Croutonrant #331 - Marketing a waste of time/money currently! Also PoW is an exclusionary dead end!

[5kmi]

Points taken, thanks for taking the time to explain that better for my sake. We had mentioned the idea earlier that masternode shares should be supported at the protocol level, I guess my biggest concern with the current method isn't the "centralisation" (which is indeed minimal, with the exception of the vps providers) but the trust it requires to make it happen. It's been mentioned here before somewhere, so I take no credit for this idea, but if users could collaborate to create a node and each create their own masternode key that is good for x% of a node, then the node could be created without anyone having to put their coins in anyone else's hands.

Back to masternodes and their level of vulnerability... So the thought just struck me that it may not be the MN network as a whole that is as secure as the denominated funds themselves. Correct me if I am wrong but the figures you quoted are the likelyhood of a denominated funds origin being compromised by compromising the MN network to some degree, correct? I don't see how this would apply for actual minting and upkeep of the ledger itself. This leads me to believe that if the entire network were PoService the blockchain could still be compromised if someone gained control of 51% of the MNs. Far from an easy task, or a cheap one, especially if users spread their nodes out on more service providers and or we got MN blinding or someother method of IP obfuscation.

EDIT: spelling. Stupid mobile...

Also, sorry crouton if I have in any way derailed the thread... But then again it is a rant thread so...

 

[thelonecrouton]

Points taken, thanks for going the time to explain that better for my sake. We had mentioned the idea earlier that masternode shares should be supported at the protocol level, I guess my biggest concern with the current method isn't the "centralisation" (which is indeed minimal, with the exception of the bow providers) but the trust it requires to make it happen. It's been mentioned here before somewhere, so I take no credit for this idea, but if users could collaborate to create a node and each create their own masternode key that is good for x% of a node, then the node could be created without anyone having to put their coins in anyone else's hands.

Back to masternodes and their level of vulnerability... So the thought just struck me that it may not be the MN network as a whole that is as secure as the denominated coins themselves. Correct me if I am wrong but the figures you quoted are the likelyhood of a denominated funds origin being compromised by compromising the NM network to some degree, correct? I don't see how this would apply for actual companyn minting and upkeep of the ledger itself. This leads me to believe that if the entire network were PoService the blockchain could still be compromised if someone gained control of 51% of the MNs. Far from an easy task, or a cheap one, especially if users spread their nodes out on more service providers and or we got MN blinding or someother method or IP obfuscation.

Yes, if some way of making shared MNs trustless was devised it would be a fantastic advance. Right now the partners need to trust the one guy with the wallet who admins the MN.

What I'm proposing with MNs handling the minting and baking the blockchain would involve multiple MNs needing to reach agreement, just like they do with IX. I don't pretend to have all the technical details worked out but so far nobody has told me why the same principle can't apply.

So, each for each block a random (deterministic, whatever) subset of say 20 MNs are chosen from the total, with maybe a backup group of 20 also. Those MNs are tasked with forming a consensus on valid transactions for that block, transactions which match consensus are baked into the permanent chain which is shared to all full nodes just the same as it is now, and conflicts are rejected and do not get processed. The logic should be exactly the same as the existing process.

IX is tried first, if IX fails then instead of the miners being the fallback to process that tx, the chosen subset of MNs handles that role for that block. The big difference being that "chosen subset" bit, rather than all of them. The code already exists to do this and thousands of MNs are running it every day...

Thus, the likelihood of compromising the MN-mining process of baking valid transactions into the blockchain is as astronomically low as the likelihood of compromising DS or IX services. For example with 2000 of 3000 MNs compromised and 20 MNs validating the process, that's still only a 0.03% chance that you'll be able cheat any given block.

An attacker would have to be either richer or luckier or better at hacking than Dog Almighty to do any damage to any part of the network or interfere with network function.

 

[darkwing]

in terms of your 7 transactions a second we still to hear Ed's mega plan

I despise POS so won't talk about it. Free coins are worthless. There has to be work to earn reward but an idea below.

