- Aug 5, 2014
Whoa.. "setgenerate true 1" makes my CPU go up to 100% ... no can't do.. lol
Oh my laptop is on a "Notebook Cooling Pad", the fans have stopped working a long time ago but I'm still having my laptop on it.I run my lappy at 100%
Got the ass-end propped up on 2 small cups for air flow - be doing it for a LONG time :-D
edit: keep that fan blown out so it breathes
I've mined a couple of PoW/PoS currencies some months ago, and all went significantly down when PoW stopped and the miners couldn't mine any more.Sorry georgem but I don't think you are right, I think Evan has had an excellent idea and it will bring sustainable value to the coin as well as a solid ground for multi level backup of valuation.
Because at its essence, miners still create the currency. If you don't have a sufficient mining pool, you someone with high hashing power can still hijack the blockchain. If a "bad actor" was able to get >50% of the has power, they could theoretically be able to force masternode voting to go to their own nodes. If this happened, then neither the masternode security nor the coin generation security would matter.I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why miners are worth four times as much to DRK as Masternodes.
Masternode tech makes miners a back-up solution. It's good to have a backup, but not at the current cost.
1. Did you miss the part that Masternodes can do everything miners can do, just as securely, and there's no actual need for petaflops of compute power to maintain the blockchain? What you are describing here is miners as a liability, not a good argument for maintaining them.Because at its essence, miners still create the currency. If you don't have a sufficient mining pool, you someone with high hashing power can still hijack the blockchain. If a "bad actor" was able to get >50% of the has power, they could theoretically be able to force masternode voting to go to their own nodes. If this happened, then neither the masternode security nor the coin generation security would matter.
I just wanted to say that neither Rome nor Bitcoin was built in a day. I think we get too wrapped up in the short term returns sometimes. Let's remember that it will take a while for this coin to catch on, and it will take longer to have a sufficient monetary base to support 2000+ masternodes and still have coins flowing freely for use as actual currency.
Also, one other note - while we talk about rich people trying to evade taxes with anonymous currency, let's also talk about the (potential) ability for people in places like syria to be able to preserve whatever assets they have left, or for their relatives who managed to get out to send money in for people living like refugees. Perhaps someone should look into setting up a darkcoin donation for the Ebola epidemic in Liberia. After all, Masternodes also help prevent the spread of deadly diseases.
Hmm...I actually DID miss this part.1. Did you miss the part that Masternodes can do everything miners can do, just as securely, and there's no actual need for petaflops of compute power to maintain the blockchain?
Ok, here are my two cents (having digested most of the proposals here).Do not hesitate to express your opinions guys.
Exactly my points, full agreement!Good points 1 - 6
Maybe you shouldn't have housed your mining farm in the bedroom....wives don't like that :tongue:Full disclosure. I manage my own masternodes, and I left the mining business a few months ago because it was affecting my family life.
Great points! Especially 4. Growing organically is what's best for the coin. Furthermore, if the DRK/fiat rate increases then we will pick up even more MNs than you estimate (as whatever it costs to run a MN is paid in fiat).Ok, here are my two cents (having digested most of the proposals here).
1. Changing the coin dynamics at this stage is risky and appears a bit fascist to newcomers sizing up the coin. I think we should keep the mining PoW as-is or close to the status quo.
2. We don't know how the masternode count will change once enforcement is on. We will almost surely see increased participation once the potential masternode operators know they will receive the full 20%. Getting passed up for payments is quite a disincentive (psychologically stronger than it should be). The same is true for variance but we may have to live with that.
3. There are plenty of big DRK holders (just look at the rich list) and small DRK holders (look at comments on here and BCT) who don't know how to run a MN but want an easier way to participate without taking on the risk of losing coins. 'Leased forging' is a concept from NXT that was discussed earlier and could open the door for a flood of new masternodes.
4. I am in favor of growing masternode count organically. We have a system that is designed to support increased MNs over time. Because we are rewarding 20% of payouts to masternode operators AND 20% of the coin is used for masternodes, the number of masternodes should increase by ~200 per year (yes I'm ignoring the 7% annual coin production decrease for now). This growth won't increase the diversity of masternode holders but will offer improved DOS protection, especially if you look three years out where 600 new masternodes would be a huge benefit.
5. I have not heard a convincing argument why the existing ~900 or so masternodes are not sufficient to move forward with InstantX. If these nodes move to an encrypted communication mesh and don't share IPs, the network should be much more robust than where we stand today.
6. Recall that, in the original proposal for masternodes, the tuning mechanism for masternode count was: DRK price drops -> people buy coin and start MNs; DRK price rises -> people stop MNs and sell coins. Has this somehow been shown to be invalid? (Personally, I'm accumulating coins now to get ready to start another MN).
Full disclosure. I manage my own masternodes, and I left the mining business a few months ago because it was affecting my family life.
Nvidia 750ti times 6 equalling 15.5Mh/s at 360 watts returns 8 darkcoin a month. Yet, the initial investment would be $135 x 6 = $810 for graphics cards alone. Add the rest and let's say $1100.00 to mine conservatively.Yes the 750ti is very efficient, to give you an example, 4 x 280x was giving me roughly 16.5 Mh/s @ 580 watts, 6 x 750ti giving me 16.5 Mh/s @ 390 watts. The 280x was undervolted and underclocked, the 750ti is overvolted and overclocked.
If I ran the 750ti out of the box I would be getting 15.5 Mh/s from 6 cards @ 360 watts. I run windows 8.1 + SSD drive, so those figures will be a bit better for you Linux miners.
The Nvidia 980M (formerly 880ti) will be out soon, initial benchmarks show it's got 4 x the grunt of a 750ti with 3 times the power usage, if it's $500 USD like everyone is saying that will be the only card to mine x11 with.
Wonderful! Now we can put this debate to bed, and move on....I like Proof-of-work, I think it's important for keeping the ecosystem healthy. In balance with a proof-of-service system, I think we'll do well.
Benefits of proof-of-work:
- In a pure proof-of-stake system, the coins are distributed to only the ones that are invested. In a proof-of-work system, you have a wider base of people receiving compensation.
- Proof-of-work sets a price due to the electricity cost of producing the coins.
- Would require that all masternode operators have their money on a "hot" node. I think one of the best things about the current masternode system is the fact that you can run a masternode with no money in it.
- Also has a incompatibility with proof-of-service, in the existing system we can enforce that ports are open to get paid, or that masternodes are processing Darksend transactions successfully (it doesn't do this currently, but it can in the future).
Solution: Sync a common list across the whole network. Payee and payment amount can be enforced this way, and the reward will increase for 1 1/2 years. First adjustments are 5%, followed by 2.5%, then the last few adjustments are 2.5% every 2 months.
We can start updating testnet and testing this. This will be the last hard fork for months (the next one will be for later revision of InstantX, which is months away.)