• 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 ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

qwizzie

Well-known member
Knipsel.JPG


Source : www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMmvP6G3NrE
Timestamp 52:30

Please take the time to fully watch the discussion of this topic by Dash Platform team during their Dash Platform Product Update S91 (see above source link and timestamp).

For the High Performance Masternode Solution there is talk of raising the Dash collateral to either 10.000 dash (higher TPS but more centralized) or 5.000 dash (less TPS but a bit more decentralized, but nowhere near as decentralized as having Dash Platform run on all nodes ofc).

Nothing is finalized, everything is still very much in flux. The Dash Platform team indicated feedback from the Dash community would be helpfull, so that is why i am kickstarting the discussion here.

Update 7th of October 2022 :

DCG : Introductory presentation on High Performance Masternodes
Link : www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ0iJZ1pvsc
 
Last edited:
I am leaning against the High Performance Masternode Solution because of :

Data replication would get a lot more centralized over less nodes. This undermines the availability of data stored on the masternode network / Dash Drive and could by itself form a single point of attack / single point of failure in the future. What if an entity decides to DDoS those select few 100 of High Performance Masternodes ? It is much more difficult to (sybil?) attack 4000 masternodes, then (sybil?) attack 100 High Performance masternodes. Not to mention possible problems during large software updates, where masternode numbers in general drop like flies, because masternode operators don't keep up with Dash updates or run into problems. If you ask me the above picture with the two described solutions is not a choice between more decentralized and less decentralized, but a choice between more decentralized and more centralized (no point avoiding the c word here).

Current Masternode Whales (those with 5 or 10 or more masternodes) would have no problem setting up a High Performance Masternode or two, but everyone else with less then 5 masternodes or less then 10 masternodes (depending on the outcome of the collateral discussion for High Performance Masternodes) would be denied setting up a High Performance Masternode. In my eyes this could seriously undermine the trust of the Dash community / current masternode operators in Dash Platform, as it radically changes the requirements of running a masternode on Dash Platform. Yes people can now choose to not run a masternode on Dash Platform, but at the same time you deny a lot of people that want to run a masternode on Dash Platform that option. And lets not forget that there could be additional revenue streams in the future for those masternodes that participate on Dash Platform. Those revenue streams should be available to all masternodes in my view, not to a select few 100 masternodes.

Also the centralization aspect of the High Performance Masternode Solution opens Dash up to attacks from Dash competitors, claiming Dash itself to be centralized. It will be difficult to defend Dash from that, because there is truth in it.

So at this point i am favoring the Masternode Solution, where Dash Platform is run on all nodes and way more decentralized.
 
Last edited:
There are already tons of centralized shit on the market with low fees, high speed and everything else going along with centralization. Platform was intended to be first of a kind truly decentralized... And now you are going to ruin it?? To turn it into the same crap?? No. No, sir! No way!!
 
Where is the poll?
Words and lectures without the relevant poll (ex. here) are a waste of time.

The governance questions are cheap now (of course they should be even more cheap, but this is another governance question).
Lets add your governance question straight to the Dash budget system.
 
Last edited:
And by the way, there are alternative solutions that reside in between the "masternode solution" and the "High performance masternode solution".

For example, the megawhales that own many masternodes, should be allowed to maintain only ONE DashPlatform database. That way the databases' replication is reduced, and thus the fee is also reduced. This will result for Dash to have approximately 127 DashPlatform databases, a similar number to the 100 databases that the "High performance masternode solution" is planning to have.

But the 100 databases of the "High performance masternode solution" are not similarly decentralized as the 127 databases of my plan are. Because in my solution the decentralization is achieved due the separate individuals that are holding these databases. Decentralization based on proved individuals is a real decentralization, in contrast to the fake decentralization based on collateral masternode addresses.

Why nobody proposed such a solution? Who insists of reducing decentralization or introducing fake decentralized solutions?

If you add a poll, please add my solution in the poll options.
 
Last edited:
Dash / Bitcoin / blockchain is basically data with ownership assigned through usage of private keys / passphrases / signing on blockchain addresses. Blockchain does not know who owns what blockchain address specifically, which is why blockchain can't limit the number of nodes to a specific owner. Which is why a masternode owner can have several masternodes, or whales could end up having several high performance masternodes, without the blockchain system (with full certainty !) connecting them to one specific owner.

