destructive behavior. These people have no morals, no scruples and are insane, basically. They want to pretend that if they maim and destroy their competition due to spite that their coin will suddenly be better somehow. You can see it by how desparate individuals like name3 are. They NEED YOU to be scared of being delisted. So you will be more susceptible to CYNICAL SUGGESTIONING like removing privateSend. These people are all bad actors and we will need to purge them from our community eventually......
The cost benefit is just not in favor of keeping it from my perspective. But I'd be interested in hearing what core has to say.
The following quote from Coinbase's press release is an indication that we are probably on the right path and should not change course:
"Dash is a cryptocurrency optimized for payments that has optional speed and privacy features. At this time, Coinbase will not support these features."
We just got an interview with Coindesk about Dash getting listed on so many large exchanges recentely, thereby debunking that bloomberg article about Dash possible facing liquidity problems in the future and demonstrating the real issue Dash is facing is not with FATF compliance, but with certain exchanges being unfamiliar with Dash privacy workings and still think of Dash as a privacy centric coin (which is incorrect).
Timing of this poll is just a bit off, frankly it feels like someone got spooked by that Bloomberg article and did not notice the string of exchanges that integrated Dash, directly confirming Dash compliance to FATF recommendations.
Exchanges that integrated Dash these last four weeks or plan to integrate Dash soon (Binance US) :
Coinbase & Coinbase Pro
Binance US
Cointrade.cx (a rapidly growing Brazilian exchange)
Vaultoro (cryptocurrency and gold trading service)
Bibox (cryptocurrency exchange servicing primarily Asian markets)
Smart Valor (Swiss cryptocurrency exchange and security token platform)
NovaDAX (cryptocurrency exchange from Brazil)
TurtleNetwork DEX (Decentralized Exchange)
Bitasset (Hong Kong-based cryptocurrency exchange)
CriptoLAGO (state-licensed cryptocurrency exchange in Venezuela)
Now with regards to the poll itself, if masternode owners do feel a need for Dash Core Group to analyse and present the pro and cons of having the Dash privacy feature supported on official wallets, then by all means go ahead and participate in this poll.
Just understand these polls are non-binding for DCG and we have to be carefull that all these recent polls and a possibly extra work with this requested analysis & presenatation will not keepg the DCG from their work, which has to be a full focus on bringing Dash Platform / Dash Core v1.0 to testnet by the end of this year. Nothing should interfere with that.
"As far as determining if this proposal passes, we will consider more yes votes than no votes approval by the network as long as more than 33% of the network votes. If less than 33% of the network votes, we will consider the proposal denied and will not raise the blocksize limitation. "
This polling proposal is missing any of that and just asks for a yes or no vote. Thats just vague to say the least.
So yes, i can see DCG just ignore this poll if this poll is lacking in voting participation among masternode owners. If we would translate that 33% to current number of registered masternodes (4938), then participation treshold would be set at 1629 masternodes needing to participate.
How can a PO even reach the 33% you are demanding, if maybe only 12-13% of MNO care to cast their vote?
If something passes with 10% net votes it should be valid and considered approved, even a governance proposal.
If MNO's don't care enough to take the time to cast their vote, then those have no say in the matter, it's logical.
Nobody is forcefully kept from voting here, or is he?
But how do you force somebody to cast a vote? You can't
The participation level required to possibly reach 33% would probably be in the 40% region, and such high voter participation is only seen during a bullrun in the market or at ATH price.
In any normal (political) voting poll its normal to connect voting participation to it. Since the first poll ever issued also
contained voting participation as a condition, i dont see why it should not be applied to other polls as well. It does not necessarily needs to be 33%, but it does in my view needs to have a minimum level of voting participation.
I think at any time, all options should be on the table, but it definitely depends on keeping a close eye on how policymakers and businesses are reacting to the tech.
I agree that privatesend is rarely used, has a terrible user experience, and for those who do use it, even fewer of them actually use it properly without doing something against the best practices that basically nukes their own privacy. But at the same time I do think it is an important feature. I think there is certainly a cost benefit analysis to be had for this
Those could form valid reasons for not implementing certain interesting looking privacy techniques.