So MangledBlue's idea to put a tick box in the next version of the QT to enable "setgenererate true n" is something worth pursuing? That would distribute hugely. And every now and then, you might get a handful of coins out of it 
Development Update - Oct 1, 2014
- Thread starter eduffield
- Start date
Can anyone explain from a security stand point what would be the downside to having only masternodes generate blocks?
M
MangledBlue
Guest
My 2duffs - I don't really see one besides DDOS
but soon the IP's would be hidden.
How would I get my DRK out? (noob question I'm sure)
I use VMPlayer with my ubuntu and terminal to get into AWS.....
I'd like to hear some dev team responses to some of the ideas we have come up with.
I still want to see the golden three happen while Evan works on the masternode changes and IP Obsufucawhatever thing though
1) Enforce
2) Market
3) Distribute/improve mining conditions.
I still want to see the golden three happen while Evan works on the masternode changes and IP Obsufucawhatever thing though
1) Enforce
2) Market
3) Distribute/improve mining conditions.
To make myself clear, I'm not advocating the abolition of PoW mining, at least not just yet, I'm just proposing what I think would be a better way of integrating it. I think people having the opportunity to acquire DRK by mining is important (although, if I want gold I buy gold, I don't go out and panhandle for it...) - I just also think that having them mine on MNP2pools would benefit everyone with no downsides I have yet thought of.
MNP2pool mining also lends itself pretty easily to the automatic MN shares for anyone idea...
I also like stonehedge's idea of dead-simple one-click in-wallet mining, with the ability to specify how fried exactly you'd like your i5.
Combine that with profit-sharing MNP2pools and suddenly everyone has a tangible stake in the coin, everyone's a shareholder, not just the MN ops and the hardware junkies (who are often the same people anyway.)We need to make the acquisition of DRK the number 1 priority of anyone with some spare guvpaper.
Last edited by a moderator:
M
MangledBlue
Guest
Let's how much I get beat-up over this one....
Proposed Qt changes for easy solo-mining
Talking about supporting network health - Finding a block would be a bonus
Proposed Qt changes for easy solo-mining
Talking about supporting network health - Finding a block would be a bonus
Your idea is brilliant. Though I'm not well versed in P2pool it does sound like your idea does wonders for distribution. I'm not certain I'm advocating abolishing POW either, yet. Just a cool train of thought at the moment. It just doesn't seem like we need the miners, could do wonders for security, greatly increase ROI for MNs etc. Also, if Evan implemented the ability to generate a key for a 100 drk vin, where 10 people could combine their 100 drk trustlessly for a MN, it would help address the distribution issue of abolishing POW.
Not sure about charity. Would leave processing of transactions to MN rather than bothering users & asking them for help. Keep the end user wallet simple.Let's how much I get beat-up over this one....
Proposed Qt changes for easy solo-mining
Talking about supporting network health - Finding a block would be a bonus
M
MangledBlue
Guest
I'd rather not see MN's processing (mining) blocks.
Would it not cause the MN cost on the server to increase?
I'd like to see the MN's cost as little as possible (cost effective)
Would it not cause the MN cost on the server to increase?
I'd like to see the MN's cost as little as possible (cost effective)
I'd prefer simple approach of giving MN 40-50% of mined coins - that would make me to invest another 2000$ to get a MN - and would be the interim step before ultimatelly cutting the mining altogether and shifting the processing entirely to MN.
We have to realise we would not use VPS CPU to brute force X11. Simple processing of transactions would be trivial and would result in minimal increase of computation resources resulting in no additional costs.
You could consider the miners to be a liability, from the point of view of them extending the potential attack surface. Voluntary compliance of pools when it comes to MN service fees have certainly been a liability...
Which is harder to compromise/subvert - hashpower or the Masternode network? Which attempt would cost many $millions worth of Darkcoin, not fiat? Does hashpower actually increase network security or just offer a larger target area?
3000 Masternodes vs 300GH, which would provide the better security?
I will stop digging my own hole now...
I agree, why not just get rid of "mining" altogether and have the MNs secure the network?You could consider the miners to be a liability, from the point of view of them extending the potential attack surface. Voluntary compliance of pools when it comes to MN service fees have certainly been a liability...
