Lowering masternode collateral to 100 pre proposal
- Thread starter MizzyMax
- Start date
M
MangledBlue
Guest
Why would I want 10x the server fees for the same pay?
I WILL ALWAYS VOTE NO FOR THIS TYPE OF PROPOSAL !!!!
IF YOU WANT A MASTERNODE - THEN BUY ONE LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE DID!!!!
I WILL ALWAYS VOTE NO FOR THIS TYPE OF PROPOSAL !!!!
IF YOU WANT A MASTERNODE - THEN BUY ONE LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE DID!!!!
Don't you see the problem that you don't need 170k to run a 10 dollar a month server?
And your fees would rise to 100 a month but you still receive 1.45k per month. Are you saying that fee is so much you would sell your Dash because of it? Because the income amount for still great
And your fees would rise to 100 a month but you still receive 1.45k per month. Are you saying that fee is so much you would sell your Dash because of it? Because the income amount for still great
We don't need more nodes though. Using more nodes to decrease MN profit margins seems counter-productive. You could achieve the same result by decreasing the MN portion of the block reward to less than the current 45%, which I am guessing would also be received about as well...
MizzyMax - are you aware that you can buy "shares" of a Masternode? http://dashmasternode.org/masternode-shares/ The minimum deposit amount is 25 Dash.
The reason it allows higher consensus by Dash owners and allows more coins to be locked up into our network making it stronger. The maximum amount nodes will lose is 1/3 of return if 100% of the network locks into nodes. Spread the wealth rather then only having 5000 nodes holding 99% of the wealth. Creates a capitalist market in the long run.
I talk about why this is the wrong way to go about decentralizing nodes. Also very risky, they could steal everyone's Dash right now today so definitely not the way to go.
And who do you think owns those? Probably primarily the developers so they have complete control of the network. Correct?
If you want better consensus, then run a full node, you don't need to be a masternode to support the network. But if you do want some of the reward for running a masternode, a few services exist for you to buy shares.And who do you think owns those? Probably primarily the developers so they have complete control of the network. Correct?
Instead of challenging the rules for masternodes, it might be better to tempt us with a different class of node; operating with different objectives and rewards.. that's something I might be interested in.
@Chuck Williams lol he doesn´t trust moocowmoo it seems to me. so you have a very low trust in our community, just be more on slack or on reddit and talk to us and learn to trust us @MizzyMax
I would never in my whole entire life ever let someone else be my crypto bank and hold my money for me. 1 flip of the switch and moocowmoo could decide he's going to go buy a mansion in the Caribbean with everyone's Dash money.
But like Iv said allowing users to hold their own collateralized node is the best benefit we can give them. We created a great system but it needs some decentralization.
And trust me no system is perfect from the start. there are flaws and we will encounter more as well but I think we need to change this fundamental factor from the bottom up, not by creating shares, it is just a temporary solution rather then a long term one. That is my sole point
If we could possibly create a system where you can collateralize as much Dash in 1 node as you want and you will get paid a set percent on it (the more Dash collateraled the more activity you will receive) that is definitely the route we should go. If you think about it, some master nodes don't even run the node themselves, they outsource the servers. So I think the ability to create a node easily just like we are making getting into Dash easy, would be where we would succeed.
Iv stated why I believe shares is the wrong way to go about things, it is not a very good solution and it needs to be fixed from the core and not the outside.
My initial idea I imagined was this but I had been shut down so I wanted to just see if the node owners agree there is a problem here. But here is my original idea:
If we could possibly create a system where you can collateralize as much Dash in 1 node as you want and you will get paid a set percent on it (the more Dash collateraled the more activity you will receive) that is definitely the route we should go. If you think about it, some master nodes don't even run the node themselves, they outsource the servers. So I think the ability to create a node easily just like we are making getting into Dash easy, would be where we would succeed.
It would work the same way with voting as well, the more Dash collateralized the more votes. And as masternode owners , currently I think you might even earn more in this system. Every Dash you earn is reinvested, instead of needing to wait till you can buy another node at 1000 Dash. I'm sure there are some masternodes who have 500+ Dash just sitting there as extra funds they have earned but it can't be used at all.
In the future, there might very well be a trustless option to own shares in a masternoode, it is being looked at. It would be cool if MNs could be created using multisig, so maybe that will come in the future?
Btw, owning a masternode does not forcibly lock funds.. MNOs are free to sell at any time, but of course, they would not receive a reward and they'd lose their voting power. And keep in mind, limited supply does not in itself make a crypto valuable. The only thing that makes any crypto valuable is relevance.
What you should understand is, owning the base unit of any cryptocurrency is very similar to owning shares in a company. You may not have voting rights but at some level (superficial or otherwise), you are buying into it's community, it's aspirations and credibility. And you are making the precise decision not to put that dollar elsewhere.
Shares has so many problems with it honestly, the Dash holder should run it himself. And I have heard (maybe I'm wrong) that it will take 24 hours to withdraw funds from your node shares account in evolution. So that Dash is locked in haha but not personally owned masternodes though. It makes sense, Dash holders would constantly be switching nodes because 1 person withdraws funds so it prevents that from happening.
Also you do not receive 100% of the nodes output, you will need to pay off the node holder a chunk of what you could have made yourself.
Also, what's to say the user running the node will follow the nodes rules? They might not even own any Dash and are not incentivized to run a node and keep up the network. With letting users run nodes themselves in their own collateralized node means they are incentivized themselves because they are personally invested to keep up the network is the only way the system could work.