Maybe you could tie masternodes to an blockchain identity that is fully backed with an ID verification, but even that is subject to exploit and highly degrades the privacy of masternode owners.

So lets just focus on and discuss the two proposed solutions by the Dash Platform team, and not get side tracked too much with alternative solutions that are impractical and from a technical point of view most likely impossible to reach consensus on and to implement.

With regards to the poll, the Dash Platform team / Sam said to most likely do a polling of the network in case of the Dash Platform team chosing for the High Performance Masternode Solution. Currently no decision has been made by the Dash Platform team and they indicated that they wanted to hear from the Dash community / masternode operators first.

What does worry me is that at this stage of Dash Platform development, there is still such unclarity and disagreement among Dash devs on how to exactly implement Dash Platform (on all nodes or on subset of nodes with different collateral requirements and different hardware requirements). This does come totally out of the blue for me. I thought this was all figured out long ago and that the devs were working according a certain roadmap with a certain set of goals / objectives. This whole 'High Performance Masternode Solution' was never on the roadmap or never talked about with the Dash community.

Pretty late in the game to be talking about this, not to mention that this could significantely delay Dash Platform if a preference for the High Performance Masternode Solution emerges (i assume additional research would need to be done then, that goes beyond some internal devs talks : to see what the additional hardware and collateral requirements are for those masternodes, what the risks are for such masternode system, how much additional work / additional coding this details, adjustment to the roadmap, setting up new goals / new objectives etc etc).
 
Last edited:
Dash / Bitcoin / blockchain is basically data with ownership assigned through usage of private keys / passphrases / signing on blockchain addresses. Blockchain does not know who owns what blockchain address specifically, which is why blockchain can't limit the number of nodes to a specific owner. Which is why a masternode owner can have several masternodes, or whales could end up having several high performance masternodes, without the blockchain system (with full certainty !) connecting them to one specific owner.

Maybe you could tie masternodes to an blockchain identity that is fully backed with an ID verification, but even that is subject to exploit and highly degrades the privacy of masternode owners.

So lets just focus on and discuss the two proposed solutions by the Dash Platform team, and not get side tracked too much with alternative solutions that are impractical and from a technical point of view most likely impossible to reach consensus on and to implement.

With regards to the poll, the Dash Platform team / Sam said to most likely do a polling of the network in case of the Dash Platform team chosing for the High Performance Masternode Solution. Currently no decision has been made by the Dash Platform team and they indicated that they wanted to hear from the Dash community / masternode operators first.

What does worry me is that at this stage of Dash Platform development, there is still such unclarity and disagreement among Dash devs on how to exactly implement Dash Platform (on all nodes or on subset of nodes with different collateral requirements and different hardware requirements). This does come totally out of the blue for me. I thought this was all figured out long ago and that the devs were working according a certain roadmap with a certain set of goals / objectives. This whole 'High Performance Masternode Solution' was never on the roadmap or never talked about with the Dash community.

Pretty late in the game to be talking about this, not to mention that this could significantely delay Dash Platform if a preference for the High Performance Masternode Solution emerges (i assume additional research would need to be done then, that goes beyond some internal devs talks : to see what the additional hardware and collateral requirements are for those masternodes, what the risks are for such masternode system, how much additional work / additional coding this details, adjustment to the roadmap, setting up new goals / new objectives etc etc).

Absolutly agree. Right out of the blue in a few months before (promised) release comes the worst ever idea in Dash's history, turning back all previous years dedicated to decentralization, throwing away hundreds of small MNOs, most active and loyal part of community. I'm terrified.
 
There is a risk of course when leaving it to a polling of the network, as the Dash governance system for better or for worse is dictated by a few large masternode whales who could benefit from chosing the High Performance Masternode solution, specially if they value decentralization less and are more drawn to the possible future revenue streams of Dash Platform or just want more influence within Dash.
 
Dash / Bitcoin / blockchain is basically data with ownership assigned through usage of private keys / passphrases / signing on blockchain addresses. Blockchain does not know who owns what blockchain address specifically, which is why blockchain can't limit the number of nodes to a specific owner. Which is why a masternode owner can have several masternodes, or whales could end up having several high performance masternodes, without the blockchain system (with full certainty !) connecting them to one specific owner.

Of course we know the Dash individuals!
We can track individuals by analysing their voting behavior. Not accurately , but with a very good approximation! We have approx 127 individuals that govern Dash.
Having a good approximation of individuals, we can assign to these individuals the task of maintaining the DashPlatform Databases. That way we reduce the number of replicated Dash platform Databases, thus we reduce the transaction fee, while preserving decentralization.

It is written in the footer of the Dash individuals web page: "If someone realizes that his individuality is wrongly displayed in mnowatch, please inform us (you dont have to reveal your individuality, just inform us that there is an error)". There are no issues to show, in gitlab. Until now, not a single one reported that his individuality is wrongly displayed!
 
Last edited:
The slide is misleading. It simply shows the benefits of a more centralized solution. More centralized solutions will always have lower fees, enable higher TPS, and reduce the amount of communication between nodes. That's a given.

The suggested high performance masternode solution comes out of the blue and is so close to mainnet release. There is no debate about it, and the idea has never been discussed publicly during the last five years of Evo development. Why the sudden move?

I can only see disadvantages:
  • The masternode network would become even more centralized. Dash has been criticized for being run by a small group of masternode owners. This would only make the criticism even more justified.
  • Messing with masternode collateral sizes is like messing with the 21 million coin supply in Bitcoin. It would break the social contract.
  • The attack surface of the server instances running would increase as the total number of masternodes decreases. High performance masternodes would most likely be run at data centers, making it easier for attackers and law enforcement to tamper with and/or replace the binaries being executed.
  • Masternode collaterals would be consolidated into fewer addresses. More of Dash would get concentrated into lesser adresses and into the hands of fewer people. This would lead to lesser distribution of Dash.
  • There's always the possibility of game theoretical attacks when you introduce a new class of untested nodes to the network.
  • The optics of the whole idea scream: Dash whales want to give themsevles more Dash.
If the decision for or against high performance masternodes is put to a governance vote, then it will be in the financial interest of every Dash whale to vote in favor of high performance masternodes since it would reduce server costs and most likely increase rewards. To call it a vote is misleading.

We haven't even released Platform to mainnet yet, but are already talking about the possible introduction of high performance masternodes. That's somewhat ironic. Why can't we release Platform to mainnet first and then analyze what impact it has on the network and how much it is used in the first place? We currently have zero empirical data about the use of Platform on mainnet.

Platform was always communicated to be a truly decentralized and censorship resistant system. Why abandon (or compromise on) this goal so close to mainnet release? There are tons of centralized projects out there with higher TPS, throughput, and storage capabilities that have abandoned their cypherpunk roots in order to achieve these goals. They are nothing more than glorified replicating databases masquerading as blockchains. Dash does not have to join them. Let's keep Dash Your money, your way.
 
I think this question and change should be parked in backlog for later consideration.
In my opinion this is absolutely unnecessary and it would only delay the release due to additional complexity of the network architecture and additional code needed to be developed, tested and maintained.
Let's face the reality - there will be maybe 10, 20 or maaaybe 50 developers developing dapps on the platform in first months after the release - there is no immediate need to have a super-efficient nodes since the day one imho. Upgrades and changes could be done after the initial release.
Developers should be laser-focused on the platform delivery and release without adding any new features, components or complexities. Just release it finally!
 
I actually agree with @kot
Get the platform out, provide the usability so people can start building on it and then scale it over time with new stuff.
Last thing we need now is it to get some more meat on the bbq.
 
I actually agree with @kot
Get the platform out, provide the usability so people can start build on it and then scale it over time with new stuff.

Whether people will start building on the platform or not, depends on the transaction fees.
If you release the platform and the transaction fees are huge, nobody will build on it, it will be a huge failure, and then Dash is doomed.
#13
 
Whether people will start building on the platform or not, depends on the transaction fees.
If you release the platform and the transaction fees are huge, nobody will build on it, it will be a huge failure, and then Dash is doomed.
#13

Having watched most of the Dash Platform Product Updates there was never any mention about huge transaction fees, when they talked about the Dash Platform and its associated costs / fees. What i did hear was a lot of thought and coding already went into keeping the Dash Platform fees as low as possible. So i don't think Dash Platform will be plagued with huge fees or very high costs to developers or endusers, rather the opposite.

