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

MasterNode Scaling...

I don't think that speed will be an issue for Dash for a few years at least, also to implement such a big change would take a very long time and would require extensive rework and testing, but I agree that we should consider all of the alternatives for the future.
I would like to hear from the core team if there is someone that is looking into this and similar ideas?

Probably not, but we are uniquely poised to be able to be the first to secure this technology for a public ledger system, and it would probably allow us to avoid having to change or upgrade our hardware for much longer since it would drastically reduce the amount of information we have to move while exponentially increasing our speed. It would go from making us a decent decentralized payment system to objectively better than extant payment systems in one fell swoop. Hashgraph is just objectively better than blockchain, I'm not really seeing a downside aside from the core devs having to do a lot of extra work, but I'm sure it's worthwhile work to be doing.
 
I did some research on that Hashgraph technology and I must say I find it impressive. But I see a few issues with integrating it in Dash.
First, it's not open source (at least currently) and Dash is committed to being open source.
Second, it's not yet tested in really big networks, so I'm not certain if all potential vectors of attack are yet known.
Third, I don't see how it can be integrated into Dash structure, as it would require no miners and no masternodes.
 
I did some research on that Hashgraph technology and I must say I find it impressive. But I see a few issues with integrating it in Dash.
First, it's not open source (at least currently) and Dash is committed to being open source.
Second, it's not yet tested in really big networks, so I'm not certain if all potential vectors of attack are yet known.
Third, I don't see how it can be integrated into Dash structure, as it would require no miners and no masternodes.

1. You're correct there. It's not Open Source, but the SDK is available for download: https://hashgraph.com/#sdk
2. It was recently integrated in to CULedger servicing the majority of the US Credit Unions beating out IBM's ledger technology, which is damned impressive considering they were less than a dozen people at the time. It's immune to the standard attack vectors cryptos commonly face that one can be immune to, and is so far the only asynchronous byzantine fault tolerant algorithm out there.
3. It doesn't *require* miners, but mining could be instituted for whatever reason if you wanted. Baird mentions mining or other intensive activities as being something that is incentivized as a barrier to entry in a public ledger system (in this video specifically:
at around 30:00), but obviously wouldn't *need* to take place, as the primary function of mining is to slow down the blockchain to a manageable pace and prevent wild forking. The hashgraph operates as a consensus/trust algorithm on its own layer. Masternodes operate on another layer as well, so they'd still need to exist for Private Send and other specialized transaction types (InstantSend might be redundant or unnecessary with a 250,000+ TPS speed on a single shard). What would change here, however, is the fact that the Treasury is allocated from block rewards, as are MN payouts, so without blocks, there'd need to be some other operation responsible for controlling emissions.

I could be wrong, though, I'm not a software developer, just trying to piece together how the technologies could be integrated from what I've read. I really hope Dash could be the first, because whoever *does* successfully integrate it first is going to be a serious contender in the crypto space. I'm not sure blockchain-based technologies can really even compete with that...
 
The primary function of mining is NOT to slow down the blockchain but to ensure SCARCITY and decentralized coin distribution. Speed is worthless if we get the economics wrong.
 
First, it's not open source (at least currently) and Dash is committed to being open source
Dash is not committed of being open source, because Evolution is (until now) closed source.

Furthermore there is a difference between the opensource and the free software. The free opensource software can be used by everyone, for commercial, for military or for any good or destructive purpose. While the restrictive opensource may be freely available for everyone, but for commercial or military purposes (or any other restriciton the author imposes) you may have to pay or get a license. The companies, the army, the government e.t.c. advertise and fund all these free opensource communities, which are full of spies. And the stupid brainwashed free_opensource developer slaves keep offering their job without restrictions, for the benefit of the evil.
 
Last edited:
Dash Evolution will be open source once it's finished and operational and will not require licensing.

But we should seriously consider this Hashgraph or some similar technology. We should open another thread dedicated to discussing the Hashgraph. I must admit that now I want to learn as much as possible about it.
 
Dash Evolution will be open source once it's finished and operational and will not require licensing.
Dash Evolution is not open source, because the definition of opensource requires this to be open from the very early stages.
 
I guess that then you don't consider Linux open source also because Linus Torvalds developed the first kernel himself?
 
I guess that then you don't consider Linux open source also because Linus Torvalds developed the first kernel himself?

The first linux kernel was restrictive opensource (free for non commercial uses) and not free opensource. Then the agents contacted Linus.

But Linux was opensource for sure, because Linus gave the code at the very early stages. April 1991 Linus started working ALONE, August 1991 he gave the source to the opensource community. In the case of Dash evolution is not the same. Evolution is developed by a group of persons and not by a single developer, and it is still closed, although at least 1 year passed.
 
Last edited:
From what I have been able to determine, Hashgraph is not resistant to adversarial nodes, or to Sybil attacks. There's a reason it's only been implemented in closed applications so far, and there is no discussion of having an open or public version of it yet (or at all.)

If you are curious if masternodes can scale to data-center proportions, while still being supported by income from transactions, the answer is yes, even assuming we are stuck at today's hardware and we never get price or performance improvements while needing to cover the whole world's transnational capacity.

This was proven (with supporting evidence) by one of the folks in the BCH community.

http://blog.vermorel.com/journal/2017/12/17/terabyte-blocks-for-bitcoin-cash.html
 
The primary function of mining is NOT to slow down the blockchain but to ensure SCARCITY and decentralized coin distribution. Speed is worthless if we get the economics wrong.

...and how does it "get the economics right" and control the coin supply? By delaying the confirmation of blocks to the speed of a fraction of the total computing power and potential of the chain so that you don't have massive forking everywhere:

"as of October 2016 the Bitcoin network was running 1,900,000,000,000,000,000 — 1.9×1018, or 1.9 quintillion — hashes per second, or 1.14 x 1021 — 1.14 sextillion — per ten minutes. The difficulty is adjusted every two weeks — 2016 blocks — to keep the rate of solved blocks around one every ten minutes. The 1.14 sextillion calculations are thrown away,"

That's of course BTC rather than Dash, but that's generally how blockchains work. That's not how hashgraphs work, no wasted calculation, the network's speed and power is not reduced to make up for lossy algorithms.

From what I have been able to determine, Hashgraph is not resistant to adversarial nodes, or to Sybil attacks. There's a reason it's only been implemented in closed applications so far, and there is no discussion of having an open or public version of it yet (or at all.)

If you are curious if masternodes can scale to data-center proportions, while still being supported by income from transactions, the answer is yes, even assuming we are stuck at today's hardware and we never get price or performance improvements while needing to cover the whole world's transnational capacity.

This was proven (with supporting evidence) by one of the folks in the BCH community.

http://blog.vermorel.com/journal/2017/12/17/terabyte-blocks-for-bitcoin-cash.html

Hashgraph is just a consensus/trust algorithm. Sybil attacks aren't really relevant to the Hashgraph in particular but to *all* ledger systems. Baird does describe various ways a ledger implementing the Hashgraph could foil Sybil attacks, though: http://www.swirlds.com/downloads/Swirlds-and-Sybil-Attacks.pdf

As for masternode hardware scaling...yeesh...even if it's plausible that's still such an absurd and unnecessary expenditure of energy and wasted computational power. Why not just implement a better algorithm and avoid all of that entirely? It makes no sense to continue that way other than "people are already invested in it."
 
As for masternode hardware scaling...yeesh...even if it's plausible that's still such an absurd and unnecessary expenditure of energy and wasted computational power. Why not just implement a better algorithm and avoid all of that entirely? It makes no sense to continue that way other than "people are already invested in it."

I don't actually have a problem with changing the algorithm; but I won't hold my breath for Hashgraph specifically until I see them with a public release.

There are always trade-offs, and I don't see how you can make the barrier to entry for changing a ledger so much lower (i.e. more efficient) without simultaneously lowering it's resistance to having the ledger changed by an attacking party.

If it can be done, and it truly is a revolutionary new way of getting around the byzantine general's problem, then by all means research it; but like I said, I won't hold my breath.
 
I don't actually have a problem with changing the algorithm; but I won't hold my breath for Hashgraph specifically until I see them with a public release.

There are always trade-offs, and I don't see how you can make the barrier to entry for changing a ledger so much lower (i.e. more efficient) without simultaneously lowering it's resistance to having the ledger changed by an attacking party.

If it can be done, and it truly is a revolutionary new way of getting around the byzantine general's problem, then by all means research it; but like I said, I won't hold my breath.

Certainly it can be said that it's untested in a public ledger setting, but from a theoretical perspective, it's no *more* vulnerable than extant systems. The "barrier for entry" for changing the ledger is not lower, it's just tabulated differently, and there isn't wasted, unnecessary computation.
 
@Plateglassarmour -- They finally released their public ledger/cryptocurrency system: http://www.hederahashgraph.com They've got quite a lot of great features, technology, partners, integrations, and use cases already. Thankfully they're not gunning for the payment sector exclusively (the payment/currency aspect is moreso to secure the network and fuel Dapp operations), but it's pretty impressive.
 
Masternode Hosting benefits from economies of scale. That's why services such as Splawik's host two thirds of the MNs already. This is a dangerous situation perilously close to being a single point of failure. With drastically greater hardware requirements, this problem will only get worse as the network grows.
 
Masternode Hosting benefits from economies of scale. That's why services such as Splawik's host two thirds of the MNs already. This is a dangerous situation perilously close to being a single point of failure. With drastically greater hardware requirements, this problem will only get worse as the network grows.

I would like to see where that data comes from.

thanks
 
Back
Top