Development Update - Oct 1, 2014

g8F98FF3gjafogj4 said:
Your idea is brilliant. Though I'm not well versed in P2pool it does sound like your idea does wonders for distribution. I'm not certain I'm advocating abolishing POW either, yet. Just a cool train of thought at the moment. It just doesn't seem like we need the miners, could do wonders for security, greatly increase ROI for MNs etc. Also, if Evan implemented the ability to generate a key for a 100 drk vin, where 10 people could combine their 100 drk trustlessly for a MN, it would help address the distribution issue of abolishing POW.
Click to expand...
I'd prefer simple approach of giving MN 40-50% of mined coins - that would make me to invest another 2000$ to get a MN - and would be the interim step before ultimatelly cutting the mining altogether and shifting the processing entirely to MN.
 
MangledBlue said:
I'd rather not see MN's processing (mining) blocks.
Would it not cause the MN cost on the server to increase?
I'd like to see the MN's cost as little as possible (cost effective)
Click to expand...

We have to realise we would not use VPS CPU to brute force X11. Simple processing of transactions would be trivial and would result in minimal increase of computation resources resulting in no additional costs.
 
g8F98FF3gjafogj4 said:
Your idea is brilliant. Though I'm not well versed in P2pool it does sound like your idea does wonders for distribution. I'm not certain I'm advocating abolishing POW either, yet. Just a cool train of thought at the moment. It just doesn't seem like we need the miners, could do wonders for security, greatly increase ROI for MNs etc. Also, if Evan implemented the ability to generate a key for a 100 drk vin, where 10 people could combine their 100 drk trustlessly for a MN, it would help address the distribution issue of abolishing POW.
Click to expand...

You could consider the miners to be a liability, from the point of view of them extending the potential attack surface. Voluntary compliance of pools when it comes to MN service fees have certainly been a liability... ;)

Which is harder to compromise/subvert - hashpower or the Masternode network? Which attempt would cost many $millions worth of Darkcoin, not fiat? Does hashpower actually increase network security or just offer a larger target area?

3000 Masternodes vs 300GH, which would provide the better security?

I will stop digging my own hole now... :eek:
 
thelonecrouton said:
You could consider the miners to be a liability, from the point of view of them extending the potential attack surface. Voluntary compliance of pools when it comes to MN service fees have certainly been a liability... ;)

Which is harder to compromise/subvert - hashpower or the Masternode network? Which attempt would cost many $millions worth of Darkcoin, not fiat? Does hashpower actually increase network security or just offer a larger target area?

3000 Masternodes vs 300GH, which would provide the better security?

I will stop digging my own hole now... :eek:
Click to expand...

I agree, why not just get rid of "mining" altogether and have the MNs secure the network?
 
Posting the same comment here I made in BCT:
nsimmons said:
The ideas I see amount to forming a private cartel for the dozen or so vocal members of the community, fundamentally changing the way a coin works to the detriment of the general user and betraying the philosophical principals of crypto in general.
And I see a bunch of people, who should be ashamed of themselves, agreeing with it.
Click to expand...
georgem said:
I agree with you.
Proof of Work is not just waste of energy, it is also the Proof that transactions really happened.
I always assumed that Darkcoin was going to make the public ledger into an anonymous ledger (not readable by outsiders), but certainly not to make it totally disappear?!?. That would be disastrous.
If we only had masternodes, and no POW, I am not sure that the integrity of who owns which coins can be guaranteed AT ALL.
Click to expand...
thelonecrouton said:
As I keep saying, you don't need 100GH worth of GPU's to maintain a simple blockchain with a few transactions per minute, or even a few thousand.
Nobody is talking about doing away with the blockchain, we're debating (or at least I am ;)) whether the contribution of miners is really worth 4X more than the contribution of Masternodes to Darkcoin. I don't think it is.
Click to expand...

