
Proposal “new-block-reward-allocation“ (Active)Back
Title: | deleted |
Owner: | pmbf |
One-time payment: | 1 DASH (23 USD) |
Completed payments: | no payments occurred yet (1 month remaining) |
Payment start/end: | 2025-07-08 / 2025-08-07 (added on 2025-07-02) |
Final voting deadline: | in 1 month |
Votes: | 62 Yes / 78 No / 18 Abstain |
Will be funded: | No. This proposal needs additional 357 Yes votes to become funded. |
Manually vote on this proposal (DashCore - Tools - Debugconsole): gobject vote-many bd1a37782c7d86c3c61af6562fe98873885e2a736a77d257edf0f04750b447f7 funding yes Please login or create a new DashCentral account for comfortable one button voting! |
Proposal description
I admit, that it was an error to change the proposal 12 days before the voting
deadline. By this action, it won’t be clear if people voted for the original
text or the updated one.
I’m sorry about that, and I take responsibility for this by invalidating this
proposal and creating a new one.
(Of course, you can still vote here whether I get 1 Dash refunded or not.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For reference here the last version of the title:
"Changing the block reward allocation (updated on July 8th)"
And here the last version of the proposal text:
Hi,
This is a decision proposal:
"Change the block reward allocation to 10% (miners) / 20% (budget) / 70% (MNs)."
(Today it’s 20/20/60.)
(Proposal before the update: 10/25/65.)
If it passes, DCG will implement it, and I’ll probably go one step further in
about 1 year with a proposal for 5/20/75 (or perhaps 5/25/70 if the value of
Dash will be low).
Thanks to chainlocks, there is almost no more risk of double spending or
similar attacks. That means, that the PoW system can work with less hashrate.
Today the rewards for the miners are mainly used for electricity. I think that
this is a waste because a high hashrate is no more needed. I prefer not
wasting resources, that can be used elsewhere.
There was some discussion on
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/changing-the-block-reward-allocation.56058/
but it was mostly OT. Just to be clear: This proposal is not about removing
PoW and not about changing the mining algorithm. It is about reducing the cost
for electricity and reducing the impact on the environment.
Of course, there would be a drawback for miners, who have invested in mining
hardware. I don’t know the profile of the majority of the miners: Highly
invested in Dash, real Dash lovers? Or rather just mining for the coin with
the highest return, whatever it is, just as a business to generate some income?
If you think, that the priority should be the preservation of the income of
the miners, then please vote NO here.
If you think, that resources, that can be used for the MN-network (and perhaps
the DAO), should not be used for electricity, then please vote YES here.
Kind regards, Peter
deadline. By this action, it won’t be clear if people voted for the original
text or the updated one.
I’m sorry about that, and I take responsibility for this by invalidating this
proposal and creating a new one.
(Of course, you can still vote here whether I get 1 Dash refunded or not.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For reference here the last version of the title:
"Changing the block reward allocation (updated on July 8th)"
And here the last version of the proposal text:
Hi,
This is a decision proposal:
"Change the block reward allocation to 10% (miners) / 20% (budget) / 70% (MNs)."
(Today it’s 20/20/60.)
(Proposal before the update: 10/25/65.)
If it passes, DCG will implement it, and I’ll probably go one step further in
about 1 year with a proposal for 5/20/75 (or perhaps 5/25/70 if the value of
Dash will be low).
Thanks to chainlocks, there is almost no more risk of double spending or
similar attacks. That means, that the PoW system can work with less hashrate.
Today the rewards for the miners are mainly used for electricity. I think that
this is a waste because a high hashrate is no more needed. I prefer not
wasting resources, that can be used elsewhere.
There was some discussion on
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/changing-the-block-reward-allocation.56058/
but it was mostly OT. Just to be clear: This proposal is not about removing
PoW and not about changing the mining algorithm. It is about reducing the cost
for electricity and reducing the impact on the environment.
Of course, there would be a drawback for miners, who have invested in mining
hardware. I don’t know the profile of the majority of the miners: Highly
invested in Dash, real Dash lovers? Or rather just mining for the coin with
the highest return, whatever it is, just as a business to generate some income?
If you think, that the priority should be the preservation of the income of
the miners, then please vote NO here.
If you think, that resources, that can be used for the MN-network (and perhaps
the DAO), should not be used for electricity, then please vote YES here.
Kind regards, Peter
Show full description ...
Discussion: Should we fund this proposal?
Submit comment
![]() |
No comments so far?
Be the first to start the discussion! |
It seems, that several people don’t want a higher percentage for the budget. This is ok for me. In the assumption, that the value of Dash will increase thanks to all the ongoing developments, the 20% for the DAO are probably already a good value and should not be increased further. That’s why I have changed the text for the proposal.
People will have to read the comments to understand that this polling proposal orginally had a blockreward reallocation proposed by you of 5% (miners) / 25% (budget) / 70% (MNs).
Which you now changed to 10% (miners) / 20% (budget) / 70% (MNs).
We have to face facts and deal with the REAL issues facing Dash. Pretending like "the market just doesn't like our block reward" won't work. Those kinds of band-aid moves NEVER work. The real problem is the price of Dash is being suppressed by outside forces. Which means we have to increase buy pressure to combat their short-selling.
Continuing to "tweak the protocol under price pressure" will only serve to weaken Dash over the long term, and give our enemies, whom you all never seem to acknowledge exist, what they want (unnatural changes to Dash that are designed to limit our effectiveness relative to them).
What do you think about this decision proposal in order to decrease PoW and to increase PoS:
"Change the block reward allocation to 5% (miners) / 25% (budget) / 70% (MNs)." ?
And with an intermediate step during 10 months with 10/25/65, so that miners can better adapt to the new situation.''
So in the pre-proposal discussion PO wanted feedback on 5% (miners) / 25% (budget) / 70% (MNs), combined with an intermediate step during 10 months with 10/25/65.
In this polling proposal (before he updated it) the PO just focus on 10/25/65 with a possible option in the future to change that to 5% (miners) / 25% (budget) / 70% (MNs)
Now PO is proposing 10% (miners) / 20% (budget) / 70% (MNs)
This whole proposal discussion has become a bit messy now in my opinion.
