Dash Needs to Move to Proof Of Stake

Kevin Stalker

Member
Feb 18, 2017
118
31
78
This seems like a radical idea. A proposal for fundamental and scary change at a time when the space is unpredictable and scary. But it's needed...

Here's why:
In recent days a LOT of money has come into the crypto market, and when you analyse it you find that it's not coming into proof of work coins. Bitcoin uses enough electricity to power a small country to process 7 transactions a second. People are soon going to be laughing about it. ASICs are becoming centralised and have a bad press. It's going to get worse.

All dash has to do to double it's price is pass a proposal saying it is planning to move to proof of stake, and that's enough. We can take a year to do it if we want. And I think the masternodes will vote yes.

Here's how:
Dash has a wonderful plethora of trusted masternodes running software that can be upgraded to support a new model. All we do is cap the proof of work difficulty, and then gradually reduce it. That would mean the miners would find blocks more and more quickly. But we change the protocol so that they all have to wait until the blocktime has elapsed, adding their solutions to a list. Entries have to be unique. When the time is up the masternodes jointly choose a winner randomly. This is similar to normal POS, but the choice is a random choice between POW winners. Also, we reduce the reward when there are a lot of entries in the list. The remaining reward goes to the masternodes who participated in choosing a winner. If there are a very large number of entries the reward will be very small.

I also suggest that the masternode software could be enhanced to mine, so they would be putting solutions into the pot, in the event that the difficulty gets so low that they can compete. That way you always get at least some entries.

There will be a limit to the size of the mining list, but this will be large. Tests will determine what works.

Here's why we can do it:
The more I think about it the more I realise that it's possible. It's not a rewrite. We keep the mining and the masternodes and everything else. It's just a change to the difficulty, kinda. And we can take a bit of time over it, as long as we know it's happening we are safe.

Here's how it would play out:
At first nothing changes, because the difficulty is unchanged. But as it reduces the number of entries in the pool grows, so the mining reward reduces (since there are a lot of entries). This discourages mining, so some drop out, but others keep going. However, powerful miners are disincentivized to create thousands of entries, because the more they create the lower the reward. Spamming costs work, and pays little.

The masternodes will vote yes to the proposal, because they will earn more for holding their existing masternodes. Woohoo.

And, even better, we can now think about blocktimes in a more flexible way. The blocktime affects the number of transactions we can process and so defines our scalability. This system is more flexible in the long term concerning blocktimes and transactions per second. I suggest. Probably.

Electricity is saved. Dash moves with the times. Prices rise. Welcome to the future.

I'm now ready to be shot down in flames - by the people who know better - do your worst
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrGold and Name3

MrGold

Member
Jan 29, 2017
67
7
48
I don't know better, but not shooting you down in flames at all. I recently felt like someone was walking over my grave when I saw ADA pump with its supposedly provably secure POS method. I'm all in favour of burning less juice, and upon first read your algorithm seems sound.

To do this, though, we would also have to utilise peer reviewed proofs. Someone once told me that he thought he had heard that proof of stake is provably centralising..
 

jeffh

Member
May 8, 2017
108
45
78
Before you reinvent the wheel, check the road map. Collateralized mining (kind of like PoS) is coming.

In the meantime, it sounds like your only reason to rush to put together an announcement that we're moving to PoS is only to get a price bump.

https://www.dash.org/2017/06/27/roadmap.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nyk

Name3

Member
Jun 23, 2017
126
40
78
Before you reinvent the wheel, check the road map. Collateralized mining (kind of like PoS) is coming.

In the meantime, it sounds like your only reason to rush to put together an announcement that we're moving to PoS is only to get a price bump.

https://www.dash.org/2017/06/27/roadmap.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Collateralized mining is just an idea to my understanding. I would be in favor of collateralized mining or what is suggested above. As long as it works and reduces the electricity that a fully functioning blockchain uses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrGold

Kevin Stalker

Member
Feb 18, 2017
118
31
78
wow, I was completely sure this was a terrible idea. Talk about rocking the boat. It would be very very risky to get something like this wrong. But it sounds like there is a discussion to be had. At least some of us see that POW is soon going to be thought of as Blockchain 1.0

Obviously, the plan above is just a discussion and proper programmers are expected to put it right. Please note, I am NOT a do-gooder trying to save the world. I am looking ahead at what the successful currencies are going to look like in two year's time. Proof of work might be used, but the majority of transactions will not need much work. So that means POS, or side-chains, lightening network, or similar. Either POS or off-chain transactions. TBH having a single blockchain with all the data in the world on it does feel a bit ambitious, even when there is money to fund it.

I read the roadmap a bit more carefully. Yes, it mentions the words Collateralised Mining but it seems to continue to talk about ASICs right to the end. I feel that we need to be crystallising a plan sooner.
 

MrGold

Member
Jan 29, 2017
67
7
48
"I am NOT a do-gooder trying to save the world."

I don't think anyone needs to defend against accusations of wanting to help their fellow Planet Earthicans. I believe I heard Mr. Duffield himself mention something about do-gooding in the open house last spring.

In my opinion, consuming less of the world is a good thing. If the Dash network consumes less electrical power it helps everyone by a) reducing consumption of the world, making Dash an even more helpful product for the world than it already is, and b) helping the sales pitch, because BTC is already getting a black eye from the commie press for monster power drainage. In other words, we're the same as BTC, with the same reliability, except we burn up less power, and we're fast, cheap and fungible.
 

Kevin Stalker

Member
Feb 18, 2017
118
31
78
Yes, ok, gotta agree. The power consumption is bad, I like saving the world as well. I'm just mindful that you, me and everyone else feels that way, so not doing so will hit our popularity in the longer term.

More importantly, we CAN do it. We have the masternodes! They are perfectly placed to take over the job in a way that could be made to work, in a controlled way, over time. We need to flesh this out on the roadmap.
 

Roslyn

Member
Aug 22, 2014
105
41
78
The United States of America
There are many reasons why I would vote for PoS on Dash.

Bitcoin looks more like a dinosaur on an evolutionary scale of the digital cash.

Digital technology is on an exponential rise. We have to keep up with technological advancement.

The green environmental approach is one I think we all like.

All it takes is to switch from computationally intensive puzzles to coin wealth or age.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kevin Stalker

Nyk

New Member
Mar 31, 2017
38
14
8
35
Collateralized mining is a good start. Miners spent money to help secure the network, and cutting them off without proper warning (I'm talking a year minimum) is the wrong way to go about implementing a POS system imo. Collateralized mining seems to be the best of both worlds. You get the proof of work security, and the proof of stake security at the same time. With collateralized mining dash could potentially be efficient with its energy use by limiting the amount of hashing power required by the network depending on what the optimum level of security turns out to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kevin Stalker

tungfa

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Apr 9, 2014
8,902
6,737
1,283
"All dash has to do to double it's price is pass a proposal saying it is planning to move to proof of stake ....."
so this is just a lame pump idea ?
come on o_O

POS has many problems on its own and POW is proven all over to be solid
(and that is what it is all about , safety for the network - if u need a quick pump please try that somewhere else ;))
 

Name3

Member
Jun 23, 2017
126
40
78
"All dash has to do to double it's price is pass a proposal saying it is planning to move to proof of stake ....."
so this is just a lame pump idea ?
come on o_O

POS has many problems on its own and POW is proven all over to be solid
(and that is what it is all about , safety for the network - if u need a quick pump please try that somewhere else ;))
He isn't really suggesting PoS more like a PoW/MN hybrid system.
 

bhkien

Active Member
Mar 31, 2014
465
287
133
Canada
vietriches.com
The masternode system currently rely on POW to get randomness to choose the quorum.

If we change to proof of stake, the security is not guaranteed.
 

Kevin Stalker

Member
Feb 18, 2017
118
31
78
With collateralized mining dash could potentially be efficient with its energy use by limiting the amount of hashing power required by the network depending on what the optimum level of security turns out to be.
Yes, this is exactly what I am suggesting. Technically, there is more than one way to do it, so we have to get the details right, but it's possible.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I am not here to pump the coin price. I said that because I feel people would buy into Dash more readily if we have a safe version of this idea written in detail and planned on our roadmap. I agree POS has problems, but I am suggesting the masternodes can be trusted to run the right software version (mostly) and stay online and maintain a huge blockchain, etc. They are already incentivised and on side.

Also, as you say, I couldn't see a truly safe way to get to full POS. I think we will end up with a hybrid solution, where the stake is needed, which enables us to cap the work. Hope this makes sense. I tried to put detail on it, but that could change when people get together and hammer it out. I a little green.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Luiz_Ant0n10

Kevin Stalker

Member
Feb 18, 2017
118
31
78
Yes, masternodes hold the whole blockchain and are incentivised to do so by proof of stake. That's exactly why we don't need a huge reservoir of workers burning electricity to finish the job. I'm not sure we can just move to masternode only, but we can reduce the work and use the masternodes to manage it.
 

Kevin Stalker

Member
Feb 18, 2017
118
31
78
Well, in fact my idea is more of a hybrid system, where some work is still needed, but where the cost of that work is a lot less. I would expect it to still be enough to stop Sybil attacks. I am not planning to change the algorithm, so ASIC miners would still be the fastest way to mine. Doesn't that mean that ASIC miners would find lots of solutions quickly, fill up the mining queue I am proposing, and stop lower powered sybil attacks from getting in?

