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

Decrease the master node limit from 1000 dash to 200 dash

Start a master node with 200 dash instead of 1000

  • Yes

    Votes: 7 24.1%

  • No

    Votes: 22 75.9%
  • Total voters
    29
Dashmaximalist

Dashmaximalist

Well-known member
With current price at 70 USD getting a dash master node is incredibly expensive i think we should drop the limit from 1000 dash to say 200

There are multiple benefits

the no of master nodes will explode
More people will be incentivized to get into dash instead of just the big whales

More brains more ideas

Overall it gets more decentralised and gets more fun

Price will rally because of this which inturn helps everyone

I don't see more than 20 members on this forum any time :p
 
The subject was raised numerous times. And answered.

tl;rd: there's a consensus that network now doesn't need more nodes (4k+ now and growing).

If you are seeking an investment, you can use "masternode share" service, for example from @splawik21 . I've used his services and he's excellent.
 
Lowering the amount of DASH required to attract more users is not really network requirement. The only way that most masternode operators would vote to decrease the requirement would be a technical reason. For example current masternode operators are not able to handle the amount of transactions.
 
The proposition of doing this is going to be unpopular with the Masternodes unless there is a technical reason to do so. Everyone who currently operates one masternode would now be able to operate 5 masternodes, which would increase their operating costs by 400% for no additional benefit.
 
Kai said:
See https://www.dash.org/binaries/evo/DashPaper-v13-v1.pdf page 23
Click to expand...

The only thing I'm getting from that is that the collateral can be reduced to increase the masternode count. Which will only happen if we actually need to increase the masternode count for scaling purposes. As it is, we currently have 4200 Masternodes at 1000 dash each, which is way over the number in that graphic, and is way more than enough to handle all network processing both now and in the near to mid term future.
 
akhavr said:
The subject was raised numerous times. And answered.

tl;rd: there's a consensus that network now doesn't need more nodes (4k+ now and growing).
.
Click to expand...


He asked you THE REASON, not the consensus!!
No reasonable person cares about consensus, if it is a consensus of fools.
 
Last edited:
freshdopamine said:
Lowering the amount of DASH required to attract more users is not really network requirement. The only way that most masternode operators would vote to decrease the requirement would be a technical reason. For example current masternode operators are not able to handle the amount of transactions.
Click to expand...

There is a very important reason for increasing the number of the masternode nodes, and this is called DDOS.
You pay so much money to the miners for increasing Dash's blockchain security.
But you refuse to protect yourself from a potential DDOS.
You want only 4000 nodes having static public IPV4 IPS.
There is a consensus of having a vulnerable network.
Why?
 
There was a DDOS attack already and the masternode network stayed completely functional, so your argument is not valid.
 
Dandy said:
There was a DDOS attack already and the masternode network stayed completely functional, so your argument is not valid.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? It was a DDOS of 2000 static IP nodes against 4000 static IP nodes. What if a new DDOS occurs, from 8000 dynamic IP nodes?

What if a state decides to ban the whole dash network, or to DDOS it? Having static IPV4 means that you have no chance at all to survive in that case. You are 100% vulnerable to whoever central authority wishes to ban you. And I wonder, did you designed that way your network on purpose, in order NOT to survive in that case?

Why did you implemented such an awfully insecure network design, and why do you still refuse to secure your network by increasing the number of nodes?
 
Last edited:
Ok, so if you really think that it's needed, make the pre-proposal and see what people think. I agree that there is value in having more masternodes, so I may even consider voting yes on that proposal, but I would like to see some more concrete analysis of the potential DDOS threat to the network before that.
 
Dandy said:
Ok, so if you really think that it's needed, make the pre-proposal and see what people think. I agree that there is value in having more masternodes, so I may even consider voting yes on that proposal, but I would like to see some more concrete analysis of the potential DDOS threat to the network before that.
Click to expand...

It is not only the DDOS case. It is also the case of the ban of the dash network as a result of a decision of a state. Having numerous full nodes worldwide, and especially having non static IPs, makes this ban much more inprobable to occur.
 
Keeping the master nodes at 1000 dash is good i think, then only the serous dash supporters can be involved with voting and make good votes for the rest of the community.
 
TroyDASH said:
The proposition of doing this is going to be unpopular with the Masternodes unless there is a technical reason to do so. Everyone who currently operates one masternode would now be able to operate 5 masternodes, which would increase their operating costs by 400% for no additional benefit.
Click to expand...

And why not having a hybrid masternode-PoS system?

Having a single masternode and 200 dash will give you 1 vote, but if this single masternode has 1000 dash in his address to have 5 votes.

This is a possible alternative system that will not increase your operating costs by 400%, so you may want to examine it for its pros and cons. An obvious pro is that it will increase for sure the number of nodes (and the security of the network) as long as a 200 dash holder will be incentivized to run a full masternode.

I personally see no cons in this hybrid system, do you?
 
Last edited:
demo said:
He asked you THE REASON, not the consensus!!
No reasonable person cares about consensus, if it is a consensus of fools.
Click to expand...

No reasonable person cares about votes, if it is a vote of fools.
Sorry, I couldn't resist ;)
 
demo said:
And why not having a hybrid masternode-PoS system?

Having a single masternode and 200 dash will give you 1 vote, but if this single masternode has 1000 dash in his address to have 5 votes.

This is a possible alternative system that will not increase your operating costs by 400%, so you may want to examine it for its pros and cons. An obvious pro is that it will increase for sure the number of nodes (and the security of the network) as long as a 200 dash holder will be incentivized to run a full masternode.

I personally see no cons in this hybrid system, do you?
Click to expand...

You mean a system where a 1000-dash masternode has 5x the votes and earns 5x the reward of a 200-dash masternode? It would have to be 5x reward as well as 5x vote, otherwise everyone would convert their one 1000-dash masternode into five 200-dash masternodes.

The profit margin for a 200-dash masternode in that system would be lower than the profit margin for a 1000-dash masternode, but the incentive would still exist I guess. Maybe this is one of your occasional ideas that wouldn't be completely disastrous for the network if it were implemented. But I don't think we need it. If the goal is to increase access to voting for people who have less stake, I would want to hear a lot more on the topic about whether or not this is necessary, and if so whether there are other ways to accomplish the same thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top