• 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 ?

I guess the problem of such a 0.25K solution would be, that there would be ~ 4000 Platform Nodes (much more than they obviously are aiming at),...

Except the crux of Sam's argument is that the free market will balance itself out. In any event, a switch to Platform can be staged via Sporks.

The 250/1000 dash solution has a few important advantages:

1. Instead of making the network more elitist, this would make owning a basic masternode more accessible. A real boost to marketing.

2. Once someone has a 250 dash masternode, the upgrade to a HPMN is 750 dash.. which is more achievable than the 3000 dash needed for a 4K HPMN.

3. The overall bucket size of all collateral probably wouldn't grow much bigger than it is now, but if it did, dash would be more scarce and the unit price would go up.

4. This is my most important point. Some would say, a cheaper masternode does not increase distribution because the previous 1K holders simply switch to 250 dash x 4 nodes. But I disagree profusely. Over time, some people need to raise money for things like personal emergencies or to start a business. Selling a HPMN allows people to stay in the game with a masternode or two while raising capital. This is the compromise people want. It happens in the housing market all the time, such as selling 50% of your home equity while getting to live in it.

5. OG's get to participate in Platform, this is their reward for demonstrating diamond hands.
 
Except the crux of Sam's argument is that the free market will balance itself out. In any event, a switch to Platform can be staged via Sporks.

The 250/1000 dash solution has a few important advantages:

1. Instead of making the network more elitist, this would make owning a basic masternode more accessible. A real boost to marketing.

2. Once someone has a 250 dash masternode, the upgrade to a HPMN is 750 dash.. which is more achievable than the 3000 dash needed for a 4K HPMN.

3. The overall bucket size of all collateral probably wouldn't grow much bigger than it is now, but if it did, dash would be more scarce and the unit price would go up.

4. This is my most important point. Some would say, a cheaper masternode does not increase distribution because the previous 1K holders simply switch to 250 dash x 4 nodes. But I disagree profusely. Over time, some people need to raise money for things like personal emergencies or to start a business. Selling a HPMN allows people to stay in the game with a masternode or two while raising capital. This is the compromise people want. It happens in the housing market all the time, such as selling 50% of your home equity while getting to live in it.

5. OG's get to participate in Platform, this is their reward for demonstrating diamond hands.

I ran the numbers for you. Yes the system does indeed work. For my numbers I chose 250 Dash for a MN and 1000 Dash for a HPMN. In terms of calculated safety the numbers are very close to the HPMN 4K solution.

The problem really becomes the effective return rate:

All nodesMasternode Hosting cost $50Dollars
Masternode Hosting cost Dash1.25Dash
Cost to network57885Dash
Yield5.75%/year
1K SplitMasternode count2,059MNs
Masternode Hosting cost $25Dollars
Masternode Hosting cost Dash0.625Dash
HPMasternode count1,800MNs
HPMasternode Hosting cost $50Dollars
HPMasternode Hosting cost Dash1.25Dash
Cost to network42442.5Dash
Yield6.15%/year
4K SplitMasternode count2,059MNs
Masternode Hosting cost $25Dollars
Masternode Hosting cost Dash0.625Dash
HPMasternode count450MNs
HPMasternode Hosting cost $100Dollars
HPMasternode Hosting cost Dash2.5Dash
Cost to network28942.5Dash
Yield6.50%/year
10K SplitMasternode count2,039MNs
Masternode Hosting cost $25Dollars
Masternode Hosting cost Dash0.625Dash
HPMasternode count182MNs
HPMasternode Hosting cost $150Dollars
HPMasternode Hosting cost Dash3.75Dash
Cost to network23482.5Dash
Yield6.64%/year
250MN 1K HPMNMasternode count7636MNs
Masternode Hosting cost $25Dollars
Masternode Hosting cost Dash0.625Dash
HPMasternode count1,950MNs
HPMasternode Hosting cost $100Dollars
HPMasternode Hosting cost Dash2.5Dash
Cost to network115770Dash
Yield4.25%/year
CurrentMasternode Hosting cost $25Dollars
Masternode Hosting cost Dash0.625Dash
Cost to network28942.5Dash
Yield6.50%/year
 
If we were to put all solutions at the same level at 100$/HPMN/Month we would get this instead:

All nodesMasternode Hosting cost $100Dollars
Masternode Hosting cost Dash2.5Dash
Cost to network115800Dash
Yield4.25%/year
1K SplitMasternode count2,060MNs
Masternode Hosting cost $25Dollars
Masternode Hosting cost Dash0.625Dash
HPMasternode count1,800MNs
HPMasternode Hosting cost $100Dollars
HPMasternode Hosting cost Dash2.5Dash
Cost to network69450Dash
Yield5.45%/year
4K SplitMasternode count2,060MNs
Masternode Hosting cost $25Dollars
Masternode Hosting cost Dash0.625Dash
HPMasternode count450MNs
HPMasternode Hosting cost $100Dollars
HPMasternode Hosting cost Dash2.5Dash
Cost to network28950Dash
Yield6.50%/year
10K SplitMasternode count2,040MNs
Masternode Hosting cost $25Dollars
Masternode Hosting cost Dash0.625Dash
HPMasternode count182MNs
HPMasternode Hosting cost $100Dollars
HPMasternode Hosting cost Dash2.5Dash
Cost to network20760Dash
Yield6.71%/year
250MN 1K HPMNMasternode count7640MNs
Masternode Hosting cost $25Dollars
Masternode Hosting cost Dash0.625Dash
HPMasternode count1,950MNs
HPMasternode Hosting cost $100Dollars
HPMasternode Hosting cost Dash2.5Dash
Cost to network115800Dash
Yield4.25%/year
 
Just out of curiousity : what would a 500MN 1K HPMN look like ? And could InstantSend work optimal there ? Yield should be a bit higher there, in comparison with the 250MN 1K HPMN (at least i assume it is higher).

I calculated (estimated) roughly 7000 masternodes for a 500 collateral reduction earlier myself (current number of masternodes x2), in a last effort to salvage the 1K split system of Jeanjae and still provide optimal InstantSend, before ultimately giving up on the 1K Split system (due to all the complications involved).

See :

www.dash.org/forum/threads/should-platform-run-on-all-nodes-or-should-platform-run-only-on-high-performance-nodes.53374/page-8#post-232409
www.dash.org/forum/threads/should-platform-run-on-all-nodes-or-should-platform-run-only-on-high-performance-nodes.53374/page-9#post-232424

250MN 1K HPMN seems to arrive at roughly the same number of masternodes, as just a collateral reduction to 500 dash ? (current number of masternodes x2)
Maybe it is due to both setting up a reduction in collateral and setting the collateral at 1K for HPM, that we arrive at the same number of masternodes ?
 
Last edited:
@qwizzie You said on Dashcentral that you would stop voting on DCG proposals. But what exactly would you have DCG do in the following situation. The network has made it abundantly clear that they want Platform to activate by funding DCG for the last few years. But what happens if no +10% supermajority of the network can decide which way to do it. a 10%+ supermajority right now is around 85% yes/ 15% no votes. Even better let's imagine a proposal were to pass saying that DCG must activate platform, yet no decision to pass on how to do it? I believe you can appreciate how we would be dealt a situation where we basically stall.

The way I see things. DCG writes software and this is us asking what the network would like us to write. We are not activating platform. We don't have that power. Our main goal is to write software that nodes will decide to run and hence activate. If enough nodes activate (between 60% and 75%) then it has gained consensus.

You seem to believe that the +10% supermajority is the consensus of the network software, but this is not the case, and has never been.
 
Last edited:
@qwizzie You said on Dashcentral that you would stop voting on DCG proposals. But what exactly would you have DCG do in the following situation. The network has made it abundantly clear that they want Platform to activate by funding DCG for the last few years. But what happens if no +10% supermajority of the network can decide which way to do it. a 10%+ supermajority right now is around 85% yes/ 15% no votes. Even better let's imagine a proposal were to pass saying that DCG must activate platform, yet no decision to pass on how to do it? I believe you can appreciate how we would be dealt a situation where we basically stall.

The way I see things. DCG writes software and this is us asking what the network would like us to write. We are not activating platform. We don't have that power. Our main goal is to write software that nodes will decide to run and hence activate. If enough nodes activate (between 60% and 75%) then it has gained consensus.

You seem to believe that the +10% supermajority is the consensus of the network software, but this is not the case, and has never been.

The thing is, you need the 10% super-majority and if you don't get it, sorry, but that's just tough luck. From your side, sure, you put in all those years of work only to watch it lead to this. It's hard but that's how it is. You never imagined it would come to this but it has.

After all this time - 7 years! - you (DCG) suddenly drop this bombshell about the catastrophic risks and the shortcomings of integrating PoS with dash core. You choose to distance yourself from your predecessors and have only come up with a single solution with various parameters... or nothing at all. I'm not sure what more you expect.

I think your best shot at this is to appease the OGs and go with a 1K HPMN, and whatever version of a basic masternode, whether that's 250 dash or 500 dash, Don't take a weak position by asking us which parameters are best (250 or 500), be a little alpha and decide this within DCG. Then come to the network with the OG HPMN with your already chosen parameters. I believe this is your most viable solution. If you can't get this one through then I think all others would also fail.

And I don't think you should get too caught up on these numbers because the live result may well not match your expectations, right now it's all theory / guesstimate. I'm sure you understand some tweaking might be needed later.
 
@qwizzie You said on Dashcentral that you would stop voting on DCG proposals. But what exactly would you have DCG do in the following situation. The network has made it abundantly clear that they want Platform to activate by funding DCG for the last few years. But what happens if no +10% supermajority of the network can decide which way to do it. a 10%+ supermajority right now is around 85% yes/ 15% no votes. Even better let's imagine a proposal were to pass saying that DCG must activate platform, yet no decision to pass on how to do it? I believe you can appreciate how we would be dealt a situation where we basically stall.
In case you are stalled you have the option to put the 10% supermajority rule under question.
If the 10% supermajority rule is not voted by a 10% supermajority, then the rule is not legitimate, and another rule must be selected/voted, obviously the most popular one that also fulfills it own prerequisites.
If the 10% supermajority is voted then the community simply wants to stall, and you cannot do something about it.
 
Last edited:
Introducing a second type of Masternodes (what comes next, perhaps a third type?) is nothing but amateur fuckery.
Given how complicated such a system is by design (regular Core Reward Subsidies to Evo Pool) to make higher-collateral Nodes economically competitive,
try to explain this system to Newbies and Newcomers, nobody will get it.
Of course there are a couple of shitprojects which have two types of Masternodes. And what do they have in common? They are without exception all garbage.

@GrandMasterDash I wholeheartedly agree with your wish to allow participation from a broader and less-elite public. But we already have several Masternode Shares solutions, even such which offer fractional voting. Everyone can already participate in MN rewards with much less than 250 Dash right now.

@QuantumExplorer Don't even try to weasel your way around a passing Governance Proposal (10% Supermajority) on a matter of such importance, because if that´s what you plan to do, expect multiple plaintiffs bringing you personally (and everyone else in leading positions from DCG who overstepped by authorizing it without approval from the MNO network) before a U.S. district court for damages.
 
@qwizzie You said on Dashcentral that you would stop voting on DCG proposals. But what exactly would you have DCG do in the following situation. The network has made it abundantly clear that they want Platform to activate by funding DCG for the last few years. But what happens if no +10% supermajority of the network can decide which way to do it. a 10%+ supermajority right now is around 85% yes/ 15% no votes. Even better let's imagine a proposal were to pass saying that DCG must activate platform, yet no decision to pass on how to do it? I believe you can appreciate how we would be dealt a situation where we basically stall.

The way I see things. DCG writes software and this is us asking what the network would like us to write. We are not activating platform. We don't have that power. Our main goal is to write software that nodes will decide to run and hence activate. If enough nodes activate (between 60% and 75%) then it has gained consensus.

You seem to believe that the +10% supermajority is the consensus of the network software, but this is not the case, and has never been.

See : https://www.dashcentral.org/p/decision-vote-improve-proposal-system-dc

2. Process

The voting and proposal process consists of two phases:
  • Phase 1 - the two proposal options are evaluated against each other
  • Phase 2 - the favored option from Phase 1 is evaluated against our current system
In Phase 1 (this phase, this month) you are asked to vote for which option you prefer. Regardless of degree, the option with the most net (yes minus no) votes will proceed to the next phase (next month). DCG will implement the Phase 2 upgrade option if it exceeds the normal 10% net vote criterion in Phase 2. In the unlikely event the higher ranked proposal exceeds the 10% net yes votes during Phase 1, Phase 2 would not be necessary.

Edit for clarity: "net vote" means "yes" votes minus "no" votes.

I am asking DCG to respect the 10% treshold like it did with its above decision proposal 'Increase Proposal System Flexibility & Efficiency', specially on such an important topic of how to start Dash Platform and the limited options provided by DCG.

By the way, the alternative decision proposal that was launched by a group of masternode owners (MNO-Plan) also followed above mentioned process,
see : https://www.dashcentral.org/p/decision-vote-improve-proposal-system-mn

Both decision proposals were put on the network by the Dash Trust Protectors, who submitted these two decision proposals on behalf of DCG (DCG plan) and a group of masternode owners (MNO plan), DTP acted as a neutral third party here.
 
Last edited:
See : https://www.dashcentral.org/p/decision-vote-improve-proposal-system-dc



I am asking DCG to respect the 10% treshold like it did with its above decision proposal 'Increase Proposal System Flexibility & Efficiency', specially on such an important topic of how to start Dash Platform and the limited options provided by DCG.

By the way, the alternative decision proposal that was launched by a group of masternode owners (MNO-Plan) also followed above mentioned process,
see : https://www.dashcentral.org/p/decision-vote-improve-proposal-system-mn

DECISION-VOTE-IMPROVE-PROPOSAL-SYSTEM-DC

MNOwatch - VoteHashGroups 2020-11-25-08-25-44 - 639 YES votes (approx 76 individuals)
MNOwatch - VoteHashGroups 2020-11-25-08-25-44 - 434 NO votes (approx 132 individuals)

The question is, how many among those who voted against the specific decision rule 2 years ago, are still active members of the Dash community now?
For how long the dash community shall respect a decision made by people who left the community?
And also back then, the Dash voters refused the new decision rule. They did not approved the existing status quo, did they?
 