You should never fix a fundamental problem through the wallet. For example, Let's say your credit card becomes easily hackable, so the credit card company sends everyone a "protective case" that makes it unhackable while in the case. Wouldn't you rather see them fix the credit card instead? That's what we are doing with creating shares, it does not fix the fundamental problem. It decentralizes nodes in the wrong way. All these responses back saying "we have masternode shares" is like telling me "well you have a protective case"
And I like Dash because it's run by the people and because of that it's 100% transparent. Definitely high hopes and obviously I am heavily invested. 90% holdings in Dash because Dash is number 1. i just felt there is no reason I shouldn't have a vote or receive incentives. It is still centralized(yes Dash is centralized, google the definition) , and there are a lot of people asking for voting rights and wanting to own a node but to expensive so this is definitely something we need to talk about. This would bring a lot of people to Dash for sure and I personally would increase my investment if this became possible , like I'm sure many would if shares were to come out.
And I'm sorry if I seem so negative in a way, I still like Dash but I always like to spot problems and create solutions. I think we can create a system in a faster timeline along with becoming more efficiency then shares would be. That's my point I am trying to get across, shares isn't the best option. And obviously no system is created perfectly, we will have more problems as well in the future and the faster we recognize a problem the faster it's fixed, but we need to fix this for sure.
Everyone please look at this post on Reddit and it's comments, at least half are saying to invest into other coins. My point exactly on why this needs decentralized to allow all users an interest to get into Dash. And this is our own Reddit! Sad. 10k that this user would love to invest into Dash and we have no good answer for him.
https://www.reddit.com/r/dashpay/co...for_a_masternode_but/?st=J43D3M4Q&sh=772b0b26
https://www.reddit.com/r/dashpay/co...for_a_masternode_but/?st=J43D3M4Q&sh=772b0b26
My understanding is that Evolution will have savings accounts where anyone can earn on their dash.
Yes, Evo will have interest bearing savings accounts. It may not be perfect but better than making MNO have to buy ten times the amount of nodes which the network does not need. It's about what the network needs not about getting everyone paid. Evo will help get more people paid and while i'm not sure exactly how voting rights will work at first eventually i'm sure it will be coded in and you will have a percent of the vote depending on your stake in the coin. At first it will prob be like it is now with shares but it will be trust-less.
If you want to vote now with shares you can ask the person who runs your shares to vote how you think they should, if they do not you can use another share service, if they don't vote how you like you can start your own, if it does not have enough participants then the market is telling you something. let free market competition work.
It's a moot point. Even if the devs own most of them (and they do), the remainder are held almost exclusively by timid, clueless fools and sycophants.And who do you think owns those? Probably primarily the developers so they have complete control of the network. Correct?
You just listed a whole bunch of problems with masternode shares. "It may not be perfect" well let's make it perfect. And by the way this is only to show there are problems with creating shares and that we should go another route.
For what you just explained as masternode shares I for one am definitely not excited for it. It sounds like a TERRIBLE process! finding nodes that vote similar to your thoughts. That's like in today's world hiring congress members to do the thinking for us (which has proven to not work) and hope they make a good decision. It is an insanely flawed process...
Everyone should vote on everything that happens, we should not allow for random nodes who might not even hold Dash to vote at all in our system. That is just very very poor judgement, how can you think that the node owner is incentivized at all to make a good decision. If anything I'd actually not want this system being implemented at after how you explained it.
We don't want all users. We want the ones who "get it" and no retards holding us back. Unfortunately, there's still a lot of bagholders from way back who are retarded.
Essentially, we already have enough drunken homeless people on the board of directors. We don't need any more.
My reason for this is to show the shares system is flawed and not the right way to go
Taking money from retards, and affording them a seat on the board of directors, are not the same thing. You're the one who suggested it, so don't tell me you don't know what I''m talking about... It's your subject matter...
There is absolutely no proof once so ever that a wealthy person is a smart person. The general public (everyone who owns any form of Dash) should have a vote on how they want the coin to evolve. Everyone has a voice and should be able to use it.
I've met only a few rich dumbasses.
I've met tons of broke dumbasses.
No rule is absolute, but there is a definite demographic split. Denying it is silly.
They don't seat homeless, clueless drunks on the board of directors of any random company said homeless drunk "demands" to be sat at.
This is not a society. This is not a government. Only those fit to have a say, get a say. This is the whole point. Working as intended.
Losers don't get a voice in the direction of money. If you can't prove that you are good with money and understand how it works by actually having a big fat pile of it, then you[re not fit to make these decisions. Hell, we still have too many unfit parties running masternodes from the old days...
We don't need more idiots on the board of directors, we need fewer. If that's "mean," and you wanna go invest in a different coin, I'll be glad to buy your DRKs.
Yaarrr! Man the harpoons! Thar be SJW whales with weak hands!
Is that 7DRK "sell wall" your's? Lols!
Last edited:
Ah so let's say there was a proposal sent in to lower the masternode reward to 40% for any reason. Who is going to vote yes for that?
In a centralized system(the current system) absolutely no one... your messing with the rich and wealthy paycheck who has all the power to vote against the minorities and will gladly still take everyone's money.
In a decentralized system where everyone is receiving the same benefits, you never know maybe.
Everyone already has a voice and is able to use it. Everyone has a power to vote using their wallet and their feet: if he doesn't like the direction, the project is going, he sells his shares.
So is that our answer for everyone who wants incentives and to vote? Sell your Dash we don't care about you? If so that is a terrible way to treat Dashs community.
Its an obvious problem and if you all want to disregard it then so be it. The numerous problems masternode shares is a long list and its receiving a blind eye.