Decrease the master node limit from 1000 dash to 200 dash

[Dashmaximalist]

With current price at 70 USD getting a dash master node is incredibly expensive i think we should drop the limit from 1000 dash to say 200

There are multiple benefits

the no of master nodes will explode
More people will be incentivized to get into dash instead of just the big whales

More brains more ideas

Overall it gets more decentralised and gets more fun

Price will rally because of this which inturn helps everyone

I don't see more than 20 members on this forum any time

 

[saidsanni]

I agree 100 percent


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dashmaximalist]

The no voters can you care to explain your point of view

 

[akhavr]

The subject was raised numerous times. And answered.

tl;rd: there's a consensus that network now doesn't need more nodes (4k+ now and growing).

If you are seeking an investment, you can use "masternode share" service, for example from @splawik21 . I've used his services and he's excellent.

 

[freshdopamine]

Lowering the amount of DASH required to attract more users is not really network requirement. The only way that most masternode operators would vote to decrease the requirement would be a technical reason. For example current masternode operators are not able to handle the amount of transactions.

 

[TroyDASH]

The proposition of doing this is going to be unpopular with the Masternodes unless there is a technical reason to do so. Everyone who currently operates one masternode would now be able to operate 5 masternodes, which would increase their operating costs by 400% for no additional benefit.

 

[Kai]

The proposition of doing this is going to be unpopular with the Masternodes unless there is a technical reason to do so. Everyone who currently operates one masternode would now be able to operate 5 masternodes, which would increase their operating costs by 400% for no additional benefit.

See https://www.dash.org/binaries/evo/DashPaper-v13-v1.pdf page 23

 

[TroyDASH]

See https://www.dash.org/binaries/evo/DashPaper-v13-v1.pdf page 23

The only thing I'm getting from that is that the collateral can be reduced to increase the masternode count. Which will only happen if we actually need to increase the masternode count for scaling purposes. As it is, we currently have 4200 Masternodes at 1000 dash each, which is way over the number in that graphic, and is way more than enough to handle all network processing both now and in the near to mid term future.

 

[demo]

The subject was raised numerous times. And answered.

tl;rd: there's a consensus that network now doesn't need more nodes (4k+ now and growing).
.

He asked you THE REASON, not the consensus!!
No reasonable person cares about consensus, if it is a consensus of fools.

 

[demo]

Lowering the amount of DASH required to attract more users is not really network requirement. The only way that most masternode operators would vote to decrease the requirement would be a technical reason. For example current masternode operators are not able to handle the amount of transactions.

There is a very important reason for increasing the number of the masternode nodes, and this is called DDOS.
You pay so much money to the miners for increasing Dash's blockchain security.
But you refuse to protect yourself from a potential DDOS.
You want only 4000 nodes having static public IPV4 IPS.
There is a consensus of having a vulnerable network.
Why?

 

[Dandy]

There was a DDOS attack already and the masternode network stayed completely functional, so your argument is not valid.

 

[demo]

There was a DDOS attack already and the masternode network stayed completely functional, so your argument is not valid.

Are you kidding me? It was a DDOS of 2000 static IP nodes against 4000 static IP nodes. What if a new DDOS occurs, from 8000 dynamic IP nodes?

What if a state decides to ban the whole dash network, or to DDOS it? Having static IPV4 means that you have no chance at all to survive in that case. You are 100% vulnerable to whoever central authority wishes to ban you. And I wonder, did you designed that way your network on purpose, in order NOT to survive in that case?

Why did you implemented such an awfully insecure network design, and why do you still refuse to secure your network by increasing the number of nodes?

 

[Dandy]

Ok, so if you really think that it's needed, make the pre-proposal and see what people think. I agree that there is value in having more masternodes, so I may even consider voting yes on that proposal, but I would like to see some more concrete analysis of the potential DDOS threat to the network before that.

 

[demo]

Ok, so if you really think that it's needed, make the pre-proposal and see what people think. I agree that there is value in having more masternodes, so I may even consider voting yes on that proposal, but I would like to see some more concrete analysis of the potential DDOS threat to the network before that.

It is not only the DDOS case. It is also the case of the ban of the dash network as a result of a decision of a state. Having numerous full nodes worldwide, and especially having non static IPs, makes this ban much more inprobable to occur.

 

[bassdude]

Keeping the master nodes at 1000 dash is good i think, then only the serous dash supporters can be involved with voting and make good votes for the rest of the community.

 

[demo]

The proposition of doing this is going to be unpopular with the Masternodes unless there is a technical reason to do so. Everyone who currently operates one masternode would now be able to operate 5 masternodes, which would increase their operating costs by 400% for no additional benefit.

And why not having a hybrid masternode-PoS system?

Having a single masternode and 200 dash will give you 1 vote, but if this single masternode has 1000 dash in his address to have 5 votes.

This is a possible alternative system that will not increase your operating costs by 400%, so you may want to examine it for its pros and cons. An obvious pro is that it will increase for sure the number of nodes (and the security of the network) as long as a 200 dash holder will be incentivized to run a full masternode.

I personally see no cons in this hybrid system, do you?

 

[TroyDASH]

He asked you THE REASON, not the consensus!!
No reasonable person cares about consensus, if it is a consensus of fools.

No reasonable person cares about votes, if it is a vote of fools.
Sorry, I couldn't resist

 

[camosoul]

The no voters can you care to explain your point of view

Sure.

I'm not a stupid snowflake.

There. Explained.

 

[TroyDASH]

And why not having a hybrid masternode-PoS system?

Having a single masternode and 200 dash will give you 1 vote, but if this single masternode has 1000 dash in his address to have 5 votes.

This is a possible alternative system that will not increase your operating costs by 400%, so you may want to examine it for its pros and cons. An obvious pro is that it will increase for sure the number of nodes (and the security of the network) as long as a 200 dash holder will be incentivized to run a full masternode.

I personally see no cons in this hybrid system, do you?

You mean a system where a 1000-dash masternode has 5x the votes and earns 5x the reward of a 200-dash masternode? It would have to be 5x reward as well as 5x vote, otherwise everyone would convert their one 1000-dash masternode into five 200-dash masternodes.

The profit margin for a 200-dash masternode in that system would be lower than the profit margin for a 1000-dash masternode, but the incentive would still exist I guess. Maybe this is one of your occasional ideas that wouldn't be completely disastrous for the network if it were implemented. But I don't think we need it. If the goal is to increase access to voting for people who have less stake, I would want to hear a lot more on the topic about whether or not this is necessary, and if so whether there are other ways to accomplish the same thing.

 

[camosoul]

getting a dash master node is incredibly expensive

Apparently, still not expensive enough to keep the idiots away...

 

[lynx]

Are you kidding me? It was a DDOS of 2000 static IP nodes against 4000 static IP nodes. What if a new DDOS occurs, from 8000 dynamic IP nodes?

What if a state decides to ban the whole dash network, or to DDOS it? Having static IPV4 means that you have no chance at all to survive in that case. You are 100% vulnerable to whoever central authority wishes to ban you. And I wonder, did you designed that way your network on purpose, in order NOT to survive in that case?

Why did you implemented such an awfully insecure network design, and why do you still refuse to secure your network by increasing the number of nodes?

Because this problem is not solved by increasing the number of nodes.

 

[camosoul]

Please explain why DASH would need 500% more masternodes?

The level of service provided is at leas 12x more than any other coin's so-called "full nodes."

Even if we treat DASH like a bitclone, it still has over 4000 dedicated "full nodes" hosted in major datacenters with unlimited pipe. Bitcoin doesn't even have that.

Lets ignore mixing or IX (because it's broken).

2MB block size and 4x as many blocks in the same timeframe. That's 8x the TX capacity with over 4000 nodes dedicated to doing nothing but. While BTC is still running on home computers with residential broadband, arguing about forking for block size...

Bitclones are generating drama over issues that DASH has already made obsolete.

So is the OP.

 

[vitaly]

Keeping the master nodes at 1000 dash is good i think, then only the serous dash supporters can be involved with voting and make good votes for the rest of the community.

Right thought

...serous dash supporters....

Those people who did not succumb to the screams of the trolls for 2 years and believed in the uniqueness of the project
Now everyone can buy the right to vote but for serious money now
This is life and it's fair

For beginners option to buy 250 coins and wait for a good price to have a vote with masternode

 

[demo]

Right thought



Those people who did not succumb to the screams of the trolls for 2 years and believed in the uniqueness of the project
Now everyone can buy the right to vote but for serious money now
This is life and it's fair

For beginners option to buy 250 coins and wait for a good price to have a vote with masternode

The Dash project will deflate like a bubble, together with bitcoin, if you do not respect the future generations.
At that time, the advertisers who are spreading your lies across the ignorants, wont help you.

 

[demo]

Because this problem is not solved by increasing the number of nodes.

If you increase the number of nodes, and at the same time you introduce dynamic IPs and/or Tor gateways in order to hide in case of an DDOS attack or a state ban, then the problem may be solved.

 

[lynx]

If you increase the number of nodes, and at the same time you introduce dynamic IPs and/or Tor gateways in order to hide in case of an DDOS attack or a state ban, then the problem may be solved.

If you implement Tor, the problem may be solved without increasing the number of nodes.

 

[camosoul]

As much as I love tor and would push for it's use, it is not a true transport layer and is problematically high latency.

In some ways it imitates a transport layer, but it's function is still dependent upon TCP. Protocol overhead on top of protocol overhead on top of protocol overhead...

 

[camosoul]

the advertisers who are spreading your lies across the ignorants, wont help you.

Never underestimate the democrats... Just when you think they can't stoop any lower, they find a way... Oh, wait, wrong forum. ...or is it?

 

[demo]

As much as I love tor and would push for it's use, it is not a true transport layer and is problematically high latency.

In some ways it imitates a transport layer, but it's function is still dependent upon TCP. Protocol overhead on top of protocol overhead on top of protocol overhead...

Yes of course. In order to have a truly secure and independant transport layer, you shouldnt rely at the state's backbone. You should use your own private backbones implemented (at least in the urban areas) with optical wireless mesh networks. In that case you really need a lot of nodes! 4000 nodes are not enough even for a single (big) town.

But of course Dash is designed to be a state dependant currency and to be easily banned by the state in case of emergency, because those were the imposed requirements. Dash may be temporarily used as a Troyan horse in order to attack foreign countries economies, but it shouldnt hurt the monetary system of the primary state which controls Dash. This is the underlying reason why the maximum number of the masternodes has been set to 10000 static IPs. Everything should be under control, and in case of emergency the total ban of the Dash network should be three clicks away.

 

[demo]

If you implement Tor, the problem may be solved without increasing the number of nodes.

The problem is not solved, because tor is not a real transport layer, you still rely at the backbone of the state. If you want to be really free, you need to implement your own private transport layer, and in that case you need millions of nodes wordwide.

This is how the cryptocurrency mesh network of the future should look like.
https://fon.com/maps/

Fon's network (which is used of course for a different purpose) teaches us that we need at least 20000000 nodes to only cover europe. And of course if we want to be really state intependant we should not even rely on the commercial network providers (like Fon is doing). We should expect for every masternode to have at least two private wireless optical connections with nearby masternodes.