Dash Birthday / Trademark Resolution / Blocksize Limitation
- Thread starter eduffield
- Start date
eduffield
Core Developer
Mining profitability will remain unaffected. We're not using all of even the 1MB blocks yet and mining profitability is mostly determined by the price of the coin, not really the bandwidth of our network at this point.
If this passes before Thursday, then it will be quite the talking point in Miami. Well done!
qwizzie
Well-known member
1155 masternodes need to participate of 3498 total active masternodes and there has to be more yes then no voters ... we are already almost halfway there (552 voted yes)
personally i hope we end up with at least 51% yes voters .. at the end of the month.
Last edited by a moderator:
crowning
Well-known member
Come on eduffield , it's not about block size, we've still plenty of spare room.
Your secret plan, if this passes, is to address this in your conference speech to rub some salt into the bitcoiner's wounds.
Deeply.
With a friendly smile in your face.
And watch them suffering!
You're a bad, bad guy...
I like that
qwizzie
Well-known member
i understand that and i'm totally behind it.. but all in all it would be nice if we got a majority behind this in the end.
Doesn't the proposal say that? I totally read that :smile:Come on eduffield , it's not about block size, we've still plenty of spare room.
Your secret plan, if this passes, is to address this in your conference speech to rub some salt into the bitcoiner's wounds.
Deeply.
With a friendly smile in your face.
And watch them suffering!
You're a bad, bad guy...
I like that
Can't we instead have a contentious ongoing debate that splits apart the community? /s
crowning
Well-known member
No problem, just make a budget proposal for that.
qwizzie
Well-known member
for 22 USD
edit : at least we dont have to worry about spam budget proposals these days
I am in favor of this change and voted yes. But I second the question here. Can we get some comments with regard to what you are thinking minimum fees will be?
pille
Well-known member
Also the plan for evolution was "Zero-fee instant anonymity". How this will be affected?
rango
Active member
The trademark issue resolution is an unbelievable important achievement opening a lot of new doors. Evan had the right foresight to enforce the rename to DASH against a lot of resistance, finally ending up with and awesome brand name and a cleared legal situation. Chapeau to all people involved!
This is yet another blow to Bitcoin, Dash can reach consensus within 24 hours on a real future issue that the Bitcoin foundation hasn't been able to come to any agreement on for months. Also I'm pleased to hear that the legal matter surrounding the trademarks rights to Dash being used in the crypto currency realm has been resolved. So much positivity at the moment, it's getting exciting!
eduffield
Core Developer
We didn't propose an exact fee structure yet, that will determined when the coding begins. It will be enough to stop a sybil/bloat attack and also enough to allow users a very low cost to transact on our network.
eduffield
Core Developer
A couple more points, I wanted to bring over from BitcoinTalk.
1.) The problems with propagation do not pass from the Bitcoin network to the Dash network, due to the high quality second tier infrastructure. We can require specific infrastructure from our masternodes, which will allow for very quick block propagation no matter the size. The miners simply will need to be connected to the masternode network from each of it's edges (which we will describe how to do this eventually, it's not very difficult). Imagine propagating a 20MB block through a network of 3500 computers with 10GB/s networking. It's not hard to see the advantage we have.
As for the question, how will we require the masternodes have specific hardware? The next proof-of-service implementation is going to be as simple as a few of us testing the network's masternodes using open source tools to determine the quality of service. We will then provide evidence that can be double checked by other masternodes, then we will use a voting mechanism to flag their masternodes. They will see the flags and know what they have to do in order to remove them, until they do they won't get paid. Once they fix the issues, they can propagate a message asking for a re-evaluation.
Also, that's to say our market cap would be orders of magnitude higher as well. To even have 20MB blocks on average we would have hundreds of millions of users. At which point the masternodes will make plenty of money to be required to run on Xeons and have 10GB/s networking.
2.) We need to start preparing for mass user adoption now and make sure we can support this type of load. By doing this now, we'll have years to prepare and won't have to have huge debates about making changes to an already working system. If Bitcoin did this when they were 25% full, they wouldn't be having this issue, right?
Why wait?
1.) The problems with propagation do not pass from the Bitcoin network to the Dash network, due to the high quality second tier infrastructure. We can require specific infrastructure from our masternodes, which will allow for very quick block propagation no matter the size. The miners simply will need to be connected to the masternode network from each of it's edges (which we will describe how to do this eventually, it's not very difficult). Imagine propagating a 20MB block through a network of 3500 computers with 10GB/s networking. It's not hard to see the advantage we have.
As for the question, how will we require the masternodes have specific hardware? The next proof-of-service implementation is going to be as simple as a few of us testing the network's masternodes using open source tools to determine the quality of service. We will then provide evidence that can be double checked by other masternodes, then we will use a voting mechanism to flag their masternodes. They will see the flags and know what they have to do in order to remove them, until they do they won't get paid. Once they fix the issues, they can propagate a message asking for a re-evaluation.
Also, that's to say our market cap would be orders of magnitude higher as well. To even have 20MB blocks on average we would have hundreds of millions of users. At which point the masternodes will make plenty of money to be required to run on Xeons and have 10GB/s networking.
2.) We need to start preparing for mass user adoption now and make sure we can support this type of load. By doing this now, we'll have years to prepare and won't have to have huge debates about making changes to an already working system. If Bitcoin did this when they were 25% full, they wouldn't be having this issue, right?
Why wait?
Thanks Minotaur, I didn't see this. My tollerance for reading BCT is not what it used to be and I mostly avoid it these days.
Last edited by a moderator: