Search results

I couldn't agree more.

Could you also put it some details on this one, why is it so? Others seem clear to me.

Ethereum is exactly not the type of network I want Dash to be. Especially this nowadays' PoS version.

Could you explain it in details? Or give a link if it's already mentioned. I didn't notice. How come keeping collateral 1k leads to centralization??

That's my guess. Ryan did this estimation a few years ago, about 4 MNs in average, that seems like good estimate to me and things didn't change much since then.

If you have work to do - then do it, stop wasting your time answering me. That's not a rhetorical or irony, I'm dead serious. English isn't my native, so I want to repeat myself - return to work. If I have any say in that - do your code, this whole forum including me can really wait. The same...

I'm telling about entities, not nodes.

That's just the very typical attempts to avoid responsibility you and @QuantumExplorer show all these days! "That's not us! We only do the proposals! Network decides!!" That's so nooooo... Every dev (not to say a CTO!) has a VERY strong voice in community. And now these voices persuade us to...

That's exactly what I fear most: censorship happen and nodes decided to censor the network ARE NOT going down. But thank you for your answer. Yes, indeed, there is a certain point of balance in centralization / decentralization. Right now there are about 1000 of entities validating the network...

The subject is quite simple. Increasing collateral means decreasing the number of entities involved in quorums. That's an act of centralization by pure definition. So the question is: do we want to trade some decentralization for better perfomance, lesser fees, higher speed and easier coding? My...

More info here:

Ok, let's try again. Just to be clear. Let's say I'm a MNO, and I have 1 MN. Or 2. Or 9. Not enough to establish a HPM, however. I made it through years of constant DCG's delays, failures and quits, bear market and slow dying of Dash. The only beacon of light was the Evo-Platform that was...

No, Sam. You want to cut off "small" MNOs from Platform, allowing only "whales" to participate. That's what your proposals aimed for. You're exactly taking away an option and a choice to run Platform or not. You may have your reasons, but that's the immediate effect - hundreds of MNOs with...

Yes, I like this idea too. Sam wants to take away an option while these solution gives a choice AND aims to solve the same problem.

I'm not sure about technical details, but the idea itself of incentivize voting in some economic way is very good.

"Starting parameters" for you - huge portion of personal wealth for many.

Sam @QuantumExplorer why not make the release first? @kot has made a good point: the moment you chose to make a fundamental change in ecosystem, kicking hundreds of MNOs out of Platform, drastically changing cash flows and investment value - seems not very good. Not to say that such decisions...

I wonder if it's the case for Trust Protectors to interfere. Could someone attract their attention please? If Sam so eagerly wants network to vote on this subject then TPs could at least postpone the voting until after the release and some data collected, make devs focus on release. Do not waste...

Absolutely agree. Not only this quote is scary but also this sudden sharp move to centralization and imminent voting they force us to make scare me to the bone. I have never been so unsure in the Dash's future and I'm in Dash since 2017.

Yeah, now I see. My bad, this one.