Should Platform run on all nodes or should Platform run only on High Performance nodes ?

qwizzie

Grizzled Member
Aug 6, 2014
2,050
1,250
1,183
Knipsel.JPG


Source : www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMmvP6G3NrE
Timestamp 52:30

Please take the time to fully watch the discussion of this topic by Dash Platform team during their Dash Platform Product Update S91 (see above source link and timestamp).

For the High Performance Masternode Solution there is talk of raising the Dash collateral to either 10.000 dash (higher TPS but more centralized) or 5.000 dash (less TPS but a bit more decentralized, but nowhere near as decentralized as having Dash Platform run on all nodes ofc).

Nothing is finalized, everything is still very much in flux. The Dash Platform team indicated feedback from the Dash community would be helpfull, so that is why i am kickstarting the discussion here.

Update 7th of October 2022 :

DCG : Introductory presentation on High Performance Masternodes
Link : www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ0iJZ1pvsc
 
Last edited:

qwizzie

Grizzled Member
Aug 6, 2014
2,050
1,250
1,183
I am leaning against the High Performance Masternode Solution because of :

Data replication would get a lot more centralized over less nodes. This undermines the availability of data stored on the masternode network / Dash Drive and could by itself form a single point of attack / single point of failure in the future. What if an entity decides to DDoS those select few 100 of High Performance Masternodes ? It is much more difficult to (sybil?) attack 4000 masternodes, then (sybil?) attack 100 High Performance masternodes. Not to mention possible problems during large software updates, where masternode numbers in general drop like flies, because masternode operators don't keep up with Dash updates or run into problems. If you ask me the above picture with the two described solutions is not a choice between more decentralized and less decentralized, but a choice between more decentralized and more centralized (no point avoiding the c word here).

Current Masternode Whales (those with 5 or 10 or more masternodes) would have no problem setting up a High Performance Masternode or two, but everyone else with less then 5 masternodes or less then 10 masternodes (depending on the outcome of the collateral discussion for High Performance Masternodes) would be denied setting up a High Performance Masternode. In my eyes this could seriously undermine the trust of the Dash community / current masternode operators in Dash Platform, as it radically changes the requirements of running a masternode on Dash Platform. Yes people can now choose to not run a masternode on Dash Platform, but at the same time you deny a lot of people that want to run a masternode on Dash Platform that option. And lets not forget that there could be additional revenue streams in the future for those masternodes that participate on Dash Platform. Those revenue streams should be available to all masternodes in my view, not to a select few 100 masternodes.

Also the centralization aspect of the High Performance Masternode Solution opens Dash up to attacks from Dash competitors, claiming Dash itself to be centralized. It will be difficult to defend Dash from that, because there is truth in it.

So at this point i am favoring the Masternode Solution, where Dash Platform is run on all nodes and way more decentralized.
 
Last edited:

Semarg

New Member
Jun 7, 2017
34
35
18
43
There are already tons of centralized shit on the market with low fees, high speed and everything else going along with centralization. Platform was intended to be first of a kind truly decentralized... And now you are going to ruin it?? To turn it into the same crap?? No. No, sir! No way!!
 

vazaki3

Active Member
Jul 1, 2019
682
354
133
34
apogee.dynu.net
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
Where is the poll?
Words and lectures without the relevant poll (ex. here) are a waste of time.

The governance questions are cheap now (of course they should be even more cheap, but this is another governance question).
Lets add your governance question straight to the Dash budget system.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Semarg

vazaki3

Active Member
Jul 1, 2019
682
354
133
34
apogee.dynu.net
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
And by the way, there are alternative solutions that reside in between the "masternode solution" and the "High performance masternode solution".

For example, the megawhales that own many masternodes, should be allowed to maintain only ONE DashPlatform database. That way the databases' replication is reduced, and thus the fee is also reduced. This will result for Dash to have approximately 127 DashPlatform databases, a similar number to the 100 databases that the "High performance masternode solution" is planning to have.

But the 100 databases of the "High performance masternode solution" are not similarly decentralized as the 127 databases of my plan are. Because in my solution the decentralization is achieved due the separate individuals that are holding these databases. Decentralization based on proved individuals is a real decentralization, in contrast to the fake decentralization based on collateral masternode addresses.

Why nobody proposed such a solution? Who insists of reducing decentralization or introducing fake decentralized solutions?

If you add a poll, please add my solution in the poll options.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: onetime

qwizzie

Grizzled Member
Aug 6, 2014
2,050
1,250
1,183
Dash / Bitcoin / blockchain is basically data with ownership assigned through usage of private keys / passphrases / signing on blockchain addresses. Blockchain does not know who owns what blockchain address specifically, which is why blockchain can't limit the number of nodes to a specific owner. Which is why a masternode owner can have several masternodes, or whales could end up having several high performance masternodes, without the blockchain system (with full certainty !) connecting them to one specific owner.

