Why not? Distributed computing has been around for a long time now, is it entirely impossible that computing resources can be shared to some degree rather than duplicated?
Should Platform run on all nodes or should Platform run only on High Performance nodes ?
- Thread starter qwizzie
- Start date
If an MNO arbitrarily decides to delete a part of the DashPlatform's data that reside into the masternode he/she controls, then the data synchronization (among all the MNOs that participate in the DashPlatform network) ceases and breaks.
I assume that the protocol is designed so that it kicks out the MNO who tries to delete some data and break the synchronization. Isnt this the case?
If this is the case, then how can someone censor some data from the DashPlatform (if not by using the techniques I mentioned)?
Proposal "DCG-SUPPLEMENTAL-OCT22" - DashCentral.org
As I understand your quote above, you imply that some sort of censorship in the DashPlatform is possible... And that the Dash developers coded so that this censorship is possible to occur, in fear that otherwise they will be persecuted. Could you please clarify?
What kind of moderation/filtration tools are you talking about?
Lethe lyrics - Dark Tranquillity - Listen On Repeat
Last edited:
I am not talking about computation but storage. The issue is that nodes have to store the data, not the computation it takes. Everyone has to store the database, and this is duplication, the only way around it is sharding and so.
Yes, distributed storage. That should come first, it turns the high node count into a strength and that can probably be expanded on, network and computational capabilities, etc. It should also sidestep the potential issue of every MNO getting arrested because some a-hole has stored immoral material on Platform and they're all technically guilty of re-distributing it.
What sam means is that if you put collaterals at 1k, whatever the allocation you put on platform, you end up with all the nodes supporting it, there is an "equilibrium" but it is attained at a value that makes it pointless to have separated nodes in the first place, you might as well just say everyone will support Platform in that case.
Basically the issue is that you need collaterals higher than the base collateral to incentivize only a portion of the network to run it, you need to play with a higher than base collateral and with the allocation to allow something desirable to happen.
I am unsure on how it helps with immoral content but as long as your own view is clear, it's what count.
Distributed storage is indeed a play between two opposed parameters: duplication and price.
The higher the duplication, the higher the price.
Then there is the issues of performance, throughput, all of that which QE covered on his presentation on youtube.
IF [the data stored in the Dashplatform are huge (huge=???) OR they last long(long=???) ]
THEN the cost(cost=???) of duplicating the data across Xnodes (Xnodes=???) will be too high(high=???) to make Platform economical to use (economical_to_use = ???).
Is the above your formal way to express your opinion? Could you please define the variables "huge", "long","cost", "Xnodes" "high","economical_to_use" that were used in your math analysis?
Last edited:
As far as I know he only covered that in relation to full duplication, every node repeating the same work. If you do that then you inevitably end up with "fewer is better", a distributed network has to share its resources to have a competitive advantage over centralised services.
i have not stated anything about the height of the price, merely that higher duplication means a higher price, which you, i am sure, agree with.
I do see thought that you want me to give you numbers about the cost of data depending on the size and lifetime of it and where we put the higher limit. I have not worked closely on the fee calculation though so i cannot answer this. QE would have to, on that one.
If you store the database you store all of it, there is no storing a part of it. Either you store all of it, either you store nothing. You could store a part with sharding but the issue is that sharding takes an immense amount of ressources to implement and get right if you look at other projects. That would mean delaying platform even further which is unacceptable. We cannot add such delays that stem from design.
The delays so far are unacceptable. Why focus only on storage? The more use you can make of the resources you have available, the higher the competitive advantage, duplication should be kept to the bare minimum. I was going to mention beowulf clusters as an example, I hadn't looked at them in years and was very surprised to see they've entirely taken over the top 500 supercomputer list since 2017
Dash is the source of inspiration for other projects, I'm sure there's plenty worth learning from them but if they've got incentivised nodes and can't get distributed storage working then they're not worth looking at. What's the problem with proof of service? It should be the key to optimising everything, a node gets paid for the work it does and gets bonuses for doing it reliably.