Well, someone earlier pointed out that there is an existing item in the roadmap for Staked Mining. This is a very similar idea, as long as it leads to less power being used to mine, it might be the same thing. I'm not a blockchain expert.
 

thesavoyard

Member
Mar 15, 2017
143
40
78
44
Amsterdam
www.disaf.eu
Dash Address
Xp8WZRv9Papo21ySQE8ghtQDUxN6qoKzS6
I think something needs to be done. I can't say I fully trust POS, I'm sure there is a way to make it secure and in line with Satoshi's vision of users processing transactions. Please do not listen to people that say it's fine or that consuming massive amounts of electricity is acceptable. Currently, cryptocurrencies are about as efficient as a monster truck, if we keep going this way they will be just as popular.
 

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
2,966
1,143
1,183
In a recent interview, Ryan mentioned Graphene, which AFAIK is PoS. I imagine he means a variant where, instead of having 101 witnesses, the existing pool of masternodes would become witnesses. I suspect the end result might be a combination of PoS, PoW and nvidia hardware!. Think dash + eos + gpu mininga.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thesavoyard

Kevin Stalker

Member
Feb 18, 2017
118
31
78
Ryan mentioned Graphene, which AFAIK is PoS.
This is interesting. The video says everything needs to be on-chain and that graphene will make it possible because it moves huge amounts of data quickly. Graphene info is here... https://objectcomputing.com/resourc...march-2017-graphene-an-open-source-blockchain I'm not convinced that dash intend to move to POS as part of this initiative though. Graphene code would be plugged into the dash toolset and adapted to our model I expect.
 

Barrett Davis

Member
Nov 28, 2017
41
22
48
32
PoS is a good idea. PoW has its benefits too. Seems like its worth funding the research at the minimum.
 

solarguy

Active Member
Mar 15, 2017
865
413
133
61
There is a fundamental relationship with regards to making the blockchain secure. One cannot make it secure with zero energy/effort invested. The exact method of making it secure, and how efficient that method is, will be studied and tweaked and optimized over time. Ryan spoke of this during the open house as ASU.

I'm not sure everyone realizes how cool the x11 hashing algorithm is. Good background:

https://blockgen.net/sha256-vs-scrypt-vs-x11-algorithms/

I'm sure I read somewhere that x11 is more energy efficient that SHA-256, but I can't put my finger on it.

And don't forget, what is the energy efficiency of the fiat system, where every country has to defend its currency from counterfitting, and unfair trade practices, and enforcing the use of US dollars to purchase oil, and enforcing the use of US dollars as the world's reserve currency. Literal wars have been fought over who gets to run the money. That is energy inefficient.
 

Kevin Stalker

Member
Feb 18, 2017
118
31
78
Lets keep it real guys. Wars over fiat are not relevant, I am describing the competition between different cypto-currencies. As for the "2 hop blockchain" described in the paper https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/716.pdf - I think it's interesting, even if it's not really designed with our ecosystem in mind. The important thing to remember is that the work will expand until it becomes only just profitable. If the design gives half as much profit to POW there will be half as much electricity burnt. This is why the efficiency of x11 is also irrelevant. Miners spend more on mining, so the difficulty increases, according to the value of the mining reward. I am looking for a way to reduce POW costs by mixing in some POS - via masternodes. Not completely dissimilar to the 2-hop thingy, but using masternodes as mediators rather than as a second hop.
 

camosoul

Grizzled Member
Sep 19, 2014
2,261
1,130
1,183
From what I've seen of the distributed MasterNode savings account thing, DASH is moving to proof of stake, and it's a very bad thing.
 

younglegend

Member
Jan 1, 2017
102
17
68
Can we learn from vertcoin, ethereum, monero to be asic resistant?

If I am right all the asic mining is just for competition and only thing it does well is mining in one algorithm.

This leads to lots of outdated asic miners and wasted energy.



I know Dash mining runs cooler than most major crypto, but

If we find a way to change algorithm periodical and automatically, then unnecessary difficulty hike will be much much lower

and more people will be able to mine without asic and high electricity.


I know Its easy to talk then be done, feels like giving out a load to our developing team.

But I do believe is the right way to go if it can be done safely.
 

Kevin Stalker

Member
Feb 18, 2017
118
31
78
Yes, the asic mining is something we would probably want to mitigate. TBH I agree that asic mining has flaws but it's not something that I feel we should jump on. If you chase CPU or GPU mining you allow the possibility of ASICs to give a 1,000,000x improvement (or so). So you have to constantly watch and worry. But once ASICs are running you can stop worrying, radical change is less likely. I assume that there will be an equilibrium between the value of mining and the cost in electricity, however it is done, so (if that's true) we are wasting electricity. If the value of mining was reduced (however it is done) the miners would be forced to burn less.
 

camosoul

Grizzled Member
Sep 19, 2014
2,261
1,130
1,183
PoS failed miserably. DASH evolved the concept with Proof of Service. Why go backwards?

Ever notice the more "mainstream" crypto gets, the dumber the ideas get? They don't even know where it came from...

"Hey, remember that total shit idea that DASH improved upon by leaps and bounds? I think we should toss all that and go back to being shit!"
 
Last edited: