It's hard to respond to what you wrote, but I will try to be the better man.
As I have said before multiple times already voluntary adherence to platform is extremely insecure, as it could be highly centralized. You know those centralized bridges that go down on other chains and people lose a lot of money? Yeah that's what I'm trying to protect everyone against.
If you are unhappy with the solutions proposed then you can offer another one when the voting comes up.
As GrandMasterDash stated, the Dash Platform Vision has always been for ALL MASTERNODES
to participate, and NOT
to create an ELITIST CARTEL
If the increase of hardware requirements to run Dash Platform would only be slightly or tolerable for the MNOs, only then could we go for the 1K solution.
But DCG has let the entire network completely in the dark, that the way DCG designed Platform, DCG has obviously created a
RESOURCE WASTING MONSTER
that probably will generate INSUFFICIENT FEES/RETURNS
, not just at the beginning, but perhaps forever.
Despite it would have been appropriate since ever, to plan for a SENSIBLE USE OF HARDWARE RESOURCES
and that we have to rent/pay
only what is TRULY NEEDED
, and to scale those HARDWARE RESOURCES WISELY OVER TIME
and only IF NEEDED and with WORKING COMPENSATION
already in place. But first, we need to see USE, UTILITY, DEMAND and WILLINGNESS TO FAIRLY COMPENSATE
the needed hardware resources.
It is completely pointless to rent entire datacenters and nobody using it. This is not a sensible start of Platform.
And now DCG is desperate and full of fear, because they ALREADY KNOW
whats possibly coming our way, raping MNOs with totally exaggerated hosting fees,
for UNUSED SPACE
or OTHERWISE WASTED OR GREATLY EXAGGERATED COMPUTATION POWER NEEDED BY NOBODY
, and likely NO OR RIDICULOUSLY
in place, over many years to come.
Furthermore, DCG by focusing only and exclusively on Platform to the neglect of Dash Payment Network, and even while having the focus on Platform, taking
incredible 7 years until (almost) completion of this obviously hardware-resource-wasteful Code, has already tanked DASH/USD price to bottom-level barely away
from bankruptcy. And now, after 7 years you feel the need to HURRY UNSUSPECTING UNBRIEFED MNOs
into taking a decision while you emotionally threaten
them with safety issues from potential hacks?
Given the INSANE HARDWARE RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
coming our way through Hosting Fees, few will support the 1K solution.
Those who will support, will do so only because YOU WILL NOT TELL THEM WHATS COMING
. And this is all so wrong and misleading.
We do not even know if this thing (PLATFORM) has secure code, won't freeze or collapse masternodes and is free of severe bugs.
The stakes are way too high to potentially fuck up our entire Payment Network !!
Under the circumstances DCG has created, a sensible start of Platform can only exist, if we keep Platform separate from the Payment Network, at least when starting
And the only right way to do it, at this stage we are in right now, is to start with SEPARATE PLATFORM NODES, WHICH HAVE TO PROVE A RUNNING 1K MASTERNODE IN THE PAYMENT NETWORK, ON A VOLUNTARY ADHERENCE BASIS
Find a safe way we do not need to have perfect Decentralization when starting Platform.
Mid- to longer-term a merge of the nodes can (and should) happen, but only after we have seen BUGFREE CODE, USE, UTILIY, DEMAND and WILLINGNESS TO
Platform services, and after hardware resources are used more wisely and not in such a wasteful way.
After 7 years, we can as well handle a few months more until Launch, if that is what will prevent you from creating a total mess with no guarantees against
any Platform-induced Blackouts of our Payment Network.
I REPEAT MY WARNING TO YOU:
DON'T DARE TRYING TO ENACT AN UNPASSING GOVERNANCE PROPOSAL IRRESPECTIVE OF YES VOTES IN COMPARISON TO OTHER PROPOSALS.
UNPASSING GOVERNANCE PROPOSALS HAVE NO ENACTING POWER WHATSOEVER.
IF YOU CROSS THIS RED LINE, YOU PERSONALLY WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.