Development Update - Oct 1, 2014

[acidburn]

I'm going to setup 4 cores too. . 50% of my cpu.

 

[splawik21]

Me to 50% but of 4cores
Anyway if someone hit the block halleluia if not it is good idea to support the nethash .

 

[Stealth923]

eduffield - I know theres been alot of talk lately about MN dynamics & other exciting upcoming projects, but I think we really need to take action with respect to enforcement as a first step and some of the other imo important pieces that have been lingering for a while:

1) Enforcement
2) GUI upgrade to the wallet - We need to find someone to continue the great work that DRKLords already completed.

I am not sure what your hesitation is to flip the switch - we are at 80%+ compliance now but I have missed 5 MN payments in the last 2 days, and I am sure others are in the same boat!!

Talk about enforcement has been ongoing for months with zero action to follow. Can we please set a date in concrete and follow through?

Thanks for the great work you have been doing

 

[crowning]

eduffield - I know theres been alot of talk lately about MN dynamics & upcoming projects, but I think we really need to take action with respect to enforcement as a first step.

I am not sure what your hesitation is to flip the switch - we are at 80%+ compliance now but I have missed 5 MN payments in the last 2 days, and I am sure others are in the same boat!!

Even when I'd love to have it switched ON now, Evan already set a date and it would be highly unprofessional to change it after that:
https://darkcointalk.org/threads/rc5-launch-mandatory-update.2443/

 

[Stealth923]

Even when I'd love to have it switched ON now, Evan already set a date and it would be highly unprofessional to change it after that:
https://darkcointalk.org/threads/rc5-launch-mandatory-update.2443/

Great - if a hard date was set rather than just "3 weeks" that would be more reassuring. As I previously said, talk about enforcement has been lingering since RC3/4

Also an update as to if the GUI wallet upgrade is going to happen if at all would be good!

 

[acidburn]

If we don't do it right we could end up with a hard fork and the miners could revolt. In that case they'd kill the coin and we'd be doomed.

 

[thelonecrouton]

If we don't do it right we could end up with a hard fork and the miners could revolt. In that case they'd kill the coin and we'd be doomed.

Miners aren't going to kill anything, although they might suffocate themselves under the weight of their delusions of individual indispensabilty.

 

[moli]

o

Miners aren't going to kill anything, although they might suffocate themselves under the weight of their delusions of individual indispensabilty.

Are you back again with your half assed argument? Evan was one of the first miners. Miners brought DRK into this world. Are you telling Evan to go f himself now or what???? I'm sure he's still mining DRK. Miners were the first to bring DRK into value as a currency, where was MN at the early stage? Sure eventually when all darkcoins are mined, mining will be the thing of the past, but we are not there yet. At this stage, it would be best if you spend your time to get drk to be adopted in the real world, as we still have a lot of work to get this done.

This is a currency, not a toy for you to buy and show off. Miners have been doing their job in marketing this coin, what have masternode holders done to get people to know and buy this coin? If there's no buying and selling, if people do not use this coin, it will be a dead coin. Masternode system is important for InstantX and Darksend, but masternode holders aren't the only key players in this, esp. for someone like you who has done nothing but trying to devalue miners who are important key players in building this coin. So, please stop your ugly posts on here.

 

[thelonecrouton]

o

Are you back again with your half assed argument? Evan was one of the first miners. Miners brought DRK into this world. Are you telling Evan to go f himself now or what???? I'm sure he's still mining DRK. Miners were the first to bring DRK into value as a currency, where was MN at the early stage? Sure eventually when all darkcoins are mined, mining will be the thing of the past, but we are not there yet. At this stage, it would be best if you spend your time to get drk to be adopted in the real world, and we still have a lot of work to get this done.

This is a currency, not a toy for you to buy and show off. Miners have been doing their job in marketing this coin, what have masternode holders done to get people to know and buy this coin? If there's no buying and selling, if people do not use this coin, it will be a dead coin. Masternode system is important for InstantX and Darksend, but masternode holders aren't the only key players in this, esp. for someone like you who has done nothing but trying to devalue miners who are important key players in building this coin. So, please stop your ugly posts on here.

I said, "individual indispenability."

I'm a miner as well as a MN op, there are many like me. Like it or not, MN tech with InstanTX is relegating miners to a backup role in maintaining the blockchain. I view this as progress, and rejoice. :smile:

Saying that I "have done nothing but devalue miners" is ludicrous. Miners have been devalued by a faster and cheaper solution: Masternodes - and it's Masternode tech that gives value to DRK both now and in the future.

 

[camosoul]

Eventually, some of them will. This is one of the many reasons why it's naive to think that short term price & adoption don't matter. Just because Evan is awesome & DRK is the most innovative coin out there, that doesn't mean it will even have a chance to capitalize on Instant Transactions if by the time it comes out some clonecoin with ninja marketing skills behind it has permanently cornered the network effect. Anyone who thinks the best, most technologically superior coin is bound to win in the end, just take a look at where litecoin still is and ask yourself why.

And DOGE...Ridiculous crapcoins, both of them, but nobody knows any better... Advertising is all that really matters to cryptotards. They comprehend nothing.

This has been my concern from the beginning. Being the smartest guy on Earth doesn't matter if everyone else is a dumb animal.

DRK can be flawless in every way, but if nobody is able to understand it, they won't and can't care about that which they lack the ability to understand...

 

[camosoul]

I said, "individual indispenability."

This is my Neptune. There are many like it (which are equally useless for the coin it was made for), but this one is min[e](ing DRK on xpool.ca)... Will it manage to turn a profit even there? Probably not. It probably won't even pay for itself unless there is adoption. And, adoption lies int he hands of cryptotards who have no hope of ever understanding anything at all about what they throw their money into...

This is my bank of MNs. There are many others like them, but these are also mine... I can cash them out and never worry about whether they turn a positive ROI or not. They don't have to pay for themselves to redeem their cost. They also deserve to make a lot more money than my already unprofitable miners, because they do much more for the network than the miners do.

Both are useful and necessary, one simply moreso than the other. The more useful one also carries a much lower risk...

 

[Captain_Tom]

This is what happens when people who don't understand what's going on get a keyboard...

Fewer DRKs == higher value for an already scarce coin... Mining was satoshi's experiment. It works, but it's not the only metric we should be using. Money hosers who don't understand how it works will get mad. They should sell their rigs to people who do understand, just like traders who don't understand fundamental software development should sell their coins so I can buy them...

So then this really is all about getting MN owners rich isn't it? You know MarineCoin tried that scarcity for the 1% thing and it really didn't turn out well (Surprise! /s).

 

[Captain_Tom]

Eventually, some of them will. This is one of the many reasons why it's naive to think that short term price & adoption don't matter. Just because Evan is awesome & DRK is the most innovative coin out there, that doesn't mean it will even have a chance to capitalize on Instant Transactions if by the time it comes out some clonecoin with ninja marketing skills behind it has permanently cornered the network effect. Anyone who thinks the best, most technologically superior coin is bound to win in the end, just take a look at where litecoin still is and ask yourself why.



It will self-balance, as in all the masternodes won't just quit & kill the coin [Edit: because when they quit, the remainder get a larger share], but their numbers would still be greatly reduced which would damage the coin. That VPS provider that takes DRK will still be pricing in govpaper.

Exactly - to everything you said. Stop worrying about short-term profits, and focus on making the best long term coin possible.

 

[thelonecrouton]

Exactly - to everything you said. Stop worrying about short-term profits, and focus on making the best long term coin possible.

I'm not worried about anything now that MN ops are going to be rewarded more in line with their contribution to coin functionality. :smile:

 

[TsuyokuNaritai]

Exactly - to everything you said. Stop worrying about short-term profits, and focus on making the best long term coin possible.

That's exactly what I wasn't saying.

It does sound nice on the surface, like something a smart, level-headed, loyal supporter would say, that everyone should nod their heads and agree with to sound wise and a team player. But there's the way life ought to be, then there's the way life actually is.

The unpleasant and annoying fact is that if we were to neglect short term adoption and value in the hope that everything would work out when our amazing new breakthroughs are released, then when that day comes around we'd find some PR-genius market-savvy shitcloners had already made themselves the default anon coin and captured the network effect to the point where we couldn't take back the momentum no matter how superior the technology.

 

[Kai]

eduffield How about keep the MN reward at 20% and on top of that share x% of the transactions' fees between all the up-and-running masternodes (because at one point, post beta, almost all transactions will go through them).

Better incentive IMO and with the future Masternode Security it will be difficult for bad actors to put offline other MN to get a bigger share.

