[10:29:01] <evan82> The network is definitely rejecting blocks, we're down to 2000 diff [10:29:45] <evan82> Checkout the string of masternode payments: https://drk.mn/blocks.html#blocksdetail [10:29:56] <evan82> 12 in a row, woot
I actually did miss that in a way, but it doesn't change my opinion. The masternode blockchain validation provides redundancy, but it should nt be the only way to validate the blockchain. That would mean that anyone coming to DRK would have to "buy in" to be able to participate. While that has a certain appeal to it (i.e. less speculation), it also creates a vulnerability. No one is forcing anyone else to mine - that is there choice if they want to spend resources like electricity to make some coins. Bottom line is that we should INCREASE ways that people can participate, not DECREASE them. I'm in DRK for the long term, and I'd like to see it maintain a stable, user-based focus. After all, the more people that use it, the more secure it is.
Your point is totally valid and I totally agree. I'm not against increasing the reward to MN owners, however, people are short-sighted by thinking MN owners should have 100% profit without realizing that by increasing the profit, the MN number will also increase, and their payment will still be the same or even less. There's still not a clear explanation why 900 MNs aren't enough for security for Darksend and InstantX. Probably Evan will explain in the next update. But I believe Evan will/should come up with his code where we wouldn't need to depend on so many MNs, because there might be a time when many of them will disappear for any reason, as we have seen during the crashes many of them were dumped on exchanges. Sure they were back up again but think of the days/hours when they weren't there, and we also have to think of attacks that can bring them down. In such cases my wish is even with a small number of MN, say, 100, or less, even if it's just 8 MNs, the system still can withstand as a fortress.
I can def do the linux side of things for you! I was also thinking we could setup some vm's with team viewer on them and use their recording feature to actually demo the features instead of just talk about them. Would be trivial to demo mac, windows, and linux wallets all working. If the TV record didn't work could also do it with Screen Flow from a mac recording vm's.
I've been silently reading this forum at times, and then found out this thread. I must say, I am pretty "shocked" by a few posts I saw in this thread. Being pretty involved in Darkcoin itself on the mining side (not development), I felt betrayed to read such things. You all know the old saying "Don't bite the hand that feeds you"?. Miners are what made masses (in crypto, of course) aware of what Darkcoin has. Some miners are true supporters of Darkcoin since day 1 and putting them aside might not be the best idea. They made Darkcoin punch a hole in the market to take the lead, that's not a small acheivement. Of course, Evan's great work has a large part to play in Darkcoin's success. I agree that the masternode network of Darkcoin is growing up while brining added value to Darkcoin thru it's exclusive features. Increasing their payouts also would be a great idea. Where I don't agree for now is with people like lonecrouton who want to give out 100% to the masternodes. Evan seemed more reasonnable with 40% miners and 60% masternodes, but don't forget who were the real supporters first. Who are the guys who for months burned their hardware to grow darkcoin to where it is right now. I think that going for a 60/40 would be fair for now, and should be subject to review in the future. Darkcoin will eventually run out of PoW Blocks. At that point, we will need the masternodes to take the realy. I would just not rush things into trashing the miners away, at least let them finish the PoW they begun. A less desirable but still reasonnable compromise would be 50/50. For the past X months, all the Darkcoins you masternode guys earned were from the miners themselves. They did not get outraged when they started having to donate 20% of the coins they mined to the MNs.. Such comprehension would be expected on the other side, rather than having people "shitting" on the miners and want to get rid of them. I believe that getting rid of the miners, or at least minimizing their participation below 50% would be some form of betrayal. That would sure raise hell against Darkcoin, and I wouldnt be surprised at that point that some people would just end up cloning Darkcoin and it's feature, putting major PR behind it and build another project. This is not something I would desire, and none of you would either. Let's try to keep this fair for ALL the players in this. After all, we all praise for the same church right? Nobody wants to see Darkcoin fail, be it miners or masternodes operators. Why not work together for the benefit of the coin instead of trying to split the whole community in half? All together we can acheive so much more. EDIT: I'd like to add that there can only be so much masternodes. Getting rid of the miners would concentrate/centralize coin generation even further. It would also discourage any newcomers. The initial investment of 1000 Dark to start generating coins is not something everyone can afford. If that ever occurs, I feel the masternode operators will own the majority of the coin, thus going against everything cryptocurrency stands for, decentralization of powers. My 2 cents! eth1 - SuchPool Administrator - Proud Darkcoin Supporter. PS: Sorry for my English, I might have made a couple of mistakes there. I was not raised speaking english so please bear with me.
I don't think the plan is to go 100% MN payments, but rather somewhere around a 40-60/60-40 split to get the masternode count up to 3000. Miners can bitch that they are giving up more of the block reward but if 3 million coins are tied up, it will make existing supply on the exchanges far more scarce which in theory should drive up the price and as such make the less coins the miner receives worth more.
I don't believe the plan is to go with 100%, but a few ones have raised that possibility. Somewhere around a 40/60 or 60/40 sounds reasonnable, but to avoid any conflict and focus on developpment and growth of dark, why not opt for a progressive increase up to 50/50 and be done with this. One must not forget that the miners far outweight masternode owners in numbers. There must be something left on the table for them to eat. On Suchpool we have from 1500 to 1800 regular Darkcoin miners, that alone is 2-3 even maybe 4 times the amount of masternodes.
That is what is going to happen... every month or two there is going to be a 5% jump to the masternode side. It won't be an overnight 50/50, 40/60, or 60/40 payout structure but will progressively ramp up.
That I know already. The final payout structure is what would need to be revised IMO. That siad, I am totally for the gradual increase to make things smoother.
I welcome the gradual increase. The payout structure is what we are changing. eth1 Masternodes are central to the theme of Darkcoin. I prefer we give most to the Masternodes.
My suggestion again: Create a service like flare's MN service: https://darkcointalk.org/threads/service-masternode-hosting-service.2648/ Get your miners to invest in MNs. If 1200 of your miners sign up, you get 1200 MNs and it might keep increasing, you all can do both, mining and running MNs, making darkcoin even stronger. What do you think?
Nice idea Moli, we already thought about it. We would need to evaluate liability and find an optimal way to store multiple nm's securely. I doubt we'd have 1200 of our miners that can Afford to have a masternode. This is only a minority of miners which can afford to mine, pay their electricity and keep 1000's of DRK on the side to get Masternodes!
they do not have to run their own MN with 1000, there are other services where people share MN's 50/50 or even with 100 DRK each (10 people) ... i agree with moli, these kind of services are needed and it is good we have them but we need more of them and further spread out ! that will be even safer and will bring the MN numbers way up !
This is another possibility. If any coder would be interested into building such platform, please get in touch with me. I have the infrastructure and capacity to host this without an issue.
Tungfa, eth1 doesn't want to hold liability for investors' darkcoins, so the service like flare's MN service is better but he still has to do the upkeep.. etc... and he's a busy man.. But I like the idea of scattering the locations for MNs and his server would be in Canada.
I would be ready to accept liability if I could have some assistance to run the operation of somebody already experienced with masternodes and a propre ledger/tracking system that we can audit to ensure accountability for each masternode share acquired by customers. I am just starting to dig through the masternode side of things!
