Thanks for your replied, i am going to setup a masternode, just need to buy 300 more dash..

iCEBREAKER was testing his pea shooter.

We need to take that away from him.  He'll shoot his eye out!

Can you please send me debug.log file from DashCore folder?
UdjinM6@dash.org

New site launch about Dash Casinos

If you know more gambling sites , please mp or answer. THX

Big price increase.

More DDOS, please!  

I do not know, but my guess is that it probably isn't too expensive given that kids pull these kind of stunts on each others Minecraft gaming sessions all the time.
Also the fact that the DDOS was pretty easy to mitigate might imply that the attackers were not too serious, more of a blunt syn-flooding attack.

It will be full of scripts and bots testing all kind of english names as login. If you change the port of sshd you will see a drastic reduction in the failed probing attempts.

The community has expressed some concern lately about some not-so-great budget proposals passing or coming close to passing. I wanted to comment on that and explain why I think the problem will be self-correcting.

Our "problem" is not that vast amount of money available for funding our ecosystem's development. In fact, that is one of the biggest advantages of DASH. I'm not sure what Bitcoin's development budget looks like these days, with the Foundation, MIT, and Blockstream variously funding developers. I do know that in 2014 Bitcoin's development budget was about $1.5 million per year. Our annual budget is approx. $4 million per year. This is huge, and it will drastically speed our growth and help us to catch up with Bitcoin in time.

Our problem, if you want to call it a problem, is that there isn't enough competition for budget funds. Because of the way the system is designed, any budget funds not used are simply not created. This creates a sort of "use it or lose it system" where the masternode owners (MNOs) are incentivized to vote for any halfway decent proposal, lest the budget funds simply not be created. Without the budget being full, there is no competition between proposals for funding, and without competition there is no "cost" to funding anything that's submitted. Granted, unused budget funds aren't "burned" per se; they are simply never created. Theoretically that increases the value of all the DASH in existence, since it decreases the supply. However, the decreased supply is infinitesimal, meaning that for every 1 DASH that's not spent from the budget, all the DASH in existence increase in value only by a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a cent.

Consider then:

1) There is no opportunity cost involved in filling up the budget every month, since essentially nothing would be gained by leaving some DASH uncreated.
2) The current formula that MNOs use when deciding whether to approve a proposal is this:

IF (expected value of proposal) > (value added by shrinking the future coin supply infinitesimally) THEN vote yes.

I would argue that once more people start competing for budget funds, this problem will naturally correct itself, since the formula will change to:

IF (expected value of proposal) > (expected value of competing proposals) THEN vote yes.

IMO, the ideal "fix" is simply to allow unused budget funds to carry over a certain number of months into the future. However, that would obviously require a change to the budget code. Evan mentioned in the 12.1 announcement that after a couple of months of stability, new budget features will be rolled out through Sentinel. I really hope the ability to "remember" unused budget funds is one of those features.