Development Update - Oct 1, 2014

[stilgars]

All things considered, I think it is highly preliminary to even discuss of raising the rewards of the MN given the situation as of today.
We first need (at last!) to activate the long overdue enforcement, whereas previous failed attempts already sent the coin to hell twice, and stabilize and increase the trust in it.

 

[JGCMiner]

Are you saying that Masternodes are centralised? Or just to support your opinion in this case?

In terms of anonymity or processing transactions no they are not centralized, but in terms of coin distribution yes they are. I'd guess that 400-500 people are running the masternodes and they are obviously already wealthy with DRK... whereas I'd bet several thousand have connected a worker and picked some DRK via mining.

Thus, the closer that percentage is raised to 100% the more coin concentrates in the hands of the few. That is not a system that is likely to get supported by those who are currently outside the DRK infrastructure. And if outsiders don't start using Darkcoin (in other words if we don't get adoption) this coin will go nowhere.

 

[thelonecrouton]

In terms of anonymity or processing transactions no they are not centralized, but in terms of coin distribution yes they are. I'd guess that 400-500 people are running the masternodes and they are obviously already wealthy with DRK... whereas I'd bet several thousand have connected a worker and picked some DRK via mining.

Thus, the closer that percentage is raised to 1 the more coin concentrates in the hands of the few. That is not a system that is likely to get supported by those who are currently outside the DRK infrastructure. And if outsiders don't start using Darkcoin (in other words if we don't get adoption) this coin will go nowhere.

Masternodes are orders of magnitude more decentralised than miners.

Take a look at http://drk.poolhash.org/poolhash.html -

Last 24hrs:
suchpool 19.4%
x11ltcbtccom 17.3%
coinminepl 10.4%
wafflepool 7.2%
miningpoolhub 6.2%
trademybitcom 6%

That's 66.5% of the total hash controlled by 6 individuals. Only takes 4 of them to mount a 51% attack.

A successful attack on the MN network would need way more than 51%.

More miners = better security is a complete myth when 90%+ of miners use pools instead of p2pool.

'Securing the network' my arse. Miners are in it for the money, all those pools dump DRK straight to BTC, and right now those figures look like a liability to me, not any form of security.

 

[JGCMiner]

Masternodes are orders of magnitude more decentralised than miners.

Take a look at http://drk.poolhash.org/poolhash.html -

Last 24hrs:
suchpool 19.4%
x11ltcbtccom 17.3%
coinminepl 10.4%
wafflepool 7.2%
miningpoolhub 6.2%
trademybitcom 6%

That's 66.5% of the total hash controlled by 6 individuals. Only takes 4 of them to mount a 51% attack.

A successful attack on the MN network would need way more than 51%.

More miners = better security is a complete myth when 90%+ of miners use pools instead of p2pool.

'Securing the network' my arse. Miners are in it for the money, all those pools dump DRK straight to BTC, and right now those figures look like a liability to me, not any form of security.

You are right about MN network being better at network security. Thing is, I wasn't talking about network security. I was talking about coin distribution. You forget that POW is about TWO things... one is securing the network and the other is fair distribution. Security shortcomings aside, POW is currently the best system for distribution.

In other words, it doesn't matter what awesome tech DRK has if you have 500 or so people who have a ton of coins and on top of that 60% of the new coins go to them as well. Nobody outside of those 500 will buy or use the currency.

As for the awesome tech... it will eventually make its way into other coins or somebody will think of a new way to do anonymous instant transactions and start their own currency.

Thinking only about service to the network you are right MNs deserve more... but there is more than that to consider when determining these percentages.

 

[thelonecrouton]

You are right about MN network being better at network security. Thing is, I wasn't talking about network security. I was talking about coin distribution. You forget that POW is about TWO things... one is securing the network and the other is fair distribution. Security shortcomings aside, POW is currently the best system for distribution.

In other words, it doesn't matter what awesome tech DRK has if you have 500 or so people who have a ton of coins and on top of that 60% of the new coins go to them as well. Nobody outside of those 500 will buy or use the currency.

As for the awesome tech... it will eventually make its way into other coins or somebody will think of a new way to do anonymous instant transactions and start their own currency.

Thinking only about service to the network you are right MNs deserve more... but there is more than that to consider when determining these percentages.

Given that most of the DRK ever mined have gone straight to exchanges, where anyone at all can buy them, what exactly does PoW have to do with coin distribution?

And the 'fair distribution' spiel is pure nonsense too, for the same reason. Anyone who wants DRK can buy DRK, always been the case, always will be. The fact that some people have more money to do so, or make more sacrifices to do so, or are simply intelligent enough to do so, is not going to be addressed in any way whatsoever by PoW.

Maybe you should try communinsm instead?

 

[JGCMiner]

Given that most of the DRK ever mined have gone straight to exchanges, where anyone at all can buy them, what exactly does PoW have to do with coin distribution?

And the 'fair distribution' spiel is pure nonsense too, for the same reason. Anyone who wants DRK can buy DRK, always been the case, always will be. The fact that some people have more money to do so, or make more sacrifices to do so, or are simply intelligent enough to do so, is not going to be addressed in any way whatsoever by PoW.

Maybe you should try communinsm instead?

You must be intentional missing the point. None of this is about who has more money or capitalism/communism. Let's stay away from strawmen.

The point is the system must be fair and it be perceived as fair. Forcing anybody who didn't pick up 1000s of DRK in the the first few weeks to buy at higher prices all the while the wealth gets concentrated more and more in the hands of a few (at the protocol level not because those few may be wealthier in fiat) is a system that will attract no outside interest. It is blatantly biased against those who come later. If the system is fair, then I don't care if Alice is worth 10x Bob so she buys 10x the coins.

It is sad that more people can't look past their stash of DRK tied up in MNs and see this point.

Edit: I have many MNs worth of DRK same as any early adopter and don't understand how anybody can think a system like will flourish. Maybe if Evan provided a concrete technical reason rather than just more masternodes are better. Has there been any explanation why 900 nodes is wholly insufficient?

 

[thelonecrouton]

You must be intentional missing the point. None of this is about who has more money or capitalism/communism. Let's stay away from strawmen.

The point is the system must be fair and it be perceived as fair. Forcing anybody who didn't pick up 1000s of DRK in the the first few weeks to buy at higher prices all the while the wealth gets concentrated more and more in the hands of a few (at the protocol level not because those few may be wealthier in fiat) is a system that will attract no outside interest. It is blatantly biased against those who come later. If the system is fair, then I don't care if Alice is worth 10x Bob so she buys 10x the coins.

It is sad that more people can't look past their stash of DRK tied up in MNs and see this point.

What do you want, a time machine? Sometimes early adopters profit, sometimes not. Life isn't fair. Deal with it.

'Outsiders' don't give a shit about any of this, they want secure, anonymous, instant transactions.

 

[JGCMiner]

What do you want, a time machine? Sometimes early adopters profit, sometimes not. Life isn't fair. Deal with it.

'Outsiders' don't give a shit about any of this, they want secure, anonymous, instant transactions.

I don't need a time machine. I bought my first DRKs in February and have plenty of them. Given that, I "should" be supporting this plan, but I think it is very likely to hurt the coin -- badly.

As for the tech... coins can be forked. You can't just "do whatever" and expect people will still want the coin. We are open source now. Anonymous, instant transactions are available to anybody who takes the time to built a coin with a masternode network. DRK built one, and another coin with a different payment system could do so as well.

Life is not fair -- but the system should be.

 

[thelonecrouton]

1. I have yet to hear a credible explanation of how increasing the MN count is going to hurt the coin. Miners making threats just highlights the liability they pose.

2. Competition is good, best of luck to them.

3. The system is already as fair as anything else.

 

[JGCMiner]

1. I have yet to hear a credible explanation of how increasing the MN count is going to hurt the coin. Miners making threats just highlights the liability they pose.

2. Competition is good, best of luck to them.

3. The system is already as fair as anything else.

I don't have anymore time to spend arguing.

Anyway, seeing as Evan seems to have already made up his mind -- I just hope you are right!

 

[raze]

I'm not a miner either and currently not a MN op, though I could be. And I agree there's something serious in this proposal that takes me back to take a good look at DRK and where it's going. I trust that Evan is doing the right thing so we'll see. At least he didn't decide abruptly to cut off all miners and give MN 100% profit and centralize the whole thing... If that ever happened we could expect a big revolt and big DoSSes until Darkcoin goes under? Investors need to watch this closely now?!

I'm not necessarily against decreasing or eliminating mining altogether *eventually*, but first I think it's necessary to provide a system that allows small holders to participate in the distribution just as easily as miners can to avoid centralizing distribution (which, warranted or not, is already a point of contention due to the "instamine").

Also, mining is used to support the network because it just works. It's not without its problems, but it's a system that's been thoroughly tested over several years and has proven to be a fairly stable and secure way to manage the network. Masternodes have only existed for a few months so they're still fairly new and largely untested, so I think it may be premature to start relying on them so much this early on, especially when there doesn't really seem to be any urgent reason to do so. Who's to say there might not still be serious security issues that could compromise the integrity of the network (not just talking about taking it over)?

 

[TaoOfSatoshi]

---DARKCOIN TWITTER PR INITIATIVE UPDATE---

https://darkcointalk.org/posts/23852/

Thanks to all,

Tao Of Satoshi

 

[TanteStefana]

So this is really all about.....Are you back again?.....Why is everyone except (insert MN owners or Miners)..... etc...

Ok, I don't think I'm the only one that doesn't want to see this kind of talk. Do you see the problem? It is the accusations that "this is all about". One side against the other. It's a constant at BCT, and I agree with the previous call for people not to bring that shit here.

On the other hand, opposing points of view should be heard. They should be presented in a mature manner and listened to in the same manner. But the only path DRK should follow is the one that makes the most logical sense. And what makes the most sense is the one that strengthens the network via rewards. What does mining bring to the table? What do Masternodes bring to the table? What are the problems they bring to the table? Weigh them and decide.

I can say that I am worried about mining becoming centralized when ASICs come out. The manufacturers may decide they'll make more money not selling the things, but instead keep them to mine for themselves, only this time, they'll be prepared to use that power by corrupting the blockchain in their favor. They've tested their power, they can now truly use it, and using it on Darkcoin is probably the most profitable way to use it as it's the strongest. This is why POS was created. Ultimately, we need a network. A broad as possible network. So I'm not happy with the idea that Masternodes would process all blocks either. A hybrid at least reduces the ability of any one entity to control over 50%, that is IF MNs actually find blocks somehow. Right now we're just talking about the share of the mining rewards, but I'd like to see the splitting of the finding of blocks. Maybe we could change the algorithm so that ASICs don't have a chance to get a foot hold. Maybe mining could be done in a completely different way? I don't know?

Stupid accusations are useless and don't forward the debate anywhere. Debating is only useful if people LISTEN then make counter arguments to the points. Thoughtful arguments. Using any other technique because you want to get what you think is right is just putting your brain cells to sleep. It hurts to think of the other side's argument when you have to stretch your mind. But, if you're not willing to do so, you're not helping, and really ought not to post.

Edit: I'm also worried that there is no way to see if a group of masternodes are in control of one entity either. We can't know if one entity is in control of more than 50% of the MN network. This is why many rounds of DS are important. So I'm currently hoping for a split in the block finding mechanism. I think that would be excellent, but how? Or is it the block finding that controls the blockchain content or something else?

 

[TanteStefana]

In terms of anonymity or processing transactions no they are not centralized, but in terms of coin distribution yes they are. I'd guess that 400-500 people are running the masternodes and they are obviously already wealthy with DRK... whereas I'd bet several thousand have connected a worker and picked some DRK via mining.

Thus, the closer that percentage is raised to 100% the more coin concentrates in the hands of the few. That is not a system that is likely to get supported by those who are currently outside the DRK infrastructure. And if outsiders don't start using Darkcoin (in other words if we don't get adoption) this coin will go nowhere.

I understand your concerns. Honest I do, however one must remember that the real value of a coin is when it is being used by people. It's usefulness is what is important, the rest is just for us nerds and investors that run the thing. I'm a capitalist in the old sense (I hear some kids calling it anarchist, LOL, but that means something entirely different to me). From following the threads on BTC since the early days, I feel positive that most of the masternodes, that is well over 50% of the funds invested in them, were bought, not mined. I'd guess, and this is pulled out of my ass, that 70+% of them were created with bought coins rather than mined. So my opinion is that anyone who is willing to invest good money into an iffy proposition that is crypto coins, deserves the rewards if it works. Without people to invest, there is no coin. This is the same for any venture. All ventures are for businesses and darkcoin is a decentralized business. Money is and was needed to make it happen, if it wasn't direct, via purchasing the coin, it was indirectly via mining and buying the hardware and electricity to mine it.

My point is "outsiders" won't give a damn in the end, because they will just be looking at what the coin can do for them. That's it.

So the real question you raise is, will investors continue to invest if the coin's operations are already mostly owned/controlled by others? My opinion is yes. When there is profit to be made, they will come. Die hard hag-fans like myself are irrelevant and inconsequential. Look at miners, they don't give a hoot which coin they're mining, only that they're making money. They sell it right away for fiat or BTC. Real investors don't look at what is "fair" they look at what is profitable. And in my opinion, that's all that matters, as it should be.

Real life isn't fair, it's not the nature of the beast. If you are a person that can't compete physically or mentally, and I include myself in this as I've got arthritis so bad now I can't even take a job at retail level anymore, then you're at the mercy of those who take pity on you. And, despite camosoul , most people have love and will care for those in need. But they'll usually cut off those who leach. Much healthier than a soulless Guv who can't tell the difference. Sigh, that's going to far... and not to the point, LOL.

 

[elgringo]

I second TanteStefana we should focus on use of the coin i.e. getting vendors to accept the coin.
Also I'd love to see the instant transfer being implemented a.s.a.p. as that would go a long way with outsiders

 

[Minotaur]

I understand your concerns. Honest I do, however one must remember that the real value of a coin is when it is being used by people. It's usefulness is what is important, the rest is just for us nerds and investors that run the thing. I'm a capitalist in the old sense (I hear some kids calling it anarchist, LOL, but that means something entirely different to me). From following the threads on BTC since the early days, I feel positive that most of the masternodes, that is well over 50% of the funds invested in them, were bought, not mined. I'd guess, and this is pulled out of my ass, that 70+% of them were created with bought coins rather than mined. So my opinion is that anyone who is willing to invest good money into an iffy proposition that is crypto coins, deserves the rewards if it works. Without people to invest, there is no coin. This is the same for any venture. All ventures are for businesses and darkcoin is a decentralized business. Money is and was needed to make it happen, if it wasn't direct, via purchasing the coin, it was indirectly via mining and buying the hardware and electricity to mine it.

My point is "outsiders" won't give a damn in the end, because they will just be looking at what the coin can do for them. That's it.

So the real question you raise is, will investors continue to invest if the coin's operations are already mostly owned/controlled by others? My opinion is yes. When there is profit to be made, they will come. Die hard hag-fans like myself are irrelevant and inconsequential. Look at miners, they don't give a hoot which coin they're mining, only that they're making money. They sell it right away for fiat or BTC. Real investors don't look at what is "fair" they look at what is profitable. And in my opinion, that's all that matters, as it should be.

Real life isn't fair, it's not the nature of the beast. If you are a person that can't compete physically or mentally, and I include myself in this as I've got arthritis so bad now I can't even take a job at retail level anymore, then you're at the mercy of those who take pity on you. And, despite camosoul , most people have love and will care for those in need. But they'll usually cut off those who leach. Much healthier than a soulless Guv who can't tell the difference. Sigh, that's going to far... and not to the point, LOL.

I couldn't have said it better, the value we are creating is for the users, the features must work and be trustworthy. Darksend should effectively privatize transactions, fast confirmations should be a reality, IP obfuscation must work well too, as to how the internal mechanics of those features come to life, that is irrelevant for the user that is not a miner neither a crypto investor, as long as everything is open source so that it can be corroborated by any interested party.

After the features work properly, then we must promote adoption through networking, establishing long term relationships with players in the field, proactively marketing the solution to businesses and users. Within those businesses people make decisions, those persons are the ones that add coins to platforms and services, those executives need to be convinced, in the end it is all about relationships and if you think block reward distribution has anything to do with that then you are probably inexperienced in business.

A masternode is only around 2000 USD away right now that is a super modest investment, I find the knowledge required to mine crypto a much higher barrier for participation and is not free either. This whole debate seems short sighted, the network needs what it needs, and it needs more masternodes now, if you are currently just mining set one up and do both.

 

[r-ando]

Big like and I think you are being very polite calling it a debate…. Hahaha

 

[coingun]

No, Evan already stated to me that Darksend pretty much sucks for anyone trying to denominate under 10 coins. Try it and it doesn't work. For a new user getting into the currency and trying to understand the process, you'd generally start out with smaller amounts and see if it works. Right now it doesn't. Darksend isn't functional for everyone and that's crippling.

Isn't learning how to use a coin what testnet is for? I'm not disagreeing this issue shouldn't be fixed but imho we should be pointing people who want to learn to testnet. They can play with 1000's of coins with no risk.

 

[MangledBlue]

Isn't learning how to use a coin what testnet is for? I'm not disagreeing this issue shouldn't be fixed but imho we should be pointing people who want to learn to testnet. They can play with 1000's of coins with no risk.

oblox - correct me if I'm wrong here but - - When you move to the other side of the decimal point, and remaining positive of course, you enter into a whole new realm in numbers. Yes, I agree, DarkSend does suck for under 10DRK and it really sucks/is null for less than 1DRK. The barrier into this realm needs to be broken and I believe that Even will eventually find the answer. It's gonna be ground-breaking of course but in no way will it be easy. Thing is, I don't see DRK crossing the decimal point barrier for some time but I do believe that Evan will get us closer to 1 and eventually cross-over into the realm of decimals. As we have seen with BTC, micro and even nano transactions are in use and even required for "normal" transactions for services and products. This will also be needed and even required for DRK eventually. Being able to DarkSend, at some point, micro and nano transactions, will be the holy grail for DarkSend.

Sorry coingun - couldn't find oblox original post to respond to so I had to high-jack your post - lol

coingun - Yes testnet is for, well, testing DRK of course and it very well should be and can be used for learning the DRK environment. I completely agree, but, thing is, a lot of newbies have no clue testnet even exists. I myself have only used the testnet environment with DRK only and I only use it on my personal computer. I actually have a laptop that is solely reserved for MainNet wallets and that's ALL it's used for. I believe that a "Learning" section should be put on the Main DRK website that is a Dummies Guide to DRK. This Guide would need to be fully detailed and step-by-step stating, Before you start using DRK.......CLICK HERE. I'd be more than happy to write something up and pass it off to another individual to clean it up and add some things I might over look. I have already written a - Dummies Guide to MasterNode, but it still needs to be completed on the Linux side, Linux noob here - ugh.


If anybody is willing to jump on bored with me in completing the - Dummies Guide to MasterNode - and assisting with - Dummies Guide to DRK - hit me up in PM and lets get this thing finished/going respectfully.


While DRK will be highly coveted and it's future very bright, adoption will require understanding and understanding will require instruction(s). Who's with me?

PM me please :-D

 

[tungfa]

- i believe MN setup's have to get much easier for the normal user to do
- drop the MN coin count to 500, and you will double MN numbers already instantly and it will get many more people encourages to join in (MN) !
- push the MN payouts by 10%-15%, just to make sure the Server payments are covered
- Let the miners be, adjust them to the % from above, we need miners and a social system for everybody to be engaged, we do NOT want to be an ELITE Coin
- This makes it infinitely harder to track the shuffling and creates a greater incentive for new DRK fans to join the ecosystem.
Right now the incentives are drying up. It's too costly to mine DRK and roughly 1% of the community controls all of the master nodes. Some members have ten to fifty nodes alone (Like BTC and all the others)
Tough decisions need to be made as all the cryptos start to crash. We got to destroy the greed factor and share !!

what is happen right now with DRK is the same thing with BTC
The difference is that with BTC mining is now centralized and thousands of miners are turning off their rigs and Bitcoin nodes are dropping like flies
There's no more incentive to participate for the other 90% !

Big players have entered the game and are buying up,BTC instead of mining, and that gives them the power to screw with the market
All you now have to do is take out the key mining monopolists like Gaw, ghash,io, knc, etc no you destroy the BTC network in a single day
All decentralization is effectively gone,
Mining hardware providers have screwed the buyers in every single way

All these cryptos will end up exactly like the hated bankers in the real world

Right now all trading happens amongst themselves... There's no real market left its all a ponzi
Just like we only have elite geeks that control 95% of all cryptos
Saving the world means making sacrifices