In terms of POW it's both a blessing and liability.

Good
1. It means people can get coins with out going to exchanges. Even if it's small amounts. Get magic internet money with just a video card! Long may that be true in terms of bringing in new curious people into crypto.

2. It's a completely different system to the MN. The MN network has gone down in the past. The POW system hasn't. The MN system would have to be goddamn bulletproof for it to be generating the blockchain too.

3. It's a organic self adjusting amazing thing. Which costs a fortune. But is still amazing.

4. Attack vectors are known. It's a proven system. It works.

Bad
1. 51%
2. Pool centralisation.
3. Risk of Asics. Unless you can build your own they are just rubbish any gain in lower electricity is offset by higher diff. The manufacturers make money the miners don't.
4. In our case because we syphon off part of the block reward - rebellion
5. Costs a fortune. Waste of power.

I don't respond well to 51% attack Fearballs due to how Doge turned out. If any of you were there on the reddit when it was a hive you will remember how the 51% fear drove people to asics and merge mining.. in effect removing part of what made doge great and got so many people involved - magic internet money that was cheap but your computer made it. In effect removing the block reward from the community and putting it in the hands of the litecoin asic farms and multipools. I was actively trying to get them to change to X11(as were others.) My point about this walk down memory lane is they made the wrong choice based on fear of 51% attack. And ZOMG the sky is falling!!! Elicits fear not meaningful ideas.
This doesn't stop it from being a real attack vector. I just caution saying change it al!!! When you are probably just introducing new attack vectors or changing a dynamic that works (albeit somewhat edgily).

That said let's think of alternatives!

1. The solo mining paradigm. (playing with yourself)
Incredibly difficult to achieve safely. (Let us seriously not mention any coin names here. I personally don't believe there is or even could be a perfectly safe implementation of this)
The implementation would have to be bulletproof. If someone figures out a way around your blocking of pools they have more of an advantage than pools competing in normal POW land (where you can actively monitor hashrates). Also should hashrates get very high there really isn't a point to solo mine anymore on a small rig (in a pooled system you still get reward in a solo scenario you don't). You are left with big farms competing (either laboriously setting each constituent rig individually or people who have achieved pooling of hash by getting around your attempts to block them. You don't know who these big farms are and whether or not someone is close to 51%: 1) hard to determine and b) through human nature slightly obscured by belief that the system is "safe."

2. Minernodes™ (staking is faking)
Proof of Service is what masternodes get payed for. Because they do work for the currency. Good. Work and reward.
What if there are other nodes that that do mining. And it costs maybe 100 dark to start one. So you have a modified POS with a minimum requirement and they maintain the blockchain. They should have lower bandwidth requirements than masternodes as the payout is less. So unlike staking where just leaving 1000's of coins in your wallet earns you more coins for MinerNodes™ you need 100 per node and a unique IP. There would either need to be a cap on the max miner nodes or like gpu mining the reward would be split and be a self adjusting system. You could still 51% this but I imagine it would be very difficult. Instead of regular MN style payments variance/luck and rewards split over tens/hundreds of minernodes would be the name of the game here. If your node finds the block you get a slightly higher cut. So masternodes and mining are still separate and you don't have free money. Electricity costs are replaced with bandwidth/hosting costs.

3. Masterpools™ (a Masternode extension)
So p2pool is great but efficiency and decent reward depends greatly on latency. Masternodes are pretty well geographically distributed. But could be more so. So what if mining can only be signed off by a masternode running a p2pool MasterPool extension (on a different IP). Masternodes can opt to host pools for a 2% fee or whatever they want to charge as per normal pools. So you have a masternode that signs off a pool (either with its existing 1000 or a further amount) which runs separately so should the MN network go down (unforseen bug, DDOS) the currency continues. I personally like this idea the most. Because you can bring it in sequentially and it's a step in the right direction. Existing pools can still run a MasterPool (albeit p2pool and have to be running a masternode to do so but could charge higher fees due to the quality of their service.) As it is still based on existing tech attack vectors are easier to surmise.

