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

QuantumExplorer

Active Member
Dash Core Group
Aug 20, 2014
270
374
123
No it is not, the trigger that made Satoshi nakamto build bitcoin was because of the abuse of the centralized powers during 2008 banking crisis.
It seems like Dash its leadership has lost it's roots completely, decentralisation just seems like a marketing term at this point, and Dash is really not going to get away with it with just 180HP masternodes, 450 does not sound much better either.

If you study some ancient history you would know that people where able to all work together in community's round about 100 people.
Everyone that has lived in small villages knows that everone knows every one. As these villages grow people start to lose track, I can tell from my own experciences and the people around me (I have lived in a village all my life, and have friends in multiple villages around me). That as that numbers goes up it's hard to keep track, once it's gets into a couple of 1000's this no longer is the case.

This is where Evan Duffield was aiming at when he decided on the number a 1000Dash. A number to high to cause centralisation, but low enough that it would still be fast enough to serve the whole world one day.

Stop thinking with just your logical part of the brain, use your emotional part of the brain, research and realize that what I am saying has been proven to be truth time and time again.
You make it sound like I want less nodes because I want to have the consensus of Dash Platform in the hands of less people. This can not be further from the case.

First I need to make sure you realize that the chain used for payments stays with 1000s of nodes?

I am not against 1000s of nodes for Platform once we have sharding, but we will need to get there, and we won't have sharding for at LEAST another year most likely two under normal circumstances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nik443 and xkcd

virgile

Member
Dash Core Group
Oct 17, 2022
55
61
58
26
So has consensus been reached among DCG with regards to HPM's ? There was an internal poll going on that had some initial votes from devs, but because it was weekend that was just the initial outcome. What was the final outcome ?

The reason i ask is because Sam mentioned earlier that a decission proposal woulds only be prepared by DCG, if there was internal DCG consensus for a HPM solution.
Let me check this real quick.
 

virgile

Member
Dash Core Group
Oct 17, 2022
55
61
58
26
4K nodes won by 3 votes, then " HPMN 4k or 10k (doesn’t matter)" is second. Then all the other options had the same number of votes.
 

qwizzie

Grizzled Member
Aug 6, 2014
2,052
1,254
1,183
4K nodes won by 3 votes, then " HPMN 4k or 10k (doesn’t matter)" is second. Then all the other options had the same number of votes.
Is there still consensus if 1 dev voted for Platform on all nodes ?
Or is there only consensus if all devs voted for HPM's ?

And did all devs voted for the HPM's solution (either 4k or 10K) ? Or did 1 dev (or more) voted for the Platform on all nodes solution ?
 

virgile

Member
Dash Core Group
Oct 17, 2022
55
61
58
26
And yes, as QE states, this decision is a release decision, we can change it later on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xkcd

virgile

Member
Dash Core Group
Oct 17, 2022
55
61
58
26
That clears that up then. Pretty much the same result as the initial outcome of the poll.
See : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...gh-performance-nodes.53374/page-3#post-232226
Cool, i hope you have a better view of why we are polling. To us, it seems that HPM seem like the lesser evil, but we know it has drawbacks and that the community must ultimately have the say on what is going on. Not black and white :b

I have a document i need to work on, i'll get back to check if there are new messages in a few hours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xkcd and qwizzie

leachinglurker

New Member
Feb 16, 2016
1
1
3
Anyone can run a platform node, though you would only get *direct* rewards from Platform if you have the collateral of 4k Dash.
Is it possible to complement a shortage of collateralized nodes with voluntary nodes, in particular when bootstrapping the platform network?
And continuing on that thought, do voluntary nodes create attack vectors to collateralized nodes?
 
  • Like
Reactions: stan.distortion

qwizzie

Grizzled Member
Aug 6, 2014
2,052
1,254
1,183
Knipsel.JPG


I would like to know this too...

From another thread and from QE :
Right now we pseudorandomly choose 100 members out of the DML (deterministic masternode list) to form a quorum. Quorums currently last for 1 day, and we have 24 of them. Pretty much 1 is created every hour. Because of quorums being completely destroyed after a day it's very hard to do sharding.
Source :

Distributed platform storage (avoids High Performance nodes)
www.dash.org/forum/threads/distributed-platform-storage-avoids-high-performance-nodes.53400/#post-232436

Not sure though if that answer also applies to stopping a (Platform ?) quorum and the impact of that. And not sure if a stopped (Platform ?) quorum then self-correct or needs a reset from MNO's nodes. This really does need an answer directly from a dev.
 