The proposal is just the result of the feedback, that I got on the forum, reddit and discord.
IMO it’s messy because of all the spam...
You know, many MNO have got bills to pay!
But in case you took orders from anyone (including anyone in DCG) to submit this proposal as a DCG-outsider, then i believe the MNO as a whole have the right to know about it and i feel it would be owed to sincerity to disclose it.
This project has pioneered the Masternode technology and we have the oldest functioning DAO in the industry.
No other project has anywhere nearly as much technical expertise with Masternodes.
Therefore i have no objection that someday the Masternodes will fully take over the Mining (block creation) as well.
If we are truly honest to ourselves, the founders would likely have done it back in 2014 or 2015 if it were technically feasable at the time.
We are not just any copy&paste Masternode coin, but we were fathering this technology. Its literally OUR invention.
I recall Evan and Andy called it 'Collateralized Mining' and if its really not in the Whitepaper, then it sure was on the official Roadmap instead.
Peter, you should really have put up a second competing proposal for 10 / 20 / 70 and it would likely get much better results.
Given the low quality of most non-DCG proposals and funding requests, i am sure many MNO would rather give their blessing for increasing the DCG portion from 65% to 75%, before considering expanding the Superblock budget even further.
Sam should inform the MNO, whether DCG´s breakeven is still at a price of $28 or if saving & tightening measures brought it much lower already.
As for the DAO treasury, well that's also a sell pressure, but the project gets something valuable for the money spent.
As for DCG's breakeven, it's a bit complicated, it's probably closer to $22 at this point (a lot of variance month on month).
I don't see any reduction happening in sell pressure if this proposal passes.
Beside, i was talking about sell pressure from the Budget side. Those 10% of miners rewards that were moved to the budget side caused sell pressure. Increase it to 15% and the sell pressure remains.
**BUYERS** hold, SELLERS MOVE. YOU NEED BOTH. Your argument assumes that Dash doesn't get any buy pressure, which means you are assuming Dash has and will continue to fail. Dash is the best cryptocurrency, OBJECTIVELY. It has the most adoption as a means of payment, it has the fastest and most secure technology.
So your assumption that Dash will ONLY succeed by reducing sell pressure, implies you think or, worse, KNOW that there will be no buy pressure in the future. Which is either extreme pessimism or the work of a bad actor. By ignoring the corruption that Joel valenzuela brought when he hogged DashBoost funds, you and others like you are the ones responsible for dooming Dash to this low price cycle.
There is NOTHING WRONG WITH DASH! Every cryptocurrency that wants to be #1, even the current #1, has MAJOR FLAWS! BTC cannot scale and is captured, Monero REALLY cannot scale and doesn't work.
See recent research showing that their actual anonymity set size is only FOUR, NOT 16 like they've been lying all these years. And NOBODY CALLS them out for it. If you want Dash to win, you MUST call Monero out for being liars. That's how the market begins to shift toward superior options. Without this truth and reconcilliation, corruption festers and rots all that could and would grow, which destroys our adoption.
We USED TO HAVE A SUPER LARGE ADOPTION COMMUNITY! We used to have GREAT proposals! Every month lots of different regions had multiple proposals seeking help for Dash. And somehow people like lysergic, agnewpickens, Joel valenzuela, and others like him one by one picked those proposals off, stole their funds, and now you pretend like you don' t know what happened.
YOU are the reason the price is low.
Why wouldn't you think its a bad idea?
The whole point of POW is that sell pressure. That sell pressure pushes the coin into more hands which is what cryptocurrencies are trying to do. Adoption is about first getting the coin in people's hands, then getting them places to use it.
If you kill mining, then you kill that loop. That is the tradeoff, and that is NOT good.
> But in case you took orders from anyone
No, no order. I’m a Dash enthusiast, and I would like to contribute, where I
can.
> Therefore i have no objection that someday the Masternodes will fully take
> over the Mining (block creation) as well.
Yes, that’s what I’ve read several times on Discord, and my idea was simply:
Ok, removing PoW completely is difficult and not really feasible today, but
reducing the resources for it is an easy step, that can be done in the very
near future.
> Peter, you should really have put up a second competing proposal for 10 / 20
> / 70 and it would likely get much better results.
Yes, you are perhaps right. I don’t know. But when the price is low, as today,
I think, that a bit more resources for the DAO is a nice thing. Of course,
when Dash will be at $70, then it doesn’t matter if it’s 20% or 25%...
But anyway, as written in the proposal, I consider a second step with 5/25/70.
> before considering expanding the Superblock budget even further.
I don’t really understand, what’s wrong with that. I think that the DAO works
much better now, then some years ago, and that the MNOs look more carefully at
the results of the proposals today. If one day, there will be too much budget,
it will be burned.
But I admit, that I don’t have a strong opinion about that. 10/20/70, and
later 5/20/75, that could be nice too. I can make a poll on Discord.
What´s wrong with it, is the low, poor quality of most non-DCG proposals (not all, but a majority, with often excessive funding requests out of PURE GREED), for now it would be far better to increase the DCG claiming threshold from 65% up to 75% and keeping the Superblock budget at 20%.
> If one day, there will be too much budget, it will be burned.
But burned is not the same, than if it were in the pockets of the MNO instead.
Of course, this is only my two cents, but i woud have loved to see:
10 / 20 / 70 now &
5 / 25 / 70 later (after price crashes down below $10)
this is a waste because a high hashrate is no more needed. I prefer not
wasting resources, that can be used elsewhere.
This is a FALLACY that the enemies of POW (aka bankers and other infiltration artists) use called the "energy police fallacy". I.e. WHY DO YOU GET TO DECIDE what is wasteful or not, and then use that as a justification for changing EVERYONE ELSE'S protocol?
Other examples, "I pmbf think that you shower for 2 minutes too long every morning. Let's cut your hot water usage so there's no more waste!" or "I pmbf think that you spend too much energy cooking your morning breakfast, let's shut off your electricity after a couple minutes to save xyz!"