 

[5kmi]

@ thelonecrouton: Well written my friend. It could very well work as you say.
@ darkwing: great to see these concepts expanded a little, I like the masterpool idea as well. Keeps PoW around and gets DASH in the hands of those who don't have the funds to run a MN. If crouton's idea were to be used I feel there would be a requirement for MN shares to become a trustless endeavor, otherwise the lower class of our network would be left with no option to get more DASH other than direct purchase or having to trust someone else with the little DASH they do have.

 

[tungfa]

I understand your concern as an investor with the price, but I ask you to remember that 'the market' is currently a very tiny group of people, and only a tiny fraction of them are smart enough to see long term value. And most of them are already here. But this isn't the real market. The real market is the real world, everyone who has never heard of bitcointalk and never will. By providing useful tools to the real world we'll see a far greater return than if every cryptognat in existence sold everything else they owned and just bought DASH.

So it's up to individuals. I don't care what the current market value is beyond my trading activities. And I trade to acquire more DASH. It may never hit $5000/DASH at today's $ value but it's the best bet out there to do so that I have found, so I'm making that bet.

Our marketing strategy needs to be smarter than just "spend money!" is my point. Did the Wired article cost anything? Or the recent mention in the Linux mag?

I really do not understand where you are going with this ?

Do you trust the Dev Team + eventually a voting system by all Masternodes ?
I guess not , you make it sound we will ether take the first bag of money and run , or spend it all on "dump " marketing !
I would think you know us better than that now !
Sure the WIRED articles and everything else we are doing now does not cost anything , and it will not in the future.
The best PR is not bought, it is smart PR mailers, good contacts , good writers who deliver the message +attach a picture and world of mouth takes care of the rest. Cost : 5 Dash Tip for the writer. We will keep this system in place and extend it further , it worked super well over the last 6 month and there is no need in changing it, by the contrary , we will expand that and hopefully do more in multiple languages.
Certain opportunities arose already (which started huge internal discussions) as certain PR opportunities (I do not wanna go into detail) require air travell + Hotel bookings due to TV Show opportunities in other countries / continent. Who is supposed to pay for that ? Me ? .... I do not think so !
Same with conferences and speaking , same with clever placed ads and banners (in crypto world , CT) , same with follow up videos to the animated one which is in the making now ... We need a budget to make bigger and better PR moves + be more flexible !
I know you are worried we will go full on overboard, place ads in the NY Times and commercials on CNN .
Trust me we will NOT , I am not just here since yesterday , please do not insult me further with this as your mining and general Dash concerns have NOTHING to do with a marketing budget question !

 

[moli]

I really do not understand where you are going with this ?

Do you trust the Dev Team + eventually a voting system by all Masternodes ?
I guess not , you make it sound we will ether take the first bag of money and run , or spend it all on "dump " marketing !
I would think you know us better than that now !
Sure the WIRED articles and everything else we are doing now does not cost anything , and it will not in the future.
The best PR is not bought, it is smart PR mailers, good contacts , good writers who deliver the message +attach a picture and world of mouth takes care of the rest. Cost : 5 Dash Tip for the writer. We will keep this system in place and extend it further , it worked super well over the last 6 month and there is no need in changing it, by the contrary , we will expand that and hopefully do more in multiple languages.
Certain opportunities arose already (which started huge internal discussions) as certain PR opportunities (I do not wanna go into detail) require air travell + Hotel bookings due to TV Show opportunities in other countries / continent. Who is supposed to pay for that ? Me ? .... I do not think so !
Same with conferences and speaking , same with clever placed ads and banners (in crypto world , CT) , same with follow up videos to the animated one which is in the making now ... We need a budget to make bigger and better PR moves + be more flexible !
I know you are worried we will go full on overboard, place ads in the NY Times and commercials on CNN .
Trust me we will NOT , I am not just here since yesterday , please do not insult me further with this as your mining and general Dash concerns have NOTHING to do with a marketing budget question !

