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

Reduction of Masternode collateral

I have no issues with trying to improve the tokenomics. I very much want to see a vastly more inclusive system.

With the previous proposal to reduce the proposal fee, the technical side was easy; we already know dash has the technical capacity to deal with more proposals. Playing with the collateral requirements, however, does have technical implications i.e. more nodes to contend with, and that in turn leads to potential propagation and latency issues. For this proposal to win my vote it needs to put the science first and demonstrate comparable speed, latency and quorum stability that we currently enjoy. Only then should we be discussing the pros and cons of collateral tokenomics.

Horizen has 4208 Super nodes and 43923 Secure nodes:

From a technical perspective, I have no idea how Horizen's technology stack compares to dash. Do they have latency issues and is it less important with Secure nodes i.e. perhaps less comparable to dash masternodes? So, although we might draw some inference from Horizen, we need hard data and simulations, not just for today but projected forward when we have 10 or 100 times more users.

Also, Horizen's "democratization" of paid nodes doesn't seemed to of made the slightest difference to how it's perceived. I have never seen anyone compare Horizen's node count to Lightening Network, currently sitting at 29k. So even the tokenomics is questionable. Again, I think we'd get more bang for our buck hiring top notch PR and marketing firms.

Can we ease the burden of Instant Send quorums by implementing a custom version of Avalanche? Again, at this point it's pure conjecture.

So, bottom line:

1. Give us the data, the simulations and the projections to show no negative effect.
2. Demonstrate the benefits for how this "democratization" of masternode collateral will help.
 
I have no issues with trying to improve the tokenomics. I very much want to see a vastly more inclusive system.

With the previous proposal to reduce the proposal fee, the technical side was easy; we already know dash has the technical capacity to deal with more proposals. Playing with the collateral requirements, however, does have technical implications i.e. more nodes to contend with, and that in turn leads to potential propagation and latency issues. For this proposal to win my vote it needs to put the science first and demonstrate comparable speed, latency and quorum stability that we currently enjoy. Only then should we be discussing the pros and cons of collateral tokenomics.

Horizen has 4208 Super nodes and 43923 Secure nodes:

From a technical perspective, I have no idea how Horizen's technology stack compares to dash. Do they have latency issues and is it less important with Secure nodes i.e. perhaps less comparable to dash masternodes? So, although we might draw some inference from Horizen, we need hard data and simulations, not just for today but projected forward when we have 10 or 100 times more users.

Also, Horizen's "democratization" of paid nodes doesn't seemed to of made the slightest difference to how it's perceived. I have never seen anyone compare Horizen's node count to Lightening Network, currently sitting at 29k. So even the tokenomics is questionable. Again, I think we'd get more bang for our buck hiring top notch PR and marketing firms.

Can we ease the burden of Instant Send quorums by implementing a custom version of Avalanche? Again, at this point it's pure conjecture.

So, bottom line:

1. Give us the data, the simulations and the projections to show no negative effect.
2. Demonstrate the benefits for how this "democratization" of masternode collateral will help.


For one thing, ZEN is on an algo that works with sol/s instead of hash/s, so it is comparing apples to oranges when comparing Equihash to X11,
they may need a higher node count to run their algo since it is computationally expensive compared to X11, and still runs slow as fuck, has anybody
here even tried to transact on a full node with ZEN, I gave up over two years ago, you can still use a full node to transact with Dash. Adding more nodes
doesn't mean we get more bang for our buck.
 
We have to understand that the proposal to increase the nodes is not in improving Dash, but in human egoism itself.

Let's think:

Since I can't have 1000 Dash, I don't like Dash, since I want to have a node and earn 6% per year. It's not fair that others have a node and I don't.

Dash should have 100 coin nodes. So we can all have one, and since I have 100 coins it is the magic number.

Then ... the years will pass and Dash will be worth $ 1000, and one day a person will come to a Dash forum and say:

Dash's guarantee should be 10 Dash, 100 is a discrimination and lowering it to 10, it will be better for the network.


Do you understand what i mean?

If what people want is to get a return on their Dash portfolio, whether they have 1 Dash or 999 Dash, they have to propose a stacking wallet that creates nodes on the network. You choose the stacking option on your Dash wallet, and when there are 1000 Dash from different wallets, you will get a return the same as who has 1000 Dash.

Is it so hard to understand?

4000 nodes is more than enough and they have been doing it very well for years.

I have had 100 Dash, 400 Dash, 900 Dash and until achieving 1000 I have fought because I was clear about my goal.

But before that, I delegated the Dash I owned so I could have passive dividends.

More nodes will not add value or a better network. But a wallet with the option of stacking at 15 days, 30 days or more does.

Think about it.
 
I support this even though there are some cons, think it would be an improvement overall. Also hoping that more people continue to use this forum!
 
Back
Top