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

Status
Not open for further replies.
virgile said:
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.
Click to expand...
Only incentivising a portion seems strage to me. If something is better, then everyone should aspire to do it. Otherwise it is not really a pure "incentive." So this actually means you want to DISincentivise or disuade people from running platform nodes because you only want only good actors with correct hardware running it, but don't have the decentralized means to enforce that. At least that's the reason I've come to understand so far.

Looks a bit like arbitrary central planning to me, and it might be fine for a stopgap measure due to lack of POSE but it might set a bad precedent and does represent a significant change to the project with the establishment of a new proof of stake node class that is similar to other projects--which I suspect receive more legislative scrutiny than we have historically received (privatesend notwithstanding).

Like some others here, I am disappointed that PoSe was not implemented for platform. I thought the whole creation of PoSe itself was because it was necessary for and would be used on platform.
 
Bridgewater said:
Like some others here, I am disappointed that PoSe was not implemented for platform. I thought the whole creation of PoSe itself was because it was necessary for and would be used on platform.
Click to expand...

To me this signals that Dash Platform in its most essential form (including PoSe for Platform) is just not ready for launch end of this year, it never was.
But instead of acknowledging this, DCG plans to proceed without PoSe for Platform due to feeling a strong pressure to release something end of this year, which now negatively affects its start options of Dash Platform.

Which explains why we get the current three DCG poor quality Platform start options, which either leads to Platform network centralization (bye bye Dash Platform Vision) or leads to a general Dash network safety issue (which makes that option without a PoSe solution for Platform in place, a very difficult option to vote yes on).

If there was a PoSe solution for Platform developed by devs which fixes the Dash network safety issue with regards to Platform on all nodes, i wonder if there would still be consensus among devs for the HPM option with regards to starting Dash Platform.
 
Last edited:
Can someone explain again why one of the possible options isn't just to have Platform be optional for any masternode who wants to participate for a chance at some extra revenue through platform fees?

Is the problem that nobody will want to use platform at first so the nodes won't have much payment from fees for running it? That doesn't seem wrong or abnormal to me--it sounds like the way any worthwhile system begins. I would even run the optional platform code on my node for free for a while just to make sure the darn thing works...then when people start using it and the fees start rolling in, more people will run the platform code as it becomes profitable to do so.

I see wide distribution as a strength not a weakness, and if it means you pay more for this "quality" then it just means the demand isn't high enough yet. Yes it will be more expensive and slower than centralized systems, and that is to be expected--there's no free lunch.

So again what exactly is the danger in simply allowing our current nodes to run platform if they want to? Is it that Platform won't be a good experience at first because people use slow hardware? I can personally live with that while we work on the PoSe solution.

What else, high fees? I can live with that too (as stated above). Security? What exactly is at risk if Platform gets taken over by a bad actor due to too few nodes and low-spec hardware?

Dash users' $millions (formerly Billion*cry*) of investment are on the POW+Masternodes layer. The Evo/Platform was always an optional extra thing to make the base layer more user-friendly and expand its potential. If it goes down, the real money is still safe. I think I heard/read QE say that the identity connections made through Platform will still be valid and connected users can still send to one another even if Platform is down. Sounds acceptable to me for initial release.

I guess I just don't understand the desire to tinker with the economic fundamentals--where some people literally have their life savings parked--just to ensure a good experience on this optional interface so it compares more favorably to other projects that have different concepts and vision. I don't want to see us throw the baby out with the bathwater, as Toknormal might say.
 
Bridgewater said:
Can someone explain again why one of the possible options isn't just to have Platform be optional for any masternode who wants to participate for a chance at some extra revenue through platform fees?

Is the problem that nobody will want to use platform at first so the nodes won't have much payment from fees for running it? That doesn't seem wrong or abnormal to me--it sounds like the way any worthwhile system begins. I would even run the optional platform code on my node for free for a while just to make sure the darn thing works...then when people start using it and the fees start rolling in, more people will run the platform code as it becomes profitable to do so.

I see wide distribution as a strength not a weakness, and if it means you pay more for this "quality" then it just means the demand isn't high enough yet. Yes it will be more expensive and slower than centralized systems, and that is to be expected--there's no free lunch.

So again what exactly is the danger in simply allowing our current nodes to run platform if they want to? Is it that Platform won't be a good experience at first because people use slow hardware? I can personally live with that while we work on the PoSe solution.

What else, high fees? I can live with that too (as stated above). Security? What exactly is at risk if Platform gets taken over by a bad actor due to too few nodes and low-spec hardware?

Dash users' $millions (formerly Billion*cry*) of investment are on the POW+Masternodes layer. The Evo/Platform was always an optional extra thing to make the base layer more user-friendly and expand its potential. If it goes down, the real money is still safe. I think I heard/read QE say that the identity connections made through Platform will still be valid and connected users can still send to one another even if Platform is down. Sounds acceptable to me for initial release.

I guess I just don't understand the desire to tinker with the economic fundamentals--where some people literally have their life savings parked--just to ensure a good experience on this optional interface so it compares more favorably to other projects that have different concepts and vision. I don't want to see us throw the baby out with the bathwater, as Toknormal might say.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more.
 
For reference. Sia coin creates a free market for data contracts. The host sets the price and the customers consider their options. Each file upload is broken up into 30 pieces and you only need 10 pieces to restore everything. It uses Proof of Storage and this project goes back to 2015. It's main competitors are Filecoin and STORJ.
How to rent storage on Sia
Is my data secure?

Now, the common problem for online data storage is cutthroat competition. At the start of this conversation, Sam made it clear that end user price was important to him. But price is not how you get ahead when you're cutting the fat and operating on razor thin margins. You make money by differentiating yourself and upselling.

Unlike Sia, Platform isn't intended for binary blobs. Platform = database + version control + notarization + uncensorable. What killer apps will be born from this and what price are people willing to pay for this? - that, imo, is the hard part and the reason we should not get ahead of ourselves with too many assumptions.
 
Bridgewater said:
Can someone explain again why one of the possible options isn't just to have Platform be optional for any masternode who wants to participate for a chance at some extra revenue through platform fees?

Is the problem that nobody will want to use platform at first so the nodes won't have much payment from fees for running it? That doesn't seem wrong or abnormal to me--it sounds like the way any worthwhile system begins. I would even run the optional platform code on my node for free for a while just to make sure the darn thing works...then when people start using it and the fees start rolling in, more people will run the platform code as it becomes profitable to do so.

I see wide distribution as a strength not a weakness, and if it means you pay more for this "quality" then it just means the demand isn't high enough yet. Yes it will be more expensive and slower than centralized systems, and that is to be expected--there's no free lunch.

So again what exactly is the danger in simply allowing our current nodes to run platform if they want to? Is it that Platform won't be a good experience at first because people use slow hardware? I can personally live with that while we work on the PoSe solution.

What else, high fees? I can live with that too (as stated above). Security? What exactly is at risk if Platform gets taken over by a bad actor due to too few nodes and low-spec hardware?

Dash users' $millions (formerly Billion*cry*) of investment are on the POW+Masternodes layer. The Evo/Platform was always an optional extra thing to make the base layer more user-friendly and expand its potential. If it goes down, the real money is still safe. I think I heard/read QE say that the identity connections made through Platform will still be valid and connected users can still send to one another even if Platform is down. Sounds acceptable to me for initial release.

I guess I just don't understand the desire to tinker with the economic fundamentals--where some people literally have their life savings parked--just to ensure a good experience on this optional interface so it compares more favorably to other projects that have different concepts and vision. I don't want to see us throw the baby out with the bathwater, as Toknormal might say.
Click to expand...

Sure I'll explain. The whole way proof of stake works is that you need to have something at stake. If you have nothing at stake then the system just doesn't work.

Now you might say: "Well I have my masternode at stake", but if the system is completely optional without heavy economic rewards you still don't really have anything at stake.

Having nothing at stake causes two issues:
*First: it can allow very highly centralized situations. Maybe one entity really likes platform so starts their 200 nodes, but most MNs don't seem to care -> Those 200 nodes can control waaaaaaaay too much of the network. If they get remotely close to 1/3rd they can stop it, if they get remotely close to 2/3rds they can take control of it.
*Second: there is no incentive to do a good job, because if you don't, well, you didn't really lose anything. This drags the system downwards and could lead to platform just not properly starting. Most systems solve the chicken and egg issue by rewarding miners/stake holders with block rewards. If we have block rewards, it means we need to split block rewards from core as we can't create them from nothing without changing the coin supply. When we split block rewards from core there needs to be an equilibrium that can form. Let's say we give 20% to platform, and 80% to core. Now you are running a core node, it's in your interest to run platform because you want the fees. So the equilibrium would only happen if everyone runs platform.

You asked what is the risk if Platform gets taken over: All credits locked in platform could be either destroyed, or worse withdrawn into Dash.

I care very much about people who have parked their life savings into Dash. That's why I'm doing my best to explain the various solutions we have.
 
qwizzie said:
To me this signals that Dash Platform in its most essential form (including PoSe for Platform) is just not ready for launch end of this year, it never was.
But instead of acknowledging this, DCG plans to proceed without PoSe for Platform due to feeling a strong pressure to release something end of this year, which now negatively affects its start options of Dash Platform.

Which explains why we get the current three DCG poor quality Platform start options, which either leads to Platform network centralization (bye bye Dash Platform Vision) or leads to a general Dash network safety issue (which makes that option without a PoSe solution for Platform in place, a very difficult option to vote yes on).

If there was a PoSe solution for Platform developed by devs which fixes the Dash network safety issue with regards to Platform on all nodes, i wonder if there would still be consensus among devs for the HPM option with regards to starting Dash Platform.
Click to expand...
There is no type of PoSe that you want in a blockchain in production. I want to make this clear. Please confirm that you understand this, and are expecting DCG with 20 or so devs to do what other projects with 200+ can not.
 
QuantumExplorer said:
Sure I'll explain. The whole way proof of stake works is that you need to have something at stake. If you have nothing at stake then the system just doesn't work. Now you might say: "Well I have my masternode at stake", but if the system is completely optional without heavy economic rewards you still don't really have anything at stake.

Having nothing at stake causes two issues:
*First: it can allow very highly centralized situations. Maybe one entity really likes platform so starts their 200 nodes, but most MNs don't seem to care -> Those 200 nodes can control waaaaaaaay too much of the network. If they get remotely close to 1/3rd they can stop it, if they get remotely close to 2/3rds they can take control of it.
Click to expand...
You can use the same above argument, when arguing in favor of the "proof of individuality".
Why you choose the road of the proof of stake, instead of the road of the proof of individuality?
QuantumExplorer said:
*Second: there is no incentive to do a good job, because if you don't, well, you didn't really lose anything. This drags the system downwards and could lead to platform just not properly starting. Most systems solve the chicken and egg issue by rewarding miners/stake holders with block rewards. If we have block rewards, it means we need to split block rewards from core as we can't create them from nothing without changing the coin supply. When we split block rewards from core there needs to be an equilibrium that can form. Let's say we give 20% to platform, and 80% to core. Now you are running a core node, it's in your interest to run platform because you want the fees. So the equilibrium would only happen if everyone runs platform.
Click to expand...
There is a great incentive to do a good job, if you use "proof of work", "proof of service" or "proof of usefull work" (and by the way, the forum thread that mentions PouW is deleted. why??????). So you can use the above argument, when arguing in favor for the proof of work/service.
Why, once again, you choose the road of the proof of stake, instead of the road of proof of work/service?

I will tell you why. Because the government's agents like neither the proof of individuality, nor the proof of work/service, nor a combination of them. They only like the proof of stake, because they have unlimited dollar money. Either you are an agent, or (more probable) the agents devoured all your mind with their proof of stake propaganda.

Actually I think the one who devoured your mind with the proof of stake propaganda, is your predecessor CTO. The same CTO devoured dash incubator, so that dash incubator was used mainly for the development of a (proof of stake based) Dashplatform. Maybe this is one of the reasons why dash incubator is currently in danger not to be voted in the budget.
 
Last edited:
QuantumExplorer said:
There is no type of PoSe that you want in a blockchain in production. I want to make this clear. Please confirm that you understand this, and are expecting DCG with 20 or so devs to do what other projects with 200+ can not.
Click to expand...

Then why use a fork of Tendermint in the first place if you already knew as developer this would lead to a problem with starting Dash Platform on all nodes (due to a flaw with PoS blockchains), which requires a PoSe solution on Platform to work safely ?

The way i see it, this is what happened so far :

1 DCG researched options what to use for a sidechain for Dash Platform
2 DCG settled for forking Tendermint, knowing full well its advantages and its disadvantages
3 DCG knows one of the disadvantages has to do with a flaw in PoS blockchain, directly causing a safety issue for starting Dash Platform on all nodes
4 DCG puts Proof of Service on their internal roadmap since Jan 2022 as a fix (most likely this was a necessity even before Jan 2022), but ended up never developing it, never allocating devs to it, never asking additionally funding for it, never subcontracted it. Basically it was put in a freeze state.
5 DCG announced this topic (starting Platform on all nodes or just starting Platform on some HPM's)
6 DCG released information about the safety issue with regards to starting Platform on all nodes to the Dash community, in this specfic forum.
7 DCG announced three upcoming decision proposals (Platform on all nodes, 4K HPM, 10K HPM)
8 DCG stated Proof of Service was not planned for release of Dash Platform due to lack of funding, manpower, pressure to release.

Where did it go wrong ? I would say right after number 3
 
Last edited:
GrandMasterDash said:
Is it fair to say, if you hadn't chosen PoS you wouldn't be in this sticky situation?
Click to expand...
First, I didn't personally chose PoS as Dash has always been built on a PoW PoS hybrid system. Masternodes and quorums are inherently PoS. You put away a stake and then provide services for the network.
 
qwizzie said:
Then why use a fork of Tendermint in the first place if you already knew as developer this would lead to a problem with starting Dash Platform on all nodes (due to a flaw with PoS blockchains), which requires a PoSe solution on Platform to work safely ?
Click to expand...

You constantly also keep on talking about PoSe as if it's a magical solution that solves all our problems. Mind you I like PoSe, but we need to be truthful about what it is and what it isn't.

Next you seem to imply that Tendermint is the root of our problem. Can you explain what system(s) in your mind works better?

I would also like to add that the decision to use Tendermint was done by the previous CTO. I had wanted a different solution. At this point though there is no turning back though. Please understand that even though we chose Tendermint as a starting point, Tenderdash is very different and quite close to my original plan. Still I don't think it would have changed the situation for the issues you care about.
 
QuantumExplorer said:
You constantly also keep on talking about PoSe as if it's a magical solution that solves all our problems. Mind you I like PoSe, but we need to be truthful about what it is and what it isn't.
Click to expand...

Would a robust PoSe scoring solution help with the safety issue that is inherent to the Platform on all nodes option ?
If yes, then i think PoSe is not a magical solution that solves all our problems, it is a solution that fix the safety issue with the option to start Platform on all nodes.
It is a solution that requires time, manpower, development and do i dare say .. foresight.

Also i would like to remind you that till very recent the Dash community was only communicated one way to start Dash Platform, namely to start Platform on all nodes. This was communicated endless times to us through DCG quarterly calls and DCG presentations. It is the default way to start Dash Platform. Now we suddenly get alternative ways to start Dash Platform presented (by introducing higher collateral) and we get informed about a safety issue with the default way to start Dash Platform. A safety issue that would not exist, if devs developed Proof of Service.

QuantumExplorer said:
Next you seem to imply that Tendermint is the root of our problem. Can you explain what system(s) in your mind works better?
Click to expand...

Forking Tendermint would not be the root of our problem, if Proof of Service was developed alongside of it.
Now that it turns out that Proof of Service was never developed for Platform, it does form a problem.

Which raises the question : why was Proof of Service never developed alongside Platform over the years ? Why was it given such low priority by devs ?
With devs knowing full well how this would directly affect the start of Dash Platform.
 
Last edited:
qwizzie said:
Which raises the question : why was Proof of Service never developed alongside Platform over the years ? Why was it given such low priority by devs ?
With devs knowing full well how this would directly affect the start of Dash Platform.
Click to expand...

Because of the government agents (proponents of a pure "proof of stake" solution and sworn enemies of any alternative proof solution) who control DCG and(or/xor) threaten DCG.
 
Last edited:
How to Measure Decentralization! Top L1's and Regulatory Risk
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7niqkGspx9s

Knipsel.JPG


I wonder how low the Nakamoto Coefficient for Dash would end up, with a centralized Dash Platform (that as we know is running on a PoS sidechain).
Pretty low i guess.
 
Last edited:
qwizzie said:
Would a robust PoSe scoring solution help with the safety issue that is inherent to the Platform on all nodes option ?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top