Wow.. tungfa... Why didn't we get to know about most of these until now? I don't think lonecrouton insulted you but you insulted our intelligence and you have no trust in us, so you waited until someone who had not a fog of idea what's been going on to say something for you to let us know what you guys been up to? When are you, as a marketing team as a whole, are going to have a transparent communication with the community? If you want to avoid all suspicions and rumors.. why don't you start to have transparent communication first? Stop with the bullshit of acting as an authority going around telling people to update this and that or telling people to do this or that or the other thing. Start with some clear, truthful communication first and see how you can avoid all this crap?

 

[thelonecrouton]

in terms of your 7 transactions a second we still to hear Ed's mega plan

I despise POS so won't talk about it. Free coins are worthless. There has to be work to earn reward but an idea below.

In terms of POW it's both a blessing and liability.

Good
1. It means people can get coins with out going to exchanges. Even if it's small amounts. Get magic internet money with just a video card! Long may that be true in terms of bringing in new curious people into crypto.

2. It's a completely different system to the MN. The MN network has gone down in the past. The POW system hasn't. The MN system would have to be goddamn bulletproof for it to be generating the blockchain too.

3. It's a organic self adjusting amazing thing. Which costs a fortune. But is still amazing.

4. Attack vectors are known. It's a proven system. It works.

Bad
1. 51%
2. Pool centralisation.
3. Risk of Asics. Unless you can build your own they are just rubbish any gain in lower electricity is offset by higher diff. The manufacturers make money the miners don't.
4. In our case because we syphon off part of the block reward - rebellion
5. Costs a fortune. Waste of power.

I don't respond well to 51% attack Fearballs due to how Doge turned out. If any of you were there on the reddit when it was a hive you will remember how the 51% fear drove people to asics and merge mining.. in effect removing part of what made doge great and got so many people involved - magic internet money that was cheap but your computer made it. In effect removing the block reward from the community and putting it in the hands of the litecoin asic farms and multipools. I was actively trying to get them to change to X11(as were others.) My point about this walk down memory lane is they made the wrong choice based on fear of 51% attack. And ZOMG the sky is falling!!! Elicits fear not meaningful ideas.
This doesn't stop it from being a real attack vector. I just caution saying change it al!!! When you are probably just introducing new attack vectors or changing a dynamic that works (albeit somewhat edgily).

That said let's think of alternatives!

1. The solo mining paradigm. (playing with yourself)
Incredibly difficult to achieve safely. (Let us seriously not mention any coin names here. I personally don't believe there is or even could be a perfectly safe implementation of this)
The implementation would have to be bulletproof. If someone figures out a way around your blocking of pools they have more of an advantage than pools competing in normal POW land (where you can actively monitor hashrates). Also should hashrates get very high there really isn't a point to solo mine anymore on a small rig (in a pooled system you still get reward in a solo scenario you don't). You are left with big farms competing (either laboriously setting each constituent rig individually or people who have achieved pooling of hash by getting around your attempts to block them. You don't know who these big farms are and whether or not someone is close to 51%: 1) hard to determine and b) through human nature slightly obscured by belief that the system is "safe."

2. Minernodes™ (staking is faking)
Proof of Service is what masternodes get payed for. Because they do work for the currency. Good. Work and reward.
What if there are other nodes that that do mining. And it costs maybe 100 dark to start one. So you have a modified POS with a minimum requirement and they maintain the blockchain. They should have lower bandwidth requirements than masternodes as the payout is less. So unlike staking where just leaving 1000's of coins in your wallet earns you more coins for MinerNodes™ you need 100 per node and a unique IP. There would either need to be a cap on the max miner nodes or like gpu mining the reward would be split and be a self adjusting system. You could still 51% this but I imagine it would be very difficult. Instead of regular MN style payments variance/luck and rewards split over tens/hundreds of minernodes would be the name of the game here. If your node finds the block you get a slightly higher cut. So masternodes and mining are still separate and you don't have free money. Electricity costs are replaced with bandwidth/hosting costs.

3. Masterpools™ (a Masternode extension)
So p2pool is great but efficiency and decent reward depends greatly on latency. Masternodes are pretty well geographically distributed. But could be more so. So what if mining can only be signed off by a masternode running a p2pool MasterPool extension (on a different IP). Masternodes can opt to host pools for a 2% fee or whatever they want to charge as per normal pools. So you have a masternode that signs off a pool (either with its existing 1000 or a further amount) which runs separately so should the MN network go down (unforseen bug, DDOS) the currency continues. I personally like this idea the most. Because you can bring it in sequentially and it's a step in the right direction. Existing pools can still run a MasterPool (albeit p2pool and have to be running a masternode to do so but could charge higher fees due to the quality of their service.) As it is still based on existing tech attack vectors are easier to surmise.

There are a lot of good points here, I will try to address those that I can:

(Hope the format makes sense, I'm referring to your bolded sections)
Good
1. No real difference, except you buy a MN share not a GPU.
2. & 4. You're right, PoW mining has a longer history but comes with a variety of drawbacks.
3. MN numbers are self adjusting in just the same way as mining hashpower.

Bad
Agreed. :grin:


1. The solo mining paradigm.
You can't stop people from co-operating, but you can make it so that it requires trust between them. And solo mining doesn't mean you earn less, in fact over time you'll earn more as there are no pool fees, but you'll be waiting longer between payments. Agreed on it being harder to see who's controlling how much hashpower. Disagree it being less worthwhile for smaller miners, as I say you just get bigger payments less often, proportional to your hashpower. Much better than what we have IMO but not as good as pure Mn PoService.

2. Minernodes™
Why introduce an extra type of node? There is plenty of MN capacity for the job. Only difference is you buy eg. a 10% share instead of running your own 100 DASH Miningnode. You're still getting paid for your% of the work that your MN does, and you'll presumably be paying your share of hosting costs with a MN share. Conclusion: no difference.

3. Masterpools™
This is what I was advocating a while back. Require MN signoff on blocks, only allow p2pool blocks. Trouble is that ultimately, p2pool is just kicking the can down the road, it doesn't prevent concentrations of hash all mining through the same easily tracked-down and compromised/unplugged pool hardware, which is the root of the problem with pooled mining. Also still a huge waste of electricity. Conclusion: not as good as pure MN PoService.

 

[tungfa]

Wow.. tungfa... Why didn't we get to know about most of these until now? I don't think lonecrouton insulted you but you insulted our intelligence and you have no trust in us, so you waited until someone who had not a fog of ideas what's been going on to say something for you to let us know what you guys been up to? When are you, as a marketing team as a whole, are going to have a transparent communication with the community? If you want to avoid all suspicions and rumors.. why don't you start to have a transparent communication first? Stop with the bullshit of acting as an authority going around telling people to update this and that or telling people to do this or that or the other thing. Start with some clear, truthful communication first and see how you can avoid all this crap?

i am NOT telling anybody what to do here ! ok

how open can / should i be ?
so an opportunity arises, and i should lay it out to the community for feedback ? come on, think about it,
before i have my sentence here finished it will be already posted on Twitter and whatnot, and you do not work with PR like that.
that has nothing to do with NOT trusting the community, it is about protecting the initial Press opportunity. (as you will lose it otherwise)
Certain things have to be sorted out internally, as you do not wanna lose out on the initial surprise when the PR gets out !
there is a team in place to sort things like that out internally, it has to be like that, isn't that why we have the Dev Team ?
and we trust the Dev Team, don't we ?

