Some miners failing to pay masternodes

rustycase

Active Member
Apr 19, 2016
495
118
113
Agree with Lynx... This doesn't sound so good, and should not have been included in a 'general public' kinda Promo Campaign which Amanda's work is intended to be.
Volkswagen is certainly not including any mention of the emissions debacle in their new car advertisements !

A forum, slack, or reddit might be the place to discuss the mechanics of inner workings.
DASH - Detailed is a fine place to advise "Now is the time to Update, Please do so !" for general public viewing.

rc
 

David

Well-known Member
Jun 21, 2014
618
628
163
91.76% of blocks are paid correctly, which I think is pretty impressive without enforcement. It's just a natural consequence of upgrading the network (turning enforcement off) combined with human nature (revenue maximization even if through dishonest means). In the long run, it's not even a blip.

Think about it: our last update was 18 months ago, and enforcement is usually off for about two weeks each time. During a two week period every 18 months (roughly 2.6% of the time), 9% of blocks aren't paid correctly. That means in the long run, masternodes are correctly paid 99.77% of the time! Put another way, every network upgrade costs a masternode owner about $6.38 in missed payments per masternode.*

*(0.26 DASH per day * 365 days per year * 1.5 years per update * $19.50 DASH/USD * 0.0023 incorrectly paid blocks)
 
  • Like
Reactions: JGCMiner

lynx

Active Member
Dec 11, 2015
364
250
133
91.76% of blocks are paid correctly (...)
This is clearly not my point. What if 100% of the miners decided they don't want to share the block reward with the masternodes? Why enforcement has to be turned off, anyway? They could have made a new version that behaves just like the old version while the network is upgrading and keep enforcement on. We can't allow anyone to operate outside the established protocol, be it miners or masternodes, it undermines the network.
 

David

Well-known Member
Jun 21, 2014
618
628
163
This is clearly not my point. What if 100% of the miners decided they don't want to share the block reward with the masternodes?
Then for a whopping two weeks every 18 months, masternodes wouldn't get paid. Two weeks out of 18 months is 2.6%, so in that case, 97.4% of all blocks over that 18 month period would be paid correctly. Given that many miners are also masternode owners, you could expect them to move their hashpower to pools that were willing to voluntarily follow the rules (or to p2pool). Consequently, it's unlikely that we'd ever see 100% of all miners not paying masternodes while enforcement is off. Likewise, top pools don't won't to suffer the reputational damage that comes from being known in the Dash community as "cheaters."

Why enforcement has to be turned off, anyway? They could have made a new version that behaves just like the old version while the network is upgrading and keep enforcement on.
Because that's how it works. Just because we manage to do it smoothly, you should never forget that every upgrade is a HARD FORK. By definition, older clients aren't compatible with newer ones.

We can't allow anyone to operate outside the established protocol, be it miners or masternodes, it undermines the network.
It does no such thing. Masternodes are paid correctly 99.77% of the time, which apparently works just fine since we're still humming along nicely, at an all time high price. Every upgrade (check forum history--every single one) a couple of people start complaining about cheating miners and "why is enforcement taking so long OMG!" It's really not that big of a deal.
 

lynx

Active Member
Dec 11, 2015
364
250
133
Well, I disagree. A network that is meant to run anonymous and decentralized shouldn't rely on miners' reputation to keep things civil. And you can't count on miners owning masternodes either, a bunch of them convert everything to bitcoin automatically.

There is a way to upgrade smoothly while keeping enforcement on: you just have the new nodes use the old method to agree on which masternode to pay. And after a certain target percentage of upgraded nodes is achieved, then cut the rest of the network off and use the new method.
 

David

Well-known Member
Jun 21, 2014
618
628
163
Well, I disagree. A network that is meant to run anonymous and decentralized shouldn't rely on miners' reputation to keep things civil. And you can't count on miners owning masternodes either, a bunch of them convert everything to bitcoin automatically.

There is a way to upgrade smoothly while keeping enforcement on: you just have the new nodes use the old method to agree on which masternode to pay. And after a certain target percentage of upgraded nodes is achieved, then cut the rest of the network off and use the new method.
If you have found a way to do that, you could always code it up and submit a pull request?
 

David

Well-known Member
Jun 21, 2014
618
628
163
It's not a secret formula. Any core dev that wanted to do it this way, could.
Maybe they are busy? Or maybe it isn't possible at all, for some reason that would only become clear if you started coding it?

It's easy to say "do things this way!" It's much harder to do them.
 

lynx

Active Member
Dec 11, 2015
364
250
133
@David
Ok, then, let me put this in perspective. Using the screenshot above, in the last 24h there were 544 blocks found, of which 36 were paid incorrectly, at a loss to masternodes of 1,94 Dash per block. So, every 24h, about 69,84 Dash. In two weeks, 977,76 Dash are lost in this way. At current price @coinmarketcap of USD21,51 per Dash, that means US$21.031,62 are stolen in two weeks (and that's if it's just two weeks). We could pay a developer 10 thousand bucks per upgrade to fix this leak, and still have money to spare.