But even if Dash Platform fails to attract the attention of developers or simply does not see much usage from endusers the coming years it will not automatically doom Dash, it just means a colossal waste of time and budget resources occurred, which will most likely lead to a re-thinking of Dash development priorities and/or strategy.
 
Last edited:
Having watched most of the Dash Platform Product Updates there was never any mention about huge transaction fees, when they talked about the Dash Platform and its associated costs / fees. What i did hear was a lot of thought and coding already went into keeping the Dash Platform fees as low as possible. So i don't think Dash Platform will be plagued with huge fees or very high costs to developers or endusers, rather the opposite.

But even if Dash Platform fails to attract the attention of developers or simply does not see much usage from endusers the coming years it will not automatically doom Dash, it just means a colossal waste of time and budget resources occurred, which will most likely lead to a re-thinking of Dash development priorities and/or strategy.

The issue of the "high performance MNOs" emerged due to high transaction fees. Does anyone knows the exact number of the transactions fees, when comparing the "high performance MNOs" to the MNOs ?

"The transaction fees are high" means nothing, it is misleading.
The numbers should be calculated (and voted)...."ἔχων νοῦν ψηφισάτω τὸν ἀριθμὸν"
 
Last edited:
We should be careful to make decisions based on things that have not happened yet. To my knowledge, there has never been a serious and coordinated state actor attack specifically on the dash masternode network to the same extent as bitcoin. Consider, for example, the coordinated attacks on PoW mining vs climate change. Is it feasible to shut down a network that is three times smaller than bitcoin (not including lightning)? I imagine it would be relatively easy to target those with the most incentives and publicly shame them for money laundering etc.

While the overall masternode count has been falling for almost two years, the number of masternodes (and more importantly votes) in the hands of custodial providers - such as crowdnode - has been growing. This in itself is of concern to me. We should, therefore, be championing the decentralization of incentives.

All along, it was my understanding Dash Platform would pay for itself handsomely via fees, so I'm not sure where this master-masternode stuff is coming from.
 
I'm neither for or against High Performance Masternodes, henceforth referred to simply as 'Super Masternodes'. The level of decentralisation we choose will depend on how we intend to use the Plaform aka Evo. The examples that QE often gives us for Platform is a contact list and merchant directory, if those are examples of the kind of data that one might store on Platform, then rest assured 100 nodes, is ample for such data. This is is because there is no threat of censorship of such data, in fact I would argue you'd have better access to and integration options if you simply stored such data in Google or other web2.0 solutions, you don't even need Evo for it. If OTOH we use Platform more as a general purpose data storage in the cloud, where perhaps we may have dapps such as a dashyleaks where whistle blowers could drop sensitive leaked data there and then prove that they did so to trusted people and be certain the data could not be tampered with, then indeed, the level of decentralisation proposed is insufficient. This later use case is the one I was hoping we were going for, since it is the one lacking in the world currently. No one cares about your contact list and some merchant directory! Figure out what it is we wish to store on Evo and then you will know your required level of decentralisation required.

QE alludes to what kind of data he thinks will be stored on Platform when he says, no one would be willing to pay the high fees if we replicated across 4k nodes. Well that's right, no one who is storing something as boring as a contact list would pay more than a cent to store it, since it's unimportant and there is no expectation that the data would ever come under threat, however someone storing more sensitive data might see the value of that data differently. So, clearly QE is thinking about very pedestrian data like the stuff I just mentioned and his numerous cat photos, certainly nothing that would ever be deemed too risky to post on facebook, twitter or any other web2.0 site.

What ARE the costs then?

When we consider the fees, the most expensive part is the data storage, DCG has some whacked out fee model, but it can be simplified to cost of SSD space to store the data for 10 years times number of nodes. So, a back of the napkin calculation, to say store your profile data together with a small grainy avatar would be.
  • Assume 100GB SSD is $24/month.
  • Assume our profile data is 14KB.
  • Assume 100 evo nodes.

Cost to store -> 14kb / 100GB / 1024MB /1024KB * $24 * 12 months *10 years * 100 nodes = $0.0384.

and this is the number QE thinks ends users would be willing to pay for such a transaction. 3.8 cents. Compared to $1.52 for the entire network.

Why are we hearing about this just now? I thought we were closer to the finish line?

The reason we are hearing it about it just now is because the devs assumed fees would be low, it was only until someone sat down and did the calculations and then finally got it right that QE sh!t himself and realised the fees would be too high for the data he thinks people will want to store on evo, silly memes, phone books, grainy avatars. It was an oversight and wilful ignorance of people such me telling them fees would be high that caused the delay in discovering that yes fees will be high.

Why the 10k Collateral?

The 10k collateral was chosen to shrink the Evo network into approx 100 nodes, here is the proposed solution.

  1. 10,000 Dash will be required to upgrade to a Evonet Super Masternode.
  2. 25% of the block reward will be withheld to pay exclusively to the SMNs.
For the sake of simplcity let's say there are 4000 active MNs at the moment (actual is 3660). Then if the collateral of 1,000 Dash were unchanged, but 25% were withheld for the SMN only, then we might assume that 25% of the regular MNs would move over to hosting the SMNs. thus, 3000 nodes would be running regular MNs and 1000 nodes would be running SMNs. However DCG is targeting 100 nodes, so how to achieve that? Well if they also increase the collateral requirements ten-fold, then those 1000 SMNs will collapse down to just 100, giving us a final split of 3000 + 100 = 3100 Masternodes.


Will increasing the collateral mean SMNs run on more powerful infrastructure?

QE believes that if we increase the stake required to run a SMN and the ROI is assumed to be higher that the infrastucure those SMNOs choose will be higher powered, hence the high performance masternode, I see no evidence why that would be the case. The (S)MNO will always run the infra that is required to get the job done and no more, this is called optimisation. So, I disagree that increasing the collateral would result in more powerful nodes, however, I do agree that running evo on fewer nodes would require those fewer nodes to be more powerful than they otherwise would be due to additonal demand placed on them by the network.

I have fewer than 10 nodes, I feel cheated because I can't run a SMN even if I wanted too !

For this, I give the same answer to those people that have fewer than 1000 dash. Crowdnode will be running SMN, that you are happy to pool into. Further, currently Crowdnode are testing trustless masternodes with 100 Dash minimum stake, they will also branch this out to offer stakes in SMNs at 1,000 Dash each. If you have fewer than 10k Dash, you can pool stake over at Crowdnode with the rest of us!
 
What ARE the costs then?

When we consider the fees, the most expensive part is the data storage, DCG has some whacked out fee model, but it can be simplified to cost of SSD space to store the data for 10 years times number of nodes. So, a back of the napkin calculation, to say store your profile data together with a small grainy avatar would be.
  • Assume 100GB SSD is $24/month.
  • Assume our profile data is 14KB.
  • Assume 100 evo nodes.

Cost to store -> 14kb / 100GB / 1024MB /1024KB * $24 * 12 months *10 years * 100 nodes = $0.0384.

and this is the number QE thinks ends users would be willing to pay for such a transaction. 3.8 cents. Compared to $1.52 for the entire network.

This is pure speculation correct ? So far i have not heard any specific fees being mentioned by QE, at least not in the Dash Platform Product Updates,
where the fee system is still under development (and has been for some time now) :

Knipsel.JPG

Source : www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMmvP6G3NrE

Why are we hearing about this just now? I thought we were closer to the finish line?


The reason we are hearing it about it just now is because the devs assumed fees would be low, it was only until someone sat down and did the calculations and then finally got it right that QE sh!t himself and realised the fees would be too high for the data he thinks people will want to store on evo, silly memes, phone books, grainy avatars. It was an oversight and wilful ignorance of people such me telling them fees would be high that caused the delay in discovering that yes fees will be high.

If the Dash Platform fee system is still under development and Dash Platform Team never specifically mentioned how high those fees would be, then how can it be currently already too high ? It again sounds a lot like speculation to me.

Why the 10k Collateral?

The 10k collateral was chosen to shrink the Evo network into approx 100 nodes, here is the proposed solution.

  1. 10,000 Dash will be required to upgrade to a Evonet Super Masternode.
  2. 25% of the block reward will be withheld to pay exclusively to the SMNs.
For the sake of simplcity let's say there are 4000 active MNs at the moment (actual is 3660). Then if the collateral of 1,000 Dash were unchanged, but 25% were withheld for the SMN only, then we might assume that 25% of the regular MNs would move over to hosting the SMNs. thus, 3000 nodes would be running regular MNs and 1000 nodes would be running SMNs. However DCG is targeting 100 nodes, so how to achieve that? Well if they also increase the collateral requirements ten-fold, then those 1000 SMNs will collapse down to just 100, giving us a final split of 3000 + 100 = 3100 Masternodes.

Again a lot of speculation in my eyes, speculation that a lot of masternodes would shift from a trustless solution to a trusted solution (which is what Crowdnode currently is and will remain, unless DCG introduces Trustless Masternode Shares and Crowdnode adapts their system to it)

Knipsel.JPG

Source : www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJcML_3N1ME

and speculation that this leads to 25% of the block reward being withheld to pay exclusively to the SMNs.

I have fewer than 10 nodes, I feel cheated because I can't run a SMN even if I wanted too !

For this, I give the same answer to those people that have fewer than 1000 dash. Crowdnode will be running SMN, that you are happy to pool into. Further, currently Crowdnode are testing trustless masternodes with 100 Dash minimum stake, they will also branch this out to offer stakes in SMNs at 1,000 Dash each. If you have fewer than 10k Dash, you can pool stake over at Crowdnode with the rest of us!

I don't want Crowdnode (a centralized trusted shared hosting service provider) to have this much power in the Dash network, ever ! Even with multi-address signature Crowdnode will not magically transform to a trustless solution, they just become a bit more safe to use (less chance of a MooCowMoo situation arising), but Crowdnode is nowhere near as trustless as our Dash masternode model currently is.

What is Trustless ?


Also this to consider :

images.jpg
 
Last edited:
I feel like a lot of technicals are being thrown around without any real reason. Why would we want to reduce replication of Platform's largest overhead (mass storage)? To reduce costs and/or increase performance. The thing is, holding more collateral does not increase performance. Increased collateral cannot reduce the overhead of a node. It can only potentially increase trust, and I'm pretty sure we're a long way from that being a concern (if anything the opposite is a common complaint I've heard).

So, why would we attempt to reduce Platform participants in this manner? The only reason I can think for an additional tier is like slapping a bandage on a compound fracture. It seems to be a weak attempt to pretend we don't need better proof of service features and/or incentives to provide enterprise class blockchain services in a decentralized manner. Eventually we will have to deal with this festering wound properly, and I'd much prefer we get stronger before things get any nastier.
 
This is pure speculation correct ? So far i have not heard any specific fees being mentioned by QE, at least not in the Dash Platform Product Updates,
where the fee system is still under development (and has been for some time now) :

View attachment 11416
Source : www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMmvP6G3NrE



If the Dash Platform fee system is still under development and Dash Platform Team never specifically mentioned how high those fees would be, then how can it be currently already too high ? It again sounds a lot like speculation to me.



Again a lot of speculation in my eyes, speculation that a lot of masternodes would shift from a trustless solution to a trusted solution (which is what Crowdnode currently is and will remain, unless DCG introduces Trustless Masternode Shares and Crowdnode adapts their system to it)

View attachment 11417
Source : www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJcML_3N1ME

and speculation that this leads to 25% of the block reward being withheld to pay exclusively to the SMNs.



I don't want Crowdnode (a centralized trusted shared hosting service provider) to have this much power in the Dash network, ever ! Even with multi-address signature Crowdnode will not magically transform to a trustless solution, they just become a bit more safe to use (less chance of a MooCowMoo situation arising), but Crowdnode is nowhere near as trustless as our Dash masternode model currently is.

What is Trustless ?


Also this to consider :

View attachment 11418

No, my post was not speculation, it was informative, your post is FUD! Crowdnode is developing trustless MN shares right now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top