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

[vazaki3]

No, platform is not half baked. We will have many features that no other blockchain will have, so you need to dispel any notion that the work that we release will not be top notch. High fees are an issue, but even if they weren't here are the problems with non HPMN solutions:
Any solution not forcing platform while maintaining 1k collateral :
This would lead to heavily centralization. All the math shows this. 1 entity could most likely stop the chain depending on how many initial rewards we send to platform. There is even risk with massive centralization of funds being able to be stolen if 1 entity could control over 2/3rds of the network. To me this is very scary. I am okay to code up solutions that would allow the chain to potentially stop if the network voted decided that was the solution they liked the best, but I would never be okay with a solution where funds could be stolen. People calling for these solutions in the name of decentralization are ill informed and might be unwilling to listen to reason.
The everyone runs platform solution :
We would be forcing everyone to run platform causing ROI to go very much down as hardware requirements go up, a lot of people would probably skimp on their hardware requirements. If platform does manage to start, then a lot of people would start to complain because they weren't getting rewards, because their nodes would be too weak (eventually). Look, it might work, I just think it's a lot more risky than other scenarios. If the network decides to go this option, all I can say is that we will see and I'll pray to have been wrong. And then we have the downside that if something goes terribly wrong with platform it could stop the entire masternode network.

When we see all the downsides from these solutions, and then HPMNs also just so happen to have really low fees, allow the whole network to have higher ROIs, take very little work to code up, obviously we will be pushing for these solutions, because they work better while the others at least to me are scary.

Could you please elaborate on the bold. Where is the math that shows that a non forcing solution will lead to heavily centralization? I assume the below is a formal way to express your opinion.

IF [the data stored in the Dashplatform are huge (huge=???) OR they last long(long=???) ] AND the masternodes are not forced to host the DashPlatform
THEN the cost(cost=???) of replicating the data across 4000 nodes will be too high(high=???) to make Platform economical to use (economical_to_use = ???), and due to this high cost many masternodes will refuse to host the Dashplatform and the DashPlatform will become centralized.

Is this your formal way to express your opinion? Could you please define the variables "huge", "long","cost", "high","economical_to_use" that were used in your math analysis?

 

[vazaki3]

What has stood out to me most in this discussion is the comment section on DCG's most recent funding proposal. In it is discussed the possibility of masternodes/supermasternodes having the ability to select which kinds of Platform content they will and will not host.

This was my first time hearing about this, and I'm confused. How would the super/masternodes even know what particular content they are hosting? And provided they had this knowledge, how would they actually go about kicking data off their node?

I assume encrypted content will be prohibited in the platform, and agents will scan the platform and delete all the encrypted content. This is a way to censor.

Another alternative is for the agents to scan the content of the platform, delete only whatever unencrypted data they do not like, while keeping the encrypted data in place hoping they will succeed to decypher the data oneday and smash those who posted them.

 

[QuantumExplorer]

How do 4k or 10k nodes fix this in a way that locked 1k nodes don't?

I believe it is extremely misleading to say that the 1k solution is safe for the network. I believe you have had a talk with Virgile, can you provide numbers on this solution?

 

[QuantumExplorer]

At this point i as a masternode owner wonder if the Dash Trust Protectors should be involved or not.

* DCG is preparing changes that directly violate its publicly communicated Dash Platform Vision to the Dash community (keeping Dash Platform decentralized)
See : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...h-performance-nodes.53374/page-12#post-232556
* DCG wants to introduce these changes through three separate DCG decision proposals, which all three do not serve the best interest of the network (two decision proposals centralize Dash Platform in direct violation of its own Dash Platform Vision, one decision proposal has an inherent safety issue which makes this solution effectively a no-option).

DCG wants to use the outcome of these three DCG decision proposals (highest number of yes votes) to determine its direction on how to start Dash Platform. But by only providing those three options to vote on (Platform on all masternodes decision proposal with its safety issue and the two high performance decision proposals that violate its own Dash Platform Vision with regards to decentralization), DCG has limited the options for masternode owners on how to proceed with Dash Platform and publicly demonstrated to the Dash community, that DCG is currently not acting in the best interest of the network.

