Welcome to the Dash Forum!

Please sign up to discuss the most innovative cryptocurrency!

Why don't we halve the Masternode collateral requirement now?

Discussion in 'Development Tech Discussion' started by halso, Jun 20, 2016.

  1. ec1warc1

    ec1warc1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2016
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    170
    Trophy Points:
    113
    wow..... what can I say after that essay? You have spurred a couple of thoughts in my mind about master nodes:
    1. at 4000 masternodes, 4 million Dash are kept out of circulation. Correct me if my math is wrong, but aren't there only 6.6 million dash in the first place? That means that about 60% of the currency is tied up by those providing a service for the currency, not including the miners. Most of the currency's current users are most likely participants in the maintenance of the service itself. Conclusion: there is plenty of room for new users, which as they come into becoming users, will only raise the price of the currency.
    2. Going back to the original idea of the post.... should the dash required to hold a masternode be halved from 1000 to 500? The problem is that if you decrease the deposit in order to populate the network with more masternodes, the payout to the owner of each node will also be cut roughly in half. The cost to maintain such nodes will remain the same. Node holders will transfer their nodes to the cheapest hosting providers, making for clusters of masternodes in the same data centers. To make matters worse, when the next version of Dash comes out, the requirements for the server will increase, making the cost to host a masternode more expensive than it currently is. The Dash Documentation Wiki for masternodes states that Dash Evolution Masternodes Version 13.x will require:
    High-CPU machines for heavy crypto processing (job-queue workers)
    High-DISK machines for network metadata storage/archival, (third-party storage/rent-a-drive)
    High-NET machines for peer-distribution (bittorrent) of: blockchain data (bootstrapping), compiled wallets, other future common downloads.​
    At that point, we will need node holders who can handle the higher cost of hosting, the technical know how to do so efficiently, and enough of them in order to keep the network up. The cheap solution for masternode hosting that is currently working will likely need some major tweaking. Rhaspberry Pi in great numbers? Probably not.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. ashmoran

    ashmoran Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2016
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    78
    Trophy Points:
    58
    That's a very good point, we don't want to push masternode operators to using commodity hardware. I suspect in the long run that might solve itself, as the masternode hardware requirements grow to the point a masternode needs a dedicated server. What will prove helpful is some sort of containerisation for masternodes like Dockr that will make it easier for people to deploy their own servers rather than relying on hosted services. With any luck, the masternode income will eventually reach the point a masternode operator can pay a sysadmin part-time for work required to maintain one. I see the real value of a masternode operator is in the quality of their voting, and the server maintenance is important and necessary work, but not differentiating.

    Ultimately, nothing stops all the masternode operators using the one cheapest server hosting company, so they will have to value decentralisation and some of them may have to make conscious choices to run a masternode in a different location.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. halso

    halso Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2016
    Messages:
    440
    Likes Received:
    236
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Great to see this thread is still annoying people's heads 2 months later!

    @ashmoran you make a good point. What is the optimal number of masternodes? In the Whitepaper it suggests a collateral halving when dash reaches $100. But i presume this will be subject to a vote, and based in initial feedback on this thread, i'm not sure it would pass.

    re: dash vs. bitcoin node count. The gap is narrowing, dash is rising fast and bitcoin is dropping fast. Hopefully we'll see catch up before the end of this year. When it does happen, i encourage everyone to email any journalist / blogger that has every written about crypto and spread the news.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  4. Voluntary

    Voluntary Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Dash Address:
    XivwUmSu5davqhqc3BX1j4w6dskzNFihQQ
    Oligarchs... What a laugh. It must suck to be such a victim and have no vision or passion in life. :D
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. ErrorId

    ErrorId Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2014
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    88
    I've been thinking about this myself and have come to the conclusion that the higher the price, the higher quality of investor you get. Once shared nodes that let you keep control of your private key come in the problem will be solved, unless we get there a lot sooner then I think we will.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. ErrorId

    ErrorId Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2014
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    88
    To me a quality investor is someone who takes care of their investment by being active in it's governance. Without going through all the budget proposals I'd say that the highest participation was maybe around 60% of masternodes, meaning almost half of the investors didn't care enough about their investment to copy & paste a very simple command into their wallet console and guide it's development. Those are probably the same people that got in really early and mined or picked up their coins on the cheap. I think that the people getting in now are going to be much more involved.

    As for point 2 I'm assuming you're talking about institutional investors. Personally I hope they keep playing with their derivatives and stay the hell away from Dash for a long time.

    Also, I consider Dash one of the majors, our current price per coin is in the top 5 of all crypto-currencies and we will never have as many coins as some of the current top 10 as were going to top out around 16 million or so.
     
  7. ec1warc1

    ec1warc1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2016
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    170
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree with @Thomas Quinlan on some of his points, for example that few newcomers will enter the MasterNode business because the cost of entry will be so high. Already more than half of the entire supply of dash is tied up in the master nodes. I must also say that owning a masternode is not the only way to make money in the Dash economy and it is possible it is not even the most cost effective way to participate. I have started mining only Dash with https://www.genesis-mining.com and I am happy with the results. No need to buy hardware, and it looks to me that I will earn my investment back in the first year, making all profits in the second year. I will be making some youtube vids about this soon. If you want to get started, my discount code is: AoN5UM - you save 3% and my mining goes up 3% for the referral - win/win! Hope the referral is ok on this forum. Thumbs down me if it sucks. But it is my opinion and I hope it is ok to say so here.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Creative Creative x 1
  8. noobtrader

    noobtrader Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2015
    Messages:
    188
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    103
    maybe if we limit collateral, we can limit at certain price range, so MN hosting would still be profitable.
     
  9. raganius

    raganius cryptoPag.com
    Foundation Member Masternode Owner/Operator

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2014
    Messages:
    719
    Likes Received:
    1,162
    Trophy Points:
    263
    OK, I know I might be bashed for my opinion, but, anyway: this is not about politics, this is about tech.

    I don't agree lowering (or raising) the Masternode collateral limits just to please the "poor guys" or the "rich guys" in the community, because that would make no sense at all.

    Also, it would be stupid to do so, just as a marketing stunt, IMHO.

    This must be a technical decision: what is best for DASH performance.

    But, a possible solution would be that of the spreadcoin guys: no fixed limit for the collateral, but else, a fixed optimal number of Masternodes....

    ...Say the developers calculate that the network needs 5k Masternodes in order to operate perfectly in the current context. So the network will only recognise 5 thousand Masternodes, and there will be a set of minimal requirements for a Masternode to be accepted, like reliance, speed, responsiveness, ping and whatever is important according to the technical point of view.

    The Collateral amount will be freely set by each Masternode operator, and the bigger values will have preference over the smaller values when the nodes are similar in the above technical requirements.

    This would be enough from the technical point of view of the network structure, and would, at the same time, give some peace of heart to those so worried with "unfair financial apartheid".

    Free market is so beautiful!
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. ec1warc1

    ec1warc1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2016
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    170
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So... a MN with a larger deposit would get more voting rights and earn more? Interesting idea. It could end up reducing the number of MNs because people could put all their DASH in one node and enjoy the economic benefits of a larger payout while maintaining only one node.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  11. raganius

    raganius cryptoPag.com
    Foundation Member Masternode Owner/Operator

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2014
    Messages:
    719
    Likes Received:
    1,162
    Trophy Points:
    263
    Actually not: each Masternode, one vote... why change that?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. ec1warc1

    ec1warc1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2016
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    170
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One more thought... looking at the blockchain as it is, it is vastly underused compared to the nodecount today. Sometimes we see a single transaction in a block, which means we need more every day users who just want a good service and don't care about how it works. It will happen soon enough.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. raganius

    raganius cryptoPag.com
    Foundation Member Masternode Owner/Operator

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2014
    Messages:
    719
    Likes Received:
    1,162
    Trophy Points:
    263
    We maybe need more grassroot efforts spreading the knowledge about DASH, IMO. The community should give more value and support for those "evangelist members", I dare say...
     
    • Like Like x 2
  14. rustycase

    rustycase Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2016
    Messages:
    497
    Likes Received:
    117
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is very true !
    Buy DASH, Use DASH !!!

    Use it amongst your friends and offer DASH as a pay option in your business !

    This sort of grassroots effort will always lead people to ask, What ? Why ? Will this be to MY advantage ?

    A gud thing !
    rc
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. rustycase

    rustycase Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2016
    Messages:
    497
    Likes Received:
    117
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Historic rise of DASH to $15usd/share today on Poloniex will surely convince people DASH is a picture of value !
    rc
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. ashmoran

    ashmoran Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2016
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    78
    Trophy Points:
    58
    I agree with the spirit of your point but I am not sure what you are implying by the details, so I would like to expand on something.

    I agree entirely that making changes to Dash just to please one interest group or another would make no sense, it would be making changes without logic, and would set Dash adrift being pulled one way or another by each group. What I think needs clarifying is the scope of "technical decision" and "DASH performance". It is easy to read these terms and think of only decisions that directly relate to code, and only performance that can be measured by hard metrics. I would like to expand first the scope of "technical" to include everything that can be managed scientifically, even if it is hard to measure directly. So this would include management, marketing, purchasing (eg paying for an ATM integration through the budget system); second the scope of "performance" to everything relevant to using Dash, so how quickly a shop customer can buy their coffee with Evolution, as well as how many InstandSend transactions per second a masternode can validate. (I only just wrote a comment on Reddit where I use the same ideas.) It is much harder to measure the effect of an social media promotion on Dash usage than it is to measure the effect of a code change on block verification time, but here are still technical decisions (eg "don't be rude") that affect performance (eg "percentage of people who read tweets who then visit dash.org"), even though they may be harder to define and measure.

    You may have thought about some or all of these already – I just try to expand the scope of "technical", "performance" and so on to cover as much of a system as possible, otherwise there's a risk of focussing too much on one part and forgetting about another. Everything works together to create Dash, and changing one thing affects everything else indirectly, so it helps to keep a wide field of view.

    This sort of line of thinking is promising I think. The 1000 DASH is just an arbitrary figures should that has proved a good starting point, but the number of masternodes would be best determined by fitting into some broader goal for Dash. How, exactly, I don't know – but I think it's worthy of further thought and research.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. raganius

    raganius cryptoPag.com
    Foundation Member Masternode Owner/Operator

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2014
    Messages:
    719
    Likes Received:
    1,162
    Trophy Points:
    263
    Actually I have got no technical knowledge to assess what would be the parameters there. But one thing seem to make sense to me: DASH does not need too many nor to few Masternodes, so (I guess) there might be an ideal number of nodes for the network to run smothly in a specific reality/context (too many Masternodes and the network is clogged, to few, and it is stuck). and it also makes sense to me that this "ideal number" of Masternodes may vary with time/network size (?).

    Anyway, I am not the best person to give the final solution here.
     
  18. freshdopamine

    freshdopamine New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Anyone serious about changes on how many DASH you need to run a masternode should put a proposal.

    When Evolution hits our network some people will need to upgrade their hardware. But it wouldn't make sense to lower the DASH required due to less ROI for the people running a masternode.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1