{"id":36290,"date":"2019-08-12T07:19:42","date_gmt":"2019-08-12T07:19:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www2019.dash.org\/?p=36290"},"modified":"2021-09-18T11:43:16","modified_gmt":"2021-09-18T11:43:16","slug":"questions-answered-during-the-dash-core-group-quarterly-call-have-been-automatically-transcribed-below","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wp.dash.org\/news\/questions-answered-during-the-dash-core-group-quarterly-call-have-been-automatically-transcribed-below\/","title":{"rendered":"Questions answered during the Dash Core Group quarterly call have been (automatically) transcribed below:"},"content":{"rendered":"
Questions answered during the quarterly call have been (automatically) transcribed below:<\/p>\n
Q: Will there be any targeted focus to Shift’s PR efforts regarding regions in which Dash has made good progress? And will they be reaching out to POs in those regions to coordinate such targeted efforts? (agnewpickens)<\/p>\n
A (Fernando): The contract with Shift was signed in May, so the first full month they worked was June, so we are a bit over two months into the contract. In these two months, they have supported DCG in five public announcements, including Aircoins, blogs together, ChainLocks activation and Travala. Those resulted in around 37 pieces in different outlets. They are reporting and giving all details to Dash Watch, and they will publish video with them, so any details and anything you want to confirm can be checked with them. They’ve also work with us in updating the Dash messaging. Basically there’s small things there in certain places. They’ve also built speaking and award structure that could bring in the future some more media attention. And finally they supported DCG on crisis management when it affects communication. There’s couple incidents we’ve had where they’ve been around giving us advice. That’s basically what they do. These parts, and pitching to journalists and supporting us in these other roles for messaging and crisis. They do not produce their own content like most PR firms don’t do. That’s very important to clear up, because sometimes I’ve seen people saying “why dont’t they write a piece here or there?”. They they work in influencing others.<\/p>\n
On the second part of the question, the current PR firm is focused on the English speaking market, because that’s where the biggest media outlets are. This doesn’t mean that the news from (for example) Latin America doesn’t fit in there, in fact those are the ones that have been finding more traction. So that’s important to take into consideration. Regarding the other proposal owners, they are all welcome to reach out to Michael Seitz, our marketing manager. He coordinates with other proposal owners announcements that could be of interest to media so they can go through Shift. There’s already a working group that includes Dash Nation, DACH, Dash Thailand and Dash Nigeria that work with him in coordinating both PR efforts and some business development, so they work together better. Michael will be happy to accomodate with Shift’s capacities. In the future, we would like to expand and do more focused PR efforts in Latin America. We explored that a few months ago and have some new market funds for that. But we found the market was fragmented and it ended up being expensive and we didn’t have the resources to do that at the point in time. But we still have that idea in mind, and we still talk with companies. As we advance in those conversations, I think we will be able to do more things in Latin America in 2019, with Shift or some other company.<\/li>\n
As far as the PrivateSend issue, I think we took a big step forward today in addressing that. There’s much work to be done beyond obviously developing the position paper and performing PrivateSend transactions on Bitcoin’s blockchain to demonstrate that these protocols or sets of rules that underpin transactions are identical. We now need to educate, and so we’re gonna be taking that document as well as the overall legal argument and doing personal outreach with regulators, influencers, consultants and compliance departments in order to spread that information and answer any questions. I think are our argument is very very strong. The feedback that I’ve seen so far on that document is that it is quite useful. I want to make clear that that does not mean that we don’t have a commitment to privacy – we do, and we continue to have a commitment to privacy. What we’re arguing here is that there is no legally definable reason why Dash should be held to a higher standard or held to different requirements than Bitcoin. I think if you read that through that document you can see the strength of our argument and we hope that that point of view can begin to resonate within the industry. Particularly in markets where there’s already been some type of action. The only one I’m aware of is in Japan, and we plan to address that with JFSA (the Japanese Financial Services Agency) in order to demonstrate to them that there is no legal reason for why we should be treated any differently in that market. I think that we’ve effectively used that argument already with European regulators. An example here was with eToro. eToro was approached by their regulator, they approached us. We were able to arm them with this information and they were able to address regulator concerns. So I think this is a very addressable set of issues and it mostly focuses on education. People have uninformed opinions about Dash, or they simply are looking at a list of cryptocurrencies with privacy features without drawing any distinction between how those are implemented and whether or not exchanges can meet stringent compliance requirements with those currencies. This is this is going to be a substantial effort on our part, but I think it’s important to ensure that we continue to have access to trading pairs and access to the traditional financial system. So we’ve we’ve really put some priority behind this.<\/li>\n
A (Bob): This has been discussed since the original engine for Evolution. It is in our backlog and but it has not been prioritized. Basically our backlog, we go through it and will prioritize items for upcoming releases. However it’s in there, it remains in there, we have not eliminated it. But according to the roadmap we laid out today it would not be expected anytime within the next couple of quarters. Obviously the strength of Dash comes partly through the community as well, and so trusted third parties who have solutions to implement would always be welcome. But it’s not lost on us it just hasn’t hit priority level of the other features that were rolling out right now.<\/li>\n
A (Bob): Nothing really to add there. This is software that’s used by all projects, we’re not in any unique situation. We do our best and obviously the code is available if there was major disagreement in the community, the code is there for everyone. But we’re just using the tools as everybody else has, if we’re missing the essence of the question, please feel free to add things on and we’ll do our best to answer. Related is that we saw some of those pools were not emptying mempool, and so mempool was filling up. What they were doing was producing also near empty blocks. We’ve been in active communication with any pools that are in that situation. The transactions do appear to be spam (they they’re one input one output and very low fees associated with them) and so miners and mining algorithms have the opportunity and the right to determine what they accept as far as putting into a block. So we’ve seen that, and that’s been interesting. We’ve also seen that some of the masternodes have run out of storage space, causing them to crash. But we we think that that is as a result of the storage of InstantSend locks. We are now storing all InstantSend locks for all transactions, where in previous versions we had flushed those after seven days. We’re building in to address that, we’ve got a 0.14.0.3 maintenance release that will be coming out, that will remove those InstantSend locks that have occurred via ChainLock, and those will be removed after the lock is confirmed. So that will help out for any anybody experiencing those issues.<\/p>\n We’ve also seen some real small edge cases on masternode banning during quorum development with LLMQs where Masternodes can be banned. If they get banned at a certain time right on the brink of a new quorum becoming active, we also notice some issues there. These are the exact types of things we would want to observe, and expect to observe, in a stress test. So whenever one of these stress tests does occur, we are going to watch it closely observe it, and and make changes. Out of this one in particular we have two pull requests that had already been in the works that would address a couple of these cases, and that will be released in 0.14.0.3. But we don’t know who performed it. We would love to facilitate these on testnet to have less impact. The volume that was reached is not volume that we will ever reach organically for years to come literally. We appreciate the efforts of the parties that are doing this. It can be a little disruptive, or alarming as Ryan said before in key metrics. It skews all our metrics! So there are many reasons why a mainnet unofficial stress test is not desirable, but we’re always going to learn things, we’re always going to improve the protocol and we’re doing so in this situation as well.
\n<\/b><\/li>\n
\n<\/b><\/li>\n
\n<\/b><\/li>\n