Darkcoins come into existence thru mining. And only thru mining. The miners share a few of their new found coins with the masternodes.
Mining is not only about maintaining the blockchain.
Even if there are no transactions for days, it doesn't matter. If there are NO transactions for days, then THAT'S the state of blockchain that has to be integrated and shared for everybody to accept.
The amount of transactions (low or high or whatever) has nothing to do with the validity of mining. It just is what is. :)

We have Petahashes of POW miners mining for Bitcoin because more and more people want to go after fewer and fewer coins, while technology combined with free market competition creates innovation. (faster and faster machines, which in turn make the coins even more scarcer and scarcer... which is key for value creation in the first place.)

If we only had masternodes... we would basically take darkcoin out of the most insane innovation cycle we have seen in the last decades.
(If only servers had the innovation that miners have, lol ;D , but how are they going to have innovation without competition? Just masternode holders sitting on their piles of coins is not something that is very "competitive")

So, the key concepts to not forget are: competition creates innovation which in turn creates scarcity (value). Ergo mining.
 
If you want to get rid of miners, first create a comparable competitive innovation cycle with servers, and then we can talk. :wink: :cool:
 
Hey Georgem,
Bitcoin's price at the moment is stagnant, due to lack of integration into various economies. Though a lot of that is changing very soon, it's current market seems saturated with miners, and the price doesn't increase. This indicates that for the coin to grow, attracting more miners is not the answer. The purpose of this coin is to provide anonymous and instant transactions, not to inspire people with gpu farms to point them at the coin. People will purchase the coin and use it because they need or desire an instant and anonymous transaction, not because it heeds to a tradition from bitcoins birth. Think of the lean-ass bully-hardened network without miners involved. Healthy as fuck all day and quick as a whip.
 
Sorry georgem but I don't think you are right, I think Evan has had an excellent idea and it will bring sustainable value to the coin as well as a solid ground for multi level backup of valuation.
 
georgem said:
Posting the same comment here I made in BCT:




Darkcoins come into existence thru mining. And only thru mining. The miners share a few of their new found coins with the masternodes.
Mining is not only about maintaining the blockchain.
Even if there are no transactions for days, it doesn't matter. If there are NO transactions for days, then THAT'S the state of blockchain that has to be integrated and shared for everybody to accept.
The amount of transactions (low or high or whatever) has nothing to do with the validity of mining. It just is what is. :)

We have Petahashes of POW miners mining for Bitcoin because more and more people want to go after fewer and fewer coins, while technology combined with free market competition creates innovation. (faster and faster machines, which in turn make the coins even more scarcer and scarcer... which is key for value creation in the first place.)

If we only had masternodes... we would basically take darkcoin out of the most insane innovation cycle we have seen in the last decades.
(If only servers had the innovation that miners have, lol ;D , but how are they going to have innovation without competition? Just masternode holders sitting on their piles of coins is not something that is very "competitive")

So, the key concepts to not forget are: competition creates innovation which in turn creates scarcity (value). Ergo mining.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, George. I've never really mined any crypto coin, except for a few times I tried to mine dogecoins on idigdoge.com just to see what it was like on a website. Though I've never mined, I can appreciate miners and their hard work.

I am surprised we have this talk on "getting rid of DRK miners" and let masternode owners to have it all. Do all masternode owners want to have the responsibility of miners? It seems some people forget that distributing wealth isn't the way to go to grow an economy.

So you want to create a fancy type of coins and then stack them up in your garage, or store them in your basement, and distribute among yourselves, and that's it? How is it going to increase the value of the coin?

PS. And if this is what really going to happen, most of DRK investors will just sell their drk to you so you can have more to stack them up more in your back yard, and say good bye to drk, because by then there will be a better coin to invest in!!
 
moli said:
PS. And if this is what really going to happen, most of DRK investors will just sell their drk to you so you can have more to stack them up more in your back yard, and say good bye to drk, because by then there will be a better coin to invest in!!
Click to expand...
Exactly.
Also let's not forget that we need darkcoin to also work without darksend, without anonymity.
There are many reasons why someone will want to show other people a transaction list of an address. For example a donation based charity or something.
Voluntary transparency can be a very valuable function.
I always liked that darkcoin can be BOTH anonymous and not anonymous, depending on the needs of the user.
If we get rid of the miners, we get rid of that, and this would in turn limit the amount of things one can do with darkcoin, wouldn't it?

Even batman turns into bruce wayne by day. Imagine him being batman 24/7... he would probably have commited suicide by now (if he really existed).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
georgem said:
I always liked that darkcoin can be BOTH anonymous and not anonymous, depending on the needs of the user.
If we get rid of the miners, we get rid of that, and this would in turn limit the amount of things one can do with darkcoin, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...
Where in the heck are you getting that? Having MNs generate the blockchain would have absolutely no affect on the things you named...?? THe blockchain would be just as visible as it ever was, not that anyone could trace transactions anyway.
 
Just because you guys have always considered mining to be the backbone of crypto, and thats what brought you into crypto, does not mean that crypto can't exist, or potentially be even stronger without it.
 
georgem said:
Exactly.
Also let's not forget that we need darkcoin to also work without darksend, without anonymity.
There are many reasons why someone will want to show other people a transaction list of an address. For example a donation based charity or something.
Voluntary transparency can be a very valuable function.
I always liked that darkcoin can be BOTH anonymous and not anonymous, depending on the needs of the user.
If we get rid of the miners, we get rid of that, and this would in turn limit the amount of things one can do with darkcoin, wouldn't it?

Even batman turns into bruce wayne by day. Imagine him being batman 24/7... he would probably have commited suicide by now (if he really existed).
Click to expand...
LOL.. I like the comment about batman..
Yes.. This is why I like Darkcoin because it can be either anonymous or not. It works fine without Darksend. My little upset with it is to me, Darksend can be better. I know it can be 100% perfect. And I'm sure Evan will make it 100% perfect, so I'm waiting to see.
We can not get rid of miners. In his white paper about Instant Transaction, Evan seems to indicate MN also depends on miners.. I'm not sure, but I don't believe Evan has any intention to get rid of miners at all, it's only an imagination of someone with too much alcohol, or something.
 
g8F98FF3gjafogj4 said:
Where in the heck are you getting that? Having MNs generate the blockchain would have absolutely no affect on the things you named...?? THe blockchain would be just as visible as it ever was, not that anyone could trace transactions anyway.
Click to expand...
I don't want MN's to generate the blockchain, I want the blockchain to be a timestamp hashed transaction list that makes it virtually impossible to mess with it.
You do that with math, not with MN.
Who will hash the blockchain if not the miners??? How can newcomers participate in that? Will blockchain validation become an elitist sport in the future? You wanna play, pay 1000 DRK?
 
georgem said:
I don't want MN's to generate the blockchain, I want the blockchain to be a timestamp hashed transaction list that makes it virtually impossible to mess with it.
You do that with math, not with MN.
Who will hash the blockchain if not the miners??? How can newcomers participate in that? Will blockchain validation become an elitist sport in the future? You wanna play, pay 1000 DRK?
Click to expand...
Miners do not drive adoption. If the blockchain is handled by masternodes, via Evan's beuatiful coding skill the only thing that is lost is miner's $$$. Miners are not necessary. Tell me why miners are necessary.
 
g8F98FF3gjafogj4 said:
Miners do not drive adoption. If the blockchain is handled by masternodes, via Evan's beuatiful coding skill the only thing that is lost is miner's $$$. Miners are not necessary. Tell me why miners are necessary.
Click to expand...
Miners do not drive adoption?
All miners are very commited people, they mine, they want to sell their coins, or keep them (if long term plans), they spread the message (they want other people to buy their coins) etc..

If such invested people like miners are not driving adoption I don't know WHO is.

Also mining gives everybody the possibility to get to some DRK without the need to go thru an exchange or thru some smug MN holder who thinks he is now supposed to be the sole source of DRK.

I am mining all kinds of coins, so I don't need to go thru the whole established banking system with all their KYC etc...

If mining will not be possible anymore in the future, how will you attract new participants to the darkcoin network?
Your plan rises the entry costs to an insane amount of money, which is ridiculous.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I still think Evan should spend 10 mins adding this :-D

1iLWz4o.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top