It's still better than being at the mercy of the banking system
I have talked about this, that the social experiment between BTC and Dash is very interesting. It can literally determine the future of the structure of a DAO system.
While Bitcoin is a 0 cost entry system, DASH is a 1000 DASH cost entry system (however its usually more costly to run a BTC node, since DASH nodes actually make money).
So it's really an oligarchy vs direct democracy experiment.
Ehh kinda... DASH has the issues with its early days that influence my opinion clearly.
The costs with locking up masternode deposits has implications far beyond what you write here. I have detailed elsewhere how this artificially reduces the liquid supply and allows the price to be quickly pumped. The masternode setup is ripe for Sybil attacks. Most nodes are owned by single actors anyways...
The oligarchy and direct democracy comparison does not work in my opinion.
The social experiment between a legitimate project with widespread support and the shakey game theory of DASh sure is interesting.
What do you think of everyone having their own coin and token to issue as debt, like coupons for their services and products rather than relying on a single currency?
Interesting. Kinda like the Token card model with TKN. There are many complex economics that can be coded into smart contracts to solve these problems.
Everyone will be their own bank. We will need systems to guide reputations of each person-bank. These rep systems also need to be cooperatively democratically owned and operated.
Just reviewed the white paper for TKN. Looks like I should learn more. What is required is an easy way to register any kind of object, [or promise of some service] as a token that can be exchanged. I would also like to control who can buy or sell my token [say I don't want to serve a certain kind of business such as criminal organization].
This would enable me to sell/exchange an object in my house such as a gram of gold [share of a solar panel] without actually having to physically transfer the object to them at the PoS, like checks.
say I don't want to serve a certain kind of business such as criminal organization
Ehh, this is why we need private transactions. You don't want token spends to be KYC/YML regulated. That's how you lose the crypto appeal of digital cash.
For bitcoin you need to invest now at least 10,000-20,000$ to buy a node, which limits access heavily.
Um no. This is not true today with 1MB blocks, or tomorrow with bigger ones. I have a 150$ NUC and another 100$ disk drive that could store 8MB blocks for the next 10 years. Access to Bitcoin node hardware is not a limit in any way shape or form.
In DASH, not everyone can setup a node - you need 1000 DASH. Bitcoin's nodes are hardly altruistic, there are many economic forces that keep incentives for Bitcoin nodes. Just because the network does not explicitly reward them with tokens, does not mean there is no incentive to run one.
The DASH network does not realize the actual incentives needed for node decentralization all while preventing Sybil attacks*.
I have talked about this, that the social experiment between BTC and Dash is very interesting. It can literally determine the future of the structure of a DAO system.
While Bitcoin is a 0 cost entry system, DASH is a 1000 DASH cost entry system (however its usually more costly to run a BTC node, since DASH nodes actually make money).
So it's really an oligarchy vs direct democracy experiment.
Ehh kinda... DASH has the issues with its early days that influence my opinion clearly.
The costs with locking up masternode deposits has implications far beyond what you write here. I have detailed elsewhere how this artificially reduces the liquid supply and allows the price to be quickly pumped. The masternode setup is ripe for Sybil attacks. Most nodes are owned by single actors anyways...
The oligarchy and direct democracy comparison does not work in my opinion.
The social experiment between a legitimate project with widespread support and the shakey game theory of DASh sure is interesting.
What do you think of everyone having their own coin and token to issue as debt, like coupons for their services and products rather than relying on a single currency?
Interesting. Kinda like the Token card model with TKN. There are many complex economics that can be coded into smart contracts to solve these problems.
Everyone will be their own bank. We will need systems to guide reputations of each person-bank. These rep systems also need to be cooperatively democratically owned and operated.
Just reviewed the white paper for TKN. Looks like I should learn more. What is required is an easy way to register any kind of object, [or promise of some service] as a token that can be exchanged. I would also like to control who can buy or sell my token [say I don't want to serve a certain kind of business such as criminal organization].
This would enable me to sell/exchange an object in my house such as a gram of gold [share of a solar panel] without actually having to physically transfer the object to them at the PoS, like checks.
Ehh, this is why we need private transactions. You don't want token spends to be KYC/YML regulated. That's how you lose the crypto appeal of digital cash.
Not reeally, the Masternode setup is cheaper than Bitcoin.
For bitcoin you need to invest now at least 10,000-20,000$ to buy a node, which limits access heavily.
In dash anyone can setup a node, since they get paid for it,so it's a for profit scheme, while bitcoin is based on altruism.
So this is more like a profit vs altruism test, we shall see how it will turn out.
Um no. This is not true today with 1MB blocks, or tomorrow with bigger ones. I have a 150$ NUC and another 100$ disk drive that could store 8MB blocks for the next 10 years. Access to Bitcoin node hardware is not a limit in any way shape or form.
In DASH, not everyone can setup a node - you need 1000 DASH. Bitcoin's nodes are hardly altruistic, there are many economic forces that keep incentives for Bitcoin nodes. Just because the network does not explicitly reward them with tokens, does not mean there is no incentive to run one.
The DASH network does not realize the actual incentives needed for node decentralization all while preventing Sybil attacks*.
What I was saying that buyin 1000 Dash is cheaper than buying and ASIC rig.You either way have to spend money, but at least in Dash you get subsidized for serving the network.
In bitcoin you don't, and apart from a few exchanges and merchants, hardly anyone will run full nodes in the future.
Wait, 1000 Dash is actually quite expensive. Yeah maybe it should be lowered to 5-10 Dash though.
The dash subsidy is really unnecessary in my opinion. There are many other economic forces that allow for appropriate users to run full nodes.
Well SPV security is very, very strong. Running nodes will be much less expensive than you make it out to be.