Maybe you could tie masternodes to an blockchain identity that is fully backed with an ID verification, but even that is subject to exploit and highly degrades the privacy of masternode owners.

So lets just focus on and discuss the two proposed solutions by the Dash Platform team, and not get side tracked too much with alternative solutions that are impractical and from a technical point of view most likely impossible to reach consensus on and to implement.

With regards to the poll, the Dash Platform team / Sam said to most likely do a polling of the network in case of the Dash Platform team chosing for the High Performance Masternode Solution. Currently no decision has been made by the Dash Platform team and they indicated that they wanted to hear from the Dash community / masternode operators first.

What does worry me is that at this stage of Dash Platform development, there is still such unclarity and disagreement among Dash devs on how to exactly implement Dash Platform (on all nodes or on subset of nodes with different collateral requirements and different hardware requirements). This does come totally out of the blue for me. I thought this was all figured out long ago and that the devs were working according a certain roadmap with a certain set of goals / objectives. This whole 'High Performance Masternode Solution' was never on the roadmap or never talked about with the Dash community.

Pretty late in the game to be talking about this, not to mention that this could significantely delay Dash Platform if a preference for the High Performance Masternode Solution emerges (i assume additional research would need to be done then, that goes beyond some internal devs talks : to see what the additional hardware and collateral requirements are for those masternodes, what the risks are for such masternode system, how much additional work / additional coding this details, adjustment to the roadmap, setting up new goals / new objectives etc etc).
 
Last edited:

Semarg

New Member
Jun 7, 2017
34
35
18
43
Dash / Bitcoin / blockchain is basically data with ownership assigned through usage of private keys / passphrases / signing on blockchain addresses. Blockchain does not know who owns what blockchain address specifically, which is why blockchain can't limit the number of nodes to a specific owner. Which is why a masternode owner can have several masternodes, or whales could end up having several high performance masternodes, without the blockchain system (with full certainty !) connecting them to one specific owner.

Maybe you could tie masternodes to an blockchain identity that is fully backed with an ID verification, but even that is subject to exploit and highly degrades the privacy of masternode owners.

So lets just focus on and discuss the two proposed solutions by the Dash Platform team, and not get side tracked too much with alternative solutions that are impractical and from a technical point of view most likely impossible to reach consensus on and to implement.

With regards to the poll, the Dash Platform team / Sam said to most likely do a polling of the network in case of the Dash Platform team chosing for the High Performance Masternode Solution. Currently no decision has been made by the Dash Platform team and they indicated that they wanted to hear from the Dash community / masternode operators first.

What does worry me is that at this stage of Dash Platform development, there is still such unclarity and disagreement among Dash devs on how to exactly implement Dash Platform (on all nodes or on subset of nodes with different collateral requirements and different hardware requirements). This does come totally out of the blue for me. I thought this was all figured out long ago and that the devs were working according a certain roadmap with a certain set of goals / objectives. This whole 'High Performance Masternode Solution' was never on the roadmap or never talked about with the Dash community.

Pretty late in the game to be talking about this, not to mention that this could significantely delay Dash Platform if a preference for the High Performance Masternode Solution emerges (i assume additional research would need to be done then, that goes beyond some internal devs talks : to see what the additional hardware and collateral requirements are for those masternodes, what the risks are for such masternode system, how much additional work / additional coding this details, adjustment to the roadmap, setting up new goals / new objectives etc etc).
Absolutly agree. Right out of the blue in a few months before (promised) release comes the worst ever idea in Dash's history, turning back all previous years dedicated to decentralization, throwing away hundreds of small MNOs, most active and loyal part of community. I'm terrified.
 

qwizzie

Grizzled Member
Aug 6, 2014
2,050
1,250
1,183
There is a risk of course when leaving it to a polling of the network, as the Dash governance system for better or for worse is dictated by a few large masternode whales who could benefit from chosing the High Performance Masternode solution, specially if they value decentralization less and are more drawn to the possible future revenue streams of Dash Platform or just want more influence within Dash.
 

vazaki3

Active Member
Jul 1, 2019
682
354
133
34
apogee.dynu.net
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
Dash / Bitcoin / blockchain is basically data with ownership assigned through usage of private keys / passphrases / signing on blockchain addresses. Blockchain does not know who owns what blockchain address specifically, which is why blockchain can't limit the number of nodes to a specific owner. Which is why a masternode owner can have several masternodes, or whales could end up having several high performance masternodes, without the blockchain system (with full certainty !) connecting them to one specific owner.
Of course we know the Dash individuals!
We can track individuals by analysing their voting behavior. Not accurately , but with a very good approximation! We have approx 127 individuals that govern Dash.
Having a good approximation of individuals, we can assign to these individuals the task of maintaining the DashPlatform Databases. That way we reduce the number of replicated Dash platform Databases, thus we reduce the transaction fee, while preserving decentralization.