(Edit: Sry to the OP, just realised I've gone way off topic)
Last edited:
for PoSe:The delays so far are unacceptable. Why focus only on storage? The more use you can make of the resources you have available, the higher the competitive advantage, duplication should be kept to the bare minimum. I was going to mention beowulf clusters as an example, I hadn't looked at them in years and was very surprised to see they've entirely taken over the top 500 supercomputer list since 2017
Dash is the source of inspiration for other projects, I'm sure there's plenty worth learning from them but if they've got incentivised nodes and can't get distributed storage working then they're not worth looking at. What's the problem with proof of service? It should be the key to optimising everything, a node gets paid for the work it does and gets bonuses for doing it reliably.
(Edit: Sry to the OP, just realised I've gone way off topic)
Making nodes behave well is not the centerpoint of this idea of HPMN. It is one sub-issue.
It would take too much time for a release candidate for Platform, it would imply unnaceptable delay.
Don't quote me on it, last time i talked of it was maybe a year or so ago. but from memory it involves implementing some underlying stuff such as some P2P things between some components. Very wavy explanation i know, sorry.
We want to do it, it's on the roadmap, but for later. We have to juggle between feature implementation, incurred delays and a decrease of funds on top of the pure design aspect.
And no need to apologize, you guys are the community and we're here to answer, it's normal.
No, it's not. You had a thriving community if ideas in here not so long ago and that died along with the whole foum due to lack of engagement by DCG. Please don't develop behind closed doors again, "we want to save it for a big release" won't cut it twice.
Oh, and i focus on the storage cause you spoke of price initially unless i got confused and the price is mainly driven by data duplication basically, from my understanding.The delays so far are unacceptable. Why focus only on storage? The more use you can make of the resources you have available, the higher the competitive advantage, duplication should be kept to the bare minimum. I was going to mention beowulf clusters as an example, I hadn't looked at them in years and was very surprised to see they've entirely taken over the top 500 supercomputer list since 2017
Dash is the source of inspiration for other projects, I'm sure there's plenty worth learning from them but if they've got incentivised nodes and can't get distributed storage working then they're not worth looking at. What's the problem with proof of service? It should be the key to optimising everything, a node gets paid for the work it does and gets bonuses for doing it reliably.
(Edit: Sry to the OP, just realised I've gone way off topic)
No, price is the last thing I'd mention. The economics of duplication is the killer, it can't be avoided so has to be minimised. Where peak optimisation lies is anyone's guess, a beawulf cluster running a single node might be the answer but it's not just crunching numbers, something like handling connections could be the main thing for a massive advanced payments network.
Oh i had misunderstood you then. My bad.
Are you refuting my statement that PoSe is on the research/design roadmap? It is as this small screen shows. I think i know better than anyone else what is in there as i'm the one who made it.
At the start of the year I went to QE and pressed him really hard to put all research topics into a neat little roadmap with proper ordering by priority. It was to conduct proper research in an organized environment. (I am not a dev, i am the first research guy that DCG hired. It was long due and an initiative of QE, you can thank him for it.)
before someone asks, no i cannot share the rest of the research roadmap, as such topics may include important insider information that would be an advantage over other projects. I would happily show it to the trust protectors if they are legally bound by a non disclosure agreement though. That way they could ensure the community that we have interesting things on the way for them.
I am part of DCG since a bit more than a year now. If it died along that timeframe, it's out of my control: I am here on the forum for a reason and it's to communicate. This poll is here for that, to not be all behind closed doors.
I keep repeating it but it seems everyone assumes the contrary. We have not made a choice for HPMNs. The devs basically all think it's best inside DCG but we have not made a choice.
Not again this argument of Non Disclosure Agreement!!!! This is exactly the argument used for Evo-DashPlatform, 6 years ago!!!!
