I don't comment much but I liked the idea of 1k
If you think I keep the hosting service running for the money you are definitely wrong Michael.haha! Of course you do, because you run a hosting service, so you are the one that will get the most profits when every MNO has to carry the burden of higher hosting costs and lower ROI with the 1K solution, meanwhile nothing but premium vacations for you in the south of France!
Also, I'll hear no more of the wording of a network-wide Platform upgrade as being "forced." As though every single network-wide upgrade we've done since 2014 hasn't also been "forced"? We always hard-forked away from those who didn't upgrade, didn't we? So let's stop this unnecessary labeling of Platform-on-all-nodes as an act of "force."
So you assume that the platform WILL be abused and WILL be censored. Correct?
Why someone who has 10000 Dash in his wallet, he would like to face such a danger?
I think this risk can more easily be taken by someone who has 500 Dash in his wallet, or even less.
The bigger the risk is for the platform to be abused and censored, the less collateral fee should be asked to those who will host the platform.
I dont think so.
Many blockchains may facilitate hidden financial transactions (or may publish url links) related to porn/wikileaks/etc, but most of them dont have the database that contains the raw data of porn/wikileaks/etc. There is a big difference on this. If you facilitate the transactions or publish the links, you may argue in front of a court and claim plausible deniability. If you store the data themselves, the plausible deniability argument weakens, especially in case these illegal data are unencrypted.
Plausible deniability only applies to the largest / wealthiest companies (Apple, Microsoft etc) or to those licensed (telcos etc).
The company policy must also be consistent. It's not going to work if other parts of your business enforce moderation. You're either completely hands-off or you moderate. Middle ground would be the hardest to defend.
QuantumExplorer@DashDiscord said:1) How exactly is the Platform data stored on the masternodes? Are nodes aware whose data they contain and is that data at any point accessible in unencrypted form by the masternode?
Data is stored as nodes of data in a merkle-ized provable database the first of its kind, found here: https://github.com/dashpay/grovedb. Masternodes are aware as much as anyone of the contents of data if such data is not encrypted. Platform does have the ability to have users store encrypted data that isn't directly linked to them. However it can always be figured out who wrote whatever blob of encrypted data.
You don't seem to be able to listen to reason.
The majority wants platform out. A decision needs to be made. How do you make a decision without going with the majority? Answer this question.
This discussion is becoming pointless exchange of posts produced by ego-maniacs.
Let's be productive.
For now we have 3 more ideas on the table (AFAIK):
1. Time-locked 1000 DASH collateral MNs by @rion
2. Time-locked 4000 DASH trustless MN shares by @QuantumExplorer
3. Kind of "sharding" by @krilen
Could devs please review viability of solution proposed by @krilen ? I'd like to have a better overview of alternatives
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 to 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.
Those of you who really value "decentralization", do you value that primarily as a means to:
a) "fairness" (participation accessibility, not changing the rules as much, etc)
b) security (censorship resistance, attack resistance, etc)
c) some combination of both of the above.
d) some other reason.
I ask because some systems can be as (or even more) secure, despite (or even because of) some degree of strategic centralization:
- I consider my rough proposed solution both more "fair" and more secure than the high collateral systems.
- I also consider it better than the original plan of running platform on every node, even though it's more "centralized". The lower fees and other economic advantages far outweigh the minimal advantages of storing data on every single masternode.