@GrandMasterDash We are following what the network wants, you are in the minority I think to think that DCG should decide this by ourselves.
Hahaha, I'm happy we can still laugh. I think Z means abstain.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
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.
@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
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?
1k optional 50% to platform: many nodes, not very safe. Nodes would not be able to service core as no equilibrium is possible otherwise.
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.
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.all three do not serve the best interest of the network
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.by only providing those three options to vote on
Are you stating that us proposing what is according to you poor decisions is us trying to undermine the project? Or have i misunderstood?that DCG is currently not acting in the best interest of the network
Let us be precise. DCG is not a single entity. Here you refer to QE and me, it seems.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.
Ethereum is exactly not the type of network I want Dash to be. Especially this nowadays' PoS version.
Could you also put it some details on this one, why is it so? Others seem clear to me.
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.
...
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
Could you also put it some details on this one, why is it so? Others seem clear to me.
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?
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.