And here we are now, in this awfull situation where no Evo-DashPlatform is relased yet, and where the Dash developers coded a Frankenstein monster tottaly different from what the Dash community expected .
EITHER the masternodes will be smart enough to refuse the NDA argument, fire those who are using it, and give governance guidelines to the developers, OR a new failure for the Dash network (similar to the Evo/DashPlatform which for the last 3.5 years costed to the Dash community about 15 million dollars !!!!!) is coming.
DashUnicorn MNO 1 point,1 day ago
Sadly, this is what a dying project looks like. The team will keep getting smaller and smaller, delivering less and less, until the money runs out. The whole idea of Dash Evolution was a mistake, it is turning Dash into something that is definitely not Dash. The core team has been leading us on this wild goose chase for years as they run around directionless. This latest fiasco with high performance masternodes is a perfect example of how this whole thing is being built with popsicle sticks and elmers glue. We need to wake up and face the music. DCG has failed; the network should scrap it and find someone else to take over with a fresh vision, but at this point it might be too late to save us.
quantumexplorer (proposal owner) MNO 1 point,18 hours agoRecently posted!
The point of evolution was to evolve. The "wild goose chase" as you said it is coming to an end. The direction has been very focused as seen by our github activity on delivering Platform. DCG has not failed. DCG will be asking the network how they want to start Platform.
DashUnicorn MNO 1 point,3 hours agoRecently posted!
Evolve into what? What is the competitive use case other than devs geeking out about merkle trees inside trees? Other projects already have us outclassed and outfunded in terms of data storage, computation, and digital identity, because their projects were properly designed for their specific use cases from the beginning, not something haphazardly glued on top of a digital cash coin as an afterthought, winging everything on the fly because some devs thought we can just do everything and be everything to everyone. The only reason MNOs are still going along with it is because it is a desperation play, because we have nothing else to try between now and our inevitable bankruptcy. Now that HPMNs have been introduced, MNOs are finally starting to pay attention since this is something that actually affects us. We'll see where this goes, but to me the Evolution project is likely doomed to endless bugs and no real utility. The whole idea should have been scrapped when Evan left.
In the meantime many delete vote signals appear for the recent DCG proposal....Look at MNOwatch's signals delete
2022-10-21-03-08-33
The first operator includes all people who do not cast vote-delete signals. All the rest are identified by the way they vote.
1 operator(s) control(s) 4170 masternode(s)
1 operator(s) control(s) 0262 masternode(s)
2 operator(s) control(s) 0001 masternode(s)
Last edited:
I can live with the NDA's but calling this a Frankenstein monster I think is spot on. This is not what we signed up for and if DCG claim to not know this by now then what are they even doing here.
If there was any time to invoke the Trust Protectors, it is right now before these misguided proposals go live.
Also, we should not tolerate this abuse of the governance system, where they redefine what consensus means. The dash governance is coded to trigger on 10% super majority. It is not intended that multiple proposals be submitted and DCG pick the longest straw, that would first require a proposal to accept this voting method (Yes/No), and only if they receive the super majority should they proceed with these proposals. And yes, that's a weakness in dash's governance that was not addressed in 7 years.
Put your proposed consensus method to a vote first!
If there was any time to invoke the Trust Protectors, it is right now before these misguided proposals go live.
Also, we should not tolerate this abuse of the governance system, where they redefine what consensus means. The dash governance is coded to trigger on 10% super majority. It is not intended that multiple proposals be submitted and DCG pick the longest straw, that would first require a proposal to accept this voting method (Yes/No), and only if they receive the super majority should they proceed with these proposals. And yes, that's a weakness in dash's governance that was not addressed in 7 years.
Put your proposed consensus method to a vote first!
@virgile
Why in a world would anyone need NDA to disclose any roadmap? Roadmap is not a legally binding document in any way, and disclosing it could not do any harm to anyone.
This isn’t a contract, there is no financial, personal nor any other type of confidential data involved In technical roadmap. This is only a planning document (and plans usually evolve).