Last edited:

peter

Member
Apr 1, 2015
53
37
58
So some answers, but not all answers to above questions.
Sorry, I don't understand/find the answers.
For how long: perhaps maximum 24h, because this is the maximal duration of the quorum?
Impact: perhaps no impact at all, because there are 23 other quorums, that could to the job?
Self-correct: perhaps yes, after one hour (new quorum appears), or yes after one day?

Further question: how bad would be the impact? No more Platform service at all? Just some users concerned (1/24 of all users)? Just some delays (client must look for another quorum)?
I think, it's important to know the impact, because if the impact is really bad for Platform and the users (I guess no), then we should, as I understand, use the 10k HPMN solution.
 

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
3,381
1,435
1,183
Just curious about the recent uptick in active masternodes:

If this number continues upwards as we go into voting... is there a possibility of collusion to try and swing votes? I mean to say, can someone at MNOWatch fingerprint recently activated nodes? Maybe I'm just being paranoid.
 

Semarg

New Member
Jun 7, 2017
34
35
18
43
We are polling the community to know what the community want. We haven't taken a decision to push 180 or 450 nodes. If anything, it proves that we are trying to do our best to stick to the community's values if you ask me.
That's just the very typical attempts to avoid responsibility you and @QuantumExplorer show all these days! "That's not us! We only do the proposals! Network decides!!"

That's so nooooo... Every dev (not to say a CTO!) has a VERY strong voice in community. And now these voices persuade us to increase the collateral for Platform nodes without technical necessity to do so. There are hundreds of MNOs, most of them doesn't have a clue in math and coding, absolutely most of them mute. Even without any node at hands, dev team has a lot of power in leading the project. I think no whale has such an influence as Sam alone. Brave it with pride - both of you DO decide what's going on. And right now both of you lead Dash to centralization and censorship.
 

virgile

Member
Dash Core Group
Oct 17, 2022
55
61
58
26
That's just the very typical attempts to avoid responsibility you and @QuantumExplorer show all these days! "That's not us! We only do the proposals! Network decides!!"

That's so nooooo... Every dev (not to say a CTO!) has a VERY strong voice in community. And now these voices persuade us to increase the collateral for Platform nodes without technical necessity to do so. There are hundreds of MNOs, most of them doesn't have a clue in math and coding, absolutely most of them mute. Even without any node at hands, dev team has a lot of power in leading the project. I think no whale has such an influence as Sam alone. Brave it with pride - both of you DO decide what's going on. And right now both of you lead Dash to centralization and censorship.
I'm currently trying to work on something else, so i will wait to have more time to answer the real questions with proper look at numbers. But such an ad hominem though, i can't let it there for long without answering, you are forcing my hand. It's cutting my work midway and reduces efficency by a bunch.

We came up with multiple choices and had no strong opinion. From there we could:
  1. ask the community to voice their opinion <- you state we try to avoid responsability.
  2. have decided by ourselves <- I am rather certain would have been called tyrants that gave no mind about what you guys want.
I am asking you for the future. In case of such scenario, how do you think we should proceed like? This is a real question, and i expect an answer: i wish to know how to do better next time, in your eyes.

persuade us to increase the collateral for Platform nodes without technical necessity to do so
I invite you to watch the presentation by QE or read my comments, we have covered the why of this poll rather extensively. I repeated in this conversation also a few of the necessities. I hope that you, from the talk here i had with mostly qwizzie, can see that i infact don't especially lean toward a way or another, as long as some nodes do not support Platform. I think some parameters are better yes. Now you can trust the math or you don't, that's another story.

I am flattered though that you do think i seem to be so influencial.
 

virgile

Member
Dash Core Group
Oct 17, 2022
55
61
58
26
Just curious about the recent uptick in active masternodes:

If this number continues upwards as we go into voting... is there a possibility of collusion to try and swing votes? I mean to say, can someone at MNOWatch fingerprint recently activated nodes? Maybe I'm just being paranoid.
another quick answer, i have not followed that actively, but i think there is a whale/exchange which has lagged behind on the last big update, maybe it is related?
 

