Lowering masternode collateral to 100 pre proposal

[MizzyMax]

I am not too concerned about a voter's IQ (there is no way to restrict voting based on this). But there is a difference between a person determining that Dash is a good investment (anyone could do this), versus having experience managing wealth or being successful at making larger business decisions.

the simplest answer to this is, the more voters we have, the more talent we have giving us input. Also our real source of income are users and the users know what they want.

I can see the idea of the rich being able to spend money wisely but that is not the case, Kanye west is in like 50 million in debt and he's wealthy. Do you think he spends his money wisely? Probably not the smartest with his money, and there are plenty of other rich out there who lose their fortune because of poor decisions they made. It is definitely not a full proof system.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

@MizzyMax Perhaps you can team up with @demo and one other person to do a one month investigation into pivx... paid spies! I'll give you 0.1 dash each and all you have to do is write a 1000 word article to investigate and report on pivx's governance system. Pro, Cons and Conclusion. My only requirement is that all three of you come to a consensus, that every statement within the article is true.

 

[TroyDASH]

the simplest answer to this is, the more voters we have, the more talent we have giving us input. Also our real source of income are users and the users know what they want.

I can see the idea of the rich being able to spend money wisely but that is not the case, Kanye west is in like 50 million in debt and he's wealthy. Do you think he spends his money wisely? Probably not the smartest with his money, and there are plenty of other rich out there who lose their fortune because of poor decisions they made. It is definitely not a full proof system.

And when dash has 10x, 100x its current value in the future we would be left with the same "problem". If the collateral is lowered to 100 and dash goes to $1000 then it would still cost $100,000 to create a node (only the "wealthy" can afford), and we would have something like 40,000 Masternodes. At that point do we cut it again, to 10 dash? 400,000 nodes at $10k each? No matter how you slice it, the vast majority of people in the world will not be able to afford a masternode, and the wealthiest people are going to have multiple nodes. There is no way around this. If you want to expand voting, increasing the number of nodes is not the right way to go.

 

[demo]

@MizzyMax Perhaps you can team up with @demo and one other person to do a one month investigation into pivx... paid spies! I'll give you 0.1 dash each and all you have to do is write a 1000 word article to investigate and report on pivx's governance system. Pro, Cons and Conclusion. My only requirement is that all three of you come to a consensus, that every statement within the article is true.

https://forum.pivx.org/t/adaptive-proposalfee/1098/22

1.The TOR masternodes do not vote against the proposal.
2.all the negative votes came from IPv6 nodes.

I concluded to this after a network lag that revealed the negative votes.

Another thing is this:
https://forum.pivx.org/t/cdg-mno-approval/910

“PIVX will work towards a ‘Community Designed Governance’ system that changes the distribution of votes, to include the entire PIVX community.”

A generic promise, it seems rather a wish than something tangible.

 

[Nutomic]

I definitely agree that people with less than 1000 Dash should be able to earn interest and vote. That will give a bigger incentive for people to buy Dash. And it wil avoid the problem that all decisions are made by rich people in western countries. If we want to capture a worldwide market, we need a worldwide governance system.

However, I don't agree that decreasing the masternode collateral is necessarily the right way to do this. We already have 4.500 masternodes, and there is absolutely no need for 45.000 of them right now. Also, running a masternode is extremely complicated for nontechnical people. I think savings accounts with interest and voting rights are a much better solution to this problem. Is there any information how exactly this will work in Evolution?

 

[GrandMasterDash]

I definitely agree that people with less than 1000 Dash should be able to earn interest and vote. That will give a bigger incentive for people to buy Dash. And it wil avoid the problem that all decisions are made by rich people in western countries. If we want to capture a worldwide market, we need a worldwide governance system.

However, I don't agree that decreasing the masternode collateral is necessarily the right way to do this. We already have 4.500 masternodes, and there is absolutely no need for 45.000 of them right now. Also, running a masternode is extremely complicated for nontechnical people. I think savings accounts with interest and voting rights are a much better solution to this problem. Is there any information how exactly this will work in Evolution?

All the benefits without the work? How do you think it affects the network if less technical people or those with little appetite for risk can receive similar benefits as MNOs? At what point do MNOs say, "you know what, I'm just going to sell my MNs and put some of it back into a regular account because that way I make some USD, gain some interest and I get to vote for free"?

