Consensus Mechanisms

forro said:
This is the key part. BLS may in time provide a superior method of securing the blockchain and creating blocks, but it is new, and we must assume it is full of bugs. It is already known to fail under stress. That is why whatever the long term outcome ends up being, the transition must be gradual. I think Ryan's suggestion of reducing the miner's reward by .5% per month down to 10% is appropriate. As he stated, at that rate the transition would take 6 years. We can safely assume chainlocks will become bulletproof by then. And further adjustments could be made. Maybe by then the network would be ready to drop mining altogether. Who knows? Six years is a very long time in crypto. I believe this transition is prudent enough that it would pass a vote, and that we should vote on it this cycle.
Click to expand...
Splitting the block reward is already making MNs non-viable. Lets forget the amount of work being heaped on them in other means, and just look at the sheer TX volume alone that it will take to keep block rewards paying enough to keep it alive once nothing gets mined anymore... Did we forget about that? Why would miners mine when there's no block reward? BTC has it's 4-year halving thing. Where are the miners going to go in 4 years?

DASH has a similar issue, but it has MNs as the backbone of all it's innovations, and splitting the reward with a vestigial validation system only makes the problem twice as bad. The decision to make fees so cheap amplifies it further. Do the math on the transaction volume required to keep payments at just the current level, when TX fees are the only reward in the block. Nope. Not gonna happen. No way MasterNodes are going to operate on that with the workload of the required transaction volume. There will be no MasterNodes. Even at 90% to MNs, 10% to budget, and no mining anymore; I still doubt it can work on a purely economic basis; it costs too much for that much hardware and that much bandwidth. I've said it before; these dreams require $10,000 DASH. DASH is currently $40. Are we using Yang math? How do? The electricity alone... You're talking about entire racks as MasterNodes... You'll be burning more Electrons and pipe than ASICs do currently... I still don't think most people understand the magnitude of TX volume required at the current TX fee rate, once block rewards are based solely on TX fees... I'm not even convinced that model is workable based on the fact that this many people will never use DASH. Even DCG seems to have accepted a CBDC future where DASH is still as illegal as it is today, but more directly illegal than the convoluted BS currently being used to criminalize it's use...

A plan for 6 years in the future? This again? Having a long term plan doesn't matter if you don't get that far because you paid no attention the short-term reality...

Oh, it shows confidence...

There are all kinds of idiots who don't realize their idea makes no sense, with confidence. Oh, so macho, so masculine, so positive and upbeat... ...oh, and dumb as a rock and not gonna work...

6 years? Moving the block validation to MNs' deterministic system can't happen too fast. Mining has teh big gheys. DASH already has a long track record of failing to execute on it's own good ideas until it just doesn't matter anymore... But, yeah, it has to be proven, too. 6 years, there won't be anything left to prove... DASH is a zombie project already.

Git gud or Git ded.
 
Last edited:
camosoul said:
No, we don't need horses anymore. We've got something better.

Please present your argument why Block Validation can only be done by horses, I mean mining.
Click to expand...

Because securing a network cheaply isn't what makes crypto valuable. Only 2 things make it valuable:
  • scarcity
  • utility
In the case of Dash, the former applies since it's firmly in the "monetary" sector. It was never designed as a utility token. It's "utility" features are all about optimising its use case as a store of value rather than attracting utility as a computing/smart contract platform.

With that in mind I'd draw your attention to what's actually going on in a Proof of Work algorithm in terms of synthesising scarcity (as opposed to "cheaply securing the network"). It uses a combination of energy expenditure and time to minimise the reproducibility and maximise the authenticity of the blockchain history. This is an approach that "pure software logic" comes nowhere near to matching. Sure it can achieve technical priorities such "securing the network" or "fast transaction times" but those are worthless by comparison since they are reproducible by so many other technologies. It's also the reason why pure monetary blockchains which used proof of stake (Peercoin, Cinnicoin, Blackcoin, BitBay, Strat, PivX et al) went to near-zero when then the Proof of Work chains that didn't even deliver any ROI succeeded and now dominate the top marketcaps in this sector.

Let us ask "what is a coin" ?

It's just a metaphor. A metaphor for a result in the "solution space" of a mathematical domain characterised by the blockchain protocol. The only reason it's called "coin" is because it's a convenient way to capture the imagination in everyday use. As these "solutions" are captured, their scarcity at the time of block creation is fixed for all history because it's not just mathematically defined scarecity (as would happen with POS) but MARKET DEFINED variable scarcity which is far more valuable since, at a given moment on the timeline, the blockchain that was most sought after in terms of energy is also (by definition) the one that contains the coins mined from the most sparse solution space.

Think of it this way. Imagine 3 bitcoin blockchains - all started at the same time. If we simply had price to go on (i.e. which coins were most highly valued during the first few months of life) the market would have no means to measure absolute scarcity since marketcap is not a cumulative property of the chain. On the other hand, when we introduce Proof of Work mining and 2 are mined at low difficulty and one is mined at high difficulty, the market now has a way to arbitrate over scarcity since the chain that was mined at high difficulty contains "coins" from sparser solution space than the other 2. The market can avail itself of this "cumulative proof of work" property to make relative valuations over scarcity and therefore value.

This is exactly what we've seen it do over the last 7 or 8 years.

kSzryeA.png
 
Last edited:
DASH as we know it is the solution to all future financial transactions. Focused intensity with regards to UTILITY will take DASH to the forefront of future global financial stability.

Digital + Cash = DASH

A stable DASH wallet that could be incorporated with income direct depositing entirely within the DASH framework, would allow directly deposited "utility". Stability and growth justifies the means.
Transfer funds, pay bills, send money, invest, trade, buy groceries, finance auto/mortgage loans, etc...
DASH has no ceiling, let's not sell us all short.
DASH will bridge the gap between the 20th and 21st century. DASH is CASH. Let's get the word out! We all know a metaphor when we see it, we all can read between the "one's and zero's", but coins are for collectors, DASH is king. Millineals know where it's going, let them know we do to!
DASH
 
I understand the concept of Proof of Work.

What I'm suggesting is that Proof of Work-that-doesn't-actually-accomplish-anything is a jump start. It shouldn't be relied upon long-term.

It's essentially fake work. Yes, it's a security mechanism for networks that have no other options. For a naked, featureless blockchain, it's essentially the generator that has to be plugged into it to make it go. Think of it like the battery and starter in your car's engine. With no fuel supply, all you can really do is suck the battery down until it's dead. You can't make the engine spin on it's own. And this is the problem with naked blockchains.... You have to hook up a generator to the starter because it can't run n it's own and the battery will die from endless cranking.

Another analogy I like to use is the Tire vs Entire Car. Bitcoin is a Tire. DASH has tires. But, its the whole car. Most cryptotards get obsessed over the limited scope of what a tire is, and forget that a tire is pretty useless all by itself. They focus on DASH's tires, and compare only the tires. Tire A and Tire B. they neglect to concern themselves with the fact that DASH is a whole car. Yay! A naked, featureless Blockchain! I can't drive a tire. I can drive a car.

MasterNodes do legitimate work. They have a Proof mechanism, too. There are many mathematical arguments why it's actually superior to the hash/diff intentional (artificial) paradox. if your blockchain is just a blockchain, there isn't any other work to do, so you don't have any Legitimate Work to do. You also don't have any other mathematical proof models you can utilize. You need mining; but only because you've got nothing better. You have to plug the generator into the starter and keep spinning the engine because there's no car, no gas tank, no gas. The engine won't run on it's own. There's also no doors, no seats, no steering wheel... None of the things that make it a whole car. Because it's just a tire.

DASH is (trying to be) the whole car. But since crytocurrency up to this pint has been naked, featureless blockchains, that's the only part of DASH that the cryptotards even notice. It's a conditioning model. Cryptotards aren't accustomed to looking at a bigger picture, because the concept has always been limited to a small picture of only a few facts. Mining was one of them. The lack of Legitimate Work to do, which is diametrically related to being featureless, necessitates mining to keep the thing running.

But, DASH has other features. These other features include proof metrics other than mining. Legitimate Work needs to be done to maintain these features, and through this, it maintains the alternative proof metrics. What happens when the Block reward is nothing but TX fees? A.K.A., the battery the starter is drawing power from, goes dead? Hype and stupidity have been used as a generator to keep spinning the starter. But, eventually, there's no reason to mine anymore. Even at Bitcoin's fee level, they can't scale enough for fees to fund mining. They can't perform that many TXes. Not even close.

