Remove DASH

[Alex-Werner]

It is actually not possible anymore, as having 51% of the hashrate is no longer sufficient.
See more here : https://blog.dash.org/mitigating-51-attacks-with-llmq-based-chainlocks-7266aa648ec9

[ghost]

So Dash should be changed to 0% NiceHash-able, not removed.

[skaht]

Seconding the motion of Alex-Werner. At least half of the Dash masternodes need to be controlled to achieve a 51% attack against the Dash Network since SPORK_19_CHAINLOCKS_ENABLED was set to true, see http://178.254.23.111/~pub/Dash/sporks.html. With currently 4936 active Dash masternodes, 1000 Dash to collateralize a masternode and ~$155 USD price per Dash, the conservative masternode collusion cost required to defeat chainlocks is 0.6 x 4936 x 1000 x $155 = $450.048 Million prior to enabling a 51% mining attack on the Dash network. (0.6 = Dash masternode quorum threshold)

FYSA - Since the supply of Litecoin is so centralized, it is very unlikely chainlocks will provide any value to the the LTC network to protect against 51% mining attacks..

[QuantumExplorer]

It's actually 60% of a quorum (so 60% of network), and that would still not allow for a chain reorganization as blocks still would have previously valid chain locks. 51% mining attacks are just no longer possible for Dash.

[skaht]

Updated calculation above to reflect the 60% quorum threshold required.

[skaht]

See Andreas video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=675&v=qrwgYDAoZV0 for more about the Chainlock topic.

[psypher246]

Dear crypto51. It seems disingenuous of you to list Dash on this table without mentioning Dash Chainlocks in your list:
`Can we reduce the risk?
There are a number of possible solutions to this problem:

PoS
Coins built on top of other networks (ERC20)
Interchain linking`

Dash has already implemented a working solution to 51% attacks called Chainlocks, which you are aware of based on this issue. It may be understandable to still keep Dash listed in the table but as I said, it seems like you are trying to hide the fact that there is an already working solution been running on Dash's mainnet for some time. You may argue that it's unproven and maybe that's true, but NOT listing Chainlocks in this list above as well as mentioning that Dash has a potential solution makes your site seem very disingenuous and not accurate at all. Please consider adding some text about Chainlocks and their relation to Dash, perhaps an asterisk next to Dash to reference Chainlocks.

This would be a good compromise please

[robertwiecko]

Please remove Dash from your website or correct the data.
Attacking Dash network using 51% mining attacks are no longer possible.

[kxcd]

This site is presenting data in a dishonest way and should be boycotted. Please remove DASH as no amount of hashing power can reorg the chain once the chainlock is applied to a block.

[shumkov]

Any updates here?

[skaht]

Given the time that has transpired, issue #44 appears to be an ignore "slow roll", can't push on rope - can only pull rope. The data for Dash shown at https://www.crypto51.app/ is completely fallacious. Treating Dash as if it has only single-tier mining consensus mechanism when it is really a hybrid mining and master node consensus mechanism, is like saying having a Democracy based upon only having a House is better than having a Republic with a House and Senate. Albeit the Romans were eventually corrupted, but a dual Roman Legislature (House and Senate) did last much longer than the Athenian Legislature.