...which is just as loaded as saying "all decisions are made by rich people in western countries".

Imo, this all goes to show you have little understanding of money. You choose to compare dash to USD and then proceed to consider MNOs "rich". What happens when one dash is exchangeable for 10,000 USD? - must we then consider MNOs super rich? - or conversely, has hyperinflation kicked in? Perhaps more importantly, what makes you think MNOs actually want USDs? - valued against a debt-ridden fiat system. Surely, one of the benefits of a user created currency is that it creates sovereignty; a universal unit of exchange that isn't a slave to someone else.

 

[Nutomic]

All the benefits without the work? How do you think it affects the network if less technical people or those with little appetite for risk can receive similar benefits as MNOs? At what point do MNOs say, "you know what, I'm just going to sell my MNs and put some of it back into a regular account because that way I make some USD, gain some interest and I get to vote for free"?

...which is just as loaded as saying "all decisions are made by rich people in western countries".

Imo, this all goes to show you have little understanding of money. You choose to compare dash to USD and then proceed to consider MNOs "rich". What happens when one dash is exchangeable for 10,000 USD? - must we then consider MNOs super rich? - or conversely, has hyperinflation kicked in? Perhaps more importantly, what makes you think MNOs actually want USDs? - valued against a debt-ridden fiat system. Surely, one of the benefits of a user created currency is that it creates sovereignty; a universal unit of exchange that isn't a slave to someone else.

Right now, the highest voted proposals have around 1000 votes, which is less than 25% of all masternodes. So most MNOs arent doing any work for their money anyway. And if you look at a map of masternodes (chainz.cryptoid.info/dash/masternodes.dws), you can see that at least 75% of them are located in Europe or the USA. So it would be good if people from other places in the world had some part in the governance process.

And I don't know what you're saying in your last paragraph. A masternode right now is worth 180.000 usd, and earns 1300 usd per month. That is much more than average almost everywhere.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

Right now, the highest voted proposals have around 1000 votes, which is less than 25% of all masternodes. So most MNOs arent doing any work for their money anyway. And if you look at a map of masternodes (chainz.cryptoid.info/dash/masternodes.dws), you can see that at least 75% of them are located in Europe or the USA. So it would be good if people from other places in the world had some part in the governance process.

And I don't know what you're saying in your last paragraph. A masternode right now is worth 180.000 usd, and earns 1300 usd per month. That is much more than average almost everywhere.

Voting numbers does not necessarily reflect participation. It could well be that MNOs can see the direction of a vote and agree with it.. only voting if it's going against them. This is reflected in the fact that some proposals are receiving a lot more votes than others.

As for nodes, anyone anywhere is free to set up a node.. it doesn't have to be a masternode. If you feel so strongly about it, go head and setup a node in Africa or Antarctica or wherever you feel is under-served. Or are you just against masternodes in europe / usa? I'm pretty sure that's better than bitcoin miners in China.

You didn't understand my last paragraph so perhaps you should re-read it and study it. You seem obsessed with US dollars and average income when, actually, many MNOs don't care for the USD.. or else they would of sold and bathed in it's brilliance.

Dash is a Decentralised Autonomous Organisation. It's not discriminating against you based on colour, location or shoe size. It just happens to be more business orientated than your socialist ideals. You, like anyone else, are free to earn $DASH - not USDs. But if you like USD so much, then perhaps you should just collect those instead.

 

[MizzyMax]

I definitely agree that people with less than 1000 Dash should be able to earn interest and vote. That will give a bigger incentive for people to buy Dash. And it wil avoid the problem that all decisions are made by rich people in western countries. If we want to capture a worldwide market, we need a worldwide governance system.

However, I don't agree that decreasing the masternode collateral is necessarily the right way to do this. We already have 4.500 masternodes, and there is absolutely no need for 45.000 of them right now. Also, running a masternode is extremely complicated for nontechnical people. I think savings accounts with interest and voting rights are a much better solution to this problem. Is there any information how exactly this will work in Evolution?

Agreed that lowering masternode price doesn't solve the problem. And I might have an idea to fix it.