Can someone else introduce a decision proposal that offers an alternative solution or offers a delay of Dash Platform ? Sure.
But that does not absolve DCG from currently not acting in the best interest of the network, by planning to introduce only these three specific decision proposals and showing no intention to change course.

Let's talk about motivation first, you seem to think that DCG wants to centralize, why do you think we would want that? I want us to be the most decentralized possible while staying safe and working.

Decentralization can mean many things, it doesn't have one meaning. If it means Dash Platform validators in the most hands as possible, yes the 4k and 10k solutions are more centralized. If it means that 1 entity could hurt Dash Platform, those solutions are more decentralized.

For example a 1K split (platform is optional) solution at 20% for Platform would lead to more centralization. I hope you can understand why. It has 600 nodes, but 1 entity can easily have 220 of those nodes if not more. I'm sure you can see that this is a non starter. Please affirm that you agree.

Let me recap:

1k Everyone runs platform: might not work, or have issues.
1k optional 20% to platform: easily unsafely centralized.
1k optional 50% to platform: many nodes, not very safe. Nodes would not be able to service core as no equilibrium is possible otherwise.
4k optional: safe.
10k optional: safe.

I have come to the conclusion that it is going to be impossible to satisfy every MNO. Some want one thing, some want another. On the forum here many are very much against the 4k and 10k solution. In private many MNOs have told me they prefer these solutions. At this point only a vote makes sense.

 

[QuantumExplorer]

I assume encrypted content will be prohibited in the platform, and agents will scan the platform and delete all the encrypted content. This is a way to censor.

Another alternative is for the agents to scan the content of the platform, delete only whatever unencrypted data they do not like, while keeping the encrypted data in place hoping they will succeed to decypher the data oneday and smash those who posted them.

What are you talking about??? Only MNOs can potentially delete their own values. But no one would know how to do this. The system is built so it's very hard to do this. I think it would take an entity at least a year to be able to figure out the complexity involved. And by then we will have Proof of Service anyways.

 

[QuantumExplorer]

Could you please elaborate on the bold. Where is the math that shows that a non forcing solution will lead to heavily centralization? I assume the below is a formal way to express your opinion.

IF [the data stored in the Dashplatform are huge (huge=???) OR they last long(long=???) ] AND the masternodes are not forced to host the DashPlatform
THEN the cost(cost=???) of replicating the data across 4000 nodes will be too high(high=???) to make Platform economical to use (economical_to_use = ???), and due to this high cost many masternodes will refuse to host the Dashplatform and the DashPlatform will become centralized.

Is this your formal way to express your opinion? Could you please define the variables "huge", "long","cost", "high","economical_to_use" that were used in your math analysis?

This is not an economical issue. You can look at the spreadsheets here : https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...yr8CL2zSJwSmcic0NzIw8X-74/edit#gid=1155876683

It's simple to understand, if there are 600 platform nodes, and 1 entity can run 220 of those it is easily centralized right?

 

[qwizzie]

Let's talk about motivation first, you seem to think that DCG wants to centralize, why do you think we would want that? I want us to be the most decentralized possible while staying safe and working.

Decentralization can mean many things, it doesn't have one meaning. If it means Dash Platform validators in the most hands as possible, yes the 4k and 10k solutions are more centralized. If it means that 1 entity could hurt Dash Platform, those solutions are more decentralized.

For example a 1K split (platform is optional) solution at 20% for Platform would lead to more centralization. I hope you can understand why. It has 600 nodes, but 1 entity can easily have 220 of those nodes if not more. I'm sure you can see that this is a non starter. Please affirm that you agree.

