Masternodes are just smart people that risked and risk they're money everyday for a project that may or may not work out.I am new to Dash and at this early stage, very excited about the project. So excited even, that I exchanged half of my bitcoin to Dash. To a great extend, thanks to the great work of Amanda and her DASH: Detailed videos. Very informative.
However
I am curious as to what the community's thoughts are on the mechanism, that allows master nodes to vote on changes to the protocol, as well as allocation of funds. (If I have understood this correctly).
My concern is 70% in the perception this could give and 30% the practical challenges it could cause.
If Dash picks up, it's very likely, that the funds required to run a master node, could be (and would have to be) out of reach for the typical (non early investor, non tech geek) consumer, who I believe is the target consumer.
So I suspect, the question that everyone will be asking, is...
What prevents this rich minority, to vote in changes that is to their own advantage, at the cost of the average consumer, exactly like the so called 1% does now, by using their resources and influence to affect the law makes
In these early phases, this is not a problem, as the master nodes are economically motivated, to have Dash becomes a commercial success, but once that has been achieved, won't this become a widely spread concern, among regular users?
Thank you very much for taking the time to read this. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated
Kind regards,
Kim Koldtoft
He makes an argument that, once Dash becomes too expensive say each Dash goes in the thousands or tens of thousands (hopefully) then each masternode is basically part of the 1% of society, and thus will overtime fail to understand the needs of the 99%.Could someone explain this to me: "But I specifically mentioned that once Dash becomes main-stream, those values might no longer align."
How or why would these values no longer align?
It's called capitalism and it's called competition.Let me try to explain the logic that I am advocating a little better then. Imagine a future where 1000 people own 1000 dash each, which is valued at 1 billion USD in today's money. The average user use Dash as their main currency. They get paid their salary, pay their bills ect. and obviously they will never come anyway near 1000 dash. But if they all pool together, they might outnumber the 1000 masternodes.
The interest of the 1000 billionaires are clearly not perfectly aligned with the interest of the common users. So what is to prevent them from adding fee's that goes to the Masternotes, or some other measure of that sort, that benefits them, but harms the users.
I understand that the users could then change to another Crypto, but that Masternodes don't care, because it's not in their interest to keep Dash alive. It's in their interest to maximize their own income. So it makes sense to have a system in place that keeps the Masternodes in check or in some way makes sure that the Masternodes incentives are always aligned with the majority of the Dash community (users).
I apparently did not make myself clear enough. Sorry about that. I was not trying to communicate that Masternodes was not tech-geeks. I get that they are.
McDonald's?Yeah, @Vedran Yoweri , that's because it makes no sense.
It's like a restaurant owner that managed to please his costumers so well he became a billionaire owner of a chain of restaurants. All of a sudden, he will buy a top hat and monocle and stop caring about the quality of his food. Then he can just add water to the beer and serve rotten food, as long as he doesn't overdo it.
That's good to know. Do you know if the scaling plans, are for the masternodes to hold the majority of funds, in a "main stream" model? If so, that would mean that there should be a lot of masternodes, or that the masternodes will be very very richThere's more than 50% of all coins in masternodes, so if smaller coin holders had voting rights, they are still outvoted by master node holders. If your concerned about interest earned by large coin holders (master node owners) that is not available to small coin holders, then look into the interest you can potentially earn at an exchange, it's possibly every bit as good as what master node owners earn (and it's not inflationary).
I'm far more concerned about the outcome of voting if small coin holders had the power to effect the outcome of the process than the current voting process.