Dash Needs to Move to Proof Of Stake

camosoul

Grizzled Member
Sep 19, 2014
2,261
1,130
1,183
Yes, the asic mining is something we would probably want to mitigate.
Are you talking just to hear yourself talk?

LTC scammed us waayyy back by "developing" an ASIC-inevitable algo and advertising it as the opposite...

Privileged mining is a security measure, not a hippie-love matter. If it has the byproduct of lowering power consumption, that's cute I guess...

It's getting harder and harder to find worthwhile conversation...
 

W4lterWyte

New Member
Jan 31, 2018
2
0
1
35
This idea seems ok, but I'd like to stick with what's working at the moment and let evolution roll out over the next year or two before making major underlying changes.
 

Kevin Stalker

Member
Feb 18, 2017
118
31
78
You're saying POS failed miserably, but aren't the masternodes an example of POS? I'm saying that they are, and that they haven't failed, and that they can be used to solve the problem. I am also saying that there is a problem with POW, which is that it costs a lot of electricity, and as a result will be thought of as old fashioned when the world sorts itself out. I don't think I am going backwards, or that I am going to an old fashioned POS model. I'm looking for something new, that's safe, and doesn't cost the earth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dozierrandy

Kevin Stalker

Member
Feb 18, 2017
118
31
78
stick with what's working at the moment
actually, i agree, we should stop this discussion now and leave it for a while. Maybe we can think about it again when evolution is running. This is just to get us thinking, because I think it will take a year or two and things move fast in this industry
 

Kevin Stalker

Member
Feb 18, 2017
118
31
78
Wow - I have just heard Ryan Taylor saying that he thinks Dash should reduce its reliance on POW, using masternodes to support the security, etc. This is EXACTLY what I was proposing here. If we can write the code and make it completely reliable, POS is the future. Its not easy, but we are closer than most.
 

Kevin Stalker

Member
Feb 18, 2017
118
31
78
Can you write the reason of it? I mean what for should they do it?
Ryan gave a very detailed reason, and I start this thread with an explanation as to why. Basically because burning energy to create security is wasteful if other methods to keep the blockchain secure are available. In the future POW will look old fashioned.
 

qwizzie

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,707
819
183
Just to be clear, Ryan put out a couple of solutions for the Dash community to consider and to discuss. One of those solutions was indeed a change from PoW to PoS.
It was also the most drastic solution, that contained the most risk and Ryan himself was not in favor of it.

In Dash case it would be turning from PoW to a BLS-based Proof of Stake, that currently can not be implemented without having something to fall back on (as BLS signatures can still fail).
That something to fall back on, would have to be a reduced form of PoW for Dash (as that still has the most security) or find something else with that kind of security.

After having done further research Ryan came to the conclusion that a simple change in how Dash blockrewards are split over miners / masternodes / decentralized budget would form a better solution.
So he is proposing to change Dash current blockreward split of 45% (miners) / 45% (masternodes) / 10% (decentralized fund) to 36% (miners) / 54% (masternodes) / 10% (decentralized budget).



He is also proposing a more flexible allocation to Dash budget model.



He explained his research and these solutions in more details here :

Dash Core Group Presentation on Dash Economics
 
Last edited:

Kevin Stalker

Member
Feb 18, 2017
118
31
78
Yes, I saw this. I'm a fan. Obviously this is an old thread, my original stuff is a bit out of date now. I think the title of the post is catchy so people notice it. I'm on the right track, but Ryan did it better. He doesn't try to jump straight to POS either.

Having said that, I now think you can't attack money head on, you have to find an angle. A vertical that gets you in, then you grow from there. Reducing dependancy on POW is a fine enough idea but it might be a distraction from the more important task of getting people to see what we are so good at.
 

RANIME13

New Member
Sep 29, 2020
2
0
1
25
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.
dash needs to be protected against saviours like you who want to destroy it just so you can feel good.
 

Kevin Stalker

Member
Feb 18, 2017
118
31
78
dash needs to be protected against saviours like you who want to destroy it just so you can feel good.
Hmmm - yes. I was silly to make myself sound like an eco-warrior. You don't know me. I can assure you I am not making this suggestion to save the planet. It will appeal to some, but its not the point. That part of the point is that burning huge amounts of energy to make a block is going to be old fashioned soon. It encourages selling the profit to cover costs, and reduces decentralisation, and its hard to scale, and it compares badly with options which reward holders with compounded interest. Once the problems with proof of stake solutions are solved the world will move that way.
 

GhostTanker

New Member
Oct 1, 2020
2
0
3
I think there should be much care towards avoiding proof of stake. It is antithetical to the design of true cryptocurrencies and is centralized by design. Any proof of stake could be considered a pyramid scheme to a degree. Proof of Work, albeit now aging, is a great tool for distributing coins to new users and anchoring the coins to real life value. I think the real future of crypto lies in Proof of Service which is the model Dash has lead in.

In depth differences can be found via a quick search for: proof of stake vs "proof of service"

As the masternodes in Dash evolve, they might be rewarded on their effectiveness on the network. The PoW component will remain for security, but I think it should move towards avoiding asics, in similar ways to monero, and optimize for cpu. Monero has made hobby mining profitable again, although providing meager returns. If mining is built to be more distributed, it provides more resistance to centralization (and 51% attacks) and lowers the barrier to entry for those who might not be able to access dash through an exchange. The other possibility to reduce barriers is to enable trustless shared masternodes. This would have to be supported by a third party service, but would increase the size of the masternode network and allow dash users to grow their wealth if they do not plan on using it, thus increasing it's strength as a store of value.