camosoul
Well-known member
https://blog.dash.org/mitigating-51-attacks-with-llmq-based-chainlocks-7266aa648ec9
I've been observing a clash with reality approaching, and I think collateralized mining may be the answer to this problem, rather than the problem for which it was originally put forth, and turned down.
DASH is no different from BTC in the block reward reduction mechanism. As the years wear on, the block reward gets smaller. Until the block reward produces nothing new, and the only funding comes from the TX fees.
But, DASH is working against itself here... DASH want's to be super cheap and huge blocks. Great. but, how will it pay the MNs to continue doing all this?
DASH's dreams of the future require DASH to be worth about $10,000 per unit of 1 to run the powerful servers and have the dedicated bandwidth to support the features and blocksize of the future. This only works, maybe, with the current block payment model. A model which is going to become extinct by design. So, even if we're blindly optimistic and #believe that DASH will be worth $10,000 in the not too distant future, it won't be long before that model of sustenance is gone anyway... Much like the budget, it won't be able to keep itself alive. In the case of the budget, the numbers will be too small. In the case of sustaining MNs, even if the valuation is high, it won't matter because the MNs won't be getting paid any DASH regardless of how much it may or may not be worth...
Since processing these features and functions will likely require ASIC-type hardware, could that hardware not also include privileged mining? Only MNs can mine? (Think, RISC-V w/ some pretty exotic custom extensions; the MN server hardware of the not too distant future).
Or maybe, privileged mining is the "savings account" for those who can prove a stake?
Or a combination of both... Essentially, cloud mining off of the MN's dedicated hardware by proving a stake?
Or, mining itself is simply extinct because we have other metrics, as ChainLocks proves. Chainlocks + user staking is the "savings account" previously mentioned? What other information could be used as proof of stake instead of the currency itself? Prove you're doing/storing for the network. MNs are in a position to do as this requires low latency, while the end users are in a position to store higher-latency, less urgently needed data. What would that be and how could the roles be fulfilled? MN DashDrive and end user DashDrive for different purposes? The different use models would create a deterministic metric dochotomy that is naturally and mutually opposed, so the result would be very useful for validation... Not sure how to say it...
The bottom line issue is that DASH's "be cheap and offer tons of services" direction will become a mirror of the impossible-to-sustain welfare state. All these fancy services provided, but how will you pay for it when block rewards are reduced to nothing but TX fees? Fees which are kept deliberately low. Well below sustainable levels...
Not only does the future require a different way of thinking for availability alone, it has to be able to pay for itself. MNs are currently incentivized. By current design, that will no longer be true. It's tough enough for BTC to get volunteers to merely host the full blockchain.
How will DASH incentivize the future of MasterNodes when block rewards don't come anywhere close to paying the bills, much less being a good investment? Currently, MNs are a huge risk and a lot of work, for what is roughly a 6% ROI. It's already a terrible deal. There are plenty of options outside the cryptsphere that people can invest their money into that pay much higher interest at much lower risk, with next to no hands-on involvement for the investor... That disparity looks to get worse, not better...
I'm concerned that the idiotic communist mindset so prevalent in tech/crypto is leading to no thought being put into this... MasterNodes are currently incentivized. More and more is being expected of them. Pay is already below the level that it makes any sense to run a MasterNode. What happens when the incentive is zero because block rewards are reduced to the point that MNs operate for free or in the red after expenses?
smart people said:
I've been observing a clash with reality approaching, and I think collateralized mining may be the answer to this problem, rather than the problem for which it was originally put forth, and turned down.
DASH is no different from BTC in the block reward reduction mechanism. As the years wear on, the block reward gets smaller. Until the block reward produces nothing new, and the only funding comes from the TX fees.
But, DASH is working against itself here... DASH want's to be super cheap and huge blocks. Great. but, how will it pay the MNs to continue doing all this?
DASH's dreams of the future require DASH to be worth about $10,000 per unit of 1 to run the powerful servers and have the dedicated bandwidth to support the features and blocksize of the future. This only works, maybe, with the current block payment model. A model which is going to become extinct by design. So, even if we're blindly optimistic and #believe that DASH will be worth $10,000 in the not too distant future, it won't be long before that model of sustenance is gone anyway... Much like the budget, it won't be able to keep itself alive. In the case of the budget, the numbers will be too small. In the case of sustaining MNs, even if the valuation is high, it won't matter because the MNs won't be getting paid any DASH regardless of how much it may or may not be worth...
Since processing these features and functions will likely require ASIC-type hardware, could that hardware not also include privileged mining? Only MNs can mine? (Think, RISC-V w/ some pretty exotic custom extensions; the MN server hardware of the not too distant future).
Or maybe, privileged mining is the "savings account" for those who can prove a stake?
Or a combination of both... Essentially, cloud mining off of the MN's dedicated hardware by proving a stake?
Or, mining itself is simply extinct because we have other metrics, as ChainLocks proves. Chainlocks + user staking is the "savings account" previously mentioned? What other information could be used as proof of stake instead of the currency itself? Prove you're doing/storing for the network. MNs are in a position to do as this requires low latency, while the end users are in a position to store higher-latency, less urgently needed data. What would that be and how could the roles be fulfilled? MN DashDrive and end user DashDrive for different purposes? The different use models would create a deterministic metric dochotomy that is naturally and mutually opposed, so the result would be very useful for validation... Not sure how to say it...
The bottom line issue is that DASH's "be cheap and offer tons of services" direction will become a mirror of the impossible-to-sustain welfare state. All these fancy services provided, but how will you pay for it when block rewards are reduced to nothing but TX fees? Fees which are kept deliberately low. Well below sustainable levels...
Not only does the future require a different way of thinking for availability alone, it has to be able to pay for itself. MNs are currently incentivized. By current design, that will no longer be true. It's tough enough for BTC to get volunteers to merely host the full blockchain.
How will DASH incentivize the future of MasterNodes when block rewards don't come anywhere close to paying the bills, much less being a good investment? Currently, MNs are a huge risk and a lot of work, for what is roughly a 6% ROI. It's already a terrible deal. There are plenty of options outside the cryptsphere that people can invest their money into that pay much higher interest at much lower risk, with next to no hands-on involvement for the investor... That disparity looks to get worse, not better...
I'm concerned that the idiotic communist mindset so prevalent in tech/crypto is leading to no thought being put into this... MasterNodes are currently incentivized. More and more is being expected of them. Pay is already below the level that it makes any sense to run a MasterNode. What happens when the incentive is zero because block rewards are reduced to the point that MNs operate for free or in the red after expenses?
Last edited:
