I’m sure you know about this already but I’m excited about the prospect, so I’m asking some consideration…
Over at dash, people can submit project proposals and, if successful, get paid for their work. And I would love to see dash added as a native currency. That would mean no waiting for confirmations on deposits. I appreciate you guys are busy but I think this would be a win-win for both sides.
Thanks
I think DASH has no multisig and no SPV.
Dash has SPV… for example, Coinomi and Jaxx wallets have dash and Mycelium will also include dash this coming October. And I’m pretty sure dash also has multisig.
I think you’d be surprised by the technical work that goes into it. They’re also integrating into other platforms, such as Protonmail (due shortly).
I appreciate you’re busy and I love your work, but I think you’d be pleasantly surprised how knowledgeable and helpful they are. At the moment, dash’s development fund is about $1.2M per year (and growing). If you submit a proposal, I’m pretty confident you’d get funded because right now they’re working quite hard on fiat gateways.
FYI 
Dash - SPV
https://www.reddit.com/r/dashpay/comments/4w5gwv/dash_supports_spv_yes_wondering_if_that_support
Dash - Multisig
I am just stuck in a transaction that takes ‘aeons’ of time to confirm on the Bitcoin blockchain. With DASH the transaction would have been confirmed instantly. I propose to take DASH as primary currency into Bitsquare since
Indeed. I am desperately hoping the bitsquare developers can pull together such proposal, I’m sure it can work in parallel with their current funding model. Personally though, in my mind, dash’s funding and governance model is superior to so many others.
I’ve said this elsewhere, I think a good first point of contact would be Amanda from Dash Detailed (and The Daily Decrypt). Manfred already did an interview with her and I’m sure she’d be more than happy to assist with said proposal.
Also, keep in mind, dash’s InstantSend feature isn’t just faster than bitcoin, it’s actually more secure than bitcoin because it guarantees a lock on the transaction.
If anyone here is interested or has questions, please take a look at the dash forums https://www.dash.org/forum/ or slack http://www.dashchat.co/
If you want a DashSquare, fork the project and rebuild the core to function around Dash. Clearly, there is massive support for this in the Dash community and the fork will basically fund itself, right?
Then, create a new forum at forum.dashsquare.io. While you’re at it, ban all other currencies on DashSquare and permit only Dash-Dash trades (instant/instant, what’s not to like?) because all other blockchains are slow and take “aeons” to confirm.
Seriously, don’t propose to destroy what is already a very promising decentralized BITCOIN to fiat/crypto exchange.
WTF is your problem, no one (well, certainly not me) is proposing to “destroy” the bitsquare project. If you only love bitcoin then fine, but why go trashing others? But being you’re so full of hate for dash, you might as well go right ahead and remove dash from bitsquare completely. Hey, why not?
We’re only suggesting that dash become a native currency of bitsquare, no one is suggesting to remove bitcoin as a native currency, they can both work together.
No need get all emotional. Although I do think DASH is complete trash, I am not out to trash DASH here. That is for somewhere else. I definitely do not think DASH should be removed from BitSquare.
I agree with you that it would be very cool with alternate native currencies. If a rewrite was possible to support any currency conversion (e.g. DASH to XMR, XMR to SC etc etc) that would be ideal. I do not, however, think any particular currency should take precedence. I mean, why DASH and not XMR, ETH or any of the other currencies that are traded so much more?
A more serious proposal IMO would be: Is it possible to implement a generic framework for 3rd party devs to plugin their coin as a BitSquare native currency? There should be support for that in the DASH community, as well as in the XMR and ETH communities as everyone benefits.
What you are proposing sounds more like a hack to benefit a tiny group of DASHers only. So, that is why I, in all seriousness, suggest that you fork BitSquare and create DashSquare instead. That’s not hating: that’s constructive input!
In any case, I am not a dev so my input weights very little here. So, don’t be offended I am not a DASH fanboy like you.
I am a big fan of dash but I’m not a single currency user. I agree with you that a generic framework to cross trade the different currencies would be nice, but I’m not sure such a proposal would pass for funding (though there’s nothing stopping anyone from trying). However, I am hopeful, with appropriate guidance, that a proposal to add dash as a native currency could succeed. This is why we’re making this suggestion. It’s an opportunity for developers to get paid, working on a project we all want to succeed.
This suggestion for funding was aimed at developers / project managers, not at end users. Whatever you think of dash, it does have a very good funding model and if that boosts bitsquare in the process then fine. Even though Manfred has his own ideas for funding, I don’t see it as one or the other, it would simply add to what is already a nice project.
Forking is an option but my thinking was, by adding native currencies into bitsquare, we’d retain a larger marketplace than splintering in different directions.