 

[moli]

i am NOT telling anybody what to do here ! ok

how open can / should i be ?
so an opportunity arises, and i should lay it out to the community for feedback ? come on, think about it,
before i have my sentence here finished it will be already posted on Twitter and whatnot, and you do not work with PR like that.
that has nothing to do with NOT trusting the community, it is about protecting the initial Press opportunity .
Certain things have to be sorted out internally, as you do not wanna lose out on the initial surprise when the PR gets out !
there is a team in place to sort things like that out internally, it has to be like that, isn't that why we have the Dev Team ?
and we trust the Dev Team, don't we ?

You're not the dev team. Sometimes the lead dev doesn't communicate either with other devs and esp. with an ex dev and you saw how that went. You don't have to tell us what you guys do to the tiny details but just like what you said in the previous post that finally shed some light of what's going on, why did you wait until now is my question. You just have to figure out how to communicate with us and I am not going to tell you how.

 

[tungfa]

because
anything posted and discussed here will end on twitter, or even get published as enough writers are hanging around here on DCT looking for stories, if you like it or not !
doesn't it ? come on , didn't we had that discussion over TREZOR and anything else.
there you go

that has nothing to do with hiding anything, or lying
these are internal things they have to get sorted internally before released to the community
"too many cooks ..... "

 

[moli]

because
anything posted and discussed here will end on twitter, or even get published as enough writers are hanging around here on DCT looking for stories, if you like it or not !
doesn't it ? come on , didn't we had that discussion over TREZOR and anything else.
there you go

that has nothing to do with hiding anything, or lying
these are internal things they have to get sorted internally before released to the community
"too many cooks ..... "

Yes I understand but that shouldn't stop you from communicating. I'm wondering if we, the extended team, should have a way for better communication without having to fight over stupid, nonsensical matters, but it seems like even some of us in the extended team aren't included in your private club...

 

[tungfa]

Yes I understand but that shouldn't stop you from communicating. I'm wondering if we, the extended team, should have a way for better communication without having to fight over stupid, nonsensical matters, but it seems like even some of us in the extended team aren't included in your private club...

that private club nonsense again !
come on eh ... there is a marketing team in place, fernando, minotaur and me .... and yes we are talking every day and are working out all ideas and approaches together.
so you want us to report to the extended Dev team + general Dev Team with any idea we have. we would NOT get anything done, as we would be discussing pro and contra until the end of the week.we all want to be a decentralised entity and the word company or corporation is the big no no these days, but there are still things we have to deal with like any other company, corporation or whatever you want to call it.
there are teams in place who are taking care of their matters.
and that is how you get things done.
Is anybody checking with me what is going on on testate ? no, why would they, that is your and their department not mine. why waste time explaining it to me if you can get it done.
same with Marketing/Press !
Teams are keyword here, and dam they work well !

 

[darkwing]

Take a step back or take it to PM people.

 

[tungfa]

Take a step back or take it to PM people.

hang in there,
you have NOT seen anything yet.
:wink:

these really seem to be fundamental issues here
where people think we are hiding something or lying ...BS
this has to be made very very clear, now and in public !

 

[moli]

that private club nonsense again !
come on eh ... there is a marketing team in place, fernando, minotaur and me .... and yes we are talking every day and are working out all ideas and approaches together.
so you want us to report to the extended Dev team + general Dev Team with any idea we have. we would NOT get anything done,

LOOK, I made a suggestion, you can forget it now. You have all the time in the world to argue with trolls and nontrolls on bct and time to tell each thread to update and bullshit but you don't have time to update someone about what the marketing team is doing? It's your call. Don't say someone insulted you because you have been vague and they have all the right to question what you and the marketing team are doing!!!

Is anybody checking with me what is going on on testate ? no, why would they, that is your and their department not mine. why waste time explaining it to me if you can get it done.

What's "testate"? Or you mean Testnet? That's not my department. And so far I haven't seen anyone plan for testnet to travel the world on Dash budget, have you?