This is a fallacy. It is NOT YOUR JOB to "find waste and eliminate it". And you classifying "excess" pow as wasteful is dismissive of the actual benefit that we gain, that you refused to address in your preproposal thread (which means you know you can't and are just trying to hide by pretending you didn't see my questions there).
Proof of work mining forces distribution of the coin to new holders. Miners have to sell, which means someone has to buy which spreads Dash further on a constant basis. Removing POW mining removes this effect and causes the remaining Dash to be centralized in fewer hands. That goes against the decentralization principle behind cryptocurrency. Proof of work is not just to prevent 51% attacks, it is to ensure a FAIR DISTRIBUTION of the coin.
Why are you ignoring this effect and trying to remove it?
The Dash network has NOT elected you to perform this task of "finding waste and eliminating it", so why do you presume that you have the right to do so?
These questions are NOT rhetorical, please answer.
The question remains why are you guys so dead set on removing/eliminating POW from Dash? Saying that "this proposal is not about removing POW" when you're taking it from 20% to 10% then 5%, is contradictory and thus illogical.
Sam says below:
" However I believe that because this decision in large part is not technical, then it should be for the community to decide. Hence a proposal like this from a long time community member does make sense."
I believe that this is wrong. This is definitely a technical decision, and it should NOT be for the community to decide. The community has ALREADY decided. Its in the whitepaper.
Lowering proof of work decreases the amount of Dash that is released and spread to new participants. Sam, xkcd, Joel, all the pro "lower POW" people are deliberately ignoring this fact. Proof of work mining doesn't just exist to protect against 51% attacks.
Its main purpose is to FREELY AND FAIRLY DISTRIBUTE THE COIN to new participants through mining. High pressure for miners to sell = more coins in newbies hands = better distribution. Removing/limiting POW DESTROYS this feedback loop.
If you're going to push for this change, you cannot just ignore this effect. You have to explain why its better for Dash to not have this loop than it is with it. Just because something "might not break Dash" doesn't mean WE SHOULD DO IT.
In addition, the PO is financially illiterate and foolishly believes that DCG is entitled to pilfer a larger proportion of the block reward. DCG is also financially lame, thus I conclude that the PO is working in cahoots with DCG. I mean, it's not like DCG are rejecting this proposal, why would they if they are a beneficiary. Wasn't it like this last time, MNs being bought off to cover DCG's pay rise?
IF DCG are short on money, once again, then they need to admit this funding model is broken, unsustainable, and move to a for-profit model, and thus free up the ENTIRE treasury to others.
There is nothing wrong with a development company being profitable because - assuming no corruption - they would be providing goods and services to people willing to pay in return for something actually useful. STOP THIS IMPOTENT DEV TAX.
Platform released and its better than expected. That cost money. The required new technology. You all who are against developer funding have NO RIGHT TO SPEAK, as you were trying to defund DCG back then because "platform will never release". YOU HAVE TO ADMIT YOUR ERROR before you get start making demands again.
You guys were completely wrong!!! Platform is here, now, usernames are decentralized. Everything is wonderful. The only problem is the problem you all are artificially creating because you don't want Dash to outshine its competition. So you're cheating. You're taking bribes to negatively affect Dash's governance and model, because its the only model that works.
$110,000 will be paid out this month. That's $110k distributed to people throughout the world (though currently centralized by ugly hoggs like Joel Valenzfail-a) for work performed. No other coin has that. The right choice is to do nothing. Stop trying to dismantle Dash just because your coin sucks in comparison. You all know the consequences for cheating in this competition, you think you can "strangle Dash to death from inside and out" with price manipulation + governance manipulation + masternode infiltration for vote manipulation.
All you're doing is ensuring that you lose in the end, just like Monero lost and even in their own subs is declared dead. The fact that you're so freaking stubborn and refuse to "give up" even though you've lost is why you lost in the first place, and will be why you'll lose in the end.
I don't have influence, damn well hope I don't have influence, on a system run by financially illiterate MNOs. I can see you agree with that because you're often attacking them here.
Personally, I just don't care that much about dash, I come here in passing and chip in my 2 cents, that's it. In a practical sense, me voting for or against anything here has almost no weight. I am not a humpback; someone with 10's or 100's of masternodes.
No doubt you will protect DCG and Sam in particular but from my point of view, he will likely never do a 180 and change his management style from *just focusing on the technical* while willingly ignoring a funding crisis. Because the moment he does, he fears someone might just turn around and say, "i told you so". Look, it's okay having principles but they always come at a cost and we can see what that cost is. To be clear, I am not just saying the USD cost but the cost as a whole to the project. Money from the treasury to a single entity is opportunity cost to all others. DCG have been at this for many years and still fail to be self-funded. Meanwhile, other "kind" POs lower their own asking or withdraw entirely in order to give priority to DCG.. that is so anti-competitive, no wonder there is no enterprise making here. The production of things that people don't just want but are willing to put their money where their mouth is and pay for it, but without this, every month, DCG is strictly limited to the bounds of the treasury.. that's why they don't outright reject this proposal because they have no other funding options. Simple as.
You, on the other hand, seem to be one of many people that seem to think that tax is okay so long as it's "reasonable". You are compromised. You give your votes to DCG and in return they give you peanuts on the one hand while they persist with their left-wing social economics on the other. Of course, this is not black and white for there are some people here with good intentions and technical ability, but first acknowledge that governance here is broken - which is why you complain so much - and why I have zero interest in promoting dash anymore.
As for monero.. this is a fact - I've looked at the data and back tested it - putting money into monero produced more growth than dash. That's not support for monero tech, that's me saying that project funding in dash lost a 10x opportunity. Tell me, what might of dash achieved with more funding? But it's okay, I already know you will argue this both ways, that dash is superior, that DCG should be wholly dependent on treasury tax while also complaining that dash is infiltrated with bad actors.. wait, how can that be when dash is superior?
You keep talking about "I don't have influence" blah blah blah will you STFU already? We get it, you're just a hapless grifter who happens to love the torture of "having no influence" while also trying to "have as much influence as possible" by promoting stupid, destructive activities. We get it. Whoever gave you your script had NO imagination.
