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

Development Update - Oct 1, 2014

thelonecrouton said:
As I said, if MNs are able to robustly enforce MN payments, they should also be able to robustly enforce hash distribution in some way. Same problem, if one is solved then so is the other.
Click to expand...

IF this could be done then yes the total hashpower wouldn't matter and we could basically say "screw the miners". Will leave a bad taste in more than a few people's months, however...
 
I agree with increasing MN incentives, but this should not come at the expense of miners. Is it possible to increase the block reward at the same rate as increasing the MN payment %, so that miners continue receiving i.e. 4 DRK per block but MN's see the target increases.
 
kryptofoo said:
I agree with increasing MN incentives, but this should not come at the expense of miners. Is it possible to increase the block reward at the same rate as increasing the MN payment %, so that miners continue receiving i.e. 4 DRK per block but MN's see the target increases.
Click to expand...
That would completely screw up the minting curve.
 
thelonecrouton said:
That would completely screw up the minting curve.
Click to expand...

This is my feeling too. Demands on masternodes are going to increase and it is vital that we have enough of them to keep the network healthy but it is also vital that miners are rewarded well. Power costs are already against them. Losing more of their blocks to masternodes is not in their interests.
 
stonehedge said:
This is my feeling too. Demands on masternodes are going to increase and it is vital that we have enough of them to keep the network healthy but it is also vital that miners are rewarded well. Power costs are already against them. Losing more of their blocks to masternodes is not in their interests.
Click to expand...

This is a toughie. A real balancing act....:confused:

eduffield: I ask again, are you sure it's not enough to secure the existing nodes, and let more accumulate naturally?
 
Minotaur said:
But reducing the collateral from 1000DRK to 500DRK, wouldnt secure the network from sybil attacks since bad actors could acquire the same percentage of the masternode network they could before. Meaning a network with a 1000DRK collateral and 1000 masternodes is just as secure as a network with a 500DRK collateral and 2000 masternodes, is exactly the same thing we wouldn't gain anything. The important thing is to increase the masternode count while keeping the same collateral, that really improves network security.
Click to expand...
Agreed. According to drk.mn, there are 946 active masternodes + wannabe masternodes. In other words, approximately 946,000 coins are tied up.
There are 4,700,000 DRK coins outstanding. The ratio of tied up collateral to coins outstanding is 946/4700=0.201.

So we've tied up 20% of the coin with 20% MN payouts. Interesting, right? Most MNs tend to hold their coins and add MNs over time. So there is an effective 20% seigniorage on the coin economy now. So the big econ question is: If we want the number of masternodes to double, is the proper lever to double the masternode payout percentage? What are the unintended consequences of this action? Allow me to give some food for thought on that:

Perhaps there is a point where miners will be incentivized to sell their mining gear to buy MNs and run those instead. We may strengthen our proof of service network at the expense of PoW security, giving us another problem. We may weaken mining profitability to the point that the X11 ASICs won't be developed (a bad thing IMO).
We better think this one through carefully.
 
eduffield said:
I'll fix it in this release! We'll have another testnet session where I fix everything :)
Click to expand...
THANKS, EVAN, THAT WILL MAKE MY DAY! I've been waiting to hear this from you!! :grin:

oblox said:
No, Evan already stated to me that Darksend pretty much sucks for anyone trying to denominate under 10 coins. Try it and it doesn't work. For a new user getting into the currency and trying to understand the process, you'd generally start out with smaller amounts and see if it works. Right now it doesn't. Darksend isn't functional for everyone and that's crippling.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Oblox, for being a pusher for Darkcoin! LOL :grin:
 
HinnomTX said:
Agreed. According to drk.mn, there are 946 active masternodes + wannabe masternodes. In other words, approximately 946,000 coins are tied up.
There are 4,700,000 DRK coins outstanding. The ratio of tied up collateral to coins outstanding is 946/4700=0.201.

So we've tied up 20% of the coin with 20% MN payouts. Interesting, right? Most MNs tend to hold their coins and add MNs over time. So there is an effective 20% seigniorage on the coin economy now. So the big econ question is: If we want the number of masternodes to double, is the proper lever to double the masternode payout percentage? What are the unintended consequences of this action? Allow me to give some food for thought on that:

Perhaps there is a point where miners will be incentivized to sell their mining gear to buy MNs and run those instead. We may strengthen our proof of service network at the expense of PoW security, giving us another problem. We may weaken mining profitability to the point that the X11 ASICs won't be developed (a bad thing IMO).
We better think this one through carefully.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
This sounds like a company increasing dividends over time. I think it is a good idea. As a side thought, most miners I know are being forced to abandon mining because of increasing power costs this year in Canada. (I don't think power companies are going to revert back to smaller profit margins, they will probably keep increasing instead…)
 
Taking from miners is like taking bone from dog, it bites, or if it is a small dog, it runs away.
Just my thought.
 
r-ando said:
This sounds like a company increasing dividends over time. I think it is a good idea. As a side thought, most miners I know are being forced to abandon mining because of increasing power costs this year in Canada. (I don't think power companies are going to revert back to smaller profit margins, they will probably keep increasing instead…)
Click to expand...

Liking your av....Canada represent!

On a personal note, this was a very rewarding thread. Changed my sig, and my avatar, much better!

As far as future plans, I hope we make the right decision here....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
moli said:
Tbh... I felt kinda discouraged of the press release when I couldn't get a newbie to anonymize 2 DRK. But didn't want to complain or say anything on here..
Click to expand...
Yep, it's time for 0.1 DRK denominations. Sounds like this will get fixed next release.
 
HinnomTX said:
Yep, it's time for 0.1 DRK denominations. Sounds like this will get fixed next release.
Click to expand...
Well.. in his code, Evan sets 1.1 DRK as the minimum for denomination, which to me is perfectly fine... If DRK price increases he can adjust his code later. But for now we need to be able to anonymize at least 2 DRK as the minimum.

Edit: I think somewhere in the code there's a glitch that causes this issue (we could get 2DRK to run through 1 round and then it stalled and the progress bar said it was finished 100%..), and I'm not a programmer, can only read c++ just a bit. I was hoping someone could read all the code and find where this problem is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top