Which is harder to compromise/subvert - hashpower or the Masternode network? Which attempt would cost many $millions worth of Darkcoin, not fiat? Does hashpower actually increase network security or just offer a larger target area?
3000 Masternodes vs 300GH, which would provide the better security?
I will stop digging my own hole now...
Posting the same comment here I made in BCT:
Mining is not only about maintaining the blockchain.
Even if there are no transactions for days, it doesn't matter. If there are NO transactions for days, then THAT'S the state of blockchain that has to be integrated and shared for everybody to accept.
The amount of transactions (low or high or whatever) has nothing to do with the validity of mining. It just is what is.
We have Petahashes of POW miners mining for Bitcoin because more and more people want to go after fewer and fewer coins, while technology combined with free market competition creates innovation. (faster and faster machines, which in turn make the coins even more scarcer and scarcer... which is key for value creation in the first place.)
If we only had masternodes... we would basically take darkcoin out of the most insane innovation cycle we have seen in the last decades.
(If only servers had the innovation that miners have, lol ;D , but how are they going to have innovation without competition? Just masternode holders sitting on their piles of coins is not something that is very "competitive")
So, the key concepts to not forget are: competition creates innovation which in turn creates scarcity (value). Ergo mining.
nsimmons said:
georgem said:
Darkcoins come into existence thru mining. And only thru mining. The miners share a few of their new found coins with the masternodes.thelonecrouton said:As I keep saying, you don't need 100GH worth of GPU's to maintain a simple blockchain with a few transactions per minute, or even a few thousand.
Nobody is talking about doing away with the blockchain, we're debating (or at least I am
Mining is not only about maintaining the blockchain.
Even if there are no transactions for days, it doesn't matter. If there are NO transactions for days, then THAT'S the state of blockchain that has to be integrated and shared for everybody to accept.
The amount of transactions (low or high or whatever) has nothing to do with the validity of mining. It just is what is.
We have Petahashes of POW miners mining for Bitcoin because more and more people want to go after fewer and fewer coins, while technology combined with free market competition creates innovation. (faster and faster machines, which in turn make the coins even more scarcer and scarcer... which is key for value creation in the first place.)
If we only had masternodes... we would basically take darkcoin out of the most insane innovation cycle we have seen in the last decades.
(If only servers had the innovation that miners have, lol ;D , but how are they going to have innovation without competition? Just masternode holders sitting on their piles of coins is not something that is very "competitive")
So, the key concepts to not forget are: competition creates innovation which in turn creates scarcity (value). Ergo mining.
Hey Georgem,
Bitcoin's price at the moment is stagnant, due to lack of integration into various economies. Though a lot of that is changing very soon, it's current market seems saturated with miners, and the price doesn't increase. This indicates that for the coin to grow, attracting more miners is not the answer. The purpose of this coin is to provide anonymous and instant transactions, not to inspire people with gpu farms to point them at the coin. People will purchase the coin and use it because they need or desire an instant and anonymous transaction, not because it heeds to a tradition from bitcoins birth. Think of the lean-ass bully-hardened network without miners involved. Healthy as fuck all day and quick as a whip.
Bitcoin's price at the moment is stagnant, due to lack of integration into various economies. Though a lot of that is changing very soon, it's current market seems saturated with miners, and the price doesn't increase. This indicates that for the coin to grow, attracting more miners is not the answer. The purpose of this coin is to provide anonymous and instant transactions, not to inspire people with gpu farms to point them at the coin. People will purchase the coin and use it because they need or desire an instant and anonymous transaction, not because it heeds to a tradition from bitcoins birth. Think of the lean-ass bully-hardened network without miners involved. Healthy as fuck all day and quick as a whip.
I agree with you, George. I've never really mined any crypto coin, except for a few times I tried to mine dogecoins on idigdoge.com just to see what it was like on a website. Though I've never mined, I can appreciate miners and their hard work.Posting the same comment here I made in BCT:
Darkcoins come into existence thru mining. And only thru mining. The miners share a few of their new found coins with the masternodes.
Mining is not only about maintaining the blockchain.
Even if there are no transactions for days, it doesn't matter. If there are NO transactions for days, then THAT'S the state of blockchain that has to be integrated and shared for everybody to accept.
