• Forum has been upgraded, all links, images, etc are as they were. Please see Official Announcements for more information

Masternode Payments and Beyond

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks for keeping us updated Evan.

I feel this post should at least be "stickied".

We should also promote this better. On the "news" section of the site, twitter, facebook, update the main post of the bitcointalk thread.

I think a lot of darkcoin users probably haven't found this information, and don't know the current direction after the forking problems. All they know is the price is falling. Some "good" news like this should be promoted as much as possible.
 
Evan updated the plan today at bitcointalk:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg6994689#msg6994689
Quote from: AlexGR on Today at 12:25:49 PM
Quote from: JGCMiner on Today at 11:48:00 AM
Maybe all the FUD, attacks, etc. in the last month have left me skittish -- but I wonder even in the short term what might happen to the coin if there is an organized effort to hurt DRK based around pools cheating. If Evan does go through with this then I hope I am just worrying over nothing.
If? It is a given that at least half the pools and big farms (a lot of them nowadays) won't be paying. So the 20% will be more like 10% for the masternodes, =what they were expecting anyway. But it will be a disproportionate weight to the "fair" pools.

The whole thing to appease investors with "ok guys no hard forks" and bagholders of masternodes with "ok guys you'll get 20%" is sketchy. I know I'm harsh but I like things to go right
cool.gif


Price is price. It'll go up, down, sideways etc. Let it be. All the price attention is having an impact in development.

Development must proceed as planned so we can have the final product, nice and polished - no matter if it takes 1-2-3 or 5 hardforks and no matter if investors are bitching that they are losing masternode income because the implementation is late. Do they want to have masternodes of a coin that is GOOD or do they want to have a masternode of a coin that is doing hack-arounds?

The masternode protocol works, the masternode payments work (we saw them - it's not vapor), it's just that there is something introducing instability which has to be debugged and sorted out. If the origin is difficult to trace, then perhaps a different mechanism can be used for doing the payments (not voluntarily)

We also need improvements in DarkSend. The competition (MRO) is integrating I2P (as we've said) and XC will be using encrypted communication between nodes (as it has been said of DRK's future plans as well).

I know this sounds like a mom's "to-do list" to the child until she gets back home, but priorities are priorities, and price or reaching litecoin immediately are not a priority. If the code is sorted out and the product delivered in final form, LTC will start rolling down. Too fast of a price rise with a half-baked product is problematic.

LTC can't compete anyway in fundamentals like inflation (10x the BTCs to absorb LTC production compared to DRK) or innovation so they will be dead anyway by debasement. #2 is a given. Preserving #2 is not due to the competition. Who is gonna buy 300k USD of LTCs per day? It'll go 0.019 -> 18 -> 17 over time. It doesn't look that "hot" of a property. Only buys will be for cost-averaging buys at 0.025+.

Having said that about the #2 competition, the anonymity competition actually looks pretty lame (BCN and clones too many issues, XC mostly vapor for now but that could change a few months ahead as they seem to have the prospects of delivering a product similar to what Evan has at like 70-80% completion). But we can't base our strategy on others failing or being pumps & dumps that are "threatening" us due to pumps => we must excel and take the market. Then bring V2 for "fatality". Otherwise the risk is there for more serious contenders appearing.

My 2 duffs.
Apparently I have more faith in humanity than anyone else around here
smiley.gif
I'll implement the masternode payments via hardfork, who knows, maybe all of you are right.

By the way, I'm not talking about the price now or even in a year. It's about the security of the network when it's large enough to support a decent amount of transactions. Giving a higher reward simply doubles or triples the cost of such an attack, 10% was just too low.
 
edulffield said:
Apparently I have more faith in humanity than anyone else around here :) I'll implement the masternode payments via hardfork, who knows, maybe all of you are right.

By the way, I'm not talking about the price now or even in a year. It's about the security of the network when it's large enough to support a decent amount of transactions. Giving a higher reward simply doubles or triples the cost of such an attack, 10% was just too low.
First of all, I want to express myself and my opinion without getting in argument with some teenager in the forum. I'm engineer and i have my view on the MN's payment system. I hope Evan reconsider this .
AlexGR and JGCMiner have their points !Evan why we need anonymity when we believe so blindly in humanity ? If masternodes don't receive their fair share, they are going to quit and this will be very bad for the network.
We just need a reward correlated to amount of DRK that has been received by the Masternode. If the MasterNode has more DRKcoins like 4-5k , it will be able to mix bigger transaction whence the bigger reward .
Anonymous transactions through darksend should be taxed with bigger % than without darksend.
 