 

[tungfa]

Lol
I do not argue with trolls
I argue with people and issues I care about !
(And yes I know you love my spelling mistakes)

Team communication clarification:
- Marketing / PR
Slack/Telegram/Skype
- Videos
Slack/DCT/email
- China approach
Slack/ QQ/ email
- Russian approach
DCT
- HK /Asia Team
Telegram
.....

We have a ton of great communication apps available , please use them , it really helps to get off DCT to get stuff done

 

[moli]

Lol
I do not argue with trolls
I argue with people and issues I care about !

Like there's always someone else is wrong on the Internet and you need to fix it?

So have you seen Testnet going to travel the world on Dash budget? Let's make it clear and public at your wish..

Anyways, all this bullshit is not worth my time, FYI.

 

[tungfa]

Like there's always someone else is wrong on the Internet and you need to fix it?

So have you seen Testnet going to travel the world on Dash budget? Let's make it clear and public at your wish..

Anyways, all this bullshit is not worth my time, FYI.

man man moli
really a shame ... what happened to you ?
you are just pi..ed of in general right, all BS all around you, i am fixing too much, i am not fixing enough, they are transparent or not,....
maybe you should step up and get some done and not just sit on the sideline bickering and bickering away !

oh, it is not worth your pressures time,
ok
copy that
:wink:

 

[darkwing]

There are a lot of good points here, I will try to address those that I can:



1. The solo mining paradigm.
You can't stop people from co-operating, but you can make it so that it requires trust between them. And solo mining doesn't mean you earn less, in fact over time you'll earn more as there are no pool fees, but you'll be waiting longer between payments. Agreed on it being harder to see who's controlling how much hashpower. Disagree it being less worthwhile for smaller miners, as I say you just get bigger payments less often, proportional to your hashpower. Much better than what we have IMO but not as good as pure Mn PoService.

2. Minernodes™
Why introduce an extra type of node? There is plenty of MN capacity for the job. Only difference is you buy eg. a 10% share instead of running your own 100 DASH Miningnode. You're still getting paid for your% of the work that your MN does, and you'll presumably be paying your share of hosting costs with a MN share. Conclusion: no difference.

3. Masterpools™
This is what I was advocating a while back. Require MN signoff on blocks, only allow p2pool blocks. Trouble is that ultimately, p2pool is just kicking the can down the road, it doesn't prevent concentrations of hash all mining through the same easily tracked-down and compromised/unplugged pool hardware, which is the root of the problem with pooled mining. Also still a huge waste of electricity. Conclusion: not as good as pure MN PoService.

1. If the hashrate gets too high and there are enough big miners the chance of solomining a block takes a very long time. If my internet drops for too long I have to start again?
On a pool I just lose a few shares. As for "trust" between them without being able to say entity X has Y percent of the hashrate I'd call it collusion not trust. In crypto if there is a way to game the system it will be done. Without visibility even better. I think we'd best agree to disagree on this one.

2. Extra node type so that the two functions are separate. I think the way it works now as two tier generation/blockchain separate from mixing/other services is a vital safety feature.
By having 1000's of minernodes it is a lot more secure than a couple of thousand MNs. Not putting all your eggs in one basket. For the swarm.

3. There must be a way.. MN signed off work from each part of a giant p2pool. Still love it.

 

[moli]

man man moli
really a shame ... what happened to you ?
you are just pi..ed of in general right, all BS all around you, i am fixing too much, i am not fixing enough, they are transparent or not,....
maybe you should step up and get some done and not just sit on the sideline bickering and bickering away !
:wink:

Mind you, I've got a lot of things done while you're trying to micromanage other people that you shouldn't.
But anyways, this is crouton's thread and he has a good point about not spending foolishly on marketing, I hope you guys think about it.

I hope crouton doesn't mind me derail his thread a bit but this is a description of "everyday tungfa fixing people on BCT":