Let me know what you think maybe pros/cons

Iv come to a realization, Why collateralized nodes? Maybe there is no reason to do so. We actually are limiting the amount of nodes we can have limiting our scalability.

more nodes is definitely good for the network if we introduce a design where the transaction will take the quickest and cheapest route throughout the network. So rather you may have 5 nodes running in your city along with a miner and your transaction doesn't need to travel all the way across the world to be confirmed which makes sense. This could possibly cut instant send price down by at least 10x and cost lowered dramatically. This also creates a competitive market to introduce a node for the community to use.
(This system has been introduced in other Cryptocurrencies already)

With non collateralized nodes how would we vote? Well right now we have implemented a 2 tier system, made of nodes and miners. I believe we have a 3 tier system made of nodes, miners, and users. All 3 are important and without 1 of those 3 we fall.

Maybe the right thing to do is to allow all 3 to have a vote for full total consensus. Miners vote using average hash rate, nodes with amount of nodes and users with the amount of Dash.

Just a concept, maybe voting by nodes and miners will only be to see if the network will switch over so we can make sure we have consensous and users will vote on proposals and also if they to would switch to a new network as well.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

Agreed that lowering masternode price doesn't solve the problem. And I might have an idea to fix it.

Let me know what you think maybe pros/cons

Iv come to a realization, Why collateralized nodes? Maybe there is no reason to do so. We actually are limiting the amount of nodes we can have limiting our scalability.

more nodes is definitely good for the network if we introduce a design where the transaction will take the quickest and cheapest route throughout the network. So rather you may have 5 nodes running in your city along with a miner and your transaction doesn't need to travel all the way across the world to be confirmed which makes sense. This could possibly cut instant send price down by at least 10x and cost lowered dramatically. This also creates a competitive market to introduce a node for the community to use.
(This system has been introduced in other Cryptocurrencies already)

With non collateralized nodes how would we vote? Well right now we have implemented a 2 tier system, made of nodes and miners. I believe we have a 3 tier system made of nodes, miners, and users. All 3 are important and without 1 of those 3 we fall.

Maybe the right thing to do is to allow all 3 to have a vote for full total consensus. Miners vote using average hash rate, nodes with amount of nodes and users with the amount of Dash.

Just a concept, maybe voting by nodes and miners will only be to see if the network will switch over so we can make sure we have consensous and users will vote on proposals and also if they to would switch to a new network as well.

Take a look at IOTA. It would be interesting if dash adopted IOTA's Tangle network! It could be bolted onto dash and run in parallel as a live testnet with no blockchain bloating.

 

[MizzyMax]

Take a look at IOTA. It would be interesting if dash adopted IOTA's Tangle network! It could be bolted onto dash and run in parallel as a live testnet with no blockchain bloating.

Yea iota has a really cool innovative plan they are working on! Just a node network and no fees at all, no possibility to fork either (which could be bad in a way though if you can't innovate/ change I think) but who knows it's so complex and has so many usabilities I think the developers don't even know where to start lol.

could Dash actually run 2 networks? I'm not sure if that's possible or not but could we have 2 networks that both have their own uses that could interlock to eachother. adapting tangle and still have the normal blockchain we have now? We could right? It would just be a different kind of node we would introduce that would run the tangle network.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

Yea iota has a really cool innovative plan they are working on! Just a node network and no fees at all, no possibility to fork either (which could be bad in a way though if you can't innovate/ change I think) but who knows it's so complex and has so many usabilities I think the developers don't even know where to start lol.

could Dash actually run 2 networks? I'm not sure if that's possible or not but could we have 2 networks that both have their own uses that could interlock to eachother. adapting tangle and still have the normal blockchain we have now? We could right? It would just be a different kind of node we would introduce that would run the tangle network.

I'm sure there'd be plenty of people here quick to say how core are too busy to integrate a second network and to maintain it. But in theory, I see no reason why it can't be done. It would be cool if people here could free their minds and allow such innovation.

 

[Sick_Rimmit]

I'm sure there'd be plenty of people here quick to say how core are too busy to integrate a second network and to maintain it. But in theory, I see no reason why it can't be done. It would be cool if people here could free their minds and allow such innovation.

I have concerns about uncollateralised nodes, no vested interest / personal stake. This also could lead to grouping (like political parties) with a non vested group of nodes able to influence in the community without any buy in. This consideration was inmy mind when I put forward the MinorNode PreNode idea. You want to develop aspirtion at a personal level, which collateralised nodes do.