Let me recap:

1k Everyone runs platform: might not work, or have issues.
1k optional 20% to platform: easily unsafely centralized.
1k optional 50% to platform: many nodes, not very safe. Nodes would not be able to service core as no equilibrium is possible otherwise.
4k optional: safe.
10k optional: safe.

I have come to the conclusion that it is going to be impossible to satisfy every MNO. Some want one thing, some want another. On the forum here many are very much against the 4k and 10k solution. In private many MNOs have told me they prefer these solutions. At this point only a vote makes sense.

* Dash Platform Vision :

State information is distributed amongst all nodes
Decentralized Queryable Information

Your 4K HPM and 10K HPM solutions clearly and very directly violate this. At the very least the distribution amongst all nodes part !
And having queryable information only accessable on 100-300 HPM's questions the decentralized nature of such queries.

* 1K split

I already stated twice that i no longer see the 1K split system of seanjae as viable. This is the third time of me stating this !
Unless you are referring to some other 1K split system, in which case i need you to be more specific to whose 1K split system you are referring to.

* Decision proposals

Pls confirm that you are still planning to create only these three specific decision proposals for masternode owners to vote on :

1K Platform on all masternodes (known safety issue)
4K HPM system (centralization issue)
10K HPM system (centralization issue)

Personally i think there need to be a fourth DCG decision proposal : to postpone the release of Dash Platform untill a more viable solution can be presented to the network that does not compromise on safety, does not compromise on decentralization and conforms to the Dash Platform Vision of DCG.

It sucks because i want Dash Platform out on Mainnet end of this year and activated in 2023 as well, but not at the cost of having a safety issue or at the cost of sacrificing decentralization to achieve this or at the cost of significantly deviating from the Dash Platform Vision.

If priority was given over the years by DCG to develop a Proof of Service solution for Dash Platform, then most likely i could have gone for the 1K Platform on all masternodes (as there would be no safety issue then with that solution). Now i am left without an option to vote on.

It is a bit of a shitty situation you are placing masternode owners in, to be frank.

 

[QuantumExplorer]

* Dash Platform Vision :

State information is distributed amongst all nodes
Decentralized Queryable Information

Your 4K HPM and 10K HPM solutions clearly and very directly violate this. At the very least the distribution amongst all nodes part !
And having queryable information only accessable on 100-300 HPM's questions the decentralized nature of such queries.

* 1K split

I already stated twice that i no longer see the 1K split system of seanjae as viable. This is the third time of me stating this !
Unless you are referring to some other 1K split system, in which case i need you to be more specific to whose 1K split system you are referring to.

* Decision proposals

Pls confirm that you are still planning to create only these three specific decision proposals for masternode owners to vote on :

1K Platform on all masternodes (known safety issue)
4K HPM system (centralization issue)
10K HPM system (centralization issue)

Personally i think there need to be a fourth DCG decision proposal : to postpone Dash Platform untill a more viable option can be presented to the network that does not compromise on safety, does not compromise on decentralization and conforms to the Dash Platform Vision of DCG.

It sucks because i want Dash Platform out on Mainnet end of this year and activated in 2023 as well, but not at the cost of having a safety issue or at the cost of sacrificing decentralization to achieve this.

If priority was given over the years by DCG to develop a Proof of Service solution for Dash Platform, then most likely i could have gone for the 1K Platform on all masternodes (as there would be no safety issue then with that solution). Now i am left without an option to vote on.

Sorry, I want to apologize about the 1K Split, I had forgotten that you had indeed said you see it as non viable.

There is another option that I have thought of more recently. Tell me if you would like it. (Others please chip in too). Basically have Masternode Shares. Even for 4K, 10K. Core C++ Team is finishing up the work needed for Platform meaning we could start on that soonish. Masternode shares would allow for people with 1K Dash to be part of running Platform. The DIP on Masternode shares was made in 2018 but never built out as focus was put on other parts, now might be the right time. Since C++ Core team is doing so well recently, they will be done with Platform requirements work well before Platform teams so adding this feature *might* be possible without any delay for launch. Or we say this be a fast follower to launch if it was not done in time. Another benefit would be that Masternode shares would also allow people with far less Dash to participate in a Masternode, most likely further increasing decentralization.

Masternode shares do involve time locking collateral. @rion

 

[GrandMasterDash]

Masternode shares would not distribute the hardware, this is no different than running multiple nodes on the same hardware.

 

[qwizzie]

Maybe it would help if we get some kind of graphical presentation / overview / flow sheet how Masternode Shares (i assume you mean Trustless Masternode Shares) work exactly in combination with our current PoW + PoSe system + Dash Platform and its possible start options.

The term Masternode Shares is still a bit abstract to me.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

Decentralization can mean many things, it doesn't have one meaning. If it means Dash Platform validators in the most hands as possible, yes the 4k and 10k solutions are more centralized. If it means that 1 entity could hurt Dash Platform, those solutions are more decentralized.

Optionality is closely tied to decentralization. By submitting these proposals BEFORE launch, you are potentially limiting options. Why is that? You can not know for sure how Platform will be received, no one can.

Imo we should not launch Platform at all until we've found an entirely different solution. You can see for yourself how divided we all about this, but somehow in your world that means it should be voted on! The division will still exist after the vote because DCG has failed to come up with a satisfactory solution and is only offering HPMNs because they are just a few lines of code.. a kludge, a quick fix. That division among us is paving the way to a fork of the code.

 

[QuantumExplorer]

Optionality is closely tied to decentralization. By submitting these proposals BEFORE launch, you are potentially limiting options. Why is that? You can not know for sure how Platform will be received, no one can.

Imo we should not launch Platform at all until we've found an entirely different solution. You can see for yourself how divided we all about this, but somehow in your world that means it should be voted on! The division will still exist after the vote because DCG has failed to come up with a satisfactory solution and is only offering HPMNs because they are just a few lines of code.. a kludge, a quick fix. That division among us is paving the way to a fork of the code.

You are assuming that a solution can exist. I believe a solution that satisfies everyone is impossible. However I am doing my best to find solutions that will garner the strongest majority. But you are right, if we make a vote and 70% want solution A and 30% want solution B. And of those 30% that want solution B, 10% can not tolerate solution A, then they could fork the code and could attempt to get another dev team to build it out. This has happened multiple times already in the history of Dash, we have had many forks. If this happens I would wish anyone the best.

We have a governance system to deal with disagreements. I do believe this system works.

 

[QuantumExplorer]

Maybe it would help if we get some kind of graphical presentation / overview / flow sheet how Masternode Shares (i assume you mean Trustless Masternode Shares) work exactly in combination with our current PoW + PoSe system + Dash Platform and its possible start options.

The term Masternode Shares is still a bit abstract to me.

Yes Trustless masternode shares. It's simple to understand as an overview. Let's give an example while imagining in the 4K solution. Someone with 1K Dash advertises through the blockchain that they want to host a shared 4K masternode and they set the minimum share they allow (let's say 500 Dash) and the share unbonding period. They put up their 1K Dash. Others with at least 500 Dash agree to participate. Once enough participants are in place the masternode is created. If someone wants to leave they say they are going to leave. There is a time window (the unbonding period) where another user can replace the previous one. If no one is found after the given period originally set by the hoster then the masternode stops and everyone is free to set up a new masternode.

Each participant with at least 1K dash would be able to continue voting in governance. The hoster would offer how platform rewards are distributed. Since a select few having 1K Dash really want to host, and I think many more don't have the tech skills required to host, this system might actually work quite well.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

We have a governance system to deal with disagreements. I do believe this system works.

Just because we have a guarantee of the outcome does not mean we must offer and settle for divisive and limited solutions before launch. And you still have evaded the question why this must be done before launch?

 

[QuantumExplorer]

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?

Hi Peter, sorry I hadn't gotten to replying to this sooner.

1) Stopping a quorum in the 4K solution is very hard, and we will try to make it even harder if this solution were to win, mostly by limiting the amount of quorums. We can do this in this solution, because with 100 node quorums and 450 nodes, pretty much all nodes will be chosen over a 18 day period with about 4 quorums per day. In a 1K or 2K solution we don't have that luxury, because there are much more nodes.

2) The problem is that when you put so little reward into Platform the equilibrium can lead to a highly centralized and unsafe solution. Whatever the barrier to entry is we can't have one whale owning anything close to 1/3rd of the number of HPMNs.

 

[QuantumExplorer]

Just because we have a guarantee of the outcome does not mean we must offer and settle for divisive and limited solutions before launch. And you still have evaded the question why this must be done before launch?

Why must what be done before launch? Decide how we are going to launch? I think it's obvious that we must make a decision on how to launch to be able to launch.

I'm going to guess you mean: why can't we go with a "everyone is forced to run platform" system and then see. I have outlined the risks in the "everyone runs platform solution". One big risk is that a lot of people would be very unhappy being forced to do things they don't want to do for a smaller ROI on launch.

 

[peter]

You can see for yourself how divided we all about this,

Who are "we all"? I guess, that you speak about 4-5 individuals here on the forum. But there are certainly some hundreds of MNOs, and even more Dash users.

somehow in your world that means it should be voted on!

Yes, because only a vote will really show, if, and how much we all are divided.

P.S.: I've only 1k, but I'll vote for the 10k-HPMN solution. IMHO Sam explained quite well the pros and cons.

 

[qwizzie]

Yes Trustless masternode shares. It's simple to understand as an overview. Let's give an example while imagining in the 4K solution. Someone with 1K Dash advertises through the blockchain that they want to host a shared 4K masternode and they set the minimum share they allow (let's say 500 Dash) and the share unbonding period. They put up their 1K Dash. Others with at least 500 Dash agree to participate. Once enough participants are in place the masternode is created. If someone wants to leave they say they are going to leave. There is a time window (the unbonding period) where another user can replace the previous one. If no one is found after the given period originally set by the hoster then the masternode stops and everyone is free to set up a new masternode.

Each participant with at least 1K dash would be able to continue voting in governance. The hoster would offer how platform rewards are distributed. Since a select few having 1K Dash really want to host, and I think many more don't have the tech skills required to host, this system might actually work quite well.

There is still a trust element though, you as participant still need to trust the hoster to distribute the rewards to all participants. Also working out who gets what looks complicated for the hoster, as it could involve a lot of participants with small amounts of dash with the 4K situation. And its also not exactly a fire-up and forget about it solution, at the looks of it.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

Why must what be done before launch? Decide how we are going to launch? I think it's obvious that we must make a decision on how to launch to be able to launch.

I'm going to guess you mean: why can't we go with a "everyone is forced to run platform" system and then see. I have outlined the risks in the "everyone runs platform solution". One big risk is that a lot of people would be very unhappy being forced to do things they don't want to do for a smaller ROI on launch.

Nope, wrong guess.

1. Deciding how to launch is the work of DCG, you are hired to perform the technical work. You are not hired to hijack the dash network because you haven't figured out how else to fit it safely.

2. In this instance, the reason you feel compelled to ask the network is because you are only offering HPMNs and that requires a way to insert this PoS altcoin into dash. You haven't yet figured out a good way to do it, so delaying the launch is a valid option.

3. After 7 years, if you'd had come up with better options, you may not of had to ask the network at all.

4. Frankly, I would rather take the "No Platform for now" option than this narrowly scoped and bungled band aid.

It's like Elon Musk asking his shareholders which is the best way to launch a rocket. It's a really bad idea.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

Yes, because only a vote will really show, if, and how much we all are divided.

P.S.: I've only 1k, but I'll vote for the 10k-HPMN solution. IMHO Sam explained quite well the pros and cons.

Nope, it's a vote based on a single type of "solution" (HPMNs). After 7 years, the only solution put forward at the eleventh hour. This is the work of desperate people. A delayed launch to find other solutions is a valid option.

 

[QuantumExplorer]

@GrandMasterDash We are following what the network wants, you are in the minority I think to think that DCG should decide this by ourselves.

 

[qwizzie]

eh, what is that Z option ?

Zero of above options ?
Zillion other options then these ?
Having a Zen moment ?
Zombie option ? (it is halloween after all or close to halloween)
Zone-out ?

I just hope clicking on that Z does not start World War Z

 

[QuantumExplorer]

eh, what is that Z option ?

Zero of above options ?
Zillion other options then these ?
Having a Zen moment ?
Zombie option ? (it is halloween after all or close to halloween)
Zone-out ?

I just hope clicking on that Z does not start World War Z

Hahaha, I'm happy we can still laugh. I think Z means abstain.

 

[QuantumExplorer]

There is still a trust element though, you as participant still need to trust the hoster to distribute the rewards to all participants. Also working out who gets what looks complicated for the hoster, as it could involve a lot of participants with small amounts of dash with the 4K situation. And its also not exactly a fire-up and forget about it solution, at the looks of it.

No, the reward distribution would be done automatically. As an example, imagine the operator puts up 1k Dash for the 4K node. He could say, I will get 3% extra block rewards for being the operator and 65% of fees generated (if cost to host is at 50%), the rest of the reward is distributed among the participants. So the operator would get a little bit more to offset their costs and risk.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

@GrandMasterDash We are following what the network wants, you are in the minority I think to think that DCG should decide this by ourselves.

View attachment 11472

You have resorted to finger pointing. I'm sure you understand the size of a group does not equate to the correct or wrong answer.

In this thread, I have noticed your replies are sometimes ignoring certain statements and questions. So I repeat:

Why must this decision be made by the network before launch?

a) the target audience is unknown, the volume of usage is unknown, and the full breadth of use cases has yet to be discovered and understood.

b) by asking the network after launch, you buy yourself time to find other possible solutions.

You have previously stated that a bug could bring down the entire masternode network. In a desperate move, knowing this is a real possibility, you have resorted to a single type of solution. A solution that requires just a few lines of code.

Why are these proposals with a single type of solution (HPMNs) is being put forward now at the eleventh hour?

I suggest the reason might be, DCG has discovered:

a) a realization that the MVP is so bloated and inviable in the expected state of all nodes participating.

b) a lack of confidence that Platform is sufficiently armed and tested to prevent a complete network shutdown.

That you are skirting around these questions and unable / unwilling to provide elaborated answers is a significant red flag to me. You are seemingly rushing into this and not willing to acknowledge that a delay might be a viable option. What are you hiding / holding back on?

 

[Semarg]

To me decentralization means the power is the most spread out.

46% of Ethereum validators are owned by 2 operators. There are thousands upon thousands of validators though. Are they more or less decentralized than the HPMN solution?

Ethereum is exactly not the type of network I want Dash to be. Especially this nowadays' PoS version.

 

[Semarg]

1k optional 50% to platform: many nodes, not very safe. Nodes would not be able to service core as no equilibrium is possible otherwise.

Could you also put it some details on this one, why is it so? Others seem clear to me.

 

[QuantumExplorer]

@Semarg I'm very busy for the rest of the day, maybe @virgile has time to answer.

 

[virgile]

At this point i as a masternode owner wonder if the Dash Trust Protectors should be involved or not.

* DCG is preparing changes that directly violate its publicly communicated Dash Platform Vision to the Dash community (keeping Dash Platform decentralized)
See : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...h-performance-nodes.53374/page-12#post-232556
* DCG wants to introduce these changes through three separate DCG decision proposals, which all three do not serve the best interest of the network (two decision proposals centralize Dash Platform in direct violation of its own Dash Platform Vision, one decision proposal has an inherent safety issue which makes this solution effectively a no-option).