I forgot to add that BitSquare relies on BitcoinJ for the bitcoin part, a project the BitSquare devs are not (directly) involved in (or so I think). So, it would seem that a Java implementation should exist for coin X before it can be included as a native currency in BitSquare.
Number of confirmations is not the only important factor, safetly against double spend is what counts. To get the same security against a doublespend on a chain with 1 min. confirmation time you need more numbers of confirmations. Even more then 10 to get the BTC security because orphan rate is much higher and so mining less decentralized and safe (ignoring the diff in hashpower).
Don’t misunderstand me, I am not against DASH at all. I just need to focus on what is most important for Bitsquare and that is the DAO and then the decentralized arbitration system. Both are quite big tasks so I don’t have any plans to change that priorisation. Funding is not the issue here. I could take investors money but I don’t want to as I want to keep Bitsquare as decentralized as possible and want to solve funding problem with a DAO model. To become dependent on another altcoin would be similar like to take money from an investor.
Also for most users Bitscoin is still the most relevant coin, even if the altcoiners don’t like to hear that. To force a Bitsquare user to get DASH first to be able to use Bitsquare would decrease the size of our user base.
As said, please do not interpret that as Anti DASH or Bitcoin maximalism, I am actually a fan of the idea of a multiverse of currencies (see older blog post), I just orient on what is backed clearly by many facts like the market capitalisation.
@in-cred-u-lous, @BitMasterSquare, @Dworf:
To make the main currency (BTC) exchangable would be indeed a good feature and is something which is on the far future roadmap.
There are some requirements though: It needs MultiSig and SPV and it should be based on BitcoinJ or need at least a Java implementation to keep effort manageable.
There are beside Dash a few BitcoinJ forks like Dodgecoin. But many of the other most relevant coins like Monero or ETH would fullfill that. So that would carry quite a bit of unfairness and bias as those technical requirements for the main currency are not really reflecting the significance of a coin (or would u say DODGE is more relevant then XMR or ETH just because it is a simple clone of Bitcoin/BitcoinJ?).
Beside that, to support that in parallel will require much more CPU and memory resources (which is already problematic and needs to be optimized). BitcoinJ at startup when syncing is very CPU intense and on low end machines the UI stucks for quite a bit or causes even freezes. To bootstrap 2 or 3 SPV coins would be a no-go.
So, a plugin architecture where the user decides which currency is his base currency would be more realistic, but then you have the problem you can only trade those pairs, so your trading opportunities will decrease. There are a few other options but none of them are good, easy or fit to the decentralized approach.
So you see that is all not such a trivial task and will require some good thoughts to get it right and also to keep Bitsquare as neutral as it wants to be (ok it is not neutral to BTC, but none of the altcoins would exist without BTC, so all are brainchilds of Satoshis original).
To fork off a DashSquare would split the community and lower network effects which is still super fragile. So that might hurt both projects that much that none of them succeeds. Maybe later when Bitsquare has successfully bootstrapped that is less of an issue.
Beside that, I would prefer to keep our communication style friendly and respectful. We work all on a similar goal even if detail opinions differ.
@ManfredKarrer
thanks for clarification. It is totally legit that you prioritize your project that way. Anyways a great project which I use since it came out (even I would have renamed and restructured some UI elements 
).
@in-cred-u-lous
Thank you for constructive feedback. I think that a copycat market with the name Dashsquare does not make much sense. Some short amendments:
My initial question had a practical background. I did not expect to start emotions with it. It is also difficult to understand the partly weird communication between XMR fans and the DASH community sometimes. Since both systems have advantages and disadvantages. It would be shortsighted to see XMR as the superior blockchain just because of Cryptonnote and ring signatures. Same is true for InstantX (which blocks Tx 5 confirmations ahead). Even ZCash will have shortcomings without going into details). So no need to get emotional on technical preferences.
Feel free to post about your UI/text suggestions (maybe another thread…).
Regarding slow confirmation time: I don’t know the details of your case but it might be that one of the traders funded his Bitsquare wallet with a too low mining fee, so before that is not confirmed all follow up transactions are blocked as well. It is on the todo list to add a fix with that so it cannot happen anymore (fee check and if its too low we block the deposit tx until it is confirmed, so u cannot use that funds for a offer or trade).
Completely agree to your comment about community wars. We don’t need civil wars in cryptoland, there are enough wars outside and we have too many powerful opponents to not waste our energy on stupid inhouse fights.
In my opinion the benefit behind Cryptcy (defunct), Poloniex etc is the crypto to crypto coin trading between certain pairs and everything else, not just fiat. At some point, like a read somewhere on slack, Having a few main trading pairs of alts btc, dash, tether, mkr, digix, ether-- might increase bitsquares usability exponentially. Tying a small fee in for pro features could easily be the basis of a DAO I would happily invest in.
Regardless, I will continue to support this project!