I don't think so. Again: Platform MNs are supposed to provide Core services too.If a lot of those masternodes switch to Platform then that number drops
I don't think so. Again: Platform MNs are supposed to provide Core services too.If a lot of those masternodes switch to Platform then that number drops
Basically Core services is getting provided by two seperate assets, by normal 1k nodes and by 1K Platform nodes.I don't think so. Again: Platform MNs are supposed to provide Core services too.
Yes, I like this idea too. Sam wants to take away an option while these solution gives a choice AND aims to solve the same problem.The only reason why i am paying so much attention to the 1K solution (normal 1K nodes & platform 1K nodes) is because it addresses the security issue with the Dash 'Platform on all nodes' solution (if Platform goes down due to a possible bug, all masternodes go down), while not sacrificing decentralisation / not messing with the 1K collateral. And it offers an option to masternode owners.
I am not taking away any options. I am proposing to the network various solutions to vote on. When I get some time I will analyze what was requested of me, but right now I am sadly very busy.Yes, I like this idea too. Sam wants to take away an option while these solution gives a choice AND aims to solve the same problem.
No, Sam. You want to cut off "small" MNOs from Platform, allowing only "whales" to participate. That's what your proposals aimed for. You're exactly taking away an option and a choice to run Platform or not. You may have your reasons, but that's the immediate effect - hundreds of MNOs with balance less than 4k will be kicked out of the future of crypto they have invested to.I am not taking away any options. I am proposing to the network various solutions to vote on. When I get some time I will analyze what was requested of me, but right now I am sadly very busy.
Well, masternode owners that do not have 4.000 dash or 10.000 dash can not setup Dash Platform masternodes. By raising the collateral they are denied the option to support Dash Platform.I am not taking away any options. I am proposing to the network various solutions to vote on. When I get some time I will analyze what was requested of me, but right now I am sadly very busy.
Anyone can run a platform node, though you would only get *direct* rewards from Platform if you have the collateral of 4k Dash.Well, masternode owners that do not have 4.000 dash or 10.000 dash can not setup Dash Platform masternodes
And why you assume that? Why 1TB and not 1GB?There is another point that I might not have mentioned. Let's assume we are at 1TB of storage, with 4k nodes thats 4k TB.
A Dash_Improvement_Protocol should define that. But, as usual, I will not be the one who will write any DIP. I hate writing DIPs, also I hate following DIPs, because they pose limits and restrictions to my code.I'm not sure about technical details, but the idea itself of incentivize voting in some economic way is very good.
Not much point to setting up a platform node with the much higher hardware requirements (and much higher VPS costs), when people without the 4k collateral don't get those *direct* rewards from Platform. That still does not give masternode owners people with less then 4000 dash access to Platform rewards. It is restrictive by nature. I am not even sure why its coded like that. Who would run a Platform node like that, when they don't have the collateral that enables those Platform rewards ?There are a few misconceptions that need to be addressed.
Anyone can run a platform node, though you would only get *direct* rewards from Platform if you have the collateral of 4k Dash.
How exactly does it incentivize normal 1K Masternodes owners to run High Performance nodes (in the case of Platform rewards going up) when they can't afford the collateral of 4000 dash, to get those Platform rewards in the first place ? Will they magically receive 3000 dash out of thin air, so they can actually receive Platform rewards ? I am a bit confused about your statement. Most people struggle to just gather 1000 dash, let alone gather the funds to aquire 4000 dash.The second misconception is that going with the 4k solution would deprive normal masternodes of higher rewards gained through platform. And this is the one that is somewhat hard to understand. The equilibrium for rewards always takes into to account the fees that platform masternodes get minus the cost to run the network, meaning that if platform rewards go up it will incentivize normal Masternode owners to run High Performance nodes themselves instead, reducing the number of normal Masternodes and pushing up normal Masternode rewards.
Well, that is the first time that i hear about this. So you now want to use Trustless Masternodes Shares, to combat the centralization that your 4K solution brings with it ? Eventhough we heard in the past that Trustless Masternode Shares was in the backlog with many many other features that devs are contemplating to put on the Dash Roadmap ? I guess that is a good move, but it does not solve the immediate centralization risk that the 4K solution brings with it and most likely brings additional research and extensive additional coding with it. Far more then that 1 hour of coding that was conducted. How long would it take before Trustless Masternode Shares were introduced by DCG ? Can we really trust DCG that this can be developed quickly and without constant delays ? i am not so sure. In the mean time Dash would have become centralized, after implementing your 4k solution.The third misconception is that I want only whales to participate. This is false. I want us to focus on masternode shares asap to allow users with less Dash to stake in a Trustless way (even though crowdnode is a great service). We're very soon at a point where we can take on this feature.
Or we can use the 1K masternode solution of seanjae, don't meddle with the masternode collateral at all, don't create centralization and give 1K masternode owners a choice if they want to run a 1K Platform masternode (with Core MN payments & Platform rewards / Credits to compensate for the higher hardware costs) or run a normal 1K masternode (with Core MN payments and without any higher hardware costs), while taking care of the security issue where a possible Platform bug could take out all masternodes.There is another point that I might not have mentioned. Let's assume we are at 1TB of storage, with 4k nodes thats 4k TB. Most MNOs use VPS's that cost around 1$/GB/Year. This would cost each MN 1000$ / year in storage costs alone or 4M for the network. If platform takes off it will be a lot more. We can either decide to basically give a shit ton of money to VPS providers -- OR -- we can be smarter and have things cheaper for our users or the MN network with little tradeoffs and maybe even benefits.
That would be dream come true if this would be the case ! , Dash value per coin would at minium be 10x where it is now, you would more than enough funds to higher suffient amount of devs to work exclusively on Dash platform sharding, and well before that happens we could set some limit (much higher do than eth still has) and just earn a cool 10dollars+ per transactions (just like eth did). You could also higher a team to implement Schnorr signatures, saving even more data storage.There is another point that I might not have mentioned. Let's assume we are at 1TB of storage, with 4k nodes thats 4k TB. Most MNOs use VPS's that cost around 1$/GB/Year. This would cost each MN 1000$ / year in storage costs alone or 4M for the network. If platform takes off it will be a lot more. We can either decide to basically give a shit ton of money to VPS providers -- OR -- we can be smarter and have things cheaper for our users or the MN network with little tradeoffs and maybe even benefits.
There are a few misconceptions that need to be addressed.
Anyone can run a platform node, though you would only get *direct* rewards from Platform if you have the collateral of 4k Dash.
The second misconception is that going with the 4k solution would deprive normal masternodes of higher rewards gained through platform. And this is the one that is somewhat hard to understand. The equilibrium for rewards always takes into to account the fees that platform masternodes get minus the cost to run the network, meaning that if platform rewards go up it will incentivize normal Masternode owners to run High Performance nodes themselves instead, reducing the number of normal Masternodes and pushing up normal Masternode rewards.
The third misconception is that I want only whales to participate. This is false. I want us to focus on masternode shares asap to allow users with less Dash to stake in a Trustless way (even though crowdnode is a great service). We're very soon at a point where we can take on this feature.
Is this all not already part of the last phase before releasing Dash Platform to Dash Mainnet : Testing the shit out of Dash Platform and see if we can break it ?Just a quick thought for everyone screaming decentralize is the only way and we are being scammed etc lol
What if everyone runs platform on their shitty cheapskate hardware that they used to run their normal MNs on, and platform doesnt even launch and fails from the get go? Would you wish we had HPMN then???? Imagine the headlines and PR disaster. Or even worse, forks the network and or Dash stops running like Solana. I was there when Evan had to roll back a release many years ago and it was very embarassing and painful - now imagine this but for Dash's biggest project for 5+ years.....
If I had my wish it would be that we could somehow do a test to see if the server can run platform to give a good user experience from the get go. My bet is, given the opportunity the cheap skates will try and run platform and ruin it for everybody.
Currently, what percentage of masternodes do you think are running on "cheapskate hardware"? From what I've seen, there are plenty of people trying to cut corners, including virtualizing on the same hardware.What if everyone runs platform on their shitty cheapskate hardware that they used to run their normal MNs on, and platform doesnt even launch and fails from the get go? Would you wish we had HPMN then???? Imagine the headlines and PR disaster. Or even worse, forks the network and or Dash stops running like Solana. I was there when Evan had to roll back a release many years ago and it was very embarassing and painful - now imagine this but for Dash's biggest project for 5+ years.....
Then this whole conversation might need to wait until testnet is up and some tests can be run.Is this all not already part of the last phase before releasing Dash Platform to Dash Mainnet : Testing the shit out of Dash Platform and see if we can break it ?
The devs are just not at that phase right now.
And no, i don't wish we had HPMN's then, who is to say the same does not happen with HPM's where masternode whales fail to use the correct hardware and get booted out ? Causing a too small HPM group to work with. Or a Platform bug causing the HPM's not to work ? Same kind of headlines and PR disaster.
The devs should really only launch when they have Dash Platform running stable as final release candidate on Testnet. With as many test masternodes as possible to stress test the whole thing. And having done their whole internal security audit through internal team rotation thing.
At least with the 'Platform on all nodes' solution there should be enough masternodes with the recommended Dash Platform hardware requirements to keep the network up. The jump from current recommended hardware requirements to recommended hardware requirements for 'Dash Platform on all nodes' is much smaller, then the jump from current recommended hardware requirements to 4K or 10K HPM's. Those masternode whales may even be tempted to just test a few cheaper hardware configurations first.
Links :
https://docs.dash.org/en/stable/masternodes/understanding.html#masternode-requirements
www.dash.org/forum/threads/should-platform-run-on-all-nodes-or-should-platform-run-only-on-high-performance-nodes.53374/page-3#post-232227
Also lets not forget the incentive to upgrade to the recommended hardware requirements for 'Dash Platform on all nodes' as soon as possible after launch, to profit from the drop in number of active masternodes during the upgrade to Dash Platform, causing the MN payment interval to get shorter, thereby reeking in a lot more MN payments during the upgrade. That also happened during the previous large update that brought higher hardware requirements for masternodes. Most masternode owners were eager to upgrade then too. I think that was 2x jump in hardware requirements ? (from minimum hardware requirements to recommended hardware requirements)
this graphic ? https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...gh-performance-nodes.53374/page-3#post-232207Then this whole conversation might need to wait until testnet is up and some tests can be run.
I dont think the fee's being too high is such a big issue from the start as there will be minimal usage. That can be tuned later on.
I would rather Evo launch be successful and STABLE to begin with and pay a little more.
Still a bit confused on why we need the 4k/10k collateral though, I am guessing its just about fee's or something....someone needs to create a graphic for each solution.
Could you please explain a way that DCG itself would benefit from the 4K Masternodes? We have different ways we can roll out platform and are presenting the pros and cons of each way forward so that the network can vote. Would you prefer that DCG makes these calls without network buy in?Frankly, this whole saga makes me question everything about DCGs true intentions.
www.dash.org/forum/threads/should-platform-run-on-all-nodes-or-should-platform-run-only-on-high-performance-nodes.53374/page-6#post-232331Once again I do not understand why people are unhappy with DCG asking the network what they prefer to do? Isn't that how our governance should work?
(this describes why i think that going through with a decision proposal (or 3) is a bad move)i have serious concerns that the masternode whales that already dominate the voting in Dash governance and where voting participation is already very low, will really vote in the best interest of the network, when their self interest so much interfers with the best interest of the network.
You are completely right. The thing that we also need to realize is that in the situation of "every" node runs platform, we choose a random 100 nodes for consensus at a time. At the moment on our network I would say that a very large percentage of our nodes are trying to cut corners, running on not very powerful servers. I can see this quite obviously on mobile tests where my personal nodes respond with a chunk of data about 4 times faster than the network average. What most likely would happen at that point is that many will need to upgrade their hardware to about x4 stronger at the minimum. Including hosting services which will bring the costs for hosting much higher.Just a quick thought for everyone screaming decentralize is the only way and we are being scammed etc lol
What if everyone runs platform on their shitty cheapskate hardware that they used to run their normal MNs on, and platform doesnt even launch and fails from the get go? Would you wish we had HPMN then???? Imagine the headlines and PR disaster. Or even worse, forks the network and or Dash stops running like Solana. I was there when Evan had to roll back a release many years ago and it was very embarassing and painful - now imagine this but for Dash's biggest project for 5+ years.....
If I had my wish it would be that we could somehow do a test to see if the server can run platform to give a good user experience from the get go. My bet is, given the opportunity the cheap skates will try and run platform and ruin it for everybody.
My opinion is decentralize as much as possible to ensure security is excellent and a good experience is upheld. There is no need to go completely over the top decentralized when its not needed. The same for number of MNs, sometimes too many can be detrimental to the network rather than help.
I wish we had some data from testnet to show how much platform can thrash a server to see where we stand with spec's and requirements.
Let me say that if I only had 1 Masternode I would still be more in favor of the 4K/10K solution. First because I care about the network, but also even if I was only thinking in my own self interest.www.dash.org/forum/threads/should-platform-run-on-all-nodes-or-should-platform-run-only-on-high-performance-nodes.53374/page-6#post-232331
(this describes my view on the possible benefits of masternode whales for your 4K / 10K solution versus the risks and advantages towards the network)
(this describes why i think that going through with a decision proposal (or 3) is a bad move)
How does it give current 1K masternode owners the choice to continue what they are currently doing ?The 4K/10K option gives people choices to continue what they are currently doing.
Well I really do feel like the rewards will even out, as there is a bridge (by nodes changing their type) between the two system pushing things to equilibrium.
Qwizzie could you link me to the 1k masternode solution? or repost it here so people can easily follow what I'm responding to?
What about seanjae's post with regards to setting up 1K masternodes with the same construct as with 4k / 10k masternodes (by coding that state into existence) : could that technically work and would that increase security, when chosing the 1K solution ? Because then there would be classical 1K nodes (to possibly fall back to in case of a network threathening bug) and platform 1K nodes. Platform 1K nodes would require higher hardware requirements, while classical 1K nodes could run on current hardware requirements.
See : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...gh-performance-nodes.53374/page-4#post-232254
Perhaps a simple line in the dash.conf could make a node either a Platform 1K node or a classical 1K node
(platform=1 versus platform=0)
There is one thing that concerns me with both the above described 1K masternode solution and the 4k / 10k masternode solution : it will be more easy to DDoS attack the 1K nodes and the 4k / 10k nodes as well (all of them end up with smaller groups, then our current one large masternode group system).
Dash experienced DDoS attacks in the past and with so much credits circulating on Dash Platform, it will form an attractive target for hackers seeking to exploit or disrupt Dash.
You could even use this as interim solution, where you phase out this solution over time (once Dash Platform has stabilized on Mainnet and the bugs have been squashed and everything runs smoothly) in favor of the 'Dash Platform on all nodes' solution. So basically you would then give 1K Classical nodes a time period to upgrade to 1K Platform nodes.So in this 1K masternode situation how would the reward distribution work ?
platform=1 --> 1K Platform nodes --> MN Rewards for Core service (which could increase if normal 1K Classical group gets smaller) --> Platform Credits to compensate for higher hardware requirements, claimable every 18 days (after an epoch)
Have to pay for additional hardware requirements / higher VPS costs.
Versus
platform=0 --> 1K Classical nodes --> MN rewards for Core service (which could increase if this group gets smaller)
No additional hardware requirements / no higher VPS costs.
It provides no messing with the collateral, no centralization and if 1K Platform nodes were to go down due to a bug, we would still have the 1K Classical nodes operational. Only disadvantage would be (just like for the 4K & 10K collateral solution) that it divide the network in two smaller groups of masternodes.
If it's not obvious, there is a loyal group of OG's that are still here based on a vision, a promise if you like, that they would one day be a part of something big, "a decentralized wallet your grandma could use". In fact, it is burned into my username here:Could you please explain a way that DCG itself would benefit from the 4K Masternodes? We have different ways we can roll out platform and are presenting the pros and cons of each way forward so that the network can vote. Would you prefer that DCG makes these calls without network buy in?
I think the biggest issue here is a base level of distrust so when we propose anything there are some that immediately distrust it. There doesn't seem to be much ways to mend this situation unless those that are distrustful explain what would make them trust DCG again.
If the network votes and prefers the "everyone runs Platform solution" then we will go with that one. I will pray that I was wrong if we go in that direction. Once again I do not understand why people are unhappy with DCG asking the network what they prefer to do? Isn't that how our governance should work?