Just like tuning a carburetor, you've got to get the mix right... The naked blockchain doesn't even have a mix... The cost of a TX on the BTC network would have to be so high, nobody would ever use it. Not even close. It would become a ghost town 2 orders of magnitude before that point. That engine will lean out and stall before there's even a spark... I'm worried DASH is going to lean out and stall because it's still cranking the starter when the engine is ready to run. then, it'll get the mix lean because it's trying to be too cheap and it'll stall, too... Dump the dead weight. Let go of the key! It's trying to run but you're killing it!

Why should we not move on from Proof of Fake Work to Proof of Legitimate Work? DASH has the ability, but you're obsessed with staying attached to a really big battery to keep that starter spinning the engine... You forget that this is meant to be a whole car. You forget that it's supposed to run by itself.

That's my take, anyway... Nake Blockchains need mining, because they're Naked Blockchains. DASH is not a naked blockchain. It has other/better systems of proof, because it has other systems and features to maintain. This is exactly what Proof of Stake was trying to be, but Staking isn't actually useful. It's not even work. It's less than Proof of Fake Work. It's not even Work. This requires legitimate work.

I'm worried that the MNs are going to lean out and stall because we're so worried about paying the Fake Work that we fail to sufficiently fund the Legitimate Work. Cut the budget to 5%, too... 95% MNs, 5% welfare. If you can't increase your value, you don't deserve to get paid anymore. You deserve to die. I thought you said Scarcity was a good thing? The money-for-nothing budget system is the opposite of that. Get some damned results or get it over with already. Been jacking around making excuses for waayyy too long.
 
Last edited:
camosoul said:
What I'm suggesting is that Proof of Work-that-doesn't-actually-accomplish-anything is a jump start. It shouldn't be relied upon long-term.
Click to expand...

Well that's one view. It doesn't seem to be the view that the market is taking. The market wants pure, unadulterated Proof of Work. The more proof of work a coin has, the more valuable it is since its scarcity rating is measured that way. Saying that "hashrate follows price" doesn't really cut it either because there have been plenty of high price, low hashrate monetary blockchains tried and they all got batted back to the dark ages by markets in favour of POW chains.

So I disagree with you that it's "fake work". The POW phase doesn't last forever and we're talking about assets that may last decades or centuries. We've already seen that a chain with higher POW under its belt is far more valuable than one with low POW for the identical chain (witness the Bitcoin forks). We've also seen that "services" and "useful work" have a whole different business model than mined, pure monetary store-of-value does, the former not being valued very highly at all.

"Useful work" as you call it is really no more than a regular corporate service in terms of business models. I agree that you don't need POW for that, but then you have the World Wide Web, eCommerce, incumbent fintech and so on. Not crypto.

i.e. it's valued for the services it provides - as long as they last and as long as they stay competitive. Not for its scarcity. That is not a very attractive market to be in IMO because we're then at the mercy of all and sundry "tech" based competitors and it's only a matter of time before we're squeezed out of the sector by much more powerful & better marketed technologies left and right.
 
Last edited:
toknormal said:
Well that's one view. It doesn't seem to be the view that the market is taking. The market wants pure, unadulterated Proof of Work. The more proof of work a coin has, the more valuable it is since its scarcity rating is measured that way. Saying that "hashrate follows price" doesn't really cut it either because there have been plenty of high price, low hashrate monetary blockchains tried and they all got batted back to the dark ages by markets in favour of POW chains.

So I disagree with you that it's "fake work". The POW phase doesn't last forever and we're talking about assets that may last decades or centuries. We've already seen that a chain with higher POW under its belt is far more valuable than one with low POW for the identical chain (witness the Bitcoin forks). We've also seen that "services" and "useful work" have a whole different business model than mined, pure monetary store-of-value does, the former not being valued very highly at all.

"Useful work" as you call it is really no more than a regular corporate service in terms of business models. I agree that you don't need POW for that, but then you have the World Wide Web, eCommerce, incumbent fintech and so on. Not crypto.

i.e. it's valued for the services it provides - as long as they last and as long as they stay competitive. Not for its scarcity. That is not a very attractive market to be in IMO because we're then at the mercy of all and sundry "tech" based competitors and it's only a matter of time before we're squeezed out of the sector by much more powerful & better marketed technologies left and right.
Click to expand...


No, PoW doesn't last forever, but we are nowhere near the point where tx fees will exceed block reward, we haven't run thru 80% of our supply limit like some coins have, PoS starts to make a lot more sense once you approach that level as it is more cost/energy efficient, in the mean time, we are rolling out Dash Platform, which is priority one, tweaking consensus model during this phase doesn't make much sense to me, let's get Evo rolling first and when we've put in enough block reward reductions to worry about the crossover, we can do something about it. Nothing wrong with discussing this, but we have a working consensus mechanism, so for me it is not a high priority right now.
 
toknormal said:
it's valued for the services it provides - as long as they last and as long as they stay competitive. Not for its scarcity. That is not a very attractive market to be in IMO because we're then at the mercy of all and sundry "tech" based competitors and it's only a matter of time before we're squeezed out of the sector by much more powerful & better marketed technologies left and right.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to say "well, then the market is wrong."

The market is wrong at the moment.

When mining a block doesn't include a reward beyind the tx fees, you better have some very high fees, or a ton of TXes.

But very high fees will result in non-use, so, even fewer TXes, so you need higher fees... This is the opposite of how basic economics works. When demand falls off, you need to lower fees to induce more demand. But the naked blockchain model does the opposite. It's Thai Hooker Economics. Half the takers means double the price! I got bills to pay!

There's no such thing as high TX fees solving that. So the only option is infrastructure that can scale. This is the true terminus of the scalability conversation, yet I've never seen anyone mention it. Way to go "what the market wants." The market is a woman; it has no idea what it actually wants... It's not so much wrong, as it is stupid.

The problem is that Fake Work needs to draw money from an external source. The purpose of fake work is to be that external source... But when the hose no longer spews no matter how heavy the hashing, and we go into Thai Hooker Economics... Wut do? Where does your fake work security go when there's no reason to mine anymore, and, duh, no one mines? Where's your block proof now? How much more "Bitcoin $100,000 by end of [current year]!!" BS can you take?

The major impact is regulatory fraud comitted by governments. They know these naked blockchains will crash and burn, which is why they are regulating in such a fashion as to keep naked blockchains popular, and legitimate innovation crushed. Regulating as if Tulips, results in all things that aren't Tulips getting dead. This is exactly what corrupt Governments want. The bonus is all those sheeple on board when it all comes crashing down. Dec 2017 is nothing compared to the next one, and the burn will be so much worse, the unwashed masses will beg for CBDC... The correct course of action is not to have such a surge again... But, it'll happen... Snowflakes guarantee it.

I really wish DASH would take the lead. Not because I want muh moonshot. Sure, that'd be nice... But, if a legitimate cryptoCURRENCY doesn't take the lead, we're in for another cryotoASSET Tulip cycle. A much worse one... In all aspects: The spike, the damage done, and the cries for Government to get involved and fix it all. When did Government involvement ever make something better? Never... I desperately want to see the disaster stunted before it happens, and DASH is the only thing I see fit to do it... But, DASH just doesn't step up to the plate...

DASH either gets in front of it, or becomes a regulatory casualty of Big Brother's CBDC. To thunderous applause if the masses who celebrate their chains of slavery; as long as they're gold-plated...

I conclude that DASH doesn't need mining, because mining will go away eventually, anyway, and you better have an answer for that. DASH already has an answer to that, and it's paradoxical by nature, not design. Not only is Legitimate Work superior, it's necessary because it is, itself, the self-powering maintenance. It assurse mass TXes are possible, instead of the implosion of Thai Hooker Economics. All those ASICs are going to turn off. Not if, but when...

You're right that the market has rejected the alternatives to mining which have been presented thus far, but I posit that this is because those alternatives were crap, not because an alternative isn't desirable (you cannot force a woman to adore your neckbeard and body odor). If the only alternative to horses was the rape-powered unicycle, we'd probably still be riding horses. But, fortunately, cars were invented...

I suggest that the natural paradox of paying for legitimate work is superior to the artificial paradox of mining/diff, because mining/diff inevitably leads to Thai Hooker Economics, and legitimate work does not; while simultaneously fueling the very thing needed to supply scalability to mass, cheap TXes.

Holy crap, muh sentence!

The scalability problem is actually the solution, and not a problem at all. Other cryptos looked at this and balked. Then chose to get in bed with corrupt regulators for protectionism via covert/indirect fraudulent regulation of use cases. With the only valid use case remaining being Ouija Boarding on centralized exchanges, wut do? DASH chose to chase a legitimate solution instead; MasterNodes. Those MasterNodes are the backbone that other cryptos don't have. They damn well better get paid for their Legitimate Work, or they're going to bail. The Proofs that they can produce (chainlocks all by itself is already better than mined blocks, think about it) are superior to what Fake Work produces, and Fake Work has a lit fuse by design. The sooner DASH shifts to Legitimate Work, the better. No, I doubt "the market" will understand that quickly. But DASH wasn't supposed to capture the hearts and minds of tulip traders (the market) in the first place. It's supposed to be cryotoCURRENCY that can actually be used by normal people in real life.

I see no other project that has figured that out. But, will they DO anything with it? Will DASH keep listening to a market that isn't DASH's target audience anyway?

The final weird idea my brain had... Looking at the way ChainLocks works, and the granularity of InstantSend... Do the concepts of TXes and Blocks as we have known them up to this point, need to continue? Could not a TX actually be it's own block, in real time? BLS, yo... Having the whole process revolve around the TXes instead of the blocks? You ain't doing that without MasterNodes, and you don't need blockmining as we've known it... You don't put the TXes into blocks. You put a block on the the TX... They're essentially the same thing. If the ChainLock and IS id... Like a weird version of chainlocking every tx independently as it arrives. Asynchronous blocking without blocks... Oh, that's a sexy idea...

I'm worried more about CBLN than CBDC...
 
Last edited:
camosoul said:
Not only is Legitimate Work superior, it's necessary because it is, itself, the self-powering maintenance. It assurse mass TXes are possible, instead of the implosion of Thai Hooker Economics. All those ASICs are going to turn off
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

But in terms of investment, you're describing a technology asset, not a monetary one. They have opposite characteristics in many respects. Monetary assets "utility" is capital gain. Technology assets on the other hand have to deliver some kind of service. Monetary assets are meant to have no use whatsoever other than storing and transferring value whereas technology assets derive their value from utility. That's simply by definition of:
  • utility = buy to consume
  • monetary = buy to resell
For optimal, hard money at least, these two are mutually exclusive and we shouldn't conflate or mix up their priorities unwittingly.

Of course in some cases, what people call a "monetary asset" can be a bit ambiguous. The Visa network may be considered a "money network" but if you invest in Visa, you're investing in people, market share, efficiency, tech, price-earnings ratio and all that kind of stuff so I'd call the Visa network a company, i.e. equity, not money.

Gold bars on the other hand sit on shelves all day long and do what you would doubtless call "fake work". They are even supported by an enormous security system doing "fake work" and a multi-billion mining industry doing "fake-work" just so they can spend the rest of their lives sitting still in a dark vault. That's the paradox of priorities when you analyse the system properties of monetary assets vs service oriented ones. It doesn't mean that money can't be made user-friendly but I think you have to know on which side your bread is buttered.

I think you're making reasonable arguments but have wrongly identified the archetype on which those arguments should be based. IMO, Ryan is doing the same. Implicit in your mindsets are concepts that would reasonably apply to a technology asset but that work 180 degrees the other way around with stores of value. You're unwittingly trying to turn Dash into the Visa network instead of concentrating on making portable coins from unwieldy nuggets.

An example of those misplaced priorities (IMHO) is Ryan's assertion that "we" are paying too much for hashrate without qualifying who "we" is. If you suppose that "we" means stakeholders with an interest in seeing a high valuation for the coin and you actually do the analysis then it turns out that it's the external market (on whom we rely to support the price) that is paying too much for hashrate because our protocol only returns that market half the coin it gets with other blockchains.

So for me the argument about whether POW is "wasteful" or not is moot. Irrelevant. Because the market for it is there, we are supplying it and can ill afford any further loss of market share. On the other hand, the market for POS based monetary assets is most definitely not there. POS only found sustainable value in utility token chains and the reason is simple - it adds no inherent value to the asset. All POS does is take a sandpile and split the sandgrains into smaller units every week to make more of them. Valiant attempts to call that "money" have ended up on page 4 of coinmarketcap.com.

To use an analogy of Steve Job's iPhone launch pictographical illustration of the "competitive zone", here in one picture is why I and many others invested in Dash. I don't see it being competitive in any other space.

gnnZdnp.png
 
Last edited:
There's something we're missing here, not just Dash but the whole cryptocurrency ecosystem. We're aiming to be cryptocurrency, money, but we're getting it back to front, our value is entirely based on market forces when it should be the other way around, money should be what everything on markets is measured against, the point of reference.

