• Forum has been upgraded, all links, images, etc are as they were. Please see Official Announcements for more information

Should Platform run on all nodes or should Platform run only on High Performance nodes ?

Last edited:
Or perhaps from the 18 masternodes more humpbacks are yet to be identified.
yes...you are right. Maybe these 18 supposed individuals are actually a single individual who obfuscates his vote.

Furthermore, the decline of dash's price is proportional to the individuals that hold 1k masternodes.

Have a look at mnowatch.org.
Back in 2018, when Dash was among the 10 greatest cryptos, the 1k masternodes were 158. https://mnowatch.org/distr_21-30-46-29-10-2018.txt
Now Dash is the 74th coin, and the 1k masternodes are only 36 . https://mnowatch.org/distr_2022-12-03-00-52-47.txt

The 4k and 10k masternodes should examine this statistic very seriously, before deciding to steal 50% of the rewards of the 1k masternodes.
 
Last edited:
The ROI for 1k nodes is expected to be about the same as it is now due to the shorter payment cycle since overall there are fewer nodes being paid. This is expected to balance the reduction in their pay, however, to be sure the ROI improves, I think the 10k solution would be better.
 
The ROI for 1k nodes is expected to be about the same as it is now due to the shorter payment cycle since overall there are fewer nodes being paid. This is expected to balance the reduction in their pay, however, to be sure the ROI improves, I think the 10k solution would be better.

50% of the masternodes reward will go to the Platform nodes.
If the ROI for the 1k nodes will remain the same, this means that the Dash community will become richer due to the Platform, but the 1k masternodes will not benefit from this richness.
 
The latest proposal for DCG compensation Jan-mar 2023 has just 37 No votes. The pieces are almost in place, the Dash DAO was divided and conquered. RIP.

Moving from the best payment network to censorable content storage. 50% stolen from the remaining pleb MNOs to play casino with fake decentralization. I hope the SEC comes down hard on these liars and scammers. Yes, lies by omission and scamming with their theft to pay for their PoS trojan.
 
The ROI for 1k nodes is expected to be about the same

Sorry, I have no idea what I was typing last night, the ROI for the 1k option(s) is the worst of the bunch and will be less than we get now, whereas the 4k option is the one where the ROI stays similar to what it is now and the 10k option being the best for everyone.
 
The latest proposal for DCG compensation Jan-mar 2023 has just 37 No votes. The pieces are almost in place, the Dash DAO was divided and conquered. RIP.

Moving from the best payment network to censorable content storage. 50% stolen from the remaining pleb MNOs to play casino with fake decentralization. I hope the SEC comes down hard on these liars and scammers. Yes, lies by omission and scamming with their theft to pay for their PoS trojan.

This is a little over dramatic. The network is voting on how to start platform safely, Platform is a POS and expected to have about 30k DASH in value on it. Things we know about POS systems is they don't scale well with more nodes, luckily, for a simple merchant directory and dash pay app (pay to name) you don't need a whole bunch of decentralisation. There is no need to burden every node with this nonsense, so the network, big fish and small fish are voting to push that burden onto fewer nodes of 4k size and leave the main chain to run on the 1k nodes + 4k nodes. This seems perfectly reasonable to me.
 
If that was all Platform was intended for, you wouldn't need 5+ years development for usernames and merchant directory. I'm sure the devs would tell you it's much more powerful than that.

You've already lost sight of what happened here. Platform pricing, security and scalability were ultimately not deliverable so they stole from MNs to fund their high risk PoS shitcoin. Do you think it will stop there?
 
Taylor stole from miners to incentivize more MNs. MN count decreased, never recovered. Price of dash is lowest in years.

Platform launches and there is a lot of excitement and substantial dash price increase. The euphoria slides after a few months.