MNOs do not have to be financially literate. That is supposed to be outsourced to DFOs, but apparently you all just LOVE coming up with BULLSHIT excuses to avoid admitting your error, so that you can continue to dance like devils around a fire of lies. YOU WERE WRONG ABOUT PLATFORM YOU STUPID LIAR, OWN IT!
If you REALLY didn't care that much about Dash you would SELL YOUR DASH AND STOP TRYING TO INFLUENCE US! "passing your 2 cents" oh STFU with your stupid "hat in hand" GARBAGE! Stop dodging, Platform released like YOU SAID IT NEVER WOULD and now you're trying to pretend like you were somehow correct. YOU ARE DISHONEST, STUPID AND INEFFECTIVE!!! So you should just STOP ALREADY!
I don't protect anyone from anything. The only protection I offer is to the DASH NETWORK from our enemies, infiltrators, trolls (people like you) and the like. I have no desire to artificially sway the network in one direction or the other, only to eliminate the UNDUE INFLUENCE of infiltrator SELLOUTS like you.
Where is this funding crisis? DCG is paid. It may not be as much as they want right now, but they should've taken my advice and fought back against the financial trickery being used to suppress Dash's price (which I have PROVEN exists, to the point where they had to lean on "coinfairvalue.com" to make Monero look better and Dash look worse, eventually accepting to remove the site altogether to hide their lies). Until that happens, we won't be able to grow price-wise and relying on grifter Joel ValenzFail-a to "grow Dash" is a stupid move, seeing as he's the one person behind Dash's ecosystem destruction.
His movements are CLEARLY designed to MAKE SURE as FEW PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE get access to Dash. Xkcd and pasta both are GUILTY of DDOS'ing my masternode (they both tried to do it AGAIN). How many MNOs have they used voting records to DDOS so they could REMOVE MNOs that weren't favorable to Joel's takeover plan? These are the REAL THINGS we should be discussing, not your stupid ego which nobody gives a crap about "Waahh waahh look at me I have no influence but I'm also trying to use that non-existent influence to destroy Dash! Waah waaah wahh I'm (paid to be) an incomprehensible moron!!!"
>. To be clear, I am not just saying the USD cost but the cost as a whole to the project.
This is stupid. DCG provides a service. They provide new updated software that NO OTHER COIN can afford to produce you stupid asshole, STOP PRETENDING like your word is gospel here! You are DELIBERATELY ignoring the fact that YOU HAVE PERSONALLY been wrong A LOT and NONE of your predictions came to pass. ALL OF MINE have so you have NO RIGHT to even talk to me, you slimy liar!
>DCG have been at this for many years and still fail to be self-funded.
You IDIOTS keep using this "self-funding" canard against DFOs so you can shut them down. DFOs ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE "SELF FUNDED" You stupid moron, STOP SAYING THAT SHIT!!! DFOs are SUPPOSED TO BE FUNDED **BY THE NETWORK!** Your contention is therefore A STRAWMAN and GASLIGHTING!
The work the DFOs do COSTS MONEY! The point is to DISTRIBUTE that money from the block reward. Having "DFOs be self-sufficient" means that they are getting their pay from a CLOSED LOOP of already distributed funds instead of SPREADING DASH from the block reward. This is NOT a complicated concept, which means YOUR REFUSAL to understand it is DELIBERATE. You are DELIBERATELY trying to use a GOOD POINT about Dash as a WEAPON against it.
"Why should we be the only coin that can fund our infrastructure? I'm upset about the fact that you called out other coins and said they wouldn't survive without this years ago and were proven correct. So now I'm going TO LIE and PRETEND like that's a BAD THING so that I can pretend like 'I was right all along'! hahahaha How clever am I?!" STFU you stupid idiot! Stop trying to gaslight the Dash network into self-destructive behavior you selfish idiotic moron!
>Meanwhile, other "kind" POs lower their own asking or withdraw entirely in order to give priority to DCG..
That's NOT what's happening. You idiots and Joel are BROWBEATING other DFOs into not being able to accept money and THEN PRETENDING like the "Budget system just doesn't work". THIS IS CALLED GASLIGHTING!! You prove that you're a bad actor when you engage in this tactic because you refuse to admit YOU WERE WRONG.
>that's why they don't outright reject this proposal because they have no other funding options. Simple as.
DCG has been "soft-captured" by whoever is paying you and Joel to be lying assholes. They think they can "manipulate the network into self destruction so that when it blows up, the Dash network is to blame and they can pretend like they won the crypto competition". Again that is NOT in line with your argument. DCG is FINE. The network is FINE. YOU are being negative because YOU want to hide the fact that YOU were wrong. Its that simple.
>that tax is okay so long as it's "reasonable".
You calling it a tax is NOT FAIR. You DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to unilaterally call Dash's features "bad names" so that you can pretend like getting rid of them is beneficial. You are trying to push a "capitalist mindset" which I DEFEATED YEARS AGO. You all REFUSE TO ACCEPT DEFEAT EVEN THOUGH YOU FUCKING LOST!! I won that argument back then, which is why you had to DDOS MNOS and use censorship to attack our communication spheres, all so that you could PRETEND like you didn't lose that argument. Dash is designed to emit and spread new coins.
All of these proposals and "negative ideas" from people like you, Joel, and the proposal owner SEEK TO REMOVE DASH'S DISTRIBUTION MECHANISM in one fell swoop so that we will not be able to grow faster and more than other coins. That's it. You are trying to HANDICAP Dash which is why you WON'T RESPOND to this allegation and will run away again like the stupid coward that you are.
>You are compromised.
PROVE that I'm compromised. How can you call me "compromised" because I LIKE DASH as is??? Dash is unique and strong, WHAT ABOUT FIGHTING TO MAINTAIN THAT means I'm compromised????? You sound like a STUPID PERSON because you're PAID TO USE ABSURDITY to attack the Dash network and "mkultra" the network into self-destructive behavior. WHICH PROVES THAT IT IS YOU WHO IS COMPROMISED and you are projecting.
HOW DO YOU RESPOND???
> You give your votes to DCG and in return they give you peanuts on the one hand while they persist with their left-wing social economics on the other.