 

[raze]

Cross-posted from BitcoinTalk:

It seems to me like we have the same people defending increasing the current 20% MN payments and a much larger set of people against it. I have been a DRK supporter since early February and I haven't had this bad of a feeling about something Evan suggested since that airdrop idea he floated...

I still don't know why we don't give the currency several months to a year to grow organically before messing with the technicals. If DRK/fiat increases then MN's will become more profitable and their numbers will naturally increase. The current plan is heavy handed and may well be a disaster if too many people are pissed off.

Agreed 100%. I too have been here since February and can't help but think of the airdrop idea in relation to this. I think it's premature to start worrying about the Masternode count this early in the game (especially considering the current market climate). I'm neither a miner nor a Masternode operator so I have no "side" really, but I can't help but think that raising the percentage is trying to fix a problem that doesn't really exist yet. The suggestion of trustless Masternode pooling seems like a less risky and controversial means to start trying to boost the Masternode count, at least in the near term.

 

[moli]

Cross-posted from BitcoinTalk:


Agreed 100%. I too have been here since February and can't help but think of the airdrop idea in relation to this. I think it's premature to start worrying about the Masternode count this early in the game (especially considering the current market climate). I'm neither a miner nor a Masternode operator so I have no "side" really, but I can't help but think that raising the percentage is trying to fix a problem that doesn't really exist yet. The suggestion of trustless Masternode pooling seems like a less risky and controversial means to start trying to boost the Masternode count, at least in the near term.

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?!

 

[patrolman]

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?!

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

 

[g8F98FF3gjafogj4]

Are any of these scaredy-cats going to respond to snogcel's post?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg9086284#msg9086284

...Keep in mind Evan has stated he plans on having InstantX within a few months...

Snogcel's post:
I've taken a few days to really think hard about the changes in the future for POW and Darkcoin... it really does feel like a well thought out plan, it's just that you have to look at it in the context of InstantX... first read:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/24101213...hanism-for-Mitigating-Double-Spending-Attacks

Bitcoin uses proof of work to maintain consensus throughout its network of peers. Due to its technical parameters this limits the speed at which a transaction can be considered confirmed and safe against double spend attacks.

To decrease the time a transaction needs to be confirmed it’s possible to lower the block generation time. which has the drawback of blockchain bloat and has a lower boundary of ~30 seconds due to network latency.

We are proposing to combine the proof of work algorithm with an implementation of a distributed lock manager (DLM) which will utilise the masternode network: Transaction Locking.

Once finalized and deployed, POW serves as a much slower "backup" to the DLM method. To support transaction locking, a robust network is required - and - logically, as the Masternodes will be doing all of the actual 'work'... doesn't it make sense to adjust the distribution of block reward to provide incentive for that network?

+ if(nHeight > 150000) ret += blockValue / 20; //25%
+ if(nHeight > 150000+((576*30)*1)) ret += blockValue / 20; //30%
+ if(nHeight > 150000+((576*30)*2)) ret += blockValue / 20; //35%
+ if(nHeight > 150000+((576*30)*3)) ret += blockValue / 40; //37.5%
+ if(nHeight > 150000+((576*30)*4)) ret += blockValue / 40; //40%
+ if(nHeight > 150000+((576*30)*5)) ret += blockValue / 40; //42.5%
+ if(nHeight > 150000+((576*30)*6)) ret += blockValue / 40; //45%
+ if(nHeight > 150000+((576*30)*7)) ret += blockValue / 40; //47.5%
+ if(nHeight > 150000+((576*30)*9)) ret += blockValue / 40; //50%
+ if(nHeight > 150000+((576*30)*11)) ret += blockValue / 40; //52.5%
+ if(nHeight > 150000+((576*30)*13)) ret += blockValue / 40; //55%
+ if(nHeight > 150000+((576*30)*15)) ret += blockValue / 40; //57.5%
+ if(nHeight > 150000+((576*30)*17)) ret += blockValue / 40; //60%

60% for the preferred method (DLM), 40% for the auxiliary and slower method (POW). I think the fallacy lies in the term "payment" - it's a distribution of block reward based on service provided to the network.

What if down the road 95% of transactions bypass the POW network entirely? It will be funny looking back on this thread when the roles are reversed and MN owners are complaining about POW "payments" ;-)