Search results

It's quite simple and I don't know what the big issue here. STRICT enforcement, and problem is solved for now. Darkcoin won't be mineable forever, once it's complete then you guys get to have everything for yourself.. You just don't want to leave any meat left for anybody else wich such...

In both cases there is some centralization, wether you like it or not. The exception is there can be many pools while there can only be so much masternodes. I encourage more pools to spawn. It allows people who are not already in possession of a considerable amount of coins to participate in...

Myself and moocowmoo have had issues of some masternodes not seeing some others in the network. Also not always getting the HotCold mention upon starting a masternode since 15.14. Some of moo's nodes won't see some of my nodes unless he restarts his. We also don't see the same masternode count...

I did bring arguments. So far, I don't believe the masternode system is nearly ready to handle all of that. It has shown a bunch flaws so far. Things have been running smooth so far on the other side of Darkcoin (regular pools). I agree with change, I also agree with choice. PS: Also, as you...

3 days is enough. Prior notification of an upcoming update is also an option to make sure pool ops would be on stand-by ready to apply updates as they come.

Are you even bothering reading? "Are you suggesting there should be no rules at all? Should anyone just be allowed to exploit the system for their own benefit at will?" I've been saying CONSTANTLY we need enforcement. It is due to come soon, but the 3 weeks period was too long. I would say 3-4...

Why would I need to agree with your point of view? One way is inconvenient for me, the other inconvenient for you. What makes you think your opinion is the right one for me and vice-versa? I keep thinking having both worlds is better. You can have a p2pool network running on masternodes and...

I'm all up for a 3 to 5 days enforcement. People that have darkcoin pools usually follow and are aware of updates. Those who wait on purpose are just greedy and should be enforced upon. I updated within 1 hour to make sure lonecrouton would not be mad.

Running a pool requires a lot of ressources (a mid-sized one). You're talking a few servers in cluster, ssds on most of them, proxys, an excellent ddos protection, great sysadmining knowledge, a lot of time, and then even more time.. You can't do this on a 5$ vps like you can run a masternode...

In the case there would be enforcement, I guess the coins would simply not be accepted on the main chain.

1000+ individuals? I have 5 myself, I know some who have multiple mn's too, lot more... yea rite! Also, there can only be so much masternodes while there can be unlimited supply of pools.

It can, and that's still good. The miners have a word to say here, they are the ones paying the masternodes as far as I can remember right? Doing so further centralises the masternode side of things, but having two separate entities is good for decentralisation imo.

I would be totally against using a masternode as the pool wallet for the moment. I am operating a few masternodes aswell, and so far the stability of the masternode system doesn't make me want to use one as the pool central wallets. Once the bugs are sorted out, that could be an idea.

I would be ready to accept liability if I could have some assistance to run the operation of somebody already experienced with masternodes and a propre ledger/tracking system that we can audit to ensure accountability for each masternode share acquired by customers. I am just starting to dig...

This is another possibility. If any coder would be interested into building such platform, please get in touch with me. I have the infrastructure and capacity to host this without an issue.

Nice idea Moli, we already thought about it. We would need to evaluate liability and find an optimal way to store multiple nm's securely. I doubt we'd have 1200 of our miners that can Afford to have a masternode. This is only a minority of miners which can afford to mine, pay their electricity...

That I know already. The final payout structure is what would need to be revised IMO. That siad, I am totally for the gradual increase to make things smoother.

I don't believe the plan is to go with 100%, but a few ones have raised that possibility. Somewhere around a 40/60 or 60/40 sounds reasonnable, but to avoid any conflict and focus on developpment and growth of dark, why not opt for a progressive increase up to 50/50 and be done with this. One...

I've been silently reading this forum at times, and then found out this thread. I must say, I am pretty "shocked" by a few posts I saw in this thread. Being pretty involved in Darkcoin itself on the mining side (not development), I felt betrayed to read such things. You all know the old saying...