 

[MizzyMax]

I'm sure there'd be plenty of people here quick to say how core are too busy to integrate a second network and to maintain it. But in theory, I see no reason why it can't be done. It would be cool if people here could free their minds and allow such innovation.

That opened my eyes a lot wider that there could be a whole other team other then working on something like the tangle network.

With having 2 networks, if 1 was to "fail" the other is still available for use. Fail as in maybe developers stop working on the project or really anything. Just another saftey line.

 

[MizzyMax]

I have concerns about uncollateralised nodes, no vested interest / personal stake. This also could lead to grouping (like political parties) with a non vested group of nodes able to influence in the community without any buy in. This consideration was inmy mind when I put forward the MinorNode PreNode idea. You want to develop aspirtion at a personal level, which collateralised nodes do.

Well they do create an interest, they receive payment for keeping the network up.

They are incentivized to do what betters the network, and also with creating a free market there might be 50k+ nodes and to try and create enough to influence in the market would just cost a wholeeeee lot of money. So won't happen I believe.

 

[TroyDASH]

Agreed that lowering masternode price doesn't solve the problem. And I might have an idea to fix it.

Let me know what you think maybe pros/cons

Iv come to a realization, Why collateralized nodes? Maybe there is no reason to do so. We actually are limiting the amount of nodes we can have limiting our scalability.

more nodes is definitely good for the network if we introduce a design where the transaction will take the quickest and cheapest route throughout the network. So rather you may have 5 nodes running in your city along with a miner and your transaction doesn't need to travel all the way across the world to be confirmed which makes sense. This could possibly cut instant send price down by at least 10x and cost lowered dramatically. This also creates a competitive market to introduce a node for the community to use.
(This system has been introduced in other Cryptocurrencies already)

With non collateralized nodes how would we vote? Well right now we have implemented a 2 tier system, made of nodes and miners. I believe we have a 3 tier system made of nodes, miners, and users. All 3 are important and without 1 of those 3 we fall.

Maybe the right thing to do is to allow all 3 to have a vote for full total consensus. Miners vote using average hash rate, nodes with amount of nodes and users with the amount of Dash.

Just a concept, maybe voting by nodes and miners will only be to see if the network will switch over so we can make sure we have consensous and users will vote on proposals and also if they to would switch to a new network as well.

Voting with amount of nodes invites Sybil attacks unless they are collateralized

 

[MizzyMax]

Voting with amount of nodes invites Sybil attacks unless they are collateralized

Well like I was saying the node count might increase to 50k making it very hard and expensive to try to take over a network. And they would not be able to receive any benefits from placing 5 or more nodes in the same area if we did implement the "cheapest and fastest" route feature.

Someone who would want power of the network would have a better chance just buying Dash out right.

 

[solarguy]

Well like I was saying the node count might increase to 50k making it very hard and expensive to try to take over a network. And they would not be able to receive any benefits from placing 5 or more nodes in the same area if we did implement the "cheapest and fastest" route feature.

Someone who would want power of the network would have a better chance just buying Dash out right.

Well, actually, the node count could zoom up to 50,000 and half of those could be bad actors that just want to kill Dash. Free or inexpensive nodes are a prime attack vector. Staked masternodes are a fundamental reason that Dash has succeeded as well as it has. In my assessment, your idea has a 0.0004% chance of passing. If you think otherwise, please put up a proposal and we'll find out in real life.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

Masternode shares are coming to dash: https://github.com/dashpay/dash-roadmap/blob/master/README.md#f1

What concerns me is no explanation of how this will affect the masternode count. i.e. MNOs selling up, keeping half the capital and putting the other half into someone elses masternode... except we're all going to have the same idea. The pay gap better be good!

 

[demo]

In your current government you vote right? You use their currency right? Im sorry to say but Dash is not a company, it's a currency.

this is what MNOs and @UdjinM6 dont understand. Dash is not a company or a product, it is a currency (a medium in order to calculate the value of the products). But MNOs are trying to solve the new problems that arise due to the currency nature of their "product" (which are mainly social problems and not only technical or economical) with old recipes. Politics is what they ignore.