Both of these networks are going to have a smaller subset of "privileged" nodes with similar properties (like storing large amounts of currency, receiving part of block rewards).

Are there further similarities? For example, could Dash's "transaction locking" mechanism be implemented (and is it a good idea)?


My main issue with Dash's masternodes is that they're so expensive to participate in. I know there are systems setup to pay for "shares" of a Dash masternode, but those are completely dependent on you trusting the operator to pay you. There is nothing stopping them from just taking your payment a keeping what

"But Casper's Validators are said to require 1000 ETH to run! That's over $300k USD! That's about the same as a Dash masternode!" Not an awful argument, but since Casper is done almost entirely on smart contracts, then it can easily be made trustless by having functionality implemented in smart contracts that protects the users that are pooling there ETH to run a validator.

For your point on "transaction locking", I don't really think it's necessary. Dash's blocktime is ~2.5 minutes, so the "instant transactions" are more useful. Ethereum's 14 second blocktime makes it much less necessary. Instant transactions can also be implemented by solutions like state channels, i.e the Raiden network.

  • Best (and only) answer so far. I like the point about trustless pooling of funds. I would prefer more technical details about the two, but as Casper is not finalized yet, this may not be entirely possible. – comodoro Nov 11 '17 at 9:00

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.