Development Update - Oct 1, 2014

JGCMiner said:
My thoughts as well. For 2000 nodes you would need the payment to be about 40% which I personally think is too much even if the masternodes are handing instant confirmation in the future. POW is expensive and miners should be well compensated. Plus from a liquidity standpoint having 40~50% of the currency tied up in masternodes is not a good thing (I think).

If we really need that many masternodes then reducing 1000 should be changed to 500DRK,
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter for currency tied up as each unit can be traded and used down to a duff. We aren't talking about 4.8M whole coins.
 
oblox said:
Doesn't matter for currency tied up as each unit can be traded and used down to a duff. We aren't talking about 4.8M whole coins.
Click to expand...

OK so maybe that is neither here nor there, but I still say raising the MN percentage is not a good idea.
 
oblox said:
Before any of this crap can even be considered, microwallets need to be fixed. Priority number 1 at the moment IMHO. Enforcement is obvious. I've already beaten that horse to death though.
Click to expand...

By "microwallet" do you mean denomination of sub 1 coin? I though the solution to that was just adding smaller denomination levels when the price increase warranted,
 
oblox said:
Also effectively doubling the hosting fees in the process for needing double the instances.
Click to expand...
You have a point, but that's not how it usually works. The masternode operators simply buy more static IPs and run multiple darkcoind daemons on the same servers. The extra IPs come at an incremental cost.
Perhaps reducing the MN requirement from 1000 to 500 DRK should coincide with a static payout increase from 20% to 25%. It stands to reason that some newcomers will be attracted to the lower MN cost requirement AND better payout. So new money probably will flow into DRK.
 
JGCMiner said:
By "microwallet" do you mean denomination of sub 1 coin? I though the solution to that was just adding smaller denomination levels when the price increase warranted,
Click to expand...
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.
 
HinnomTX said:
You have a point, but that's not how it usually works. The masternode operators simply buy more static IPs and run multiple darkcoind daemons on the same servers. The extra IPs come at an incremental cost.
Perhaps reducing the MN requirement from 1000 to 500 DRK should coincide with a static payout increase from 20% to 25%. It stands to reason that some newcomers will be attracted to the lower MN cost requirement AND better payout. So new money probably will flow into DRK.
Click to expand...
Not all VPS allow the option of adding static IPs to instances, rather, you have to buy a new instance to get a new IP.
 
oblox said:
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.
Click to expand...
So the minimum denomination amount needs to change to 0.1 DRK. Is this a problem to add?
 
JGCMiner said:
My thoughts as well. For 2000 nodes you would need the payment to be about 40% which I personally think is too much even if the masternodes are handing instant confirmation in the future. POW is expensive and miners should be well compensated. Plus from a liquidity standpoint having 40~50% of the currency tied up in masternodes is not a good thing (I think).

If we really need that many masternodes then reducing 1000 should be changed to 500DRK.

EDIT: Not to mention that continually changing these ratios makes it look like the dev team is trying to manipulate the market (trying to force money into DRK). There were complainants about this when we went from 10% to 20%. I know that is not the dev teams intention, but appearances matter.
Click to expand...

But reducing the collateral from 1000DRK to 500DRK, wouldnt secure the network from sybil attacks since bad actors could acquire the same percentage of the masternode network they could before. Meaning a network with a 1000DRK collateral and 1000 masternodes is just as secure as a network with a 500DRK collateral and 2000 masternodes, is exactly the same thing we wouldn't gain anything. The important thing is to increase the masternode count while keeping the same collateral, that really improves network security.
 
oblox said:
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.
Click to expand...

I just assumed that was just because there where never enough people using small amounts. Jira is down right now so I can't check if the issue has been posted, but if it has then it will get taken care of just like everything else that has been posted.

However, I don't see how that relates to the topic at hand.
 
oblox said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is not such a bad limitation as long as it is clearly stated upfront that you need a minimum of 20 DRK or whatever the amount is to use Darksend. Anyway, as the price increase we would probably need to lower the minimum.
 
JGCMiner said:
I just assumed that was just because there where never enough people using small amounts. Jira is down right now so I can't check if the issue has been posted, but if it has then it will get taken care of just like everything else that has been posted.

However, I don't see how that relates to the topic at hand.
Click to expand...
It was posted 2 weeks ago as 90 before the database went down. Restored but info regarding it was lost. Moli did a second one as 92. Evan has had the wallet and debug file from email too. It really should have been fixed before RC5/open source. You can't try to gather PR and new users when new users won't have a functional experience, thus leading to bad PR.
 
Minotaur said:
This is not such a bad limitation as long as it is clearly stated upfront that you need a minimum of 20 DRK or whatever the amount is to use Darksend. Anyway, as the price increase we would probably need to lower the minimum.
Click to expand...
But it's not stated...
 
Minotaur said:
But reducing the collateral from 1000DRK to 500DRK, wouldnt secure the network from sybil attacks since bad actors could acquire the same percentage of the masternode network they could before. Meaning a network with a 1000DRK collateral and 1000 masternodes is just as secure as a network with a 500DRK collateral and 2000 masternodes, is exactly the same thing we wouldn't gain anything. The important thing is to increase the masternode count while keeping the same collateral, that really improves network security.
Click to expand...

Well is Evan trying to secure against sybil attacks or something else? Or maybe he is just trying to make the whole Darksend infrastructure more decentralized. I dunno. Plus there is the network security as a whole to consider. If the MN reward goes to 40% and miners start dropping left and right -- then the coin is that much more vulnerable to traditional attacks like 51% (as an example) .
 
Minotaur said:
But reducing the collateral from 1000DRK to 500DRK, wouldnt secure the network from sybil attacks since bad actors could acquire the same percentage of the masternode network they could before. Meaning a network with a 1000DRK collateral and 1000 masternodes is just as secure as a network with a 500DRK collateral and 2000 masternodes, is exactly the same thing we wouldn't gain anything. The important thing is to increase the masternode count while keeping the same collateral, that really improves network security.
Click to expand...

This was exactly my thought as well. We have to maintain the exclusivity of Masternodes. Try to attract new ones with the current 1000DRK parameter, and then consider other options.

Also, we can't just secure the existing masternodes and let more accumulate over time naturally?
 
JGCMiner said:
Well is Evan trying to secure against sybil attacks or something else? Or maybe he is just trying to make the whole Darksend infrastructure more decentralized. I dunno. Plus there is the network security as a whole to consider. If the MN reward goes to 40% and miners start dropping left and right -- then the coin is that much more vulnerable to traditional attacks like 51% (as an example) .
Click to expand...
As I said, if MNs are able to robustly enforce MN payments, they should also be able to robustly enforce hash distribution in some way. Same problem, if one is solved then so is the other.
 
JGCMiner said:
Well is Evan trying to secure against sybil attacks or something else? Or maybe he is just trying to make the whole Darksend infrastructure more decentralized. I dunno. Plus there is the network security as a whole to consider. If the MN reward goes to 40% and miners start dropping left and right -- then the coin is that much more vulnerable to traditional attacks like 51% (as an example) .
Click to expand...

Yeah, but he is talking about a floating parameter to find the right balance, that hypothetical reduction on the network hashrate hasn’t happened yet, if it did happened to the point where reducing masternode compensation was necessary that could be done too. Reality is, stuff like instant transaction is so amazingly good that people would mine to be part of that, and masternodes are necessary for that to happen, is what gives the coin its value. Who with a long term vision wouldnt want to mine that? Miners that are just dumping immediately for profit will come if its profitable period, so if the price increases because of the adjustments they will stay, if the masternode count does not increase to the point we are expecting then the parameter can be changed back to 20%
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top