First of all, I want to express myself and my opinion without getting in argument with some teenager in the forum. I'm engineer and i have my view on the MN's payment system. I hope Evan reconsider this .
AlexGR and JGCMiner have their points !Evan why we need anonymity when we believe so blindly in humanity ? If masternodes don't receive their fair share, they are going to quit and this will be very bad for the network.
We just need a reward correlated to amount of DRK that has been received by the Masternode. If the MasterNode has more DRKcoins like 4-5k , it will be able to mix bigger transaction whence the bigger reward .
Anonymous transactions through darksend should be taxed with bigger % than without darksend.
First of all, i do not like any of your suggestions. I really really like the 1000drk rule. if keeping nodes happy, most do not like having to compete with a masternode with 50k take votes even if it can support that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are already some saying that idea of having masternodes is not that good in terms of decentralization even if it cost 1K per node. I'm not sure about this but for me it's ok as far as we have say 500+ masternodes 1K DRK each. But if we are going to have like 50 masternodes 10K+ DRK each... well, that doesn't look healthy to me.
 
Good to see another update.

I don't like hard forks, well, not after the last one. But I've seen a few hard forks of drk over the time, and the previous went fine.

I think the masternode payments should be done via fork / blockchain and not another way where it could be seen as optional, there is always someone trying to game the system, so more secure is better for sure.

I got a couple of payments on my masternodes while they payments were running and it looked and felt awesome. I can't wait to see it working again properly.

As for multiple "tickets" on a server, while this is great for massive holders, I'm not sure how good it is for the network. Someone PM'ed me saying they needed help with setting up enough masternoodes for 12K coins. 12 master nodes. While setting up 12 VPS / servers will take a while, I would rather that, than one sever with 12 tickets worth, because what happens if this server is attacked, or DDOsed? effectively 12 nodes go down in one swoop. What is the timeout for the network to realise this?

We could get some huge players how setup one masternode, rather than 20-30 masternodes. That one masternodes goes down, along with a chunk of the darksend network.
If you have enough dark to be able to set up many masternodes, you should have enough money to pay $10 x 10 a month or whatever, and should find the time. It's one hell of a return.

Basically more masternodes = more decentralization, more secure and stable (in my view)
Hard code masternodes payments, so there is no way for someone to "game" it / not pay it.
 
Wow you got some Matt! I hesitate to ask how much. Next time it will be twice as much.
More masternodes = more decentalition, yes.
your right about that one.
 
Wow you got some Matt! I hesitate to ask how much. Next time it will be twice as much.
More masternodes = more decentalition, yes.
your right about that one.
Unfortunately the 12 masternodes were not mine, but someone asking for my help. I do have enough coins for a few masternodes.
 
We just need a reward correlated to amount of DRK that has been received by the Masternode. If the MasterNode has more DRKcoins like 4-5k , it will be able to mix bigger transaction whence the bigger reward .

The coins in the masternode are not used in the mixing. The bigger masternodes would not allow to do different things than the 1000 drk ones. The only advantage would be to make it easier for the owners to maintain and secure them, which is good for everyone. On the other hand, they would increase centralization.
 
Every idea is better than VOTES ! I want this to be fixed, because lot of my money are in DRK.
Maybe the word votes is misleading. Pools don't have a say in which masternode gets their vote, it is hard coded. It is supposed to be random, so maybe 'vote' is not the appropriate word because it implies certain liberty of will.
 
Maybe the word votes is misleading. Pools don't have a say in which masternode gets their vote, it is hard coded. It is supposed to be random, so maybe 'vote' is not the appropriate word because it implies certain liberty of will.
It wha tyou say is true , then DRK to the MOON !
 
Thanks for the update and further clarification about the masternode system.

Evan, you've really worked hard to get this all up and running, and I'm glad that there will be a team now instead of just you - you need a break man! Or at least some rest...

I also wanted to make one small point that the more the anonymity system is programmed into the code (hard fork) and not related to any decisions people might make (soft fork), the less chance of a malevolent agent causing damage through social engineering. While we are (hopefully) a long way off from having to worry about things like that, the human interaction element is always the weak link in any security (or anonymity) schema.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top