I vote for DCG because they are the team selected by the masternodes to develop Dash. ONLY in Dash will idiots like you try to make that out to be a bad thing. YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON who has a problem with DCG, but just like "energy police" OP here, YOU ARE TRYING TO ACT AS IF YOUR WORD IS LAW WHEN ITS NOT! You are only saying these things because YOU ARE PAID TO! That's it!
>but first acknowledge that governance here is broken
How is governance broken? What are you comparing Dash to, in order to make that conclusion? You are putting the cart before the horse and using that fallacious logic to justify self-destructive changes (Defund DCG, stop funding DAOs-??? Why would we do that??)
>which is why you complain so much
STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH LIAR!
I told you why I complain so much, because YOU and others like you ARE PAID TO BE LIARS! I haven't complained about DCG or DCG's funding like almost ever. YOU ARE THE ONE who complains about them, SO STFU!
>putting money into monero produced more growth than dash. That
Absolutely RETARDED AND FALSE. Anyone who's held a masternode for years has already earned thousands of dollars that they wouldn'tve otherwise had. Monero has NOTHING like this. Monero only has price manipulation and only that because its been delisted by so many exchanges (which makes the average pool "shallower" and easier to manipulate the prices). You are just paid to be a braindead tool and a stupid liar. You will never acknowledge where Dash has succeeded and done better than other coins, because the people who pay you pay you to attack only. So everything you say is negative and an attack. You have NO praise for Dash, EVEN THOUGH DASH IS CURRENTLY THE BEST COIN BY A LONG SHOT.
You deliberately ignore this FOR MONEY BECAUSE YOU'RE A FOOL!
>That's not support for monero tech, that's me saying that project funding in dash lost a 10x opportunity.
You can't say this when Dash has platform and Monero has NOTHING! Dash BEAT MONERO, ACKNOWLEDGE IT AND QUIT WHINING YOU SELFISH GRIFTER!
> what might of dash achieved with more funding?
Tell me, why do you FAIL TO ACKNOWLEDGE what Dash HAS achieved with the funding it has? YOU WERE WRONG! YOU SAID PLATFORM WOULD NEVER RELEASE AND THAT WE SHOULD DEFUND DCG INSTEAD. YOU. WERE. FUCKING WRONG, YOU STUPID LIAR!!!!!
> that dash is superior, that DCG should be wholly dependent on treasury tax while also complaining that
What a stupid fucking question. DASH IS SUPERIOR. By all metrics. Dash is the ONLY cryptocurrency with instant transactions. Monero doesn't have that IDIOT! Dash is the ONLY coin with functioning governance, MONERO DOESN'T HAVE THAT! Dash is the ONLY coin that is SELF FUNDED every month FOR TEN YEARS!
Dash is superior because NO OTHER COIN WOULD SURVIVE THIS. ONLY DASH has survived TEN YEARS of you STUPID LOSERS trying to destroy it's decentralized governance out of SPITE while colluding together with other communities to take Dash down. How can that be when Dash is supposedly inferior???
Sorry to hear your math is shite. Even if DCG or masternodes were paid 100% of the block reward..
1. there would always be an upper limit called "100%" i.e. it is literally impossible for DCG to earn any more than what the block is worth, and
2. trading dash with other coins does actually produce more income than the block rewards simply because there are no manufactured limits. That is why DCG funding to this day is a left wing socialist pile of shite. If you really have best intentions for dash you'd advocate for more effective funding methods without limits.
I am SO SORRY for saying this but just to help you understand in a simple way - just don't want to over complicate it for you - If a government were to successfully tax its citizens at 100% of their income, it would hit an absolute ceiling, no additional revenue could be raised, regardless of how urgent or desperate the need. So yes, if you don't mind, I will call the block reward exactly what it is, a tax. This proposal seeks to fill the pockets of some at the expense of others, period.
Now that I have you triggered, do please type another 1724 words. You never know, you might achieve an all time high.
Attacking people who are being bad actors is not "sinning", it is a necessary duty to protect the network from abusive behavior. I have never engaged in any behavior that would harm the Dash network, therefore your accusation must be projection.
>Sorry to hear your math is shite.
Sorry to hear your BRAIN is shite.
>there would always be an upper limit called "100%" i.e. it is literally impossible for DCG to earn any more than what the block is worth,
So? Who ever argued otherwise?
>trading dash with other coins does actually produce more income than the block rewards simply because there are no manufactured limits.
WTF are you talking about??? There is NO NEED for DFOs to "produce income". We are not running "profit earning businesses" here. You are hold DFOs to this ARBITRARY STANDARD that is NOT in the whitepaper.
As long as DFOs do what they say they're doing then they should be paid from the block reward. There is absolutely NO NEED to "trade dash with other coins" in order to fund our DFOs, and clearly that doesn't work because DASH IS THE ONLY COIN WITH A FULLY FUNDED ECOSYSTEM. Your retort is preposterous, thanks for proving my brain comment right, right off the bad. Nimrod.
> a government were to successfully tax its citizens at 100% of their income, it would hit an absolute ceiling, no additional revenue could be raised, regardless of how urgent or desperate the need.
This is NOT relevant! The fact of the matter is the budget is there to be spent, why are you upset that that is happening??? Why do you not want DFOs to get funded from the blockchain? Who in their right mind would be upset with the fact that Dash's organizations are self-funded? Your entire premise is rubbish.
>So yes, if you don't mind, I will call the block reward exactly what it is, a tax.
That is NOT a tax. You are just arbitrarily making up BULLSHIT so you can attack the Dash network's unique way of funding things, simply because other coins can't compete. So instead of braking and losing inertia by turning around and admitting Dash was right, you CHEAT and try to get Dash to dismantle its superior assets.
Like a homely girl trying to get a prettier girl to "cut her long hair, it just gets in the way". This is the only logical motivation for what you're doing while pretending to be half-crazy to hide your ill-intent. It is NOT working.
> This proposal seeks to fill the pockets of some at the expense of others, period.