Semarg

New Member
Jun 7, 2017
34
35
18
43
I'm currently trying to work on something else, so i will wait to have more time to answer the real questions with proper look at numbers.
If you have work to do - then do it, stop wasting your time answering me. That's not a rhetorical or irony, I'm dead serious. English isn't my native, so I want to repeat myself - return to work. If I have any say in that - do your code, this whole forum including me can really wait.
The same relates to @QuantumExplorer obviously.

We came up with multiple choices and had no strong opinion. From there we could:
  1. ask the community to voice their opinion <- you state we try to avoid responsability.
No, that's not true! You try to avoid resposibility not by asking the community but by saying that you do not decide. You do. Not alone, of course, we all do in much or less.

I am asking you for the future. In case of such scenario, how do you think we should proceed like? This is a real question, and i expect an answer: i wish to know how to do better next time, in your eyes.
Now when you said that, I thought again and now I think that's not the way you deal with the situation I don't like but your position. Both of you. If the whole team votes for raising the collateral - then I don't like the whole team's position. I would prefer if you all loudly leaned to decentralization while offering the same ways to go and the same calculations.
If it happened like so my views go against the dev team's and the network at whole will vote for it - well, then it's a very strong point to review my assets.

I invite you to watch the presentation by QE or read my comments, we have covered the why of this poll rather extensively. I repeated in this conversation also a few of the necessities. I hope that you, from the talk here i had with mostly qwizzie, can see that i infact don't especially lean toward a way or another, as long as some nodes do not support Platform. I think some parameters are better yes. Now you can trust the math or you don't, that's another story.

I am flattered though that you do think i seem to be so influencial.
So is it a matter of math or is it your opinion? "I think some parameters are better..." or "...trust the math!"
I thought we previously agree on that decentralization's value is a matter of opinion.

And you are welcome.
I am of a very high opinion about dev team, BTW. I think you, guys, did a great job and will do much more. That makes the situation bitter.
 

virgile

Member
Dash Core Group
Oct 17, 2022
55
61
58
26
If you have work to do - then do it, stop wasting your time answering me. That's not a rhetorical or irony, I'm dead serious. English isn't my native, so I want to repeat myself - return to work. If I have any say in that - do your code, this whole forum including me can really wait.
The same relates to @QuantumExplorer obviously.



No, that's not true! You try to avoid resposibility not by asking the community but by saying that you do not decide. You do. Not alone, of course, we all do in much or less.



Now when you said that, I thought again and now I think that's not the way you deal with the situation I don't like but your position. Both of you. If the whole team votes for raising the collateral - then I don't like the whole team's position. I would prefer if you all loudly leaned to decentralization while offering the same ways to go and the same calculations.
If it happened like so my views go against the dev team's and the network at whole will vote for it - well, then it's a very strong point to review my assets.



So is it a matter of math or is it your opinion? "I think some parameters are better..." or "...trust the math!"
I thought we previously agree on that decentralization's value is a matter of opinion.

And you are welcome.
I am of a very high opinion about dev team, BTW. I think you, guys, did a great job and will do much more. That makes the situation bitter.

I am glad we agree on my priorities. I'm answering here so that QE can concentrate on proper tasks. I'll answer this one message then get back to it. (I do not code though, I do the more theoritical parts. Maybe you confused me with one of the devs?)

No, that's not true! You try to avoid resposibility not by asking the community but by saying that you do not decide. You do. Not alone, of course, we all do in much or less.
We all have a say in it of course. I decide, you decide, QE decide. Ultimately the internal coding order is through QE as CTO yes, and i have a higher say in it given i am very much into design. If there is a fuck up one day, do come and ask accounts from me and QE. I will never say otherwise. Then i'll accept my fuckups, quote me on it.

I would prefer if you all loudly leaned to decentralization while offering the same ways to go and the same calculations.
We did offer the same numbers for all the choice of nodes supporting Platform, Are you talking about that?