Last edited:
And also back then, the Dash voters refused the new decision rule. They did not approved the status quo, did they?

No. The network simply rejected both decision proposals based on its topic and arguments. It was not a rejection of the process behind these decision proposals.
A process that was pretty clear from the start.
 
No. The network simply rejected both decision proposals based on its topic and arguments. It was not a rejection of the process behind these decision proposals.
A process that was pretty clear from the start.

It was neither a rejection, nor an approval of the 10% supermajority. Thats my point.
Not to mention the other point. For how long the dash community shall respect a decision made by people who left the community?
10% supermajority is the decision of Evan. For how long shall we respect it? Is Evan a god who gave to Dash the 10 commandments?

I think the 10% supermajority (as long as any other decision method) should be questioned.
And questioned again and again, in case those who support the method leave the Dash-game.
 
It was neither a rejection, nor an approval of the 10% supermajority. Thats my point.
Not to mention the other point, for how long the dash community shall respect a decision made by people who left the community?
10% supermajority is the decision of Evan. For how long shall we respect it? Is Evan a god who gave to Dash the 10 commandments?

I think 10% supermajority must be questioned, and re-questioned again in case those who support it left the game.

You can always create a decision proposal (for just 1 dash !) yourself, to question the 10% supermajority for decision proposals.
See how the network responds.
 
You can always create a decision proposal (for just 1 dash !) yourself, to question the 10% supermajority for decision proposals.
See how the network responds.
Yes...This is exactly the right (and first) thing @QuantumExplorer should do, if the questions the 10% supermajority decision rule.

But I am one step beyong, and I question all the decisions that were made by dead/inactives and that affect the lives of the active members of Dash.
This objection requires really hard coding in order to be implemented.
Because all the invalid rules that were decided by inactives and form dash's current workflow should be suppressed, and new rules that the active members support should be enacted. This requires a carefull classification of the currently valid rules and votes, and a heavy coding. It cannot be resolved by just asking an one dash question.

 
Last edited:
@QuantumExplorer Don't even try to weasel your way around a passing Governance Proposal (10% Supermajority) on a matter of such importance, because if that´s what you plan to do, expect multiple plaintiffs bringing you personally (and everyone else in leading positions from DCG who overstepped by authorizing it without approval from the MNO network) before a U.S. district court for damages.

Please stop with these threats, Dash is not a security and any final decision on how the network re-configures to support Platform will be down to a network vote.
 
@GrandMasterDash I wholeheartedly agree with your wish to allow participation from a broader and less-elite public. But we already have several Masternode Shares solutions, even such which offer fractional voting. Everyone can already participate in MN rewards with much less than 250 Dash right now.

I am okay with trustless masternode solutions but not everybody wants to be go through the hassle of finding reliable participants, even if there is a fine for early withdrawals. I know I personally want to be the one in control and taking responsibility for host selection etc.

I think it's okay to offer both options, shares or direct participation.
 
Please stop with these threats, Dash is not a security and any final decision on how the network re-configures to support Platform will be down to a network vote.

I dunno, perhaps not a security but the Dash DAO is a recognized legal entity. I would need legal advice but there might be a case for reasonable expectations by long term holders.
 
It's a recognised legal entity that's had a long-standing vulnerability where a small number of large stakeholders can gain veto power over the decision making process (and that's built in so I guess that makes it legitimate).
Now we have a proposed update that's would allow a few large stakeholders complete control over what's supposed to be our killer feature and is optimised for a small number of high end servers.
Add to that tampering with intellectual property that could constitute evidence in the event of a dispute (technical pre-proposal thread deletion) and the possibility of a Blockstream style takeover of the project just went from remote to likely.
In the Darkcoin days "distributed and permissionless" went without saying but failing to state it clearly may have introduced a major vulnerability.
 
Last edited:
I am sorry that many here do not understand the difference between network consensus and funding consensus. Network consensus is anything 2/3rd (or so) believe it to be. That's that. At the beginning of Dash we used the BIP9 consensus mechanisms, now we use the https://github.com/dashpay/dips/blob/master/dip-0023.md mechanism giving more power to masternode owners.

There has never been a +10% supermajority in consensus decisions. The protocol has changed countless times. Thinking that it's now needed because we have a more contentious issue is wrong.

Funding consensus is for funding. We are not going to stall the project because we have 10 or so solutions and none get 85% of the vote.
 
Back
Top