DCG wants to use the outcome of these three DCG decision proposals (highest number of yes votes) to determine its direction on how to start Dash Platform. But by only providing those three options to vote on (Platform on all masternodes decision proposal with its safety issue and the two high performance decision proposals that violate its own Dash Platform Vision with regards to decentralization), DCG has limited the options for masternode owners on how to proceed with Dash Platform and publicly demonstrated to the Dash community, that DCG is currently not acting in the best interest of the network.

Can someone else introduce a decision proposal that offers an alternative solution or offers a delay of Dash Platform ? Sure.
But that does not absolve DCG from currently not acting in the best interest of the network, by planning to introduce only these three specific decision proposals and showing no intention to change course.

all three do not serve the best interest of the network

the best interest of the network is for everything to go well, those three solutions try to do that. Sadly if you ask me there is no best solution, because things were promised initially by persons like evan duffield who are not in the project anymore and do not have to deal with down to earth issues such as "How do actually deliver?". You cannot both have low fees and a high number of nodes storing the data, it's that simple. But that escaped duffield's view it seems.

by only providing those three options to vote on

We provided some sets of parameters, and are open for discussion on other design choices of course. We can provide for other set of parameters too for HPMN type design. If the communuity wishes for me to evaluate whale takeover of other solutions i can do it, but know that other DCG related work have to stop then.

that DCG is currently not acting in the best interest of the network

Are you stating that us proposing what is according to you poor decisions is us trying to undermine the project? Or have i misunderstood?

But that does not absolve DCG from currently not acting in the best interest of the network, by planning to introduce only these three specific decision proposals and showing no intention to change course.

Let us be precise. DCG is not a single entity. Here you refer to QE and me, it seems.

1. I hope that i have shown to you so far that i do try to act for the network. I care about metrics and i care about facts. I did not forget about the security question you asked and the numbers will be yours soon, i apologize as i have been sidetracked by multiple things. We are preparing an FAQ and i will plug those numbers inside with comparable buffers and with showcases of what the number means over a year. Indeed i agree with you that the use of my model by others and the discussion that followed have not been very proper.
2. As of sam he communicated quite poorly if you ask me: he mixed his personal opinion with his communication, but do be understanding as he has been asked many inquisitive questions over and over again and it's hard to keep a coherent discourse over a complex matter in an impartial manner for so long.

I want to state the following facts though.

1. QE is a very smart man. He sees options he thinks are best for the network and thus has strong beliefs in his own idea but also listens when him and me or others speak and we bounce ideas off each others.
2. I have my say in this topic and i will refuse, i say refuse to work toward something that goes against the will of the network unless an uninformed network choice is a clear major danger to Dash as a whole.
3. The poll is only here to guide us, so that we know the minds of people on the topic. The choice is not limited to those three solutions but so far it is what was come up with. I start to feel like this was rushed of a poll and we should have thought over it more.
4. We listen to other solutions. Yesterday i was on a call with Rion and i specifically asked if there was something he believes we should consider more, to which he pointed out locking +1K collaterals as he stated earlier in this thread. We also take propositions from users such as denk's here into account.
5. It is just starter solutions, it's something that can later on be changed.
6. I don't think a perfect non divisive solution exists.
7. If you think I should communicate with the DTP so that they can verify that me (and QE?) just do our jobs, i will gladly do so. But i doubt they can be of any help over this matter as it is a technical issue with no clear cut "best solution"

If you want to remember only a few things of my discourse, please remember 2. 3./4. and 6.

If you want me to state where i stand as of morals or anything related that you may quote me on later, i will gladly do it. Because those statements that DCG (read me and QE) act against the network are, i think, quite surprising to hear and i think may be partly because you have almost not heard of me.

 

[virgile]

Ethereum is exactly not the type of network I want Dash to be. Especially this nowadays' PoS version.

Yeah i think we all agree on that. We thrive to be better.

Could you also put it some details on this one, why is it so? Others seem clear to me.

I have a call begining in a few minutes, so i will answer in 2 or so hours.