Yes, me and QE would lean toward either of HPM's solutions, even if it's like 2K or 1.5K, as said i don't have a strong opinion. I am glad you agree that we proceeded in a proper fashion even if you disagree with our two personal point of views (which according to our internal poll also happen to be the view of devs in DCG, for what it matters). We knew our point of views would not especially be the consensus in the community, so we made this poll. If people don't want HPM's, then be it, we won't force it on the network, that goes without saying. We will however stand behind the choice and if anything wrong do happen, we will not throw back the fault on someone else.

So is it a matter of math or is it your opinion? "I think some parameters are better..." or "...trust the math!"
I thought we previously agree on that decentralization's value is a matter of opinion.
My opinion is based on the math. I trust the math and it shows to me that the most optimized/secure choice without sacrifcing too much decentralization happens to be HPM's if you ask me. You can debate but we all have a view of what is better, i'm not here to convince you, I stated why i was for HPM's so you can look up in the discussion in the past 20 messages what i have been stating. If it changes your mind, great. If it doesn't, good too, you'll vote and the community decides. Although if i keep repeating myself it'll sound like i'm trying to throw my views at you. One thing i do want to state though is that i do not think it's a step toward censorship as the number of HPM's are still high enough for a starter. Keep in mind it's for a launch parameter. It's not a forever choice.

And you are welcome.
I am of a very high opinion about dev team, BTW. I think you, guys, did a great job and will do much more. That makes the situation bitter.
Thank you, I highly appreciate it. It means a lot given that In times like that it is like a wave of anger and negative emotions thrown at us and it often is disheartening.
 

Adding1kDash

New Member
Oct 9, 2022
11
22
3
35
I am not going to shut off my brain thinking part, else you might get some poor security in the future :b
Oh wow, purposely attacking me, you much have been bullied in school, sorry to hear but keep it profesional, or have never heard about the left side and the right side of the brain, and how they work together and even sometimes fight eachother.

At anyrate than you for proving that you don't get anything other than numbers. Also assuming that I don't know what game theorie is incorrect assumption. But I am not here to proof myself. I am hear to have an honest discusion. You complety did not go into my arguments. They still stand as truth, some of it even on various blockchains. ETH's the DAO, ETH with tornado cash, EOS various, Steam, Lisk (101 delegates). Lots more story's to go around, of corruption, collusion and centralisation abuse.

As for using part of Satoshi's explaination, that does not work at all bitcoin is and was never a DAO. Mining bitcoins is a much much simpler system.
You can either mining on a current change, or go back and mine on older one, and or choose to include transactions or not. Also Satoshi's made a mistake, one that dash corrected with the first ever DAO. I am not sure you are aware but bitcoin had a hostile takeover by blockstream.

With Dash how ever you can vote for any number of things, game theory suggestes that if profit is to be made by colluding, it will at minium attempted.

Furthermore if an outsize force like a Govement want to attack, it becomes allot easier to attack big targets, than to play wacky mole with 10x or more targets, that each yield only 1/10 of the result.


Also I have a secret tell you:
The ultimate answer to life, the universe, and everything is… 42
 
Last edited:
Oct 13, 2022
42
56
58
Question for Sam. - Have you heard from any person's questions yet with concerns about the fees being too high on platform?

I think no. So worry about the fees later. You are over-engineering the solution. The non-concern about fees is the signal. It tells you what the network wants. It is up to you, as a technical lead, to package an offer to the MNOs that they will want to upgrade to.

Forget voting ordaining the correct choice.

With my reading here, I'm seeing a value for stability and gradual improvement over large structural changes. If you bring this to network vote you need to make clear the benefits and the draw backs of each option. Really hard. Borderline impossible to create an informed voting population on something this new and complicated. Just because the MNOs will vote does not mean they will get it right. Voting, being zero-sum game, also means there will be losers who disagree. It is not the panacea solution. It will not divine the correct path.

Please forget about high fees problem right now. Wait until it becomes a problem and then address it elegantly.

Platform looks half-baked. Is it? I don't know. Let's minimize its risks and let's not get locked into large structural changes.
 

virgile

Member
Dash Core Group
Oct 17, 2022
55
61
58
26
Oh wow, purposely attacking me, you much have been bullied in school, sorry to hear but keep it profesional
At anyrate than you for proving that you don't get anything other than numbers. Also assuming that I don't know what game theorie is incorrect assumption. But I am not here to proof myself. I am hear to have an honest discusion. You complety did not go into my arguments. They still stand as truth, some of it even on the blockchain via voting.