Platform struggles to find successful dapps and meet expectations. Overall sentiment drops leading to a suppressed dash price. MNs whom had their rewards slashed will leave the network and the MN count falls. The expected outcome is that more HPMNs will appear, but the HPMNOs will be squeezed by hosting costs and a lack of users, so they too will leave the network. The equilibrium was found as overall node count on both sides is now lower. Low storage costs * Low user count = low income.

DCG will declare, stealing more rewards from MNs is necessary to encourage more HPMNs (just like Taylor). Eventually, DCG will declare that there is no functional need for MNs as HPMNs have sufficient processing redundancy. MNs will no longer be recognized (forked out) and the HPMNs will take all the rewards. Will they also dump PoW to steal the remains?

This is called "gentrification".
 
This is a little over dramatic. The network is voting on how to start platform safely, Platform is a POS and expected to have about 30k DASH in value on it. Things we know about POS systems is they don't scale well with more nodes, luckily, for a simple merchant directory and dash pay app (pay to name) you don't need a whole bunch of decentralisation. There is no need to burden every node with this nonsense, so the network, big fish and small fish are voting to push that burden onto fewer nodes of 4k size and leave the main chain to run on the 1k nodes + 4k nodes. This seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Yes..it is reasonable whatever you said.

But what about the rewards? Why excluding the 1k masternodes from the expected future wealth? Why the 1k, at the best scenario, should stack at the same ROI, while the 4k/10k will become richer and richer?

You may argue that the 4k/10k are offering the Platform service, so they deserve to become richer. Yes, they deserve to become richer, but only if they manage to stand alone in their own feet. The 4k/10k do not deserve to become richer by asking the feet of all the masternodes, the 1k feet included....

So let the DashPlatform launch separately, without asking a portion from the masternodes' rewards. Or, if some 4k/10k masternodes really want the platform to launch, then let them pay by themselves the reward of the platform, without asking money from the rest (1k/4k/10k) masternodes who dont like the platform.

The DashPlatform stole from the budget a huge amount of dash for its development. Now they want also to steal from the masternodes' rewards. Αdd insult to an injury??? Well, thats enough, DashPlatform proponents! You are an endless pit, a blind pork barrel.

The DashPlatform proponents should grow up, should try to live in the free market by their own value, and not be based on the value of others. Not only the DashPlatform should launch standalone without asking a portion from the masternodes rewards, but also it should offer SHARES to all the masternodes, so that in case the platform becomes profitable it will pay back the huge amount of money that all the masternodes gave for the development of this damned platform.
 
Last edited:
100% agree. I can't be bothered to go back and find Sam's quote on one of their videos, but he basically had said that Platform would be very profitable and pay for itself.

The reason I can't be bothered to go back and find it is because I am simply losing hope and offloading more dash. Sure, I accept that dash might moon for a while, and I'll be ready for that, but long term Platform is going to collapse and take dash as a payment network with it. If Platform was truly profitable it would stand on it's own and pay for itself, none of this FUD about security. For if it were a security issue then that too says it was very poorly designed and managed.
 
The DashPlatform proponents should grow up, should try to live in the free market by their own value, and not be based on the value of others.

It is a free market, I will explain.

The reason I can't be bothered to go back and find it is because I am simply losing hope and offloading more dash

Not so hastily !


In the 4k option (same applies to the 10k option) a free market develops between the two groups. Say for example the 4k masternodes have an ROI greatly exceeding the 1K group, then people with 4x1k nodes will consolidate them into one 4K node and run a node this will have 2 impacts.

  1. The ROI for the 4k nodes will decrease because there are now more of them to pay from the SAME amount of coins.
  2. The ROI for the 1k nodes will increase, because three nodes were removed to form one new 4k node, note that 4k nodes also get core rewards. This reduction in 1k nodes means as faster payment cycle means increased ROI.
So, this is how the ENTIRE network can benefit from both the 4k plan AND the 10k even though, yes, some of the reward currently going to the 1k nodes will be diverted to the 4k (or 10k) evo nodes.


Finally, MNOwatch.org will create pages that help MNOs figure out the effective ROI in each pool and chart the ROI over time, so we can make better informed decisions on which node pays better.

Dear @GrandMasterDash perhaps you don't understand the above this is why you can't understand why Dash would see bullish price action? I urge you to not sell out of pride, emotions, or dogmatic reasons, but instead think it over logically without all the feelings and take your profits at a much higher price.
 
It is a free market, I will explain. In the 4k option (same applies to the 10k option) a free market develops between the two groups. Say for example the 4k masternodes have an ROI greatly exceeding the 1K group, then people with 4x1k nodes will consolidate them into one 4K node and run a node this will have 2 impacts.
  1. The ROI for the 4k nodes will decrease because there are now more of them to pay from the SAME amount of coins.
  2. The ROI for the 1k nodes will increase, because three nodes were removed to form one new 4k node, note that 4k nodes also get core rewards. This reduction in 1k nodes means as faster payment cycle means increased ROI.
So, this is how the ENTIRE network can benefit from both the 4k plan AND the 10k even though, yes, some of the reward currently going to the 1k nodes will be diverted to the 4k (or 10k) evo nodes.

The free market is supposed to be among everyone, among every cryptocurrency out there. The competition among two or three dash masternode groups cannot be called a free market. Please dont change the definition and the meaning of the free market concept, in order to support your narative.

Additionaly Dash members should be presented united and as one body in the free market and in front of other cryptos. The one who adds quarrels inside dash, the one who separates the dash members and makes them compete and quarrel eachother instead of competing and quarrel with other cryptos, he is considered by me as an enemy of dash, as an agent. This can be compared to the damage a bad practiced syndicalism does to a state.
 
Last edited:
Dear @GrandMasterDash perhaps you don't understand the above this is why you can't understand why Dash would see bullish price action? I urge you to not sell out of pride, emotions, or dogmatic reasons, but instead think it over logically without all the feelings and take your profits at a much higher price.

Yes, this is what Sam referred to as the equilibrium, it is the same concept applied at Horizen / Zencash. After Zencash pivoted away from payments it went down massively in rank, despite solving real world problems and having massive speed and scaling capabilities. A loosely similar outcome when Zcoin was rebranded to Firo (imo both of them had stupid rebrands).

Whether it's MNs or HPMNs, they both have upper limits to the number of nodes receiving rewards, And while in theory there is an equilibrium, these upper limits can not be brute forced making an imbalance possible, which is one reason this is not the "free market".

But also, as I said earlier, it is entirely possible to find equilibrium where both node types have lower node counts e.g. just doesn't gain enough traction, regardless of speed, scaling or fees. Just like when Taylor suggested the stealing from miners to incentivize more MNs, just didn't work and you already know the current price of dash. This is the risk DCG is forcing on MNs when they rob Peter to pay Paul. The claim, of course, is that Peter was never robbed if Paul is paying him back. I suppose we can say people are never abducted if they are fed Champaign and dressed in designer clothes. I say this is not the free market.

At this point I am not offloading en masse, but it's safe to say, I am not accumulating to reach another MN / HPMN. I am working on the assumption that dash may well do a massive pump and then deflate all the way back. Plus, there is too much risk for new attack vectors and chain halts, something I will surely resent while pointing my finger at Sam.

A lack of faith in Sam with his double-speak and a complete lack of will to listen to others. Sam never speaks of dash the payment network. He is so down the rabbit hole with Platform that you can tell he has no interest in getting back on track. Many people here seem to think DCG will do some fine tuning, make some money and then go back to payments. No, I entirely disagree, all evidence is pointing to the opposite, just like Zencash / Horizen. Oh sure, do some Dashpay and usernames.. fix some long standing governance issues.. and that's it really, constant tweaking and not much else. Sam said sharding would be taking a year or two, that alone will consume a lot of time and resources.

Dash needs new leadership and a refreshing approach before I can get some hope back.
 
The free market is supposed to be among everyone, among every cryptocurrency out there. The competition among two or three dash masternode groups cannot be called a free market. Please dont change the definition and the meaning of the free market concept, in order to support your narative.

Additionaly Dash members should be presented united and as one body in the free market and in front of other cryptos. The one who adds quarrels inside dash, the one who separates the dash members and makes them compete and quarrel eachother instead of competing and quarrel with other cryptos, he is considered by me as an enemy of dash, as an agent. This can be compared to the damage a bad practiced syndicalism does to a state.

There is some truth to what you write, we should be united, I think we still can be if we accept various levels of involvement, in truth we already have that, for example, someone with no Dash can run a full node, but pretty much do nothing else. Someone with 1 Dash or more can participate in crowdnode and through their custody vote and get a share in a masternode, someone with 1,000 Dash can own their own masternode and maybe in the future, someone with 4k Dash can own a Platform Masternode. I think we can be OK with these levels of involvement because the capitalist's manifesto which is the more you put in, the more you get.
 
There is some truth to what you write, we should be united, I think we still can be if we accept various levels of involvement, in truth we already have that, for example, someone with no Dash can run a full node, but pretty much do nothing else. Someone with 1 Dash or more can participate in crowdnode and through their custody vote and get a share in a masternode, someone with 1,000 Dash can own their own masternode and maybe in the future, someone with 4k Dash can own a Platform Masternode. I think we can be OK with these levels of involvement because the capitalist's manifesto which is the more you put in, the more you get.


If some 4k/10k masternodes really want the platform to launch, then let them pay by themselves from their own reward the cost of the platform , without asking the masternode rewards from the rest (1k/4k/10k) masternodes who dont like the platform.

Farfetched, I may also tolerate all the 4k/10k to be forced to pay from their own personal masternode rewards, even if they do not participate as nodes into the platform, because at least they have the chance to participate.

But as long as the 1k are excluded from the feast, asking them to pay a portion of their rewards to support the platform is absurd and against any notion of free market. It is a cruel and unfair form of taxation.
 
Last edited:
Additionaly Dash members should be presented united and as one body in the free market and in front of other cryptos. The one who adds quarrels inside dash, the one who separates the dash members and makes them compete and quarrel eachother instead of competing and quarrel with other cryptos, he is considered by me as an enemy of dash, as an agent. This can be compared to the damage a bad practiced syndicalism does to a state.

In order to preserve this valuable unity among the Dash masternodes, not only the DashPlatform should launch standalone and compete in the free market without asking a portion from the masternodes rewards, but also the DashPlatform should offer Dashplatform SHARES to all the masternodes, so that in case the Dashplatform becomes profitable to pay back the huge amount of money that all the masternodes gave for the development of that platform.
 
The changes currently proposed to launch Platform -- both the collection of proposals from Sam as well as the reactionary proposal from Rion -- could each effectively break the Dash network in one way or another.

But we lack the main thing we need to evaluate whether any or none of the proposals is worth considering: the viewpoint and vision of a chief.

DCG is a chief-less entity. We have only their first mate at its helm right now. We are, of course, so thankful to Sam for taking the helm in the wake of the resignation of his chief.

But the time to substantially alter Dash's course is not when the captain has jumped ship and the first mate is grasping the wheel out of temporary necessity!

DCG needs a chief before we can seriously entertain any major proposals from them. To make any of the big changes suggested by their first mate -- a man who, by definition, is not responsible for the overall vision for Dash -- may well bring about our demise.

Make them do it right. Make DCG finally replace their chief and come back to us with a real plan -- one that includes proper long-term vision, and ultimately, the necessary responsibility for that vision that only a chief can bring.

We've waited this long. We can wait a little longer.

Or maybe -- just maybe -- an entity outside DCG will step up to the plate and present us with the most compelling vision and practical implementation we've been pitched yet.

Thus, please consider voting NO or ABSTAIN on all current Evo-launch-related proposals.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top