It is written in the footer of the Dash individuals web page: "If someone realizes that his individuality is wrongly displayed in mnowatch, please inform us (you dont have to reveal your individuality, just inform us that there is an error)". There are no issues to show, in gitlab. Until now, not a single one reported that his individuality is wrongly displayed!
 
Last edited:

dashfriend_

New Member
Feb 11, 2021
6
23
3
The slide is misleading. It simply shows the benefits of a more centralized solution. More centralized solutions will always have lower fees, enable higher TPS, and reduce the amount of communication between nodes. That's a given.

The suggested high performance masternode solution comes out of the blue and is so close to mainnet release. There is no debate about it, and the idea has never been discussed publicly during the last five years of Evo development. Why the sudden move?

I can only see disadvantages:
  • The masternode network would become even more centralized. Dash has been criticized for being run by a small group of masternode owners. This would only make the criticism even more justified.
  • Messing with masternode collateral sizes is like messing with the 21 million coin supply in Bitcoin. It would break the social contract.
  • The attack surface of the server instances running would increase as the total number of masternodes decreases. High performance masternodes would most likely be run at data centers, making it easier for attackers and law enforcement to tamper with and/or replace the binaries being executed.
  • Masternode collaterals would be consolidated into fewer addresses. More of Dash would get concentrated into lesser adresses and into the hands of fewer people. This would lead to lesser distribution of Dash.
  • There's always the possibility of game theoretical attacks when you introduce a new class of untested nodes to the network.
  • The optics of the whole idea scream: Dash whales want to give themsevles more Dash.
If the decision for or against high performance masternodes is put to a governance vote, then it will be in the financial interest of every Dash whale to vote in favor of high performance masternodes since it would reduce server costs and most likely increase rewards. To call it a vote is misleading.

We haven't even released Platform to mainnet yet, but are already talking about the possible introduction of high performance masternodes. That's somewhat ironic. Why can't we release Platform to mainnet first and then analyze what impact it has on the network and how much it is used in the first place? We currently have zero empirical data about the use of Platform on mainnet.

Platform was always communicated to be a truly decentralized and censorship resistant system. Why abandon (or compromise on) this goal so close to mainnet release? There are tons of centralized projects out there with higher TPS, throughput, and storage capabilities that have abandoned their cypherpunk roots in order to achieve these goals. They are nothing more than glorified replicating databases masquerading as blockchains. Dash does not have to join them. Let's keep Dash Your money, your way.
 

kot

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Mar 17, 2015
831
2,101
263
I think this question and change should be parked in backlog for later consideration.
In my opinion this is absolutely unnecessary and it would only delay the release due to additional complexity of the network architecture and additional code needed to be developed, tested and maintained.
Let's face the reality - there will be maybe 10, 20 or maaaybe 50 developers developing dapps on the platform in first months after the release - there is no immediate need to have a super-efficient nodes since the day one imho. Upgrades and changes could be done after the initial release.
Developers should be laser-focused on the platform delivery and release without adding any new features, components or complexities. Just release it finally!
 

splawik21

Yeah, it's me....
Dash Core Group
Foundation Member
Dash Support Group
Apr 8, 2014
1,969
1,334
1,283
I actually agree with @kot
Get the platform out, provide the usability so people can start building on it and then scale it over time with new stuff.
Last thing we need now is it to get some more meat on the bbq.
 

vazaki3

Active Member
Jul 1, 2019
682
354
133
34
apogee.dynu.net
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
I actually agree with @kot
Get the platform out, provide the usability so people can start build on it and then scale it over time with new stuff.
Whether people will start building on the platform or not, depends on the transaction fees.
If you release the platform and the transaction fees are huge, nobody will build on it, it will be a huge failure, and then Dash is doomed.
#13
 

qwizzie

Grizzled Member
Aug 6, 2014
2,050
1,250
1,183
Whether people will start building on the platform or not, depends on the transaction fees.
If you release the platform and the transaction fees are huge, nobody will build on it, it will be a huge failure, and then Dash is doomed.
#13
Having watched most of the Dash Platform Product Updates there was never any mention about huge transaction fees, when they talked about the Dash Platform and its associated costs / fees. What i did hear was a lot of thought and coding already went into keeping the Dash Platform fees as low as possible. So i don't think Dash Platform will be plagued with huge fees or very high costs to developers or endusers, rather the opposite.