So far there's been no way of doing this, even mighty institutions paid huge amounts to provide that exact service and controlling almost all the worlds money have only been able to offer a crude kind of stability, reasonable from year to year but very poor from decade to decade. We can do this, make money a solid reference to value by using proof of work mining and it's very simple to do, use the same amount of energy to create each coin.

As things are that value is variable, difficulty adjustments for regular block intervals changes the figure. If that's flipped over so each block requires roughly the same number of hashes then each coin requires the same amount of actual work to create, the same amount of energy converted.

Of course it's also dependant on hardware efficiency and so far that's been unpredictable but now it's coming in line with Moore's law, hashing chip innovations are having less and less effect. Take a look at litecoins price and hashrate charts and there's a definite correlation, dips and spikes in price have corresponding dips and spikes in hashrate and SV's is even closer.

Unfortunately Dash's isn't close but that shouldn't be hard to address and should be quite easy to test, vary the reward and the hashrate should vary with it. That would also create a negative feedback loop, as prices fall it's less profitable to mine so hashrate falls and with it coin creation so less coins coming into circulation, prices rise and more coins come into circulation. That probably shouldn't run unchecked, the hashrate has more than doubled in the last year and the total coin supply can't be subject to that kind of change so hashrate limiting would probably be needed and could be limited by the same mechanism, as prices rise there would be more demand to supply hashes.

For reference, the current value in kw/hr is around 285 per dash for the most recent hardware up to 5000kw/hr per dash for previous generation asics. That's a huge difference but as mining hardware tech matures the jumps between generations should get much smaller and come into line with Moores law.
 
Hi

These consensus mechanisms are crucial for a blockchain in order to function correctly. They make sure everyone uses the same blockchain. Everyone can submit things to be added to the blockchain, so it’s necessary that all transactions are constantly checked and that the blockchain is constantly audited by all nodes. Without a good consensus mechanism, blockchains are at risk of various attacks.

Thanks
momentarily
 
I have a prediction:

In order for Dash to scale with the proposed feature set, masternode quorums will have to be employed as the block emission mechanism. This would allow Dash to deprecate IS locks completely, which are too expensive and limit scalability. Masternodes will have an increased workload when Dash Platform goes live, and locking every single transaction that is broadcast is simply going to be too expensive for the network.
 
Last edited:
Hello, Everyone this is Frances Taylor, I'm new member of dash.org forum. I hope every person support me.
Thank You.
 
Dash original masternode payment schedule (2014) :

Scheduled to lead Dash to 60% of the blockrewards to masternodes and 40% of the blockrewards to miners

if(nHeight > 158000) ret += blockValue / 20; //25.0% - 2014-10-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*1)) ret += blockValue / 20; //30.0% - 2014-11-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*2)) ret += blockValue / 20; //35.0% - 2014-12-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*3)) ret += blockValue / 40; //37.5% - 2015-01-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*4)) ret += blockValue / 40; //40.0% - 2015-02-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*5)) ret += blockValue / 40; //42.5% - 2015-03-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*6)) ret += blockValue / 40; //45.0% - 2015-04-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*7)) ret += blockValue / 40; //47.5% - 2015-05-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*9)) ret += blockValue / 40; //50.0% - 2015-07-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*11)) ret += blockValue / 40; //52.5% - 2015-09-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*13)) ret += blockValue / 40; //55.0% - 2015-11-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*15)) ret += blockValue / 40; //57.5% - 2016-01-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*17)) ret += blockValue / 40; //60.0% - 2016-03-23

Dash revised masternode payment schedule (2015) :

Settling on 45% of the blockrewards to masternodes, 45% of the blockrewards to miners and 10% of the blockrewards to a decentralized budget

Dash revised masternode payment schedule Dash Core Group proposal (2020) :

Scheduled to lead Dash over a period of 5 1/2 years to 54% of the blockrewards to masternodes, 36% of the blockrewards to miners and 10% of the blockrewards to a decentralized budget.
This is intended as a solution to improve Dash Store of Value within 5-6 years and will need to be voted on and approved by masternode owners and supported by miners as well.

WULx7uK.jpg







 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top