Why in a world would anyone need NDA to disclose any roadmap? Roadmap is not a legally binding document in any way, and disclosing it could not do any harm to anyone.
This isn’t a contract, there is no financial, personal nor any other type of confidential data involved In technical roadmap. This is only a planning document (and plans usually evolve).
I agree with rion plan close to 100%
I do how ever would prefer a shorter timelock, because longer lock up time gives diminishing returns. The main take away should be can the network act fast enough vs a bad actor and bad the timelock needed based on that.
The argument that locking up coins is contra to not your keys not your coins, is a great one liner but it is misplaced.
1) Masternodes and Platform nodes are to serve the users, the are not their to be fat cats getting richer, but provide services and be the (strong) backbone that makes sure they will uphold: decentralisation values such as "not your keys not your coins"
2) the lockup periode is an optional chose, not all nodese will or will have to run Dashplatform, I really don't get why QE keeps bringing it up that is a given, because it's not a makes me worried if he does not get his way, he will make sure that he was proven right that 4k or 10k was the only way
3) Its show allot of commitment by the whale to lock up coins, and will more likely result in them running a strong enough not, if not at first they will do so later on.
4) Masternodes already have what I would call a soft lock, because the only way to earn coins is to serve the network before its your turn to recieve a blockreward.
Game theory
5) Game theory suggests that with only 20% or less masternodes running dashplatform, it will be allot more likely those running Platform can abuse their power.
Assuming the math is correct, well yes that is certainly a weak spot. But Dash platform only controls, the datalayer, the payment layer is save. So that amount of damage that can be done is allot more limited.
But what is the potential gain ? and is the gain larger than the costs being made ?
They only real way to do that is open up a massive short position, and make Dash suffers a massive price depreciation, and because there coins are locked up these coins will go down with the ship. It's even unlikely trading marketings can handle such a trade, and even so it would be allot more expensive than a regular trade, and the Dashnetwork would already get warning/red flag.
Because the coins are locked up and its clear to the network that the Dash platform was actually run by a bad actor, there is both time and suffient reason to take action by the network. the network could simply vote to burn away these coins. With only a few 100 public keys to hardcode to be burned away. These coins could than also be reminted into one way or the other. One could even redistribute the coins to every users so that they are compensated for any potential lose they may have had.
Sure there may be unknown other (financially) reasons that are not yet discovered, but if they were truly massive they would have likely already happened in other coins or tokens.
Side note:
This is actually quit similar how Polkadot is running it's shards, in fact controlling party is voted in, so you could even claim it's 100% centralized in the winning coin/token that runs that shard. I have heard very little to no complaints about it.
Last but not least, stop pretending that Dash platform MVP is going to be anything less than beta or even alfa software, because its not. It will be the first of its kind, and just like all the other coins that did new cutting edge things in crypto Dash will also be forgiven if or when Dash has problems in the starting fase of the open beta on mainnet.
I do how ever would prefer a shorter timelock, because longer lock up time gives diminishing returns. The main take away should be can the network act fast enough vs a bad actor and bad the timelock needed based on that.
The argument that locking up coins is contra to not your keys not your coins, is a great one liner but it is misplaced.
1) Masternodes and Platform nodes are to serve the users, the are not their to be fat cats getting richer, but provide services and be the (strong) backbone that makes sure they will uphold: decentralisation values such as "not your keys not your coins"
2) the lockup periode is an optional chose, not all nodese will or will have to run Dashplatform, I really don't get why QE keeps bringing it up that is a given, because it's not a makes me worried if he does not get his way, he will make sure that he was proven right that 4k or 10k was the only way
3) Its show allot of commitment by the whale to lock up coins, and will more likely result in them running a strong enough not, if not at first they will do so later on.
4) Masternodes already have what I would call a soft lock, because the only way to earn coins is to serve the network before its your turn to recieve a blockreward.
Game theory
5) Game theory suggests that with only 20% or less masternodes running dashplatform, it will be allot more likely those running Platform can abuse their power.
Assuming the math is correct, well yes that is certainly a weak spot. But Dash platform only controls, the datalayer, the payment layer is save. So that amount of damage that can be done is allot more limited.
But what is the potential gain ? and is the gain larger than the costs being made ?
They only real way to do that is open up a massive short position, and make Dash suffers a massive price depreciation, and because there coins are locked up these coins will go down with the ship. It's even unlikely trading marketings can handle such a trade, and even so it would be allot more expensive than a regular trade, and the Dashnetwork would already get warning/red flag.
Because the coins are locked up and its clear to the network that the Dash platform was actually run by a bad actor, there is both time and suffient reason to take action by the network. the network could simply vote to burn away these coins. With only a few 100 public keys to hardcode to be burned away. These coins could than also be reminted into one way or the other. One could even redistribute the coins to every users so that they are compensated for any potential lose they may have had.
Sure there may be unknown other (financially) reasons that are not yet discovered, but if they were truly massive they would have likely already happened in other coins or tokens.
Side note:
This is actually quit similar how Polkadot is running it's shards, in fact controlling party is voted in, so you could even claim it's 100% centralized in the winning coin/token that runs that shard. I have heard very little to no complaints about it.
Last but not least, stop pretending that Dash platform MVP is going to be anything less than beta or even alfa software, because its not. It will be the first of its kind, and just like all the other coins that did new cutting edge things in crypto Dash will also be forgiven if or when Dash has problems in the starting fase of the open beta on mainnet.
I was not here 6 years ago.
This is not a proper discussion. You haven't tried to convince me otherwise, you haven't pointed out to any legal binding i have, you directly threatened to fire me of a mention of a simple thing. This is a bit too far i think, i will ask you to not do that again please. However i see that the mention of NDA bothers you, so no worries. If it's the will of the network i'll output the roadmap for everyone to see. It's not a hill i will die on. I mention a NDA and I will explain why i mentioned it.
There are security related topics on that roadmap. Do you really wish for potential vulnerabilities to be published?
There are possibly groundbreaking topics on there. Do you really wish for potential advances in the field to be published so that other projects with more budget than us can take advantage of it before we can think of implementing it?
The way i see it, you are asking me to give my work away to other projects. You threatening to try firing me as soon as i mention not being keen on the idea of giving the fruit of my work and of your money to other projects. Beside, yes, it is sensible data that can be utilized by others against DASH.
It is absolutely false that such types of data are the only ones covered by NDA. Do you know that dimensions of screws upon a good bunch of vehicles are also covered by NDAs, that in fact a alot of design points are also covered by NDAs? It's mostly about technical details. Do you remember robert, that i am a cryptographer before all else? you publish vulnerabilities after they are patched not before. Or maybe you'd have liked the vulnerability of DIP 24 to be patched post platform release so that millions can be stolen from Platform? should i also have published that too?
But sure i mean if you all agree that it should be out, i won't go against the will of the network. I won't be that guy who fight you. Enjoy ruining DASH.
I find it insane that laypersons such as you robert are asking me publish security related issues and other sensible data before they can be dealt with. Introspection please. Subject closed do not even bother answering on that topic. IF i see a strong feeling from the community to look at the roadmap i will oblige, but as a security person i can tell you that would be madness.
I agree. Whatever decision proposals are currently being prepared by DCG, if any of these decision proposals do not pass the 10% treshold it is over and done for those decision proposals. The number of yes votes can then not be used to pick the highest one with yes votes and declare that the winner. That would rape our governance system.
And i also agree that none of us signed up for a Dash Platform where the responsebility on how to start Dash Platform is getting pushed solely to masternode owners and strictly with Platform start options to vote on, that either centralize Dash Platform (violating their very own Dash Platform Vision, which was getting communicated to the Dash community as recently as feb 2022 !!) or with an option to vote on that has a very clear safety issue. Devs even put the feature Proof of Service that would make the last option actually viable for masternode owners to pick (no more safety issue), on their own internal roadmap, but then never did anything with it !!
I also think Sam or Virgile should take another look at the Distributed Platform Storage solution and krilen's most recent comment there. It seems that option is still viable and he even has some thoughts on how to implement Proof of Service in a simple way. Could be interesting to hear.
See : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...ids-high-performance-nodes.53400/#post-232615
Last edited:
You are considering 1K masternodes with a hard limit on the number of ndoes supporting Platform i suppose? I would like to see the math, as it depends on much more than the amount of nodes. The driving factor is the percentage of byzantine node inside the subset of nodes.
The reason we are not disclosing the research roadmap is because they are internal ideas. People need a safe space to be able to propose ideas, without people constantly attacking those ideas. Research is 80% failure, 20% success. Many ideas don't pan out, but we still look into them.
Next around consensus, consensus in Dash is whatever 60% of the network currently thinks it is. 51% for PoW, 60% for chain locks (though we might be raising this to 2/3rds soon). Funding is at a higher bar than that.
Deciding how to activate platform needs a winner, this is not a funding proposal and shouldn't require the funding requirements. It would be ridiculous to go with a proposal that got 30% of the votes if another got 50%.
I am working very heavily on fees right now. I feel like I have given all the information that is needed for this discussion in good faith. A FAQ will be coming in about a week time. There currently is a poll on discord if this vote should happen next cycle, or later. If you think this vote is rushed you can vote for it taking place later.
Next around consensus, consensus in Dash is whatever 60% of the network currently thinks it is. 51% for PoW, 60% for chain locks (though we might be raising this to 2/3rds soon). Funding is at a higher bar than that.
Deciding how to activate platform needs a winner, this is not a funding proposal and shouldn't require the funding requirements. It would be ridiculous to go with a proposal that got 30% of the votes if another got 50%.
I am working very heavily on fees right now. I feel like I have given all the information that is needed for this discussion in good faith. A FAQ will be coming in about a week time. There currently is a poll on discord if this vote should happen next cycle, or later. If you think this vote is rushed you can vote for it taking place later.
Yep, as QE mentioned, we are working on a FAQ with all the questions we have gathered so far. We will also link to other design ideas. So far i collected Rion's and Denk's idea but i am sure i missed some. So please if you can answer to this message with links to wherever other ideas where, so that we don't miss any, that'd be amazing.
www.dash.org/forum/threads/distributed-platform-storage-avoids-high-performance-nodes.53400/#post-232615
Please see latest comments of krilen there
Every decision proposal of Dash Core Group ever created so far, required at least a larger then 10% of yes-no votes to pass (the famous treshold).
Are you saying this will not be the case for your upcoming DCG decision proposals ?
If you are saying that indeed, then that would invalidate these decision proposals from the start. And it would be an abuse of our governance system.
I hope i am just misreading this.
Let me make this clear : if a decision proposal does not pass the 10% treshold, its number of yes votes can not be used in any way to declare a winner. Period.
You can not make a winner out of a decision proposal that just lost. Everyone that downvotes these decision proposals, would have no voice then.
Last edited:
DTP elections happen without a 10% majority. The funding governance system is for funding. Consensus is whatever 60% of nodes (currently) say it is. To that extent since we need a winning proposal we will go with the majority. Would you prefer a proposal that got less votes wins?
The question is not where you were 6 years ago, but where you will be after 6 years.
Banning NDAs is a government decision, it is not a personal threat against you.
yes
Yes. This is what open source does.
You are already using tons of opensource software. So yes, keep opensourcing. Again I am not threatening you , I am saying that a governance decision should be made in favor of opensource, and whoever is against opensource he may leave the boat.
Finally, take into account that I hold only 1 masternode vote, so I have no power to decide, unless the voting outcome is marginal and unstable.