• Forum has been upgraded, all links, images, etc are as they were. Please see Official Announcements for more information

Concern about distributed Masternodes

Darren

Darren

Active member
I have a concern about the distributed master nodes.

With bitcoin it was organized so that the miners made protocol decisions. What may have been unforeseen is that miners would pool resources and pass the protocol decisions to the pool operator. This makes what was intended to be a decentralized decision making process into a centralized hub model.

I have concern that masternode shares may introduce a similar situation that mining pools. It passes the voting power from the dash holders to the masternode operator.

Distributed masternodes may present a work around. Decision power could be retained by dash holders under this model. If 4 DASH is allowed to count for a masternode, then those 4 DASH should be able to vote (counting 0.004 of a vote). This would respect decentralized decision making and not reward technical ability disproportionate to actual DASH holdings.

I did not find technical specs of distributed Masternodes. Maybe this has already been addressed. If you can point me toward those specifications that would be nice.
 
Darren said:
I have concern that masternode shares may introduce a similar situation that mining pools. It passes the voting power from the dash holders to the masternode operator.
Click to expand...

Well this is in theory true, but in practice every dash holder who owns 1000 dash, he creates a masternode. And if he gains another 1000 dash, he creates another masternode.

6 million dash (out of 22 possible) are circulating right now, and 4000 X 1000 = 4 millions are owned by masternode owners. So CURRENTLY there is no conflict between dash holders and masternode owners. Dash holders and masternode owners is currently almost the same thing.

In future maybe there will be a conflict, who knows..

So currently the dash network is as decentralized as the 1000 dash tariff (set in order to own a Masternode) allows. Not very decentralized IMHO.
 
Last edited:
There are already "shared masternodes" in which owners of smaller amounts of DASH participate proportionally with shares of a masternode.

One of the greatest limitations of "shared masternodes" is (nowadays) depending on trust (because the total of 1K dash from the "shareholders" will be held by an administrator).

Another relevant limitation is the fact that once your share is in an active masternode, you will only be able to withdraw once there is someone else to substitute you share (or else the masternode will have to be taken offline).

There is not a "distributed masternode", in the sense of keeping a masternode at home with only a fraction (10, 100, 500, etc) of dash in it. And I don't think that would ever be beneficial for the network, as what matters is the "quality" of the nodes over the "quantity" of nodes.

Anyway, for the shared masternodes a usual voting solution is having an internal proportional vote among the shareholders, and the majority will decide the vote of the Masternode on the network. Of course (just like the pool miners) if the Masternode shareholder does not agree with the Masternode vote, they can leave the node (just like the miner can leave the pool).
 
raganius said:
There are already "shared masternodes" in which owners of smaller amounts of DASH participate proportionally with shares of a masternode.

One of the greatest limitations of "shared masternodes" is (nowadays) depending on trust (because the total of 1K dash from the "shareholders" will be held by an administrator).

Another relevant limitation is the fact that once your share is in an active masternode, you will only be able to withdraw once there is someone else to substitute you share (or else the masternode will have to be taken offline).

There is not a "distributed masternode", in the sense of keeping a masternode at home with only a fraction (10, 100, 500, etc) of dash in it. And I don't think that would ever be beneficial for the network, as what matters is the "quality" of the nodes over the "quantity" of nodes.

Anyway, for the shared masternodes a usual voting solution is having an internal proportional vote among the shareholders, and the majority will decide the vote of the Masternode on the network. Of course (just like the pool miners) if the Masternode shareholder does not agree with the Masternode vote, they can leave the node (just like the miner can leave the pool).
Click to expand...

Even if you create "shared masternodes", if you divide 6 million to 1000, you have 6000 masternodes. 6000 nodes is not a good decentralization IMHO.

You forgot also to mention to the newby that the 1000 dash tariff, this magic number that has no theory behind it, is set as a hardcoded number, and as a naif measure in order to prevent Sybil Attacks against dash. Of course the sybil attack problem may be solved if you use the appropriate cryptographic protocols for dishonest majorities. But you have not implement such protocols yet.

I am saying the above for the newby to have the whole picture.
 
Last edited:
@Darren It would seem to me the dev's efforts to prevent centralized control of mining applies concurrently to the improvement over btc by DASH use of MN governance.
The most recent severe manipulation of the marketplace value following the 'halvening' has been a spectacular picture of what can occur,
We may all participate in a MN pool.

Best
rc
 
Darren said:
Just as long as anyone who puts up a stake gets control of a proportionate vote.
Click to expand...
Don't think this should be a core functionality. But I think something like this, pooled masternode purchase with weighted voting, could be build on the DAPI by a third party. Could be a website or maybe something in the Evolution App store for any team / group.
 
Darren said:
Just as long as anyone who puts up a stake gets control of a proportionate vote.
Click to expand...

This might entail a miniscule numbers game, which would be tedious for those conducting MN pools...

In my Newbie opinion, since there appear to be any number of individuals offering shares in MN pools, it would be advisable for someone interested in participating to seek a service with whom they may at least generally agree with, and let it be, at that... ???

Those strongly concerned with influencing governance certainly are allowed use of the soapbox, here in the DASH.org Forum.
Otherwise, it seems it might require abt $10k usd to have a direct impact in governance.
I am unable to devote that level of resources to this project.

Best
rc
 
Last edited:
Vedran Yoweri said:
Don't think this should be a core functionality. But I think something like this, pooled masternode purchase with weighted voting, could be build on the DAPI by a third party. Could be a website or maybe something in the Evolution App store for any team / group.
Click to expand...

In my Newbie opinion.... the DASH Forum should be sufficient for the voters to keep their finger on the pulse and sentiment of non-voting yet vocal DASH holders ???

Best
rc
 
demo said:
Even if you create "shared masternodes", if you divide 6 million to 1000, you have 6000 masternodes. 6000 nodes is not a good decentralization IMHO.
(...)
Click to expand...

At least, better then bitcoin with its 5k nodes.

demo said:
(...)
You forgot also to mention to the newby that the 1000 dash tariff, this magic number that has no theory behind it, is set as a hardcoded number, and as a naif measure in order to prevent Sybil Attacks against dash. Of course the sybil attack problem may be solved if you use the appropriate cryptographic protocols for dishonest majorities. But you have not implement such protocols yet.

I am saying the above for the newby to have the whole picture.
Click to expand...

I agree with your genius opinion that 1000dash is not the ideal amount: Now I am looking forward for the increase to 2000dash per Masternode requirement in the near future. That would potentially mean a huge improve in node quality.
 
raganius said:
At least, better then bitcoin with its 5k nodes.

I agree with your genius opinion that 1000dash is not the ideal amount: Now I am looking forward for the increase to 2000dash per Masternode requirement in the near future. That would potentially mean a huge improve in node quality.
Click to expand...

The problem is that for dash 6k nodes (or 22k nodes if all coins are mined) is the upper limit of decentralization . In bitcoin by design, there is no upper limit. So the design of bitcoin is better in terms of decentralization.

Decentralization is not a real problem for dash currently , but for the winner digital coin of the future that is supposed to be used by millions and millions of users and have billions of transactions, this upper limit of decentralization will be a HUGE problem.

So at the time the dash designers decided an upper limit for decentralization, this is equivalent as to decide that dash will never become the winner digital cash of the future.

Unless of course a budget proposal pass and changes the 1000 hardcoded magic number to something that fits better to the network needs. Let it be 2000 for now as you advocate (and you maybe are right) or let it be 50 in the futute. And how can we change this hardoded magic number that has no theory behind, and choose something that fits better to the network needs? Vote with numbers maybe? Am I repeating myself again?:p
 
Last edited:
demo said:
(...) let it be 50 in the futute. And how can we change this hardoded magic number that has no theory behind, and choose something that fits better to the network needs? Vote with numbers maybe? Am I repeating myself again?:p
Click to expand...

Have you noticed how fast it is to sync a DASH full node (compare it with bitcoin or ethereum or whatever). Will 50 dash masternodes be as reliable? You are too focused on "voting". But voting is not DASH's real focus. Voting is as important as nada if DASH is not even able to do the basic: being a decent digital cash.

Full disclosure: I despise all this nonsense focus on democracy to this project, because this is a waste of time.


demo said:
The problem is that for dash 6k nodes (or 22k nodes if all coins are mined) is the upper limit of decentralization . In bitcoin by design, there is no upper limit. So the design of bitcoin is better in terms of decentralization.

Decentralization is not a real problem for dash currently , but for the winner digital coin of the future that is supposed to be used by millions and millions of users and have billions of transactions, this upper limit of decentralization will be a HUGE problem.

So at the time the dash designers decided an upper limit for decentralization, this is equivalent as to decide that dash will never become the winner digital cash of the future.
(...)
Click to expand...

DASH has got exactly the same upper limit of decentralization of any other blockchain based currency, including bitcoin. The Masternodes are not the only full nodes on the DASH network: the miners are full nodes, and even your home DASH core is as full node as any other. The difference is: the Masternodes are nodes with a minimun quality requirement (at least running 24/7 on fast VPS, and all other bla bla bla that will allow you to sync your home node reliably faster than any other shitcoin, and also to provide reliable mixing service <- the most important when it comes to DASH). Prove that your 2 dash home node connected to a shit ISP will be as reliable as a seriously hosted one, and you win the game.
 
raganius said:
Have you noticed how fast it is to sync a DASH full node (compare it with bitcoin or ethereum or whatever). Will 50 dash masternodes be as reliable? You are too focused on "voting". But voting is not DASH's real focus. Voting is as important as nada if DASH is not even able to do the basic: being a decent digital cash.

Full disclosure: I despise all this nonsense focus on democracy to this project, because this is a waste of time.




DASH has got exactly the same upper limit of decentralization of any other blockchain based currency, including bitcoin. The Masternodes are not the only full nodes on the DASH network: the miners are full nodes, and even your home DASH core is as full node as any other. The difference is: the Masternodes are nodes with a minimun quality requirement (at least running 24/7 on fast VPS, and all other bla bla bla that will allow you to sync your home node reliably faster than any other shitcoin, and also to provide reliable mixing service <- the most important when it comes to DASH). Prove that your 2 dash home node connected to a shit ISP will be as reliable as a seriously hosted one, and you win the game.
Click to expand...


And how comes 50 or 1000 dash MNO tariff affects the quality of the nodes? Your logic is reverse.

The logical thing is, If you have a bad quality node to a shit ISP, then this masternode should cost 2000 dash. If you have a good quality node with a lot of bandwidth that serves a lot of transactions, then this masternode should cost only 50 dash.

Not to mention of course that a shit ISP as seen from your point of view, maybe it is a super fast ISP as seen by others. And of course there is no mechanism that counts how many transactions every MN serves. The number of transactions served is an objective number, but still someone could produce fake transactions. So the problem is not simple. It is far too complicated.

And yet this 50 or 2000 are again magic numbers. If you have no theory behind that can proove using mathematics that 50 and 2000 are the correct ideal numbers, then those numbers should be voted.
 
Last edited:
demo said:
And how comes 50 or 1000 dash MNO tariff affects the quality of the nodes? Your logic is reverse.

The logical thing is, If you have a bad quality node to a shit ISP, then this masternode should cost 2000 dash. If you have a good quality node with a lot of bandwidth, then this masternode should cost only 50 dash.

But yet this 50 or 2000 are again magic numbers. If you have no theory behind that can proove using mathematics that 50 and 2000 are the correct numbers, then those numbers should be voted.
Click to expand...

... yes... I guess you must be right, after all, if you say 1000 times the same thing, it magically receives the status: "truth" ;)

Now I can understand your point, and accept that there should be no minimum amount requirement for a masternode to be a masternode, every minority must be respected and have their own masternodes running on their mobile phones, why not: the more the merrier ;)

Let's sign a petition to abolish the ridiculous monetary limitations: each wallet a masternode!

And let's just rename this coin to bitcoin-of-the-minorities, and hope that we will have more nodes than monero, at least.

To the moon? Sure, the democrats-socialists will all buy in ;)


edit: by the way, @demo , can you point me to your github, please. I am curious to have a better look at your solution to DASH. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
This suggestion that BitClones have no upper limit argument and DASH does is total horseshit. You can run all the "full node" with DASH clients that you want. Same total absence of an upper limit.

You're also forgetting that nobody wants to run BitClone full nodes because there is no incentive.

A Master Node can be compared to a "full node" only by a painfully oblivious person. To suggest that this presents a picture to noobies might be true, if it were a picture of bullshit.

One MasterNode provides a service equivalent of roughly 15 voluntary "full nodes," with mixing, governance, and instantly locked transaction services on top of that, which no BitClone even has. And we're not even talking about Evolution. This is how DASH is right now.

You can run all the DASH "full nodes" you want. You don't need a single duff to do it.

This is not a government over all. It is a board of executives with a vested interest in a noncompulsory notion. Only those with a compelling interest deserve a vote. Proof of that compelling interest is having your shit together well enough to afford one. If you can't get your shit together well enough to afford one, you can't be trusted to act in DASH's best interest, and, again, deserve no vote.
 
Last edited:
camosoul said:
This suggestion that BitClones have no upper limit argument and DASH does is total horseshit. You can run all the "full node" with DASH clients that you want. Same total absence of an upper limit.

You're also forgetting that nobody wants to run BitClone full nodes because there is no incentive.
Click to expand...

In theory yes you are right. In practice you are wrong.
Who is gonna do something for free in dash, when others are paid for that? This is dash's flaw.

5k nodes are there because people believe in bitcoin. Dash is based on money. 4k nodes are there because people get money from it.

Faith is always superior than money. Because money is faith, but faith is not money.

The upper limit of decentralization exist in practice, because you choosed to pay for masternodes instead of trying to inspire faith. Because you choosed money instead of faith, you will never be able to fly above the upper limit.

The only way for you to be able to fly above the upper limit is to make the 1000 dash masternode tariff a votable number.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top