I am not for this proposal. This proposal is EQUALLY STUPID as your contentions, that's why I attack BOTH. Its not hard. You IDIOTS want to force us into a FALSE DICHOTOMY where our "only options" are the two most self-destructive choices (shave off POW, shave off DFOs and the treasury). Either choice is STUPID and proves you are using ignorance to gaslight the Dash network.
OUR BLOCK REWARD REFILLS EVERY MONTH YOU STUPID IDIOT!!! We DO NOT NEED DFOs to be "profitable" in order to succeed!! As long as they provide the work they promise they SHOULD BE FUNDED from the block reward. Doing this is an INNOVATION that Dash has brought to the marketplace, and the fact that YOU ATTACK IT IS PROOF THAT I AM CORRECT AND YOU ARE A BAD ACTOR.
>Now that I have you triggered
Admitting that your goal is trolling is an AUTOMATIC admission of defeat, so I thank you for this your mea culpa. NOW KNOCK IT OFF!
>do please type another 1724 words. You never know, you might achieve an all time high.
Reply
Look, you cannot handwave away my replies to your arguments. Either you respond to my reply or YOU LOSE. Its that simple. Its your fault for typing so much STUPID FUCKING GARBAGE in the first place that I have to correct every line. Further proof that you're trying to be AS DECEPTIVE AS POSSIBLE, which means YOU'RE A BAD ACTOR.
Now that I have you defeated and beaten, do please type another 500 words of tail-between-your-legs nonsense. Who knows, you might look like an even bigger bitch than last time.
For the record, selling dash for monero and holding it would of given DCG more to spend. It's actually quite easy to verify, just look at the charts and tell me what you see. Same for swapping into bitcoin. But I get it, you've got standards to keep and don't care for such things because you've already stated that the treasury gets refilled every month and there is (or will not be) a funding crisis.. okay, got it, we'll just wait to see what happens. Above, Sam has already said the break-even is around 22 USD, so you try to do the math, or not.
>For the record, selling dash for monero and holding it would of given DCG more to spend.
So? The prices of monero AND Dash are BOTH being manipulated. And for the record, selling Dash for BTC and holding it would've (not "of") given DCG FAR more to spend than doing the same for Monero. So why don't you care about that? Why are you trying to promote Monero as if its some sort of winner here, when its clearly a loser, trying to make others lose more than it so it can pretend to be "best in class"? Manipulated prices are NOT a solid basis to build arguments on, MORON.
>Same for swapping into bitcoin.
Its NOT the same. Its DRAMATICALLY more effective to sell Dash and store in BTC than in Monero. Monero's price has "held" but it hasn't GROWN much at all. It was 150 a while ago now its 300+. That's like Dash going from $20 to $45. BTC has gone up WAAAYY more than that. Just the simple fact that you pretend like Monero and BTC would give the same effect, is strong evidence that you are paid for and work for monero to attack Dash, as a neutral and/or pro-Dash party would never come to such a mediocre conclusion over superior evidence.
i.e. BTC's returns would've been much bigger than Monero's, and Dash's price is being manipulated so it doesn't matter anyway. You sheepishly ignore/lie about both of these arguments in order to **choose the answer that makes monero look the best**. A netural or pro-Dash party wouldn't think that way, so thank you for exposing your pro-monero biases and likely affilation and funding with them.
>y stated that the treasury gets refilled every month and there is (or will not be) a funding crisis.. okay, got it, we'll just wait to see what happens.
Your argument assumes Dash stays at the same price and doesn't rise, almost as if YOU'RE CERTAIN that will be the case. If Dash went up to 150 tomorrow, ALL OF YOUR ARGUMENTS WOULD BE INVALIDATED. Which is why you're probably part of the group that's manipulating Dash and Monero's price, so you CAN PRETEND TO BE RIGHT. Just like Flenst tried to manipulate the story on Dash's privacy by MAKING fake transactions, to prove that Dash had fake transactions. Narrative manipulation like this is also further evidence that you are a bad actor and an enemy of Dash. How do you respond?
>Above, Sam has already said the break-even is around 22 USD, so you try to do the math, or not.
There is no break even. DCG can be funded even at $6. It'll be a much smaller DCG, but you guys are the ones trying to torture the Dash community into "compliance" with your shitty ideas so you manipulate the price to make these arguments. Again, YOUR ARGUMENTS WOULD ALL FAIL AND BE COMPLETE NONSENSE IF THE DASH PRICE WERE HIGHER like it is for normal O.G. coins.
Your and Monero's obsession with "beating Dash" relies COMPLETELY AND ENTIRELY on the price of Dash always being low and staying there. If Dash's price were floating normally without the OBVIOUS PRICE SUPPRESSION (which is quite easy to see and check, just take a look at the charts and tell me what you see. Monero and Dash's market caps for example made MIRROR MOVES for years. Whenever Dash would pump, Monero would too, to "keep ahead". Why is that? Why hasn't Monero moved up much at all except when Dash was moving? You won't answer these questions because their explanation DESTROYS YOUR FALSE RATIONALE).
You can do the math on that, or not. You probably won't because you're a retarded liar.
The market participants of dash and monero are fundamentally different and this is not just shown in the charts but also in my back-testing. When I say DCG would of been better holding BTC or monero or a variety of other coins, that's just a fact, it doesn't mean bias or allegiance to one or another. Either way, you don't care because in your eyes DCG will continue to function at 6 USD which sounds more like "be careful what you wish for".
No, you and I could argue for 1000 years and there's is still no way that YOU could ever call ME ignorant. I've FORGOTTEN more about Monero, Dash and cryptocurrencies than you could ever know.
>You and I agree that monero tech is not all that
No we don't. You soft-champion Monero like its not that bad. You pretend like "holding monero would've been better" even, though that argument could be made better about a dozen other coins. So we don't agree on anything.
You are a slimy, weaselly person who is trying to PRETEND like "we're all on the same page" while also praising and soft-promoting the "competition" that gaslit, attacked, LIED ABOUT and maligned Dash for MORE THAN A DECADE. There tech sucks, and if you and I agreed on that, YOU WOULDN'T DO ANY OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED ACTIONS, because nobody likes a loser. Except for you and your cabal, because you're all PAID TO BE LOSERS.
>The market participants of dash and monero are fundamentally different and this is not just shown in the charts but also in my back-testing.
The price forces are not fundamentally driven by "market participants" anymore and haven't been since 2017 or so, when DASH HUMILIATED MONERO and destroyed it with its natural (and unnatural) growth during both bull cycles of that year. It has nothing to do with an "obsession with monero". They are our enemies and we are supposed to fight them.
You and your crew are THE ONLY ONES so obsessed with Monero that you pretend like "its not so bad" and "they're just rough around the edges". After they spent YEARS trying to use lies, gaslighting and censorship to infiltrate us and destroy our coin, you still try to act like they're "not that bad". See, flesnt, privacytothetop777, samsunggalaxyplayer, princekael, and a whole host of others. All of whom I SINGLE-HANDEDLY DEFEATED. Yet you nor your cabal have never shown not an OUNCE of gratitude for that work.
Which is curious considering you pretend to be "Dash fans" and "on the side of Dash". The only logical explanation for this is that you are on MONERO'S SIDE but pretending not to be so you can cynically infiltrate and attack us from within. This is not paranoia, the Monero community has ACTUALLY TRIED TO DO THIS SEVERAL TIMES and **I'M THE ONE WHO STOPPED THEM.** You have NO CHANCE to defeat me in this argument, yet you STILL continue, which indicates that you HAVE TO DO SO (contractual obligation).
>When I say DCG would of been better holding BTC or monero or a variety of other coins, that's just a fact
No, when you said that YOU SAID DCG WOULD BE BETTER OFF HOLDING MONERO. You didn't mention any other coins until like the next sentence. You specifically highlighted and focused on Monero, like "monero won" or something. The truth is, again, holding Monero wouldn'tve been much better than Dash at all. Look at the charts, their marketcaps are MIRRORING each other, and Monero has been price-stagnant since 2020 or so. I responded to your argument, Monero went from about 150 to around 300, which is the same as Dash going from 50-100, or 20-40. Both of which have happened plenty of times in the past.
Your argument would've been MUCH STRONGER if you made it with BTC first instead, but of course you're likely paid to soft-shoe promote Monero **so you couldn't do that" which is why you led with Monero despite that argument not really holding water, like an idiot. Its all about TRICKERY with you assholes. You are trying to TRICK US into self-destruction so you can use that to laugh at us later and pretend like you haven't done anything wrong by pretending to be part of Dash while simultaneously working to destroy it. I've told you before and I'll tell you again, YOU ARE SCUM!!!!
>Either way, you don't care because in your eyes DCG will continue to function at 6 USD which sounds more like "be careful what you wish for".
Either way, this sounds like a cynical childish threat, the same kind that the morons at Monero used to always make BEFORE I DESTROYED THEIR FUCKING COIN, so maybe you're the one who should "be careful what you wish for" eh?
I have explained that I've done back-testing and this doesn't start with a price chart. It starts with a hunch or curiosity and you want to test your hypothesis with trading techniques.
You sit there venting your shit oblivious to the fact that this is my bread and butter. I'm 98% in crypto and doing just fine. And despite all this, I managed to keep my morals and never once took a bribe to spread shit.
Sometimes it's healthy to be paranoid but your rants are another level.
Monero ATTACKED DASH RELENTLESSLY FOR YEARS. You all are trying to "make nice" with them, even though THEY LOST. Why are you trying to support LOSERS? That indicates that you are on the same side with them. Its not rocket science. This "hiding in plain sight" thing you're trying to do IS NOT WORKING. You're supposed to HIDE, not BE SUPER OBVIOUS.
Everyone has emotions. For example, your desire to trick MNOs into bad behavior is an emotion that is clearly clouding your judgment. That's YOUR own doing.
I don't care about your back-testing or any other performative garbage you come up with to justify this clearly WRONG answer. YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ON DASH'S SIDE. MONERO IS THE ENEMY AND YOU'RE HELPING THEM, ITS LITERALLY THAT SIMPLE. Its not about emotion, how can we win this if you're trying to help our competition? That's not a rhetorical question.
I don't care about your bread and butter, man, you are a paid LIAR! I have beaten you in EVERY ARGUMENT we've EVER GOTTEN INTO, stop pretending like you're not the loser here. I am 100% in crypto and have been SINCE 2016, SO STFU!
You clearly have NO morals and are lying, if you had not taken a bribe, you wouldn't be posting such inane drivel. If you're supposed to be on Dash's side, but you're softshoeing for Monero and other self-destructive things that change Dash and make it weaker relative to its competition, then THAT MEANS YOU HAVE NO MORALS MORON.
Sometimes its healthy to be flexible, but your lies are another level, SO KNOCK IT OFF ALREADY!
* Two Platform chain stalls already. And i don't even know what went wrong with the last Platform chain halt, was it a bug or do large Platform updates always carry the risk of halting the Platform chain and we should expect and anticipate more Platform chain halting in the future during Platform updates ?
* Not a single Dapp on the Platform Chain, so far i am aware
* No SDK ready to distribute to developers, so they can get to work and develop a Dapp
* No actual Platform usage, just look at all the empty blocks on Platform Explorer
* No Platform fees system in place to cope with diminishing Evonode rewards
* Token system effect upon activation on Platform usage unclear, personally i have my doubts that this will trigger actual Platform usage seeing how little attention is flowing towards Altcoins. Hopefully i am wrong.
* Platform updates interval getting longer and longer
We are very far away from everything being wonderful.
Dash platform has been released for ONE WHOLE YEAR NOW, and there have ONLY been two chain stalls, with no effect on the mainchain, so yeah, I'd say that's pretty wonderful compared to other coins that have bricked their base layer when such has occurred. It doesn't matter what went wrong, what matters is that Platform naysayers were wrong and should admit it.
* Not a single Dapp on the Platform Chain, so far i am aware
Usernames on the blockchain is a Dapp on chain (POC)
* No SDK ready to distribute to developers
A matter of time and moving the goalposts. You platform haters said it would never release AT ALL, which is false and means you should humble yourselves and admit you were wrong
*No actual Platform usage,
1800+ usernames with dozens of transactions a month is not "no actual usage". Platform is new technology that has never been done before but is being bootstrapped. Tokens have released and soon will be utilized. Again, this is you moving the goalposts
* No Platform fees system in place to cope with
WTH kinda criticism is this? The question was, "Will platform release?" You all said "No! Let's defund DCG!" YOU. WERE. WRONG. Admit it
* Token system effect upon activation on Platform usage unclear
Of course you have "your doubts" everything you've written is deliberately designed to be as negative as possible to HIDE THE FACT that YOU WERE WRONG. But the fact that we're even talking about tokens MEANS YOU WERE WRONG
* Platform updates interval getting longer and longer
This is a GOOD thing. Platform doesn't need to be updated frequently. I haven't had to update my masternode basically since it released, for example. You are complaining about A GOOD THING because you are trying to hide your BUTTHURT at being wrong.
Look this isn't going to work if you're not going to be an adult and admit your error. Just like you ran away and hid from my legitimate questions and responses in my "non-dcg-decision-proposal-moratorium" like a little child. You have NO right to pretend like "qwizze was correct" when you were NOT.
How did I get that message? By attempting to register a legitimate username which was contested and "debated" and ultimately never given to me over the most ridiculous excuse. I can't prove that because doing so would reveal personal information.
No, I don't want to waste more money trying another username and go through the same ridiculous process. And there is just no way I could recommend dash usernames in their current form... expecting people to try their luck and hope it won't get rejected without refund.
And yes, the recent L2 chain halt did briefly take out my L1 masternodes at the exact same time.
Dash's platform CoD is over 300. Compared to facebook, google, amazon, etc. with a CoD of 1-4 (backup data centers), Dash is EXTREMELY decentralized. Almost excessively so. So having a two-tiered network with fewer nodes makes sense. Relying on all 2000 MNs would be a throughput and storage burden and its not even necessary to have all that redundancy.
>And yes, the recent L2 chain halt did briefly take out my L1 masternodes at the exact same time.
Get out of here. How could that have happened? You are just trying to make things sound as bad as possible so you can avoid admitting you were wrong, which makes you a terrible person and a liar. Thank you for proving I was right about you.
Am thinking you will thank me now for doing my part to keep dash more decentralized than the cheapest alternative route.
I don't care? Take it up with support. Nobody else is experiencing these problems and its clear that you're using them as an excuse to be cynical and pretend like "evolution didn't release so I don't have to apologize". YOU ARE A BRAINDEAD STUPID FOOL!
>Am thinking you will thank me now for doing my part to keep dash more decentralized than the cheapest alternative route.
Oh, you can think? Could've fooled me you lying idiot!
I also personally don't think there will be any attack at 10% of reward going to miners.
This is irrelelvant Sam and you, in your position should know better. Nano, for instance is not in a position to be 51% attacked. Still, it is a weak coin with low adoption. Why? Because there is NO incentive to gain it and hold it.
Proof of work mining provides that incentive by forcing miners to sell to cover costs which pushes coins into the hands of people who didn't have it before. Without mining, the coin centralizes in fewer and fewer hands. It is not about 51% attacks, it is about distributing Dash.
It is disappointing that you either do not know this, or pretend not to in order to promote what appears to be self-destructive action in the Dash network. Please explain yourself.
Selling pressure is just selling pressure, and miners must sell to recoup on energy costs.
That doesn't make any sense. It doesn't matter how many miners are around, it matters how many BUYERS are around. ASICs don't change the fundamental principle that I'm talking about one bit.
The point is that with masternodes, Dash tends to be centralized (MNOs have much less sell pressure than miners do) while with miners Dash tends to be decentralized since they have to sell so much. People who buy Dash doesn't care if it comes from an ASIC solving the blocks or a GPU, they just buy it.
Selling pressure is selling pressure which means the more of it there is, the more selling will occur, which puts the coin in more people's hands than would otherwise be, which is called ADOPTION. The thing you're supposed to be working towards.
Miners having to sell to recoup energy costs IS THE POINT of PROOF OF WORK, it makes distributing the coin a non-issue and a constant occurrence. This is the problem Nano has. They have technology, but a crappy distribution, so nobody even has enough nano to want to spend it. They have to buy it from rich peoples' bags, which is a significant barrier to entry.
With miners, everything is the opposite. Its easy to acquire Dash because Miners have so much pressure to sell it. This is a positive feedback loop and I don't think its appropriate for you to be advocating removing it from the network.
1) Cost in dollar amount per hour, for renting the necessary X11 hash rate required for an 51% attack, which i believe to be a fairly low cost, in fact so low that it could be alarming to many of the MNO indeed
2) Whether blocks which receive a ChainLock are still vulnerable (in a short window of time before they receive the ChainLock), or whether such chainlocked blocks are completely and instantly immune?
3) The percentage ratio of blocks with ChainLocks vs blocks without ChainLocks because lack of 60% (?) consensus (which get only locked afterwards, with a successive block that gets a ChainLock), for example 97% vs 3%
4) Profitability analysis of an attack, if only blocks without a ChainLock are vulnerable by such an 51% attack
I hope, that Sam will answer your questions, especially all about ChainLocks.
Meanwhile here my thoughts: According to https://bitinfocharts.com/ the
hashrate is currently about 2 PH/s, so in the worst case it would drop to
1 PH/s. When the hashrate halves, then the cost to generate 51% of the
hashrate halves too. So in any case the cost for an attack stays in the same
scale. ChatGPT can help to get an estimation of the cost for 1 PH/s:
https://chatgpt.com/share/6866d526-e05c-8011-b30e-7598edb4584a
I see no need to reduce miners blockrewards with 5% and move that 5% to the budget, where it will just be allocated among certain entities already participathing in the DAO (i think it will mainly drop in the hands of DCG).
We already increased the budget in september 2023 from 10% to 20% on a specific request of DCG, which was suppose to be a longterm solution to their financial problems. DCG is still having the same financial problems today, as when we still had 10% budget.
Moving 5% from miners to the budget will solve nothing and is by itself too little a change.
I have voted NO to having the budget increased from 10% to 20% and i vote NO to increasing the budget (again !!) from 20% to 25%.