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

qwizzie

Grizzled Member
Aug 6, 2014
2,058
1,256
1,183
* Platform having a bug that could take down the network - PoSe doesn't do anything.
* Not enough nodes will actually start strong enough Platform - PoSe helps a little.
Is there anything else that could help with these two specific safety issues, besides having to raise collateral and having to create seperate masternode groups with each masternode group providing Core services and one specific masternode group having higher hardware requirements & providing Platform services as well ? (AKA the HPM solution).

Taken into account the additional solutions proposed by Dash community members (Rion, krilen, denk) that emerged over time.
How well would these alternative solutions handle these two specific safety issues in your opinion ?

Because those two safety issues seems to me the two most important safety issues with regards to launching Dash Platform.
Or maybe we should compare all your mentioned safety issues with the alternative solutions and see what they fix exactly.

Current safety issues with Platform on all nodes :

* 1 Entity could have too much Power
* Nodes could propose blocks, but not respond to queries
* Platform having a bug that could take down the network
* Not enough nodes will actually start strong enough Platform

* Sharding
* Sharding security

Alternative solutions :

Rion : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...h-performance-nodes.53374/page-12#post-232537
denk : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...h-performance-nodes.53374/page-10#post-232473
krilen : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...ids-high-performance-nodes.53400/#post-232425

HPM solutions : throwing HPM in there as well, in case any of the above safety issues also applies to HPM, for example not having enough HPM to start strong enough for Platform, or perhaps not beeing able to do sharding effectively or secure enough in the future once we go this centralized HPM route.

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

QuantumExplorer

Active Member
Dash Core Group
Aug 20, 2014
270
374
123
Taken into account the additional solutions proposed by Dash community members (Rion, krilen, denk) that emerged over time.
How well would these alternative solutions handle these two specific safety issues in your opinion ?
Sure, so sadly Krilen's current solution doesn't work. I think he's quite remarkable for proposing something that actually is smart, but he doesn't yet understand the system well enough. There are other ways to get sharding done, but it is no simple task.

Rion's solution is an optional MN solution on 1K collateral. Like all 1K collateral solutions I don't think it's safe as it can easily lead to centralization unless you put a lot of rewards into platform, at which point it doesn't do all that much. The purpose of time locking is to remove exchanges from the equation - maybe.

We need to understand that time locking does not guarantee that you will be properly running Platform.

As with any optional solution I believe the masternode power will increase, more than if we force everyone to run platform. If there are around or less than 1/4th masternodes running platform compared all masternodes the risk to the Core network is minimized.

Denk's solution is to limit the nodes and have them compete while at the same time not providing service for Core. First, I'm not sure how we could make them compete. Second Platform needs Core always running, as it is "on top" of the payment chain. All nodes running Platform need to run core, it is true they wouldn't need to sign IS and chain locks, but running core is 90% of the work anyways. He raises a good point about maybe "be required to prove ownership of 1, 2, 3 or more master-nodes in order to run Evo node". And that eventually we will need better ways to evaluate performance. I think he was missing that validators that fall behind won't get paid. Or maybe he thinks it is not enough.

To recap for Denk's solution "Platform having a bug that could take down the network" -> Solved
"Not enough nodes will actually start strong enough Platform" -> Probably better

Though the downsides are that it could be very centralized, which to me is a non starter.

* 1 Entity could have too much Power
No, this is the opposite of what was said, you misunderstood. On a forced platform 1k scenario, decentralization is very high... but the other safety issues exist and are very worrying.

The more I think about this the more I think Masternode shares could give almost everyone what they want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xkcd and qwizzie

qwizzie

Grizzled Member
Aug 6, 2014
2,058
1,256
1,183
Suppose the HPM solution gets voted in (10K HPM for example), is there a risk that Dash could end up getting differently classified by regulators or by exchanges ?
Considering the Platform sidechain is a Proof of Stake blockchain and considering the centralized aspect of the 10K HPM solution....

Could Dash get more strict regulation, because it would be more centralized in the eyes of regulators ? There is a proof of stake reward scheme involved as well (Platform Credits).
 
Last edited:

QuantumExplorer

Active Member
Dash Core Group
Aug 20, 2014
270
374
123
Suppose the HPM solution gets voted in (10K HPM for example), is there a risk that Dash could end up getting differently classified by regulators or by exchanges ?
Considering the Platform sidechain is a Proof of Stake blockchain and considering the centralized aspect of the 10K HPM solution....
To my knowledge there is no risk at all. We do not meet the definition of a security.
 

DASHvestor

New Member
Jul 22, 2018
28
23
3
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

Are you completely mad? Have you totally lost your mind?
Your 3 "solutions" which are ALL ABSOLUTE GARBAGE (and btw should cost you your position @DCG if that's all you can come up with!)
clearly violates the outlined Dash Platform Vision, you try to turn Dash into something that´s no longer Dash, and stay assured that you,
PERSONALLY will be held accountable for hurrying unprepared MNOs to vote on either of those 3 PILES OF SHIT your sick mind came up with.

You will not rape the MNO network and get away with imposing any of those 3 CRAP "solutions", by selfishly re-interpreting and
indeed changing the REQUIRED THRESHOLD OF A PASSING PROPOSAL, by just counting YES votes of a potentially UNPASSING proposal,
or by following any strange rules in your sick mind.


For example, if the Voting goes like this:
1) 120 Yes and 300 No
2) 140 Yes and 280 No
3) 130 Yes and 290 No

This would lead you sicko to trying to enact solution 2), which is nothing short of raping the MNO network.
Obviously this is a powergrab and you will not get away with it.

FU**ING TRY TO ENACT AN UNPASSING PROPOSAL, AND YOUR DAYS @DCG ARE NUMBERED !!!!
Who the hell do you think you are?

DON'T TOUCH COLLATERALIZATION REQUIREMENTS.
DON'T TOUCH BLOCKREWARD ALLOCATIONS.
DON'T TRY TO FORCE EVERY MNO TO A MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE HOSTING.
PLATFORM SHOULD BE RUN 1) BY VOLUNTARY ADHERENCE 2) FUNDED BY PLATFORM FEES.
 

stan.distortion

Well-known Member
Oct 30, 2014
959
585
163
Ffs, take a chill pill. Can't say I agree with all you've said there but I can't really argue with the sentiment. Down even looks like it might be the intended trajectory, keep enough nodes to run when rewards don't cover server costs.

Edit:
That's the best outcome imo, it might open the door to a few whales buying out Dash but thinking a finite 18 or 21 million is the answer to all future value is delusional, even BTC will be lucky to get away with it for long.and it's a certain dead end for anything that came after. Infinite chains can be made, that means infinite tokens.

Platform is certainly the right direction but too much has to change. Crypto, tokenisation etc. is so damn useful that it's going to be driving everything and that's just around the corner. When it does it becomes a battle for who can do it most efficiently and corporate entities will win that. What should mater here is what takes second place, who does it both most efficiently and openly. That's a battle that can only be won by open source. That means open source development, not just the code.
 
Last edited:

AgnewPickens

Administrator
Chief Sock Advisor
Mar 11, 2017
653
344
133
59
@QuantumExplorer

Are you completely mad? Have you totally lost your mind?
Your 3 "solutions" which are ALL ABSOLUTE GARBAGE (and btw should cost you your position @DCG if that's all you can come up with!)
clearly violates the outlined Dash Platform Vision, you try to turn Dash into something that´s no longer Dash, and stay assured that you,
PERSONALLY will be held accountable for hurrying unprepared MNOs to vote on either of those 3 PILES OF SHIT your sick mind came up with.

You will not rape the MNO network and get away with imposing any of those 3 CRAP "solutions", by selfishly re-interpreting and
indeed changing the REQUIRED THRESHOLD OF A PASSING PROPOSAL, by just counting YES votes of a potentially UNPASSING proposal,
or by following any strange rules in your sick mind.


For example, if the Voting goes like this:
1) 120 Yes and 300 No
2) 140 Yes and 280 No
3) 130 Yes and 290 No

This would lead you sicko to trying to enact solution 2), which is nothing short of raping the MNO network.
Obviously this is a powergrab and you will not get away with it.

FU**ING TRY TO ENACT AN UNPASSING PROPOSAL, AND YOUR DAYS @DCG ARE NUMBERED !!!!
Who the hell do you think you are?

DON'T TOUCH COLLATERALIZATION REQUIREMENTS.
DON'T TOUCH BLOCKREWARD ALLOCATIONS.
DON'T TRY TO FORCE EVERY MNO TO A MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE HOSTING.
PLATFORM SHOULD BE RUN 1) BY VOLUNTARY ADHERENCE 2) FUNDED BY PLATFORM FEES.
You've received an official warning for inappropriate language and behavior. Please try to remain civil.
 

QuantumExplorer

Active Member
Dash Core Group
Aug 20, 2014
270
374
123
PLATFORM SHOULD BE RUN 1) BY VOLUNTARY ADHERENCE 2) FUNDED BY PLATFORM FEES.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kot and xkcd

BoomStick

New Member
Feb 1, 2017
28
24
3
42
What do you guys think about time-locked 4000 DASH trustless MN shares propsed by @QuantumExplorer ?

It doesn't sound that bad to me, after all community was asking for trustless mn shares for ages. It seems better then just going 4k/10k HPMNs way.

What are the downsides in your opinion ?
 

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
3,392
1,439
1,183
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.
Personally, I think you've failed to understand two important things:

1. The vision of Platform Evolution is for all nodes participation. The incentives / node rewards were never intended for payments only. For if it were, bitcoin and many others would fail to find participants. Frankly, if security and reliability are your major concerns - e.g. dash platform taking down the whole network - then this is a catastrophic technical failure by DCG. If dash USD prices were 10x, then beefier servers would never be a problem And clearly, in 7 years, latency / sharding issues were also technical problems that were never sufficiently overcome.

2. Your hardheaded stubbornness to continue with this proposal - especially in light of all the feedback received - is astounding. Not least that you are willing to violate the governance system without asking the network to accept a different method of consensus. I refer you to the 2MB block debate / proposal that dash addressed within 24 hours without changing the method of consensus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ad87657 and Semarg

DASHvestor

New Member
Jul 22, 2018
28
23
3
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
FEES
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
MEAGER COMPENSATION
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
FAIRLY COMPENSATE
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GrandMasterDash

QuantumExplorer

Active Member
Dash Core Group
Aug 20, 2014
270
374
123
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
FEES
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
MEAGER COMPENSATION
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
FAIRLY COMPENSATE
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.
You have no idea what you are talking about, there's no truth to these lies. Can you prove some of the things you say or are you going to admit you are full of it?

RESOURCE WASTING MONSTER - prove it.
INSUFFICIENT FEES/RETURNS - prove it.


I am going to ignore you from now on. If you are not going to be constructive and all you can say is DCG bad, DCG CTO terrible then there is no point wasting my time.

I do not appreciate threats either. You probably have done exactly nothing for Dash. Or you want to say what you have done, new member?

Btw... for proposals. People can run whatever software they want. If something doesn't get to 85% activation it or so it doesn't pass. That's our consensus mechanism. We are polling our network to ask them what software they would like us to deliver. Obviously we need to provide a solution.
 

virgile

Member
Dash Core Group
Oct 17, 2022
55
61
58
26
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
FEES
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
MEAGER COMPENSATION
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
FAIRLY COMPENSATE
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.
I see QE just answered but i was 99% done writting my message so here it goes anyway.
First please stop being so accusing so that we can have a proper discussion.
Secondly I don't understand why you seem to be against QE's proposition while making so many points in the favor of what he proposes.

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 !!
This point is a very strong points for the solution QE and I stand behind, as having only a subset of nodes is the only way to prevent a worst case scenario. Not saying it will happen, not saying it even may happen, just that it's the most secure against all odds.

to scale those HARDWARE RESOURCES WISELY OVER TIME and only IF NEEDED and with WORKING COMPENSATION FEES already in place
This is another point for HPMNs this is what it does exactly.

And now DCG is desperate and full of fear, because
Let's not go to far, it's just me and QE polling the comunnity over a solution we firmly believe is the best but that we know may be disliked. And so far the discussions have came up with 0 functional solutions on anyone's part beside ours. Trust me i wished someone came up with something better, it's less work... But there are heavy flaws in every other solution so far.

you emotionally threaten them with safety issues from potential hacks?
We do not, we present solutions to you and also give you the tool to judge the security in regard to whale takeover. The all-node-solution is very secure in that regard... But it's near non-functional and it enforces all nodes to participate which you pointed yourself out is a big issue
If you refer to numbers on the 1K solution that Rion proposes: it simply could/would lead to very heavy centralization on platform, which we wish to avoid, so we won't stay silent at an obvious issue which could hurt the project.


is to start with SEPARATE PLATFORM NODE
That is not doable, if you read earlier in the conversation QE states that Platform needs core services locally.

Find a safe way we do not need to have perfect Decentralization when starting Platform.
what makes you think the proposed solutions are unsafe? Point at metrics, proper numbers not some hand waving, statements without proof are worthless.

Mid- to longer-term a merge of the nodes can (and should) happen, but
If you have a design idea, we'd be interested to read it. But this right now is just a statement without a proper look at the system. I bet you have spent less than a day thinking about it and i'm being very generous.

No need to put parts of your message in bold, we read the entirety of it.
 

stan.distortion

Well-known Member
Oct 30, 2014
959
585
163
...
Let's not go to far, it's just me and QE polling the comunnity over a solution we firmly believe is the best but that we know may be disliked. And so far the discussions have came up with 0 functional solutions on anyone's part beside ours. Trust me i wished someone came up with something better, it's less work... But there are heavy flaws in every other solution so far.
...
Where's the flaw with all nodes as one big cluster, a distributed supercomputer running Platform? It wasn't intended as a serious suggestion but it's far more powerful than any of the three proposals and zero arguments have been put against it. Please don't muddy the waters by choosing to ignore suggestions and then claiming no workable suggestions have been proposed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GrandMasterDash

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
3,392
1,439
1,183
I fear, if MNOs allow DCG to continue on this path, the dash price will collapse below 20 USD. Horizen is currently 12.74 USD and its max supply is the same as bitcoin, 21 million, just 10.5% more than dash.

It seems, fitting a PoS into dash's PoW system is too problematic. I'm guessing, fitting a PoS system into another PoS would be much easier. So maybe the Platform team should find employment with Horizen instead, being they already use PoS and they already have two node types.

Such is the desperation, Sam will continue with the proposals, providing a single type of solution (4K/10K collateral) because he admits he knows of no other workable solution.

If DCG breaks consensus and goes down this path, they must fork the project and they must not use the dash brand name. If DCG chooses to ignore what I say, I may seek legal advice.

I must admit, I have never been so turned off and negative about dash than this.
 

DASHvestor

New Member
Jul 22, 2018
28
23
3
@DCG

Don't expect the average MNO having as much technical knowledge or insight like a Platform Developer,
while DCG has done NOTHING to educate or try to inform the MNO network along the development journey.

No explanation from DCG how 4K or 10K HPMN will affect the blockrewards !!!!
Our blockreward has a specific size+Fees, and when a Miner mines a block and there will be such a 4K or 10K HPMN next in line for
payment within the deterministic payment queue, you will just have it generate 4times or 10times the regular masternode reward?

Just don't forget, that 4 or 10 regularly mined blocks, will also generate 4 or 10 times a Mining Reward, as well as 4 or 10 times the
reserved portion for the Budget (to the extent approved). This can easily affect our Tokenomics in unintended ways.
Meddling with our Tokenomics without stating any details, and you seriously wonder why so many oppose the 4K or 10K solution?
 

virgile

Member
Dash Core Group
Oct 17, 2022
55
61
58
26
Where's the flaw with all nodes as one big cluster, a distributed supercomputer running Platform? It wasn't intended as a serious suggestion but it's far more powerful than any of the three proposals and zero arguments have been put against it. Please don't muddy the waters by choosing to ignore suggestions and then claiming no workable suggestions have been proposed.
please don't muddy the waters by choosing to ignore suggestions and then claiming no workable suggestions have been proposed.
No worries, i was not going to. If i missed something earlier on though i apologize and i will gladly answer it.

Where's the flaw with all nodes as one big cluster
Have you read the past 5 or so pages? i have participated a bunch and in there somewhere i answered to the same questions over and over on why it is problematic. I can repeat again but at some point please read what i already stated so that i don't have to repeat myself all day :|.

It has nothing to do with distributed computation we have gone over it already you and i, we are not doing distributed computations but distributed storage (Btw fun but unrelated topic, distributed computation is not simply magic and always have a minimum overhead that implies you can't distribute forever. You hit a limit at some point.). You say that there was no argument against it, do i really need to link to previous statements?

This is really tiring for me and QE to repeat the same things over and over. I get that you disagree with us but at some point if we state A and you disregard A because you disagree, then please do not say "you never said A". It's hard to have a constructive discussion right now.

I fear, if MNOs allow DCG to continue on this path, the dash price will collapse below 20 USD. Horizen is currently 12.74 USD and its max supply is the same as bitcoin, 21 million, just 10.5% more than dash.

It seems, fitting a PoS into dash's PoW system is too problematic. I'm guessing, fitting a PoS system into another PoS would be much easier. So maybe the Platform team should find employment with Horizen instead, being they already use PoS and they already have two node types.

Such is the desperation, Sam will continue with the proposals, providing a single type of solution (4K/10K collateral) because he admits he knows of no other workable solution.

If DCG breaks consensus and goes down this path, they must fork the project and they must not use the dash brand name. If DCG chooses to ignore what I say, I may seek legal advice.

I must admit, I have never been so turned off and negative about dash than this.
It seems, fitting a PoS
You have been over it with QE and me both. It has nothing to do with PoSe and PoSe does not solve any of the technical challenges at hand. Have you read our answers? i want you to state that you did or i will not answer further. I want you o acknowledge this has nothing to do with PoSe.

because he admits he knows of no other workable solution.
Your wording implies more than what you mean. There being no perfect solution doesn't mean we failed to find one.

I don't know how to tell you. There are no other viable solution. Decentralization implies duplication of data. You are sticking to a wrong idea that you deduced from god knows statements someone must have made 10 years ago without even thinking of how such a prodcut can work. You have to reduce the amount of nodes, can't go around that. You want platform to succeed or it to be running on four thousand remote servers creating ridiculous overhead? Or you want a solution like ours which is decentralized and works?


@DCG

Don't expect the average MNO having as much technical knowledge or insight like a Platform Developer,
while DCG has done NOTHING to educate or try to inform the MNO network along the development journey.

No explanation from DCG how 4K or 10K HPMN will affect the blockrewards !!!!
Our blockreward has a specific size+Fees, and when a Miner mines a block and there will be such a 4K or 10K HPMN next in line for
payment within the deterministic payment queue, you will just have it generate 4times or 10times the regular masternode reward?

Just don't forget, that 4 or 10 regularly mined blocks, will also generate 4 or 10 times a Mining Reward, as well as 4 or 10 times the
reserved portion for the Budget (to the extent approved). This can easily affect our Tokenomics in unintended ways.
Meddling with our Tokenomics without stating any details, and you seriously wonder why so many oppose the 4K or 10K solution?
We are trying to educate the community and to give them to tools to judge our decisions right now. But look how it is going. We are being accused of things and their contrary by what i start to choose to be a very vocal and bitter minority among the MNOs/users. So far there was only one or two persons who i could have a proper talk with in this forum. One was for example qwizzie who disagree staunchly with us but still acts humane and talks logically to me. Not so much to QE, but to me he has been stellar which i appreciate. Rion also has differing views, but he does look at the technical issues and try to solve them. He disagrees but we can find common ground.

What common ground can me or QE have with others here exactly? None it feels to me. Why are we even talking?
I'm here in good faith, but if you don't want to talk and just to throw your anger at me, it's pointless.


Just don't forget, that 4 or 10 regularly mined blocks, will also generate 4 or 10 times a Mining Reward
I don't know what you are talking about but you seem confused, could you develop? What mined blocks, on Platform you mean?
 

qwizzie

Grizzled Member
Aug 6, 2014
2,058
1,256
1,183
After having heard about the safety issues with starting Dash Platform on all nodes and with the introducement of centralization to Dash Platform with the 4k HPM or 10K HPM options, i will have no choice left but to downvote all DCG decision propasals regarding starting Dash Platform. Hopefully enough people will do the same, making those DCG decision proposals not pass. This would signal to DCG that the current DCG options to start Dash Platform are not acceptable and hopefully force DCG to start thinking about alternative options to start Dash Platform or force DCG to start thinking of a way to use the Platform on all nodes option, without having the current safety issues form a factor. Untill these DCG decision proposals fail to pass, i don't really see DCG willing to actively explore other options on their own.

In case of the DCG decision proposals not passing (below 10%), but its yes votes still being counted towards declaring a winner among those not passing decision proposals, i will consider such winner outcome illegitimate and will start downvoting all future DCG budget proposals, as this will show to me that DCG has no problem abusing the Dash Governance system and ignoring all no voters, just to find some direction on how to start Dash Platform. I can no longer support DCG then.

With regards to Trustless Masternode Shares, i view this topic as seperate from the current start options (Platform on all nodes, 4K HPM and 10K HPM) and see benefits to having this further developed by DCG, regardless of the outcome on how to start Dash Platform.
 
Last edited:

virgile

Member
Dash Core Group
Oct 17, 2022
55
61
58
26
No explanation from DCG how 4K or 10K HPMN will affect the blockrewards !!!!
Also, yeah. This is a blatant lie. We talked about it multiple times, just ctrl+f "yield". I will not accept such lie and i don't understand how the community's standard is so low that it enables such statements.
 

virgile

Member
Dash Core Group
Oct 17, 2022
55
61
58
26
After having heard about the safety issues with starting Dash Platform on all nodes and with the introducement of centralization to Dash Platform with the 4k HPM or 10K HPM options, i will have no choice left but to downvote all DCG decision propasals regarding starting Dash Platform. Hopefully enough people will do the same, making those DCG decision proposals not pass. This would signal to DCG that the current DCG options to start Dash Platform are not acceptable and hopefully force DCG to start thinking about alternative options to start Dash Platform or force DCG to start thinking of a way to use the Platform on all nodes option, without having the current safety issues form a factor. Untill these DCG decision proposals fail to pass, i don't really see DCG willing to actively explore other options on their own.

In case of the DCG decision proposals not passing (below 10%), but its yes votes still being counted towards declaring a winner among those not passing decision proposals, i will consider such winner outcome illegitimate and will start downvoting all future DCG budget proposals, as this will show to me that DCG has no problem abusing the Dash Governance system, just to find some direction on how to start Dash Platform. I can no longer support DCG then.

With regards to Trustless Masternode Shares, i view this topic as seperate from the current start options (Platform on all nodes, 4K HPM and 10K HPM) and see benefits to having this further developed by DCG, regardless of the outcome on how to start Dash Platform.
You have stated it like 10 times already. I just don't understand why you keep on stating it. We get it, you hate the change, you were promised ridiculous non functional things by evan duffield years ago and now QE tries to make a functional product and you're angry evan duffield lied to you, but like come on... Is it really QE's fault? In your place i would be coming with pitchforks at evan, not at QE. He's the one actually delivering something positive for you and you hate him. I don't understand why.


You guys keep talking about how platform will fail and how it'll drive the price down. You're trying to make it a self fulfulling prophecy. Do you really think it's the amount of nodes supporting platform or how the community behaves toward it's development org that offputs new people? You realize fully how image and marketing is important right?

Go to any of our forum, look how discussions go. Nothing civil, accusations at DCG left and right for random things by a vocal but toxic minority. Would you want to participate in that?

Fun fact, some people actually told us they agreed with our design choice there, but they are too afraid to get the same negativity we do, so they stay silent. You are effectively creating a negative feedback loop for yourselves, and that is nothing that me or QE or anyone can pull you out from. So i will stop participating in the talk, and i will advise QE to do the same. Nothing productive anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xkcd

qwizzie

Grizzled Member
Aug 6, 2014
2,058
1,256
1,183
You have stated it like 10 times already. I just don't understand why you keep on stating it. We get it, you hate the change, you were promised ridiculous non functional things by evan duffield years ago and now QE tries to make a functional product and you're angry evan duffield lied to you, but like come on... Is it really QE's fault? In your place i would be coming with pitchforks at evan, not at QE. He's the one actually delivering something positive for you and you hate him. I don't understand why.

You guys keep talking about how platform will fail and how it'll drive the price down. You're trying to make it a self fulfulling prophecy. Do you really think it's the amount of nodes supporting platform or how the community behaves toward it's development org that offputs new people? You realize fully how image and marketing is important right?
A lot of generalization and personal assumptions about me, in one post.
And yes i do realize fully how image and marketing is important. I also realize how centralization in Dash Platform can irreparably harm Dash image and marketing. I wonder if you realize that as well ?

Anyways, this topic was initiated by DCG, introduces centralization to Dash Platform, introduces safety issues to the Platform on all nodes solution that were never fully disclosed to the Dash community before (and took ages before getting described in here in full detail) and it involves upcoming DCG decision proposals, while CTO of DCG is already making statements about wanting a winner, regardless if those decision proposals passes or not.. how did you think this would go ?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GrandMasterDash

stan.distortion

Well-known Member
Oct 30, 2014
959
585
163
...
Have you read the past 5 or so pages? i have participated a bunch and in there somewhere i answered to the same questions over and over on why it is problematic. I can repeat again but at some point please read what i already stated so that i don't have to repeat myself all day :|.
Tbh, the past 5 pages or so (and the 1st few) is all I've read and I don't really feel like going over the other 10 or 12 looking for point to brainstorm when discussion is falling of deaf ears (or quietly going into an IP portfolio just like most of Blockstreams "innovations").

It has nothing to do with distributed computation we have gone over it already you and i, we are not doing distributed computations but distributed storage (Btw fun but unrelated topic, distributed computation is not simply magic and always have a minimum overhead that implies you can't distribute forever. You hit a limit at some point.). You say that there was no argument against it, do i really need to link to previous statements?
...
Distributed computing ususaly includes distributed storage along with data redundancy to allow for node faliure. So far we don't even have any kind of benchmarking in the client/MN list to even gauge how much storage the MN network has and how reliably available it is, the first step to planning out reliable distributed storage.

...
I don't know how to tell you. There are no other viable solution. Decentralization implies duplication of data. You are sticking to a wrong idea that you deduced from god knows statements someone must have made 10 years ago without even thinking of how such a prodcut can work. You have to reduce the amount of nodes, can't go around that. You want platform to succeed or it to be running on four thousand remote servers creating ridiculous overhead? Or you want a solution like ours which is decentralized and works?
...
If every additional node causes a reduction in performance then you're doing it wrong. Just because no blockchain has found a way to strengthen anything other than security by additional nodes doesn't mean it can't be done. The same issue exists in nature and nature has found ways of addressing it, every additional element makes the whole stronger and that's the kind of innovation that was once the hallmark of Dash.
 

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
3,392
1,439
1,183
You have been over it with QE and me both. It has nothing to do with PoSe and PoSe does not solve any of the technical challenges at hand. Have you read our answers? i want you to state that you did or i will not answer further. I want you o acknowledge this has nothing to do with PoSe.
I have no idea why you're saying PoSe (Proof of Service) when I explicitly said PoS (Proof of Stake). So what is there for me to acknowledge if you're mis-quoting me?

Your wording implies more than what you mean. There being no perfect solution doesn't mean we failed to find one.
So which solution did you find for everyone running Platform? Or did you change the problem to make your solution fit? Dash has never had more than one type of masternode, but please prove me wrong.

I don't know how to tell you. There are no other viable solution. Decentralization implies duplication of data. You are sticking to a wrong idea that you deduced from god knows statements someone must have made 10 years ago without even thinking of how such a prodcut can work. You have to reduce the amount of nodes, can't go around that. You want platform to succeed or it to be running on four thousand remote servers creating ridiculous overhead? Or you want a solution like ours which is decentralized and works?
That is fine. An admission that after 7 years, DCG has failed to deliver without adding a new node type. Just understand, the dash DAO is a legal entity and any attempt to breach it's governance system may trigger legal action.
 

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
3,392
1,439
1,183
I hereby request assistance / intervention from the 2022 Dash Trust Protectors:

Rodrigo Ambrissi
Simone Trustee Mascarello
Foulagi Johnson
Zane Robert Cook
Jared Matthew Lyman
Patrick Michael Quinn

---
Tag: @solarguy
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Semarg

DASHvestor

New Member
Jul 22, 2018
28
23
3
@DCG

DCG seems not willing to give us an opportunity to vote on REGULAR 1K MN WITH VOLUNTARY ADHERENCE TO PLATFORM,
and an INITIAL LIMIT OF 10% or at most 20% of all MNs able to participate in Platform
, as long as we don't know whether the
Code is secure and bugfree and won't cause any freezes or collapses of MN or even Blackouts on our Payment Network making it stall
for hours or even days.
Such INITIAL LIMIT of 10% or at most 20% of MN able to participate could over time be relaxed or completely abolished, but only after
we have seen the Code is safe and secure, but still should happen gradually.
Who obtains a Platform slot could be decided on a first-come-first-serve basis or by competing on the most important aspects
of hardware resources. (Bandwidth, Space, CPU, memory etc.)

You claim too many nodes make Platform slower or too slow, oh really?
THEN WHAT MAKES YOU AFRAID OF A REGULAR 1K MN WITH VOLUNTARY ADHERENCE TO PLATFORM (and an INITIAL LIMIT to the number of nodes) ????

Its the most natural, non-coercive and sensible way of starting Platform.
But DCG has already decided against it, and therefore will not let us vote on it.
Perhaps somebody else will give us the chance to vote on it.
 

virgile

Member
Dash Core Group
Oct 17, 2022
55
61
58
26
What do you guys think about time-locked 4000 DASH trustless MN shares propsed by @QuantumExplorer ?

It doesn't sound that bad to me, after all community was asking for trustless mn shares for ages. It seems better then just going 4k/10k HPMNs way.

What are the downsides in your opinion ?
Oh sorry, I forgot to answer. Imo it is the best solution. I think 10K is too much and that the best approach is iterative with lower fees such as 2-3-4K at first and gradually going up. That would be more annoying for the operators supporting platform as they'd have to upgrade perhaps twice. But that would let the occasion to see how the system actually fares and seeing how well the models translate to reality as it's complex topics with many little details that influence the outcomes. I don't see any downside to HPMN+shares as the main/sole drawback of HPMN without shares is, if you ask me, the unfairness of the selection. Sharing solves this issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BoomStick

qwizzie

Grizzled Member
Aug 6, 2014
2,058
1,256
1,183
For clarification purpose :

The problem that i currently have with the Platform on all nodes solution is that the safety issues as described by Sam recently are more then having the 'Platform down, all nodes down' safety issue that most of us were familiar with.

Well maybe I didn't touch on this enough during my presentation. And that's really on me. It's been talked about inside DCG so I should have included this aspect.

If a platform bug somehow completely takes Masternodes down (not just platform, but core too). In the "every node runs platform choice" that means pretty much all nodes would go down. In the 4k choice only 20% of nodes go down. In the 10k choice only 10% of nodes go down. So yeah one solution is quite a bit safer.

So there are a few safety issues that could happen. Some of them PoSe helps, some PoSe doesn't really do anything.

So let's list them out in the situation that everyone is forced to run Platform.

* 1 Entity could have too much Power - very low risk on non optional Platform - PoSe doesn't do anything.
* Nodes could propose blocks, but not respond to queries - PoSe helps a lot - this is what it is designed for.
* Platform having a bug that could take down the network - PoSe doesn't do anything.
* Not enough nodes will actually start strong enough Platform - PoSe helps a little.

* Sharding - PoSe required
* Sharding security - PoSe doesn't really help all that much.
This complicated the Platform on all nodes solution further for me and showed me that Proof of Service does not help with all the safety issues.
Which is why i made my previous comment about downvoting all three DCG decision proposals, as i previously still had hope that Proof of Service (or a simple form of Proof of Service, as mentioned by krilen) could be developed to fix the safety issue with Platform on all nodes. Unfortunetely there is currently more than one safety issue and Proof of Service does not fix in my view some of the more important safety issues.

After having heard about the safety issues with starting Dash Platform on all nodes
force DCG to start thinking of a way to use the Platform on all nodes option, without having the current safety issues form a factor.
I am referring here to all the safety issues with Platform on all nodes, as mentioned above by Sam. And it would most likely require something more then just developing Proof of Service.
 
Last edited:

virgile

Member
Dash Core Group
Oct 17, 2022
55
61
58
26
The problem that i currently have with the Platform on all nodes solution is that the safety issues as described by Sam are more then having the 'Platform down, all nodes down' safety issue that most of us were familiar with.






This complicated the Platform on all nodes solution further to me and showed me that Proof of Service does not help with all the safety issues.
Which is why i made my previous comment about downvoting all three DCG decision proposals, as i previously still had hope that Proof of Service could be developed to fix the safety issue with Platform on all nodes. Unfortunetely there is currently more than one safety issue and Proof of Service does not fix in my view some of the more important safety issues.




I am referring here to all the safety issues with Platform on all nodes, as mentioned above by Sam. And it would most likely require something more then just developing Proof of Service.
Now this is a discourse that we can have, that's proper talk. Thank you for getting it back on healthier tracks for both of us and being the bigger man. I appreciate it. I should have not mentioned duffield and I apologize.


This complicated the Platform on all nodes solution further to me and showed me that Proof of Service does not help with all the safety issues.
Which is why i made my previous comment about downvoting all three DCG decision proposals, as i previously still had hope that Proof of Service could be developed to fix the safety issue with Platform on all nodes. Unfortunetely there is currently more than one safety issue and Proof of Service does not fix in my view some of the more important safety issues.
I do not understand why you would downvote our proposals if our proposals are not what worry you. To make it clear, we do not want to use all nodes, right? HPMNs do not have this issue, right? there is no safety issue on HPMNs, the only worry is whale takeover and we showed numbers that quantify how (un)likely it is. For the 1k solution of Rion, the whale takeover chance is too high. For 4/10/w.e.-K solution, this is not the case.



force DCG to start thinking of a way to use the Platform on all nodes option, without having the current safety issues form a factor.
So, so far among the more serious solutions that have been fleshed out, there was:

-all nodes (old design) -> secure for whales takeover, but if there is a catastrophic failure on Platform, it impacts DASH as a whole. And this, you cannot go around, by definition they all run platform so if platform has a bug... yeah. There is nothing to think about here. It's like asking a filled doughnut: that isn't a doughnut anymore, that's another pastry.

-1k nodes + limit the number of nodes (by rion) -> whale takover chances are way too high

-4k/10k nodes (us) -> no glaring security issue
 
  • Like
Reactions: xkcd

BFWookie

New Member
Oct 25, 2022
1
4
3
43
Fun fact, some people actually told us they agreed with our design choice there, but they are too afraid to get the same negativity we do, so they stay silent. You are effectively creating a negative feedback loop for yourselves, and that is nothing that me or QE or anyone can pull you out from. So i will stop participating in the talk, and i will advise QE to do the same. Nothing productive anymore.
Hi Virgile, I'm new here so I'll take the hits.

I for one support QE and DCG in their recent efforts in getting platform out.

I think it's been said a few times now. QE did not make these promises to the community and has to deal with immense pressure in making it work. If their math says this is the way forward in order to preserve decentralization then unless you have better math, this is the best way forward.

What I do think DCG failed in was preparing before hand and having an extensive FAQ prepared before even approaching the community for feedback and I think the fastest they can get that FAQ out the better. I would argue that they should 100% stop responding to questions about it until it's available.

Perhaps that was not possible initially but either way it's imperative that this FAQ is released. And I reiterate that the operative word here is EXTENSIVE. ALL of the questions asked on the forums, Discord and the AMA should be in there. All of the options that "could" be voted on there should be presented as well with the caveat that these are not the final choices and if any community members have reasonable, researched, alternatives that these should be presented to the network for inclusion in the options to be voted on.

Additionally I think it's important that we get clear understanding as to how things will be voted on. While the governance system isn't ideal for this we should agree on what would be ideal so that we can find a way forward.

Lastly to all of the overly loud voices on this thread.

Please tone it down, stop shouting, stop hurling insults, stop feeding your ego's with pain. You are not being reasonable and your threats and unprofessional tantrums are not winning you over. I'm rather put off from trying to read any of your ideas when the aggression towards QE and DCG are so unnecessary. They are professional staff and they don't have to take such abuse. QE didn't promise us Evo years ago, QE took over from other non-preforming staff and honestly the ONLY reason I'm still invested in Dash is thanks to guys like QE who have no-doubt worked themselves to near death in order to deliver this promise made to us by other people. QE and Virgile are not your enemy, they all want what is best for the network so treat them with a modicum of respect or rather just keep quiet or find a new community.

I too am disappointed that in their proposal we all may not be running platform on our MNs but if the latest math says this is the best way forward and QE+DCG are thinking harder at these problems, than some of the other lesser platforms that keep going down or being hacked are, then perhaps this is the best way forward. Dash has always focused on doing the hard things the right way and that is why this has taken so long.

Personally I am VERY interested in the "masternode shares" + 4-10k solution and I think this is the best compromise we will get while also getting masternode shares, which we've all been waiting for forever as well.
 

qwizzie

Grizzled Member
Aug 6, 2014
2,058
1,256
1,183
I do not understand why you would downvote our proposals if our proposals are not what worry you. To make it clear, we do not want to use all nodes, right?
I would still prefer a Platform on all nodes solution, but because of the safety issues specific to Platform on all nodes, that has become impossible for me to vote yes on.
Specially now knowing that a possible future Proof of Service implementation does not fix all safety issues (particularly it does not fix the Platform down, all masternodes down safety issue).

4K HPM & 10K HPM are impossible for me to vote yes on, due to Platform network centralization issues / concerns.

With regards to denk and rion (and possibly still krilen) alternative solutions : i need to think more and read more about those solutions. Hopefully those alternative solutions get formalized, finalized and easily accessable for all to read later on. Currently they are a bit buried in this thread.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rion