But even if Dash Platform fails to attract the attention of developers or simply does not see much usage from endusers the coming years it will not automatically doom Dash, it just means a colossal waste of time and budget resources occurred, which will most likely lead to a re-thinking of Dash development priorities and/or strategy.
 
Last edited:

vazaki3

Active Member
Jul 1, 2019
682
354
133
34
apogee.dynu.net
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
Having watched most of the Dash Platform Product Updates there was never any mention about huge transaction fees, when they talked about the Dash Platform and its associated costs / fees. What i did hear was a lot of thought and coding already went into keeping the Dash Platform fees as low as possible. So i don't think Dash Platform will be plagued with huge fees or very high costs to developers or endusers, rather the opposite.

But even if Dash Platform fails to attract the attention of developers or simply does not see much usage from endusers the coming years it will not automatically doom Dash, it just means a colossal waste of time and budget resources occurred, which will most likely lead to a re-thinking of Dash development priorities and/or strategy.
The issue of the "high performance MNOs" emerged due to high transaction fees. Does anyone knows the exact number of the transactions fees, when comparing the "high performance MNOs" to the MNOs ?

"The transaction fees are high" means nothing, it is misleading.
The numbers should be calculated (and voted)...."ἔχων νοῦν ψηφισάτω τὸν ἀριθμὸν"
 
Last edited:

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
3,378
1,434
1,183
We should be careful to make decisions based on things that have not happened yet. To my knowledge, there has never been a serious and coordinated state actor attack specifically on the dash masternode network to the same extent as bitcoin. Consider, for example, the coordinated attacks on PoW mining vs climate change. Is it feasible to shut down a network that is three times smaller than bitcoin (not including lightning)? I imagine it would be relatively easy to target those with the most incentives and publicly shame them for money laundering etc.

While the overall masternode count has been falling for almost two years, the number of masternodes (and more importantly votes) in the hands of custodial providers - such as crowdnode - has been growing. This in itself is of concern to me. We should, therefore, be championing the decentralization of incentives.

All along, it was my understanding Dash Platform would pay for itself handsomely via fees, so I'm not sure where this master-masternode stuff is coming from.
 

xkcd

Active Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Feb 19, 2017
504
474
133
australia
mnowatch.org
Dash Address
XpoZXRfr2iFxWhfRSAK3j1jww9xd4tJVez
I'm neither for or against High Performance Masternodes, henceforth referred to simply as 'Super Masternodes'. The level of decentralisation we choose will depend on how we intend to use the Plaform aka Evo. The examples that QE often gives us for Platform is a contact list and merchant directory, if those are examples of the kind of data that one might store on Platform, then rest assured 100 nodes, is ample for such data. This is is because there is no threat of censorship of such data, in fact I would argue you'd have better access to and integration options if you simply stored such data in Google or other web2.0 solutions, you don't even need Evo for it. If OTOH we use Platform more as a general purpose data storage in the cloud, where perhaps we may have dapps such as a dashyleaks where whistle blowers could drop sensitive leaked data there and then prove that they did so to trusted people and be certain the data could not be tampered with, then indeed, the level of decentralisation proposed is insufficient. This later use case is the one I was hoping we were going for, since it is the one lacking in the world currently. No one cares about your contact list and some merchant directory! Figure out what it is we wish to store on Evo and then you will know your required level of decentralisation required.

QE alludes to what kind of data he thinks will be stored on Platform when he says, no one would be willing to pay the high fees if we replicated across 4k nodes. Well that's right, no one who is storing something as boring as a contact list would pay more than a cent to store it, since it's unimportant and there is no expectation that the data would ever come under threat, however someone storing more sensitive data might see the value of that data differently. So, clearly QE is thinking about very pedestrian data like the stuff I just mentioned and his numerous cat photos, certainly nothing that would ever be deemed too risky to post on facebook, twitter or any other web2.0 site.

What ARE the costs then?

When we consider the fees, the most expensive part is the data storage, DCG has some whacked out fee model, but it can be simplified to cost of SSD space to store the data for 10 years times number of nodes. So, a back of the napkin calculation, to say store your profile data together with a small grainy avatar would be.
  • Assume 100GB SSD is $24/month.
  • Assume our profile data is 14KB.
  • Assume 100 evo nodes.

Cost to store -> 14kb / 100GB / 1024MB /1024KB * $24 * 12 months *10 years * 100 nodes = $0.0384.

and this is the number QE thinks ends users would be willing to pay for such a transaction. 3.8 cents. Compared to $1.52 for the entire network.

Why are we hearing about this just now? I thought we were closer to the finish line?

The reason we are hearing it about it just now is because the devs assumed fees would be low, it was only until someone sat down and did the calculations and then finally got it right that QE sh!t himself and realised the fees would be too high for the data he thinks people will want to store on evo, silly memes, phone books, grainy avatars. It was an oversight and wilful ignorance of people such me telling them fees would be high that caused the delay in discovering that yes fees will be high.

Why the 10k Collateral?

The 10k collateral was chosen to shrink the Evo network into approx 100 nodes, here is the proposed solution.

  1. 10,000 Dash will be required to upgrade to a Evonet Super Masternode.
  2. 25% of the block reward will be withheld to pay exclusively to the SMNs.
For the sake of simplcity let's say there are 4000 active MNs at the moment (actual is 3660). Then if the collateral of 1,000 Dash were unchanged, but 25% were withheld for the SMN only, then we might assume that 25% of the regular MNs would move over to hosting the SMNs. thus, 3000 nodes would be running regular MNs and 1000 nodes would be running SMNs. However DCG is targeting 100 nodes, so how to achieve that? Well if they also increase the collateral requirements ten-fold, then those 1000 SMNs will collapse down to just 100, giving us a final split of 3000 + 100 = 3100 Masternodes.


Will increasing the collateral mean SMNs run on more powerful infrastructure?

QE believes that if we increase the stake required to run a SMN and the ROI is assumed to be higher that the infrastucure those SMNOs choose will be higher powered, hence the high performance masternode, I see no evidence why that would be the case. The (S)MNO will always run the infra that is required to get the job done and no more, this is called optimisation. So, I disagree that increasing the collateral would result in more powerful nodes, however, I do agree that running evo on fewer nodes would require those fewer nodes to be more powerful than they otherwise would be due to additonal demand placed on them by the network.

I have fewer than 10 nodes, I feel cheated because I can't run a SMN even if I wanted too !

For this, I give the same answer to those people that have fewer than 1000 dash. Crowdnode will be running SMN, that you are happy to pool into. Further, currently Crowdnode are testing trustless masternodes with 100 Dash minimum stake, they will also branch this out to offer stakes in SMNs at 1,000 Dash each. If you have fewer than 10k Dash, you can pool stake over at Crowdnode with the rest of us!
 

qwizzie

Grizzled Member
Aug 6, 2014
2,050
1,250
1,183
What ARE the costs then?

When we consider the fees, the most expensive part is the data storage, DCG has some whacked out fee model, but it can be simplified to cost of SSD space to store the data for 10 years times number of nodes. So, a back of the napkin calculation, to say store your profile data together with a small grainy avatar would be.
  • Assume 100GB SSD is $24/month.
  • Assume our profile data is 14KB.
  • Assume 100 evo nodes.

Cost to store -> 14kb / 100GB / 1024MB /1024KB * $24 * 12 months *10 years * 100 nodes = $0.0384.

and this is the number QE thinks ends users would be willing to pay for such a transaction. 3.8 cents. Compared to $1.52 for the entire network.
This is pure speculation correct ? So far i have not heard any specific fees being mentioned by QE, at least not in the Dash Platform Product Updates,
where the fee system is still under development (and has been for some time now) :

Knipsel.JPG

Source : www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMmvP6G3NrE

Why are we hearing about this just now? I thought we were closer to the finish line?


The reason we are hearing it about it just now is because the devs assumed fees would be low, it was only until someone sat down and did the calculations and then finally got it right that QE sh!t himself and realised the fees would be too high for the data he thinks people will want to store on evo, silly memes, phone books, grainy avatars. It was an oversight and wilful ignorance of people such me telling them fees would be high that caused the delay in discovering that yes fees will be high.
If the Dash Platform fee system is still under development and Dash Platform Team never specifically mentioned how high those fees would be, then how can it be currently already too high ? It again sounds a lot like speculation to me.

Why the 10k Collateral?

The 10k collateral was chosen to shrink the Evo network into approx 100 nodes, here is the proposed solution.

  1. 10,000 Dash will be required to upgrade to a Evonet Super Masternode.
  2. 25% of the block reward will be withheld to pay exclusively to the SMNs.
For the sake of simplcity let's say there are 4000 active MNs at the moment (actual is 3660). Then if the collateral of 1,000 Dash were unchanged, but 25% were withheld for the SMN only, then we might assume that 25% of the regular MNs would move over to hosting the SMNs. thus, 3000 nodes would be running regular MNs and 1000 nodes would be running SMNs. However DCG is targeting 100 nodes, so how to achieve that? Well if they also increase the collateral requirements ten-fold, then those 1000 SMNs will collapse down to just 100, giving us a final split of 3000 + 100 = 3100 Masternodes.
Again a lot of speculation in my eyes, speculation that a lot of masternodes would shift from a trustless solution to a trusted solution (which is what Crowdnode currently is and will remain, unless DCG introduces Trustless Masternode Shares and Crowdnode adapts their system to it)

Knipsel.JPG

Source : www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJcML_3N1ME

and speculation that this leads to 25% of the block reward being withheld to pay exclusively to the SMNs.

