Why I will be voting YES for the 10k collateral High Performance MasterNodes

xkcd

Active Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Feb 19, 2017
507
477
133
australia
mnowatch.org
Dash Address
XpoZXRfr2iFxWhfRSAK3j1jww9xd4tJVez
As many of you may know, recently there has been some talk https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...orm-run-only-on-high-performance-nodes.53374/ and


of running Dash Platform aka Evolution on a subset of masternodes. On the table are three options each almost as bad as the other, with one IMO marginally better than all the rest, none of them will add value to Dash or do anything to improve the sentiment in our community and from curious onlookers.

A shit sandwich or the Douche bag

The options are:
  • Run Evo on the entire Masternode network.
  • Opt into running Evo with a 4,000 Dash collateral.
  • Opt into running Evo with a 10,000 Dash collateral.

Let's look at the first option. Under the first option everyone must run the Evo stack or else they will only receive half their current rewards. This is a coercive upgrade and very different to our regular hard forks that everyone is accustomed to and implicitly agreed to when they bought into Dash. This changes the rules. The upgrade itself will involve running a fully indexed dashd, this means straight off the bat an almost doubling of disk space required due to the additional indexes and higher CPU work load for processing transactions. TL;DR you will have to upgrade your hosting to the next higher tier. Next comes the Evo (Platform) install, you will be at the mercy of DashMate which basically never works to install four other separate packages that are themselves are unstable, poorly maintained, improperly installed and very resource intensive. If you manage to get through the installation, next comes the rapidly increasing storage costs as Platform allows the storage of arbitrary data objects (BLOBS) that will quickly fill up your VPS and force you to pay more for hosting further eating away into your profits. As if that wasn't bad enough, by running platform, a decentralised API and storage solution where anyone without identification can store any data they wish, you better be ready to store and host child pornography from your masternode. You cannot prevent this. This will open you up as the Masternode owner to personal liability in the particular police state you live in AND the one you host your masternode in, assuming they are different. You cannot hide or disguise your service, everything is tracked on the blockchain including your IP4V on the Dash L1 blockchain as a provider transaction (protx). BUSTED.

Option 1 gives you no choice but to run Evo while making you responsible for the data hosted from it and eating away into your precious profits. It's a shit sandwich and the result of this if the decision proposal passes this way, is we will see another massive wave of selling as those that want no part of this sell and move into other safer coins where they can earn yield at even higher rates, for example HEX at 10% APY for a stake of 1 month or greater.

Option 2 and 3 can go together because they are both the same, expect one is better than the other. Under these two options, we form a 2-teired network where MNOs that wish to opt into running an Evo node and always have the choice to shift out of it and go back to running a regular node. By being opt-in, it is immediately more fair and democratic. Under these two options, 50% of the masternode rewards will be paid into the Evo pool and the other 50% will be paid to the regular masternode pool, this creates an arbitrage opportunity where some masternodes will move into the evo pool, thus pushing the APY down there while their abscence from the regular pool pushes the APY up there. Before too long, the two pools equalise at some equibrium where both pools are paid more or less the same APY - democratically. Over all, due to the increased collateral requirements made of Evo nodes, there will be fewer of them in the evo pool compared to the regular MN pool, this means they will save on hosting fees, which means their effective APY will be higher, which means more MNs will leave the regular pool to join the evo pool which means the APY will increase there too! All this without regular MNOs lifting a finger !

Of the two options between 4k and 10k, 10k is then clearly the superior option, which calls in the question of decentralisation, how much is enough? The amount of decentralisation you need depends on what it is you are trying to decentralise and how likely it is to come under any attack. Recall that Platform is supposed to store mundane data like contact lists, friend requests, merchant directory, nothing that actually needs any level of decentralisation at all, all this data would be perfectly happy sitting in the Google cloud, this isn't the type of data we are likely to see censored in the near future, so for this I feel that even with the 100 or so nodes the 10k option would afford us is still plenty to protect the network. The other thing Platform stores are credits, credits are what we call Dash when it has been sent to Platform. Credits in Platform are created in one of two ways, a Dash user sends Dash to platform to fund their account, a block is mined and 50% of the MN coinbase is sent to Platform. These coinbase rewards accumulate on Platform for 18 days upon which they are distributed to the masternodes who will then convert them back into Dash and sell them, how do I know? well if rewards were not being sold, then the Masternode network would be growing in size by 1.5 Masternodes each day and it is not, so those rewards are sold.

So, what is the prize pool on Platform them? Well a block pays 1.4 Dash to the masternode every 2.625 mins and the Platform Epoch is 18 days. So, 6912 Dash. So, we would have 100 masternodes securing let's say 7000 Dash, since an attacker could try and drain Platform just before the Epoch block mints, while on L1 we are securing 10.5 million Dash with 3700 Masternodes. I am happy with those numbers. I am not happy with 3700 Masternodes securing a measly 7k Dash on platform, it is a massive overkill!

Of the two options 4k, 10k, the 10k offering is clearly the best of the two. For all the reasons above and more, I will be voting on the 10k collateral option and you should too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AgnewPickens

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
3,386
1,436
1,183
The whole thing is ridiculous. There is just no reason at all for Platform Evolution to be rewarded from the treasury. The incentives are to earn fees from users, I have no idea why that isn't enough.

Run the software, complete Proof of Service, get paid. Except, of course, Sam has said it comes with no robust Proof of Service.. so why on earth should any of us even discuss the options as though they are viable?

I just cant understand any of it, the whole thing is just insane. If I wanted to a two tier node system I'd thrown money into Zencash... wait, I mean Horizen. Yeah, that pivot didn't go anywhere either. And if I wanted fewer nodes, I'd of gone with Solana... no just kidding!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dans

QuantumExplorer

Active Member
Dash Core Group
Aug 20, 2014
270
374
123
@GrandMasterDash There is no way to prove that someone is running platform, except from their stake. To that extent, as I believe most MNs would not start platform if it wouldn't give them fees initially, Platform would just not start.
 

qwizzie

Grizzled Member
Aug 6, 2014
2,054
1,255
1,183
Looks like someone made his choice after all. From being neither for or against High Performance Masternodes to being very much for 10K High Performance Masternodes (with the highest level of centralization).

We all have choices to make.
Good luck OP.
 

vazaki3

Active Member
Jul 1, 2019
685
357
133
34
apogee.dynu.net
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
As many of you may know, recently there has been some talk and video of running Dash Platform aka Evolution on a subset of masternodes. On the table are three options each almost as bad as the other, with one IMO marginally better than all the rest, none of them will add value to Dash or do anything to improve the sentiment in our community and from curious onlookers.
A shit sandwich or the Douche bag. The options are:
  • Run Evo on the entire Masternode network.
  • Opt into running Evo with a 4,000 Dash collateral.
  • Opt into running Evo with a 10,000 Dash collateral.
You forgot some options
  • Opt into running Evo with a 1,000 Dash collateral.
  • and (why not?) Opt into running Evo with a 500 Dash collateral.
You have better analyze these options too.....
 

vazaki3

Active Member
Jul 1, 2019
685
357
133
34
apogee.dynu.net
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
As if that wasn't bad enough, by running platform, a decentralised API and storage solution where anyone without identification can store any data they wish, you better be ready to store and host child pornography from your masternode. You cannot prevent this. This will open you up as the Masternode owner to personal liability in the particular police state you live in AND the one you host your masternode in, assuming they are different. You cannot hide or disguise your service, everything is tracked on the blockchain including your IP4V on the Dash L1 blockchain as a provider transaction (protx). BUSTED.
Recall that Platform is supposed to store mundane data like contact lists, friend requests, merchant directory, nothing that actually needs any level of decentralisation at all, all this data would be perfectly happy sitting in the Google cloud, this isn't the type of data we are likely to see censored in the near future, so for this I feel that even with the 100 or so nodes the 10k option would afford us is still plenty to protect the network.
So you assume that the platform WILL be abused and WILL be censored. Correct?

Why someone who has 10000 Dash in his wallet, he would like to face such a danger?
I think this risk can more easily be taken by someone who has 500 Dash in his wallet, or even less.
The bigger the risk is for the platform to be abused and censored, the less collateral fee should be asked to those who will host the platform.
 
Last edited:

seanjae

New Member
Feb 23, 2019
10
19
3
41
As many of you may know, recently there has been some talk https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...orm-run-only-on-high-performance-nodes.53374/ and


of running Dash Platform aka Evolution on a subset of masternodes. On the table are three options each almost as bad as the other, with one IMO marginally better than all the rest, none of them will add value to Dash or do anything to improve the sentiment in our community and from curious onlookers.

A shit sandwich or the Douche bag

The options are:
  • Run Evo on the entire Masternode network.
  • Opt into running Evo with a 4,000 Dash collateral.
  • Opt into running Evo with a 10,000 Dash collateral.

Let's look at the first option. Under the first option everyone must run the Evo stack or else they will only receive half their current rewards. This is a coercive upgrade and very different to our regular hard forks that everyone is accustomed to and implicitly agreed to when they bought into Dash. This changes the rules. The upgrade itself will involve running a fully indexed dashd, this means straight off the bat an almost doubling of disk space required due to the additional indexes and higher CPU work load for processing transactions. TL;DR you will have to upgrade your hosting to the next higher tier. Next comes the Evo (Platform) install, you will be at the mercy of DashMate which basically never works to install four other separate packages that are themselves are unstable, poorly maintained, improperly installed and very resource intensive. If you manage to get through the installation, next comes the rapidly increasing storage costs as Platform allows the storage of arbitrary data objects (BLOBS) that will quickly fill up your VPS and force you to pay more for hosting further eating away into your profits. As if that wasn't bad enough, by running platform, a decentralised API and storage solution where anyone without identification can store any data they wish, you better be ready to store and host child pornography from your masternode. You cannot prevent this. This will open you up as the Masternode owner to personal liability in the particular police state you live in AND the one you host your masternode in, assuming they are different. You cannot hide or disguise your service, everything is tracked on the blockchain including your IP4V on the Dash L1 blockchain as a provider transaction (protx). BUSTED.

Option 1 gives you no choice but to run Evo while making you responsible for the data hosted from it and eating away into your precious profits. It's a shit sandwich and the result of this if the decision proposal passes this way, is we will see another massive wave of selling as those that want no part of this sell and move into other safer coins where they can earn yield at even higher rates, for example HEX at 10% APY for a stake of 1 month or greater.

Option 2 and 3 can go together because they are both the same, expect one is better than the other. Under these two options, we form a 2-teired network where MNOs that wish to opt into running an Evo node and always have the choice to shift out of it and go back to running a regular node. By being opt-in, it is immediately more fair and democratic. Under these two options, 50% of the masternode rewards will be paid into the Evo pool and the other 50% will be paid to the regular masternode pool, this creates an arbitrage opportunity where some masternodes will move into the evo pool, thus pushing the APY down there while their abscence from the regular pool pushes the APY up there. Before too long, the two pools equalise at some equibrium where both pools are paid more or less the same APY - democratically. Over all, due to the increased collateral requirements made of Evo nodes, there will be fewer of them in the evo pool compared to the regular MN pool, this means they will save on hosting fees, which means their effective APY will be higher, which means more MNs will leave the regular pool to join the evo pool which means the APY will increase there too! All this without regular MNOs lifting a finger !

Of the two options between 4k and 10k, 10k is then clearly the superior option, which calls in the question of decentralisation, how much is enough? The amount of decentralisation you need depends on what it is you are trying to decentralise and how likely it is to come under any attack. Recall that Platform is supposed to store mundane data like contact lists, friend requests, merchant directory, nothing that actually needs any level of decentralisation at all, all this data would be perfectly happy sitting in the Google cloud, this isn't the type of data we are likely to see censored in the near future, so for this I feel that even with the 100 or so nodes the 10k option would afford us is still plenty to protect the network. The other thing Platform stores are credits, credits are what we call Dash when it has been sent to Platform. Credits in Platform are created in one of two ways, a Dash user sends Dash to platform to fund their account, a block is mined and 50% of the MN coinbase is sent to Platform. These coinbase rewards accumulate on Platform for 18 days upon which they are distributed to the masternodes who will then convert them back into Dash and sell them, how do I know? well if rewards were not being sold, then the Masternode network would be growing in size by 1.5 Masternodes each day and it is not, so those rewards are sold.

So, what is the prize pool on Platform them? Well a block pays 1.4 Dash to the masternode every 2.625 mins and the Platform Epoch is 18 days. So, 6912 Dash. So, we would have 100 masternodes securing let's say 7000 Dash, since an attacker could try and drain Platform just before the Epoch block mints, while on L1 we are securing 10.5 million Dash with 3700 Masternodes. I am happy with those numbers. I am not happy with 3700 Masternodes securing a measly 7k Dash on platform, it is a massive overkill!

Of the two options 4k, 10k, the 10k offering is clearly the best of the two. For all the reasons above and more, I will be voting on the 10k collateral option and you should too.
Wow, ridiculous. Somehow the storage concerns (just another straw man) disappear under the other solutions.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: xkcd

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
3,386
1,436
1,183
Indeed, robbing Peter to pay Paul on the basis of "security". Over time they will demand more to fund their ridiculous experiments until the whole project is unsustainable and eventually abandoning ship.
 

xkcd

Active Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Feb 19, 2017
507
477
133
australia
mnowatch.org
Dash Address
XpoZXRfr2iFxWhfRSAK3j1jww9xd4tJVez
The entire situation is absurd. Simply put, there is absolutely no justification for rewarding Platform Evolution with treasury funds. I'm not sure why receiving user fees as an incentive isn't sufficient.
Yep, lucky for us we are not doing that. :)