The amount of transactions (low or high or whatever) has nothing to do with the validity of mining. It just is what is.
We have Petahashes of POW miners mining for Bitcoin because more and more people want to go after fewer and fewer coins, while technology combined with free market competition creates innovation. (faster and faster machines, which in turn make the coins even more scarcer and scarcer... which is key for value creation in the first place.)
If we only had masternodes... we would basically take darkcoin out of the most insane innovation cycle we have seen in the last decades.
(If only servers had the innovation that miners have, lol ;D , but how are they going to have innovation without competition? Just masternode holders sitting on their piles of coins is not something that is very "competitive")
So, the key concepts to not forget are: competition creates innovation which in turn creates scarcity (value). Ergo mining.
I am surprised we have this talk on "getting rid of DRK miners" and let masternode owners to have it all. Do all masternode owners want to have the responsibility of miners? It seems some people forget that distributing wealth isn't the way to go to grow an economy.
So you want to create a fancy type of coins and then stack them up in your garage, or store them in your basement, and distribute among yourselves, and that's it? How is it going to increase the value of the coin?
PS. And if this is what really going to happen, most of DRK investors will just sell their drk to you so you can have more to stack them up more in your back yard, and say good bye to drk, because by then there will be a better coin to invest in!!
Exactly.
Also let's not forget that we need darkcoin to also work without darksend, without anonymity.
There are many reasons why someone will want to show other people a transaction list of an address. For example a donation based charity or something.
Voluntary transparency can be a very valuable function.
I always liked that darkcoin can be BOTH anonymous and not anonymous, depending on the needs of the user.
If we get rid of the miners, we get rid of that, and this would in turn limit the amount of things one can do with darkcoin, wouldn't it?
Even batman turns into bruce wayne by day. Imagine him being batman 24/7... he would probably have commited suicide by now (if he really existed).
Last edited by a moderator:
Where in the heck are you getting that? Having MNs generate the blockchain would have absolutely no affect on the things you named...?? THe blockchain would be just as visible as it ever was, not that anyone could trace transactions anyway.
Just because you guys have always considered mining to be the backbone of crypto, and thats what brought you into crypto, does not mean that crypto can't exist, or potentially be even stronger without it.
LOL.. I like the comment about batman..
Yes.. This is why I like Darkcoin because it can be either anonymous or not. It works fine without Darksend. My little upset with it is to me, Darksend can be better. I know it can be 100% perfect. And I'm sure Evan will make it 100% perfect, so I'm waiting to see.
We can not get rid of miners. In his white paper about Instant Transaction, Evan seems to indicate MN also depends on miners.. I'm not sure, but I don't believe Evan has any intention to get rid of miners at all, it's only an imagination of someone with too much alcohol, or something.
I don't want MN's to generate the blockchain, I want the blockchain to be a timestamp hashed transaction list that makes it virtually impossible to mess with it.
You do that with math, not with MN.
Who will hash the blockchain if not the miners??? How can newcomers participate in that? Will blockchain validation become an elitist sport in the future? You wanna play, pay 1000 DRK?
Miners do not drive adoption. If the blockchain is handled by masternodes, via Evan's beuatiful coding skill the only thing that is lost is miner's $$$. Miners are not necessary. Tell me why miners are necessary.
M
MangledBlue
Guest
Girls - you're both pretty
I think we all know that miners are not going any where.....
I think we all know that miners are not going any where.....
Miners do not drive adoption?
All miners are very commited people, they mine, they want to sell their coins, or keep them (if long term plans), they spread the message (they want other people to buy their coins) etc..
If such invested people like miners are not driving adoption I don't know WHO is.
Also mining gives everybody the possibility to get to some DRK without the need to go thru an exchange or thru some smug MN holder who thinks he is now supposed to be the sole source of DRK.
I am mining all kinds of coins, so I don't need to go thru the whole established banking system with all their KYC etc...
If mining will not be possible anymore in the future, how will you attract new participants to the darkcoin network?
Your plan rises the entry costs to an insane amount of money, which is ridiculous.
Last edited by a moderator:
I know that, I am not so sure about other people.
Man... Now you're turning into a miner... You ain't going anywhere.... lol...I still think Evan should spend 10 mins adding this :-D