Also I have a secret tell you:
The ultimate answer to life, the universe, and everything is… 42
You said "Stop thinking with just your logical part of the brain", so this tongue in cheek answer was in answer to that. I apologize if it came off as insulting. I am glad to see that we agree though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Adding1kDash

qwizzie

Grizzled Member
Aug 6, 2014
2,052
1,254
1,183
Since we are all so busy with Dash Platform these days anyways, we may as well view Dash Platform Team latest (live) development update
(maybe they secretly developed a PoSe scoring solution for Dash Platform after all, who knows ;))

Dash Platform Development Update - 2022 October 18
Live in 46 minutes.
 

peter

Member
Apr 1, 2015
53
37
58
I would vote for:
  • HPMNs, because of the mitigation of the risk, that a problem with Platform brings down all MNs.
  • Keeping 1k as collateral for a simple MN, because it makes the transition smooth.
  • 2k as collateral for a HPMN, because:
    • The barrier of entry to Platform shouldn't be too high.
    • Centralisation must be avoided (a big matter for most of us).
    • Hardware costs (and therefore the fees), get lower and lower, so there is no real need for a high collateral.
Some further thoughts:

1.) Issue with stopping quorum:
It seems, that the impact of a stopping quorum is not so dramatic, since the devs voted for the 4k-HPMN solution (highest chance to be able to stop a quorum). That means, that a high collateral is not a big requirement. 2k should be enough, and such a low barrier for participating in the Platform adventure would be good for the community.

2.) Issue with too many HPMNs:
Yes, there should be an equilibrium, with a lot of normal MNs, as today, and a somewhat lower number of HPMNs. IMO, such an equilibrium can be easily achieved with the right repartition of the block reward, for example: 60% for Core services, 20% for mining, 10% for Platform services and 10% for project funding.

With these IMO not too weird assumptions:
  • Today 3700 MNs.
  • Cost for hosting an MN = 1 Dash/year
  • Cost for hosting an HPMN = 10 Dash/year
  • Fees are insignificant in the very beginning.
  • HPMNs provide also Core services and get therefore also the 60% part of the reward.
  • The equilibrium is reached, when ROI for MNs and HPMNs are almost the same.
  • Block reward is 2.3 Dash.
  • 210240 blocks per year.
we would get the following repartition:
  • Number of HPMNs: 491
  • Number of MNs: 2718
  • ROI: 8.94%

Sam, what do you think please?
 

Adding1kDash

New Member
Oct 9, 2022
11
22
3
35
You make it sound like I want less nodes because I want to have the consensus of Dash Platform in the hands of less people. This can not be further from the case.

First I need to make sure you realize that the chain used for payments stays with 1000s of nodes?

I am not against 1000s of nodes for Platform once we have sharding, but we will need to get there, and we won't have sharding for at LEAST another year most likely two under normal circumstances.
Well that at least somewhat positive to hear, but why than not provide HPnodes with just one vote just like masternodes, regardless of stack, that at least would a small stop gap.

Also once communicatio lines have been formed, the will not be undone, If I would be part of a HPnode I would certainly want to know how I am dealing with, and I will keep communication lines open, probably many more will open as well because new communication lines will connect to older ones already.

If it would come to voting, I would certainly put the squeze on masternodes, voting less rewards for them and more for Dashplatform if that would be profitable.
That is just smart business.

Also I just now realized, that Dashplatform would be Dash price hype nr1
Dash platform sharding because cost will be lowered 10x or more would be hype nr2
Sharding otherwise would certainly not be a hype.
 
Last edited:

qwizzie

Grizzled Member
Aug 6, 2014
2,052
1,254
1,183
@peter :

20% for mining will most likely form a problem. Promises were made during the mn-miner blockreward reallocation change discussion to mining pools, not to meddle with the miners part of the blockrewards anytime soon. I suspect DCG is currently very hesistant to change the miner part of the blockrewards. Who we by the way still need for v19 (hard fork). Dash revised mn-miner blockreward reallocation schedule runs till June 2025.

Just my thoughts (i know you addressed this to Sam). I think he actually addressed this in the High Performance Masternode presentation (Q & A).
 
Last edited: