• Forum has been upgraded, all links, images, etc are as they were. Please see Official Announcements for more information

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

@GrandMasterDash We are following what the network wants, you are in the minority I think to think that DCG should decide this by ourselves.

Screen Shot 2022-10-20 at 19.27.38.png
 
eh, what is that Z option ?

Zero of above options ?
Zillion other options then these ?
Having a Zen moment ?
Zombie option ? (it is halloween after all or close to halloween)
Zone-out ?

I just hope clicking on that Z does not start World War Z
 
Last edited:
eh, what is that Z option ?

Zero of above options ?
Zillion other options then these ?
Having a Zen moment ?
Zombie option ? (it is halloween after all or close to halloween)
Zone-out ?

I just hope clicking on that Z does not start World War Z
Hahaha, I'm happy we can still laugh. I think Z means abstain.
 
There is still a trust element though, you as participant still need to trust the hoster to distribute the rewards to all participants. Also working out who gets what looks complicated for the hoster, as it could involve a lot of participants with small amounts of dash with the 4K situation. And its also not exactly a fire-up and forget about it solution, at the looks of it.

No, the reward distribution would be done automatically. As an example, imagine the operator puts up 1k Dash for the 4K node. He could say, I will get 3% extra block rewards for being the operator and 65% of fees generated (if cost to host is at 50%), the rest of the reward is distributed among the participants. So the operator would get a little bit more to offset their costs and risk.
 
@GrandMasterDash We are following what the network wants, you are in the minority I think to think that DCG should decide this by ourselves.

View attachment 11472

You have resorted to finger pointing. I'm sure you understand the size of a group does not equate to the correct or wrong answer.

In this thread, I have noticed your replies are sometimes ignoring certain statements and questions. So I repeat:

Why must this decision be made by the network before launch?

a) the target audience is unknown, the volume of usage is unknown, and the full breadth of use cases has yet to be discovered and understood.

b) by asking the network after launch, you buy yourself time to find other possible solutions.

You have previously stated that a bug could bring down the entire masternode network. In a desperate move, knowing this is a real possibility, you have resorted to a single type of solution. A solution that requires just a few lines of code.

Why are these proposals with a single type of solution (HPMNs) is being put forward now at the eleventh hour?

I suggest the reason might be, DCG has discovered:

a) a realization that the MVP is so bloated and inviable in the expected state of all nodes participating.

b) a lack of confidence that Platform is sufficiently armed and tested to prevent a complete network shutdown.

That you are skirting around these questions and unable / unwilling to provide elaborated answers is a significant red flag to me. You are seemingly rushing into this and not willing to acknowledge that a delay might be a viable option. What are you hiding / holding back on?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MN1
To me decentralization means the power is the most spread out.

46% of Ethereum validators are owned by 2 operators. There are thousands upon thousands of validators though. Are they more or less decentralized than the HPMN solution?

Ethereum is exactly not the type of network I want Dash to be. Especially this nowadays' PoS version.
 
At this point i as a masternode owner wonder if the Dash Trust Protectors should be involved or not.

* DCG is preparing changes that directly violate its publicly communicated Dash Platform Vision to the Dash community (keeping Dash Platform decentralized)
See : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...h-performance-nodes.53374/page-12#post-232556
* DCG wants to introduce these changes through three separate DCG decision proposals, which all three do not serve the best interest of the network (two decision proposals centralize Dash Platform in direct violation of its own Dash Platform Vision, one decision proposal has an inherent safety issue which makes this solution effectively a no-option).

DCG wants to use the outcome of these three DCG decision proposals (highest number of yes votes) to determine its direction on how to start Dash Platform. But by only providing those three options to vote on (Platform on all masternodes decision proposal with its safety issue and the two high performance decision proposals that violate its own Dash Platform Vision with regards to decentralization), DCG has limited the options for masternode owners on how to proceed with Dash Platform and publicly demonstrated to the Dash community, that DCG is currently not acting in the best interest of the network.

Can someone else introduce a decision proposal that offers an alternative solution or offers a delay of Dash Platform ? Sure.
But that does not absolve DCG from currently not acting in the best interest of the network, by planning to introduce only these three specific decision proposals and showing no intention to change course.

all three do not serve the best interest of the network
the best interest of the network is for everything to go well, those three solutions try to do that. Sadly if you ask me there is no best solution, because things were promised initially by persons like evan duffield who are not in the project anymore and do not have to deal with down to earth issues such as "How do actually deliver?". You cannot both have low fees and a high number of nodes storing the data, it's that simple. But that escaped duffield's view it seems.

by only providing those three options to vote on
We provided some sets of parameters, and are open for discussion on other design choices of course. We can provide for other set of parameters too for HPMN type design. If the communuity wishes for me to evaluate whale takeover of other solutions i can do it, but know that other DCG related work have to stop then.

that DCG is currently not acting in the best interest of the network
Are you stating that us proposing what is according to you poor decisions is us trying to undermine the project? Or have i misunderstood?

But that does not absolve DCG from currently not acting in the best interest of the network, by planning to introduce only these three specific decision proposals and showing no intention to change course.
Let us be precise. DCG is not a single entity. Here you refer to QE and me, it seems.
  1. I hope that i have shown to you so far that i do try to act for the network. I care about metrics and i care about facts. I did not forget about the security question you asked and the numbers will be yours soon, i apologize as i have been sidetracked by multiple things. We are preparing an FAQ and i will plug those numbers inside with comparable buffers and with showcases of what the number means over a year. Indeed i agree with you that the use of my model by others and the discussion that followed have not been very proper.
  2. As of sam he communicated quite poorly if you ask me: he mixed his personal opinion with his communication, but do be understanding as he has been asked many inquisitive questions over and over again and it's hard to keep a coherent discourse over a complex matter in an impartial manner for so long.

I want to state the following facts though.
  1. QE is a very smart man. He sees options he thinks are best for the network and thus has strong beliefs in his own idea but also listens when him and me or others speak and we bounce ideas off each others.
  2. I have my say in this topic and i will refuse, i say refuse to work toward something that goes against the will of the network unless an uninformed network choice is a clear major danger to Dash as a whole.
  3. The poll is only here to guide us, so that we know the minds of people on the topic. The choice is not limited to those three solutions but so far it is what was come up with. I start to feel like this was rushed of a poll and we should have thought over it more.
  4. We listen to other solutions. Yesterday i was on a call with Rion and i specifically asked if there was something he believes we should consider more, to which he pointed out locking +1K collaterals as he stated earlier in this thread. We also take propositions from users such as denk's here into account.
  5. It is just starter solutions, it's something that can later on be changed.
  6. I don't think a perfect non divisive solution exists.
  7. If you think I should communicate with the DTP so that they can verify that me (and QE?) just do our jobs, i will gladly do so. But i doubt they can be of any help over this matter as it is a technical issue with no clear cut "best solution"

If you want to remember only a few things of my discourse, please remember 2. 3./4. and 6.

If you want me to state where i stand as of morals or anything related that you may quote me on later, i will gladly do it. Because those statements that DCG (read me and QE) act against the network are, i think, quite surprising to hear and i think may be partly because you have almost not heard of me.
 
Ethereum is exactly not the type of network I want Dash to be. Especially this nowadays' PoS version.

Yeah i think we all agree on that. We thrive to be better.

Could you also put it some details on this one, why is it so? Others seem clear to me.

I have a call begining in a few minutes, so i will answer in 2 or so hours.
 
the best interest of the network is for everything to go well, those three solutions try to do that. Sadly if you ask me there is no best solution, because things were promised initially by persons like evan duffield who are not in the project anymore and do not have to deal with down to earth issues such as "How do actually deliver?". You cannot both have low fees and a high number of nodes storing the data, it's that simple. But that escaped duffield's view it seems.
...

Why not? Distributed computing has been around for a long time now, is it entirely impossible that computing resources can be shared to some degree rather than duplicated?
 
What are you talking about??? Only MNOs can potentially delete their own values. But no one would know how to do this. The system is built so it's very hard to do this. I think it would take an entity at least a year to be able to figure out the complexity involved. And by then we will have Proof of Service anyways.

If an MNO arbitrarily decides to delete a part of the DashPlatform's data that reside into the masternode he/she controls, then the data synchronization (among all the MNOs that participate in the DashPlatform network) ceases and breaks.
I assume that the protocol is designed so that it kicks out the MNO who tries to delete some data and break the synchronization. Isnt this the case?
If this is the case, then how can someone censor some data from the DashPlatform (if not by using the techniques I mentioned)?

Proposal "DCG-SUPPLEMENTAL-OCT22" - DashCentral.org
quantumexplorer said: Am I understanding that you think that there shouldn't be any type of content not allowed on platform?
lysergic said: Yes! Hell yes, No Content moderation whatsoever!
Semarg said: I want Dash to have no technical means to censorship at all. Practically - yes, it could also be said in the way you did.
quantumexplorer said: Well this would lead to Platform being heavily used for many things that currently only exist on the dark web. I am very much against many of these on moral grounds, but it would also spell the death of the project as all developers would quit (either because of moral issues - or because of persecution), masternode operators would also be targeted by governments and there would most likely be a massive sell off.

As I understand your quote above, you imply that some sort of censorship in the DashPlatform is possible... And that the Dash developers coded so that this censorship is possible to occur, in fear that otherwise they will be persecuted. Could you please clarify?

quantumexplorer said: "if you want to develop a solution that minimizes the content risk, create moderation/filtration tools for apps" -> What I'm arguing is that this is for the network to decide, if you are against that viewpoint then you should have some self reflection about who's viewpoint is more fragile.

What kind of moderation/filtration tools are you talking about?

Lethe lyrics - Dark Tranquillity - Listen On Repeat
 
Last edited:
Why not? Distributed computing has been around for a long time now, is it entirely impossible that computing resources can be shared to some degree rather than duplicated?


I am not talking about computation but storage. The issue is that nodes have to store the data, not the computation it takes. Everyone has to store the database, and this is duplication, the only way around it is sharding and so.
 
I am not talking about computation but storage. The issue is that nodes have to store the data, not the computation it takes. Everyone has to store the database, and this is duplication, the only way around it is sharding and so.
Yes, distributed storage. That should come first, it turns the high node count into a strength and that can probably be expanded on, network and computational capabilities, etc. It should also sidestep the potential issue of every MNO getting arrested because some a-hole has stored immoral material on Platform and they're all technically guilty of re-distributing it.
 
Could you also put it some details on this one, why is it so? Others seem clear to me.

What sam means is that if you put collaterals at 1k, whatever the allocation you put on platform, you end up with all the nodes supporting it, there is an "equilibrium" but it is attained at a value that makes it pointless to have separated nodes in the first place, you might as well just say everyone will support Platform in that case.

Basically the issue is that you need collaterals higher than the base collateral to incentivize only a portion of the network to run it, you need to play with a higher than base collateral and with the allocation to allow something desirable to happen.
 
Yes, distributed storage. That should come first, it turns the high node count into a strength and that can probably be expanded on, network and computational capabilities, etc. It should also sidestep the potential issue of every MNO getting arrested because some a-hole has stored immoral material on Platform and they're all technically guilty of re-distributing it.

I am unsure on how it helps with immoral content but as long as your own view is clear, it's what count.
Distributed storage is indeed a play between two opposed parameters: duplication and price.
The higher the duplication, the higher the price.
Then there is the issues of performance, throughput, all of that which QE covered on his presentation on youtube.
 
I am unsure on how it helps with immoral content but as long as your own view is clear, it's what count.
Distributed storage is indeed a play between two opposed parameters: duplication and price.
The higher the duplication, the higher the price.
Then there is the issues of performance, throughput, all of that which QE covered on his presentation on youtube.

IF [the data stored in the Dashplatform are huge (huge=???) OR they last long(long=???) ]
THEN the cost(cost=???) of duplicating the data across Xnodes (Xnodes=???) will be too high(high=???) to make Platform economical to use (economical_to_use = ???).

Is the above your formal way to express your opinion? Could you please define the variables "huge", "long","cost", "Xnodes" "high","economical_to_use" that were used in your math analysis?
 
Last edited:
I am unsure on how it helps with immoral content but as long as your own view is clear, it's what count.
Distributed storage is indeed a play between two opposed parameters: duplication and price.
The higher the duplication, the higher the price.
Then there is the issues of performance, throughput, all of that which QE covered on his presentation on youtube.

As far as I know he only covered that in relation to full duplication, every node repeating the same work. If you do that then you inevitably end up with "fewer is better", a distributed network has to share its resources to have a competitive advantage over centralised services.
 
IF [the data stored in the Dashplatform are huge (huge=???) OR they last long(long=???) ]
THEN the cost(cost=???) of duplicating the data across Xnodes (Xnodes=???) will be too high(high=???) to make Platform economical to use (economical_to_use = ???).

Is the above your formal way to express your opinion? Could you please define the variables "huge", "long","cost", "Xnodes" "high","economical_to_use" that were used in your math analysis?

i have not stated anything about the height of the price, merely that higher duplication means a higher price, which you, i am sure, agree with.
I do see thought that you want me to give you numbers about the cost of data depending on the size and lifetime of it and where we put the higher limit. I have not worked closely on the fee calculation though so i cannot answer this. QE would have to, on that one.
 
As far as I know he only covered that in relation to full duplication, every node repeating the same work. If you do that then you inevitably end up with "fewer is better", a distributed network has to share its resources to have a competitive advantage over centralised services.

If you store the database you store all of it, there is no storing a part of it. Either you store all of it, either you store nothing. You could store a part with sharding but the issue is that sharding takes an immense amount of ressources to implement and get right if you look at other projects. That would mean delaying platform even further which is unacceptable. We cannot add such delays that stem from design.
 
Back
Top