Search results

Yes it was considered, but it seems somewhat of a hard method to bootstrap securely while maintaining decentralization. Let's say the only rewards you get are from the fees of Platform. Initially these fees will be very very little while the hardware requirements will go way up. Even if you say...

@seanjae There are 2 1k options: Forcing everyone to run platform, or everyone has an option to run platform. I was pointing out that the everyone has an option to run platform doesn't really work because there can not be an equilibrium between node types (hosting core + platform or just core)...

Thank you for this extremely intelligently written proposition. So here's the TLDR but I'll go into detail right after: As you wrote there are some aspects of the system that you do not know which makes this system not feasible based on how you outlined it above. However many of the ideas...

Thanks :) I am a nice guy. However I don't think there really is an issue. The market should fix these things. If people stop running Platform in the Split scenarios that means more rewards for the rest which would incentivize more people to run Platform and maybe even buy more Dash if returns...

No, not in the current system, as I said things could be built... but it all takes time.

The thing is that we still want platform nodes servicing core services, otherwise we are left with too few nodes in core, causing instant send to start to be suboptimal (it would still be okay). Optimal for IS is anything about 1920 nodes. Platform nodes also still need to run core. I just...

I guess most blockchains do not disclose some of these facts. I'm here trying to be as transparent as possible. The worrying part is that I feel like we are doing better than most of the competition in terms of decentralization / chance the network can go down / security, but because we are...

@qwizzie You are missing something I think, all nodes always are rewarded in core, platform or not. I guess this could be changed though.

@qwizzie, this is not a vulnerability. This is the case with most PoS blockchains.

@qwizzie Sorry I didn't realize it earlier, but 1k split solution can't work because it is impossible to split rewards. Since everyone would be running core, it is impossible to take rewards from core to give them to Platform and have a market equilibrium. Imagine rewards are going 50% to core...

@qwizzie larger quorums will require more bandwidth and processing power, 100 is kind of a sweet spot, but we could potentially go as high as 200, though the problem is that the higher you go the more powerful the nodes would need to be. To upgrade them. There is a lot of stuff we can do...

Basically the quorum would stop if more than 34 members out of 100 were to turn off their nodes within the same day. The MNOs don't even need to be malicious... This is currently one of the systems greatest flaws. Fixing it will take time and I don't want to delay Platform any more. However we...

Okay, let me explain what we would do in the 4K scenario. We would probably just create 4 quorums / day. In that case we would have 4 * 365 = 1460 tries. (1 - (1 - 0.0003)^1400) = 34.3% This basically means that IF the top masternode owner would somewhat get 40% more Dash than they currently...

No @qwizzie, timing attacks are just for chain locks.

(1 - (1 - 0.0006)^8544) =99.41% The whole point of v18 was to make instant send extremely extremely secure against double signs. That quorum has a lot of security features (rotating only a portion) that wouldn't benefit platform. It's really comparing apples to oranges, but I think we did the...

@GrandMasterDash There is no way to prove that someone is running platform, except from their stake. To that extent, as I believe most MNs would not start platform if it wouldn't give them fees initially, Platform would just not start.

0.13% per quorum, 24 quorums in a day, 356 days in a year (8544 tries). 1k Solution: P = (1 - (1 - 0.0013)^8544) = 99.99% 4k Solution: P = (1 - (1 - 0.0003)^8544) = 92.30% 10k Solution: P = (1 - (1 - 0.0000001)^8544) = 0.08% (best) Now this is assuming you take the largest whale and add 40%...

@qwizzie I do not understand why a 1k solution would be better. It has the worst security of any system, the second highest fees, so very bad returns. Why do believe this is a compromise scenario? Normal masternode owners would be much worse off, plus our system would run with half the performance.

For all nodes, you should put 50$/node too... I believe this will be the slightly higher than minimum level where we would start to get at least not a terrible level of service. For the 10k system it's probably about 150$. Okay something else then, let's imagine the current hardware...

It's 0.0006% for this specific issue. However security will also be impacted by the strength of nodes. The 4k/10k solution will economically push for stronger nodes which will reduce the chance of ddos working.