i dont care... as investor i buy coin which has potential to grow. otherwise  wouldn u buy stock which the company owner hold a bunch rihgt?


btw : i got crazy ideas about using masternode fund to make dash coin backed by commodity... LOL yay crazy

Actually, Evan owns a very modest amount and he and his family have been buying on exchanges, together with everyone else, in the hope to accumulate some for the future.

Masternodes are just the first successful implementation of paid full node operation, a concept that has been entertained in Bitcoin too.  The results have so far been really impressive.  

The compensation system for full nodes works just like mining, it is self correcting, as more masternodes are created the reward per masternode goes down, so it is not a high yield reward program as the same reward is not promised as more nodes join.  Theoretically given an infinite number of nodes rewards would be 0.

I don't really understand why one would criticize something that clearly works. Paid full node operation as a way to build a stronger network and promote participation has been a great success.

 All crypto projects should support each other and compete in an ethical manner.

I think we should focus on progress and growth of Dash today vs Dash yesterday. Everyone is working really hard, but adoption and progress in the real world takes time, more adoption, new partnerships, new integrations, etc.

Splawik,
Don't be selfish and please stop buying up everything and leave some for someone else, we know its you 

it would be nice to have dash artbitrage program  (requiring dash wallet with certain amount of dash OR require to pay dash every tx) and ability to use multiple exchange api... for these kind of situation


EDIT: witht the status of MN as provider of service, it would be great to enable them to do many service and get more payment, yes ?

A masternode could be worth millions? If 1 masternode is worth 1 million dollars, how much per day what that masternode earn?

So far I see 1 masternode earns like $2 per day, the earnings go lower with more masternodes. We haven't reached 3,000 yet, and I'm assuming that if there is no limit on the # of masternodes, that it will stay at $2 per day. Unless....the price increases dramatically and those people that bought DASH are not buying DASH to setup more masternodes, but buying to store their wealth or use the services.

If the price goes to say $100 per DASH, then it would take $100,000 to buy 1 masternode. Now I believe the plan by Evan is to wait till we have 3,000 masternodes after that the plan is to increase the value of DASH from $3.00 to $100 or more as fast a possible with added functionality/services/voting/proposals/marketing/etc.

If the price does not move fast enough up, then we may be in a situation were we "may" have $1 per day with more and more masternodes coming online, and then less than $1.

Already a week old, but this talk given by Andreas Antonopoulos on youtube was very interesting if you want to understand how the blockchain works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE7998qfjgk

I contest one comment in the Q&A session at the end where he says that the 9 years that Bitcoin has sailed "under the radar" makes their blockchain far more secure than can be done today.  I contest this because I feel that at a certain point, it's impossible anyway, as per the structure of the blockchain and protocol, it is virtually impossible to make a new chain after 100 blocks, therefore, mining rewards are paid out after only 100 blocks.

Also, a new coin can do basically, what Evan did with DASH/DRK.  Create an asic resistant algorithm, and buy yourself the time you need to lock in the blockchain to the point it can't be recreated within the time allotted (~10 min for bitcoin and 2.5 min for DASH)

The transition to ASIC, which will happen, is the danger point.  At any point, including for Bitcoin, if suddenly technology is put online that is so powerful that a new chain can be created, and the existing chain changed, the miners can screw things up.  But really, they would only be able to change a few blocks tops, if this technology were hidden from the masses and only one malicious entity received it and it was so powerful as to be greater than 51% of the combined network or more.  In other words, I feel that all POW coins have the same risk after a certain point, and it's at the tip/latest blocks of the chain that are in danger.

So I kind of take issue with that logic, though it sounds good when it comes from AA.  I think it's more propaganda than reality ;P (I still love ya, AA!) LOL

Anyway, that was a super insightful lesson on exactly how the chain works, how proof of work works, and what happened last week with the bitcoin fork.  Which, by the way, opened our eyes to the cheat miners are doing (not validating the blocks before hashing the next one)  It cost miners a lot of money, but they probably still made more coin by finding blocks faster than anyone else (by not taking the time to validate) and will probably continue to do this.  And they'll get away with it until there is another update to the core requirements that cause a hiccup again (a year from now) still making it a profitable thing to do.

Hence, everyone that works like Bitcoin must find a way to stop this cheat.  It's very unhealthy.

My response to Peter Todd's remark.

Care to elaborate on that?