I have fewer than 10 nodes, I feel cheated because I can't run a SMN even if I wanted too !

For this, I give the same answer to those people that have fewer than 1000 dash. Crowdnode will be running SMN, that you are happy to pool into. Further, currently Crowdnode are testing trustless masternodes with 100 Dash minimum stake, they will also branch this out to offer stakes in SMNs at 1,000 Dash each. If you have fewer than 10k Dash, you can pool stake over at Crowdnode with the rest of us!
I don't want Crowdnode (a centralized trusted shared hosting service provider) to have this much power in the Dash network, ever ! Even with multi-address signature Crowdnode will not magically transform to a trustless solution, they just become a bit more safe to use (less chance of a MooCowMoo situation arising), but Crowdnode is nowhere near as trustless as our Dash masternode model currently is.

What is Trustless ?


Also this to consider :

images.jpg
 
Last edited:

GNULinuxGuy

Member
Jul 22, 2014
115
71
78
Dash Address
XjkXfrYTSvdYe4738DtNVX5XfUz7qU9HnY
I feel like a lot of technicals are being thrown around without any real reason. Why would we want to reduce replication of Platform's largest overhead (mass storage)? To reduce costs and/or increase performance. The thing is, holding more collateral does not increase performance. Increased collateral cannot reduce the overhead of a node. It can only potentially increase trust, and I'm pretty sure we're a long way from that being a concern (if anything the opposite is a common complaint I've heard).

So, why would we attempt to reduce Platform participants in this manner? The only reason I can think for an additional tier is like slapping a bandage on a compound fracture. It seems to be a weak attempt to pretend we don't need better proof of service features and/or incentives to provide enterprise class blockchain services in a decentralized manner. Eventually we will have to deal with this festering wound properly, and I'd much prefer we get stronger before things get any nastier.
 

xkcd

Active Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Feb 19, 2017
504
474
133
australia
mnowatch.org
Dash Address
XpoZXRfr2iFxWhfRSAK3j1jww9xd4tJVez
This is pure speculation correct ? So far i have not heard any specific fees being mentioned by QE, at least not in the Dash Platform Product Updates,
where the fee system is still under development (and has been for some time now) :

View attachment 11416
Source : www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMmvP6G3NrE



If the Dash Platform fee system is still under development and Dash Platform Team never specifically mentioned how high those fees would be, then how can it be currently already too high ? It again sounds a lot like speculation to me.



Again a lot of speculation in my eyes, speculation that a lot of masternodes would shift from a trustless solution to a trusted solution (which is what Crowdnode currently is and will remain, unless DCG introduces Trustless Masternode Shares and Crowdnode adapts their system to it)

View attachment 11417
Source : www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJcML_3N1ME

and speculation that this leads to 25% of the block reward being withheld to pay exclusively to the SMNs.



I don't want Crowdnode (a centralized trusted shared hosting service provider) to have this much power in the Dash network, ever ! Even with multi-address signature Crowdnode will not magically transform to a trustless solution, they just become a bit more safe to use (less chance of a MooCowMoo situation arising), but Crowdnode is nowhere near as trustless as our Dash masternode model currently is.

What is Trustless ?


Also this to consider :

View attachment 11418
No, my post was not speculation, it was informative, your post is FUD! Crowdnode is developing trustless MN shares right now.
 

qwizzie

Grizzled Member
Aug 6, 2014
2,050
1,250
1,183
No, my post was not speculation, it was informative, your post is FUD! Crowdnode is developing trustless MN shares right now.
Knipsel.JPG

Source : https://knowledge.crowdnode.io/en/articles/6531845-intro-to-crowdnode-trustless-masternodes

This is not trustless !! You are required to trust Crowdnode during the setup process. The Dash masternodes operating on the Dash network and not being setup and operated by centralized hosting service providers on the other hand, are trustless. Know the difference, understand the difference, understand the risks.

You seem to still have this nasty habit of calling anyone that disagrees with your posts, of making FUD posts. Such a weak way of participathing in a discussion.
 
Last edited:
  • Angry
Reactions: xkcd

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
3,378
1,434
1,183
A two-tier masternode network would have to deny all voting powers to the super nodes, or risk being corruptible like any other PoS network. Even now, companies like crowdnode are gradually edging closer to this eventual outcome and it makes me uncomfortable.

The potential high price for storing data is of little consequence. The customer is paying for clever and structured access from a fully functional DAO. Otherwise, there would always be cheaper options at the expense of censorship. Let's just say, for example, we add AI contracts to these decentralized databases. In such circumstance the customer is paying for added value, not to fiercely compete with all other centralized storage providers.

It is my understanding - please correct me if I'm wrong - Dash Platform is not designed for storing large blobs of data, but rather, structured data with special properties:

  1. data for notarization, such that it does not just notarize what is present but also what is absent i.e. cryptographic proof that at any point in time, the dataset is complete.
  2. to provide full version history of said data.
An example would be a national identity system where you can't just retroactively add or remove people. The data has sequence and history. This would make the following abuses of power harder to execute:
Police use of dead children's identities "justified"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Semarg and vazaki3

GNULinuxGuy

Member
Jul 22, 2014
115
71
78
Dash Address
XjkXfrYTSvdYe4738DtNVX5XfUz7qU9HnY
View attachment 11419
Source : https://knowledge.crowdnode.io/en/articles/6531845-intro-to-crowdnode-trustless-masternodes

This is not trustless !! You are required to trust Crowdnode during the setup process. The Dash masternodes operating on the Dash network and not being setup and operated by centralized hosting service providers on the other hand, are trustless. Know the difference, understand the difference, understand the risks.

You seem to still have this nasty habit of calling anyone that disagrees with your posts, of making FUD posts. Such a weak way of participathing in a discussion.
For most people this is a pointless distinction (although it definitely shouldn't be hidden). For example, most people, no matter how smart or cautious, don't worry about the security of their local bank branch (trustless MN setup provider) when they open their account. They're only concerned about the long term viability of the institution itself (the Dash network).
 

qwizzie

Grizzled Member
Aug 6, 2014
2,050
1,250
1,183
A two-tier masternode network would have to deny all voting powers to the super nodes, or risk being corruptible like any other PoS network. Even now, companies like crowdnode are gradually edging closer to this eventual outcome and it makes me uncomfortable.
I am also thinking about voting powers to the super nodes, but i am more worried how that could effect voting participation. If super nodes are allowed to vote but are simply not interested in the governance aspect of Dash and are just there to collect their super node payments, then that could undermine voting participation even more (which is already low). Which means we may need to change our governance model as well.

On the other hand super nodes which do have an interest in the governance aspect of Dash, could get too centralized and too large and could exert too much influence in our governance system.
 
Last edited:

xkcd

Active Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Feb 19, 2017
504
474
133
australia
mnowatch.org
Dash Address
XpoZXRfr2iFxWhfRSAK3j1jww9xd4tJVez
View attachment 11419
Source : https://knowledge.crowdnode.io/en/articles/6531845-intro-to-crowdnode-trustless-masternodes

This is not trustless !! You are required to trust Crowdnode during the setup process. The Dash masternodes operating on the Dash network and not being setup and operated by centralized hosting service providers on the other hand, are trustless. Know the difference, understand the difference, understand the risks.

You seem to still have this nasty habit of calling anyone that disagrees with your posts, of making FUD posts. Such a weak way of participathing in a discussion.
Get fucked qwizzie. You have to deposit the share in the masternode to CN initially while all the signing is done because

1664442805673.png


Once that part is complete it is fully trustless, this is the best we can do now, comparing CN to MCM is just plain fucking FUD and quite typical of you!
 

xkcd

Active Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Feb 19, 2017
504
474
133
australia
mnowatch.org
Dash Address
XpoZXRfr2iFxWhfRSAK3j1jww9xd4tJVez
A two-tier masternode network would have to deny all voting powers to the super nodes, or risk being corruptible like any other PoS network. Even now, companies like crowdnode are gradually edging closer to this eventual outcome and it makes me uncomfortable.

The potential high price for storing data is of little consequence. The customer is paying for clever and structured access from a fully functional DAO. Otherwise, there would always be cheaper options at the expense of censorship. Let's just say, for example, we add AI contracts to these decentralized databases. In such circumstance the customer is paying for added value, not to fiercely compete with all other centralized storage providers.

It is my understanding - please correct me if I'm wrong - Dash Platform is not designed for storing large blobs of data, but rather, structured data with special properties:

  1. data for notarization, such that it does not just notarize what is present but also what is absent i.e. cryptographic proof that at any point in time, the dataset is complete.
  2. to provide full version history of said data.
An example would be a national identity system where you can't just retroactively add or remove people. The data has sequence and history. This would make the following abuses of power harder to execute:
Police use of dead children's identities "justified"
SMNs will be granted 10 votes in the case the collateral is set to 10k, this is as one might expect, I see no reason for not allowing them to vote. Any reason you think for not letting them vote is equally valid for denying the current Masternodes from voting, which puts you in a paradox.

What is your beef with Crowdnode??? They are getting more people into voting, all the votes they cast are on behalf of their constituents and fully transparent, thanks to the CN voting block we were able to pass the DCG money grabs last week which otherwise would have failed to reach the threshold.

You are right that Platform is not designed for storing large files, but also the centralised model that QE is suggesting is not designed to store national ID cards, hold a democratic national election, or any myriad of problems we need to solve today. For those we would need to take advantage of the entire network and likely move the network behind TOR so that nodes could not easily be attacked by opposing nation states.
 

qwizzie

Grizzled Member
Aug 6, 2014
2,050
1,250
1,183
Get fucked qwizzie.

Once that part is complete it is fully trustless, this is the best we can do now, comparing CN to MCM is just plain fucking FUD and quite typical of you!
'the best we can do for now' may be good enough for you and if you want to call this trustless, eventhough its setup is not trustless (which kinda reminds me of Zcash and their trusted setup) then that is fine. I have the right to disagree with that, which i do.

I wish you could refrain of personal attacks and using f words, but i guess thats too much to hope for. Some people never change. It does make discussions with such a person a bit pointless. So i think i go back to ignoring you. Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: xkcd

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
3,378
1,434
1,183
@xkcd I think you are assuming that a 10x collateral is equal to 10x masternode work, which may or may not be the case. I'm not sure how we can verify how much work nodes perform compared to others hardware. Is this a planned feature of Platform?

Currently, voting power is not based on collateral alone. As you previously pointed out, the collateral is there to protect against Sybil attacks i.e. disincentivize the fast accumulation of evil nodes. Proof of Service per-node must still be achieved for voting, so I'm wondering how we determine the voting power of these supernodes?

I think it is already recognized by the developers that large data blobs such as photos are best kept on IPFS and notarized to Dash Platform. There are some potential shortcomings with this but it's not a deal breaker for MVP.

My beef is not specifically with crowdnode but with all mass accumulated custodial solutions. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to disincentivize this form of centralization but it shouldn't mean we embrace it either. How's it going to look when one day it comes to light that a custodial provider lost their voting keys to a hacker?

When there is a large custodian, proposals can be effectively down-voted by distributing the same number of Yes votes across multiple nodes. Likewise for the distribution of No votes, ultimately distorting the outcome of voting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xkcd

xkcd

Active Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Feb 19, 2017
504
474
133
australia
mnowatch.org
Dash Address
XpoZXRfr2iFxWhfRSAK3j1jww9xd4tJVez
@xkcd I think you are assuming that a 10x collateral is equal to 10x masternode work, which may or may not be the case. I'm not sure how we can verify how much work nodes perform compared to others hardware. Is this a planned feature of Platform?

Currently, voting power is not based on collateral alone. As you previously pointed out, the collateral is there to protect against Sybil attacks i.e. disincentivize the fast accumulation of evil nodes. Proof of Service per-node must still be achieved for voting, so I'm wondering how we determine the voting power of these supernodes?

I think it is already recognized by the developers that large data blobs such as photos are best kept on IPFS and notarized to Dash Platform. There are some potential shortcomings with this but it's not a deal breaker for MVP.

My beef is not specifically with crowdnode but with all mass accumulated custodial solutions. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to disincentivize this form of centralization but it shouldn't mean we embrace it either. How's it going to look when one day it comes to light that a custodial provider lost their voting keys to a hacker?

When there is a large custodian, proposals can be effectively down-voted by distributing the same number of Yes votes across multiple nodes. Likewise for the distribution of No votes, ultimately distorting the outcome of voting.
I am just relaying what QE told us about the voting power of the Super MNs, if the collateral is 10k, they will have 10 votes, if it is 4k, then 4 votes and so on. regarding the votes of clusters like Crowdnode, they are so transparent, we even capture them here https://mnowatch.org/crowdnode/ if anything went awry there, we would see it and call it out instantly, in the case their votes keys got lose, which might happen since by definition they need to be online, then they can quickly re-key the MNs with new keys, the threat of their votes being used nefariously is minuscule.
 

Macrochip

Active Member
Feb 1, 2015
226
199
103
I don't understand... I thought if I choose to upgrade my node(s) to run Platform I get paid additional Platform usage fees to offset/eliminate/surpass (short/mid/long-term) the higher operation cost of a High Performance node?
We already have a 1k Dash barrier of entry. To introduce another one would be a horrible decision. To think about performance issues before the actual product is even out is typical over-engineering.

Get it out the door already, we've been waiting long enough. Once you collect empirical data from a mainnet product you may think about optimization, not before.

Geez.