moli
Well-known member
LOL... Yes, you're very nice to children, i like it
Onyx Release & Mining Pools
- Thread starter thelonecrouton
- Start date
I agree. I have no problem with the pools that comply and care about the Darkcoin echo-system. But we (including the benign pools like you guys) cannot be at the mercy of those SOBs that leach on community's and developers' benevolence.
Running a pool requires a lot of ressources (a mid-sized one). You're talking a few servers in cluster, ssds on most of them, proxys, an excellent ddos protection, great sysadmining knowledge, a lot of time, and then even more time.. You can't do this on a 5$ vps like you can run a masternode with.
You keep spitting on the mining side of thing. Doing it via masternodes vs non-masternodes result into just different kinds of centralisation.
Diversity being a good thing, you want to get rid of any of it. If people don't agree to the same terms as masternodes, they should have their world too unless you want to establish a nazi-alike regime in here.. seems to be what you're preaching for.
Just keep in mind.. who is paying to your masternodes
PS: We do cover the servers and a little extra for our time, but the amount made clearly is cheaply paid for the amount of time involved in keeping a stable and secure operation. We've been here a couple of months, sucks to see people like you trying to tear up Darkcoin
"You keep spitting on the mining side of thing."
- No, never have.
"Doing it via masternodes vs non-masternodes result into just different kinds of centralisation."
- Yes, a much less centralised kind.
"Diversity being a good thing, you want to get rid of any of it."
- 3 pools owning > 50% of the total hashrate is not diversity, it's a liability.
"If people don't agree to the same terms as masternodes, they should have their world too unless you want to establish a nazi-alike regime in here.. seems to be what you're preaching for."
- Miners would be welcome to go play some other game elsewhere if they don't like the rules of this one.
"Just keep in mind.. who is paying to your masternodes
" - Or not paying them and flouting the rules, as the case may be.
"PS: We do cover the servers and a little extra for our time, but the amount made clearly is cheaply paid for the amount of time involved in keeping a stable and secure operation."
- So, more hardware needed, but still turns a profit.
"We've been here a couple of months, sucks to see people like you trying to tear up Darkcoin"
- So, a suggestion that might improve the current state of affairs in a bunch of ways and benefit the coin generally for should be ignored because it's inconvenient for you?
eth1
Member
"You keep spitting on the mining side of thing."
- No, never have.
"Doing it via masternodes vs non-masternodes result into just different kinds of centralisation."
- Yes, a much less centralised kind.
"Diversity being a good thing, you want to get rid of any of it."
- 3 pools owning > 50% of the total hashrate is not diversity, it's a liability.
"If people don't agree to the same terms as masternodes, they should have their world too unless you want to establish a nazi-alike regime in here.. seems to be what you're preaching for."
- Miners would be welcome to go play some other game elsewhere if they don't like the rules of this one.
"Just keep in mind.. who is paying to your masternodes
- Or not paying them and flouting the rules, as the case may be.
"PS: We do cover the servers and a little extra for our time, but the amount made clearly is cheaply paid for the amount of time involved in keeping a stable and secure operation."
- So, more hardware needed, but still turns a profit.
"We've been here a couple of months, sucks to see people like you trying to tear up Darkcoin"
- So, a suggestion that might improve the current state of affairs in a bunch of ways and benefit the coin generally for should be ignored because it's inconvenient for you?
Why would I need to agree with your point of view? One way is inconvenient for me, the other inconvenient for you. What makes you think your opinion is the right one for me and vice-versa?
I keep thinking having both worlds is better. You can have a p2pool network running on masternodes and another regular network running, simply well enforced. 3 weeks is way too long and by now, all pools must be aware of it. Strict enforcement is required.
Those who don't update should be terminated, those who comply well they do their job properly.
>> "- Miners would be welcome to go play some other game elsewhere if they don't like the rules of this one."
Those are the ones who initially sold you all the darks to get masternodes, who keep extracting them up and keeps paying the masternodes?.
Last edited by a moderator:
eth1, the fact is that pools are flouting the rules at the expense of everyone else, including you, and with the current system, enforcing those rules is proving difficult.
Are you suggesting there should be no rules at all? Should anyone just be allowed to exploit the system for their own benefit at will? Does requiring others to play by the rules make them a parent-hating Nazi?
Bring me a sensible counter-argument, it might shut me up..
eth1
Member
Are you even bothering reading?
"Are you suggesting there should be no rules at all? Should anyone just be allowed to exploit the system for their own benefit at will?"
I've been saying CONSTANTLY we need enforcement. It is due to come soon, but the 3 weeks period was too long. I would say 3-4 days is more then enough.
The same goes for masternodes, what makes you believe they will all update at the same time if there was a flaw in the future that would permit them to earn more by not updating? Both sides need enforcement because there will always be greedy pigs not behind honest and compliant. And that, on BOTH sides.
This is purely an hypothetical scenario, but that could eventually be the case one day in a future flaw/vuln of some fort.
The enforcement is also not so difficult since its already there and scheduled to begin soon. Just enforcing faster and being more strict with the updates would be very reasonnable, unlike your intents that are far more radical.
"Are you suggesting there should be no rules at all? Should anyone just be allowed to exploit the system for their own benefit at will?"
I've been saying CONSTANTLY we need enforcement. It is due to come soon, but the 3 weeks period was too long. I would say 3-4 days is more then enough.
The same goes for masternodes, what makes you believe they will all update at the same time if there was a flaw in the future that would permit them to earn more by not updating? Both sides need enforcement because there will always be greedy pigs not behind honest and compliant. And that, on BOTH sides.
This is purely an hypothetical scenario, but that could eventually be the case one day in a future flaw/vuln of some fort.
The enforcement is also not so difficult since its already there and scheduled to begin soon. Just enforcing faster and being more strict with the updates would be very reasonnable, unlike your intents that are far more radical.
Last edited by a moderator:
moli
Well-known member
Draft up your white paper, write your own code and submit it to Evan. It's all open source now, so write your own code and help Evan with some concrete plan. We'd like to see you get to work if you really think your idea is great, just show something more concrete than spamming with "Evan and team can do this".
That address was NEVER a Masternode. Makes it even more interesting.
Is everyone who has a suggestion for improving the system now required to code it up themselves and present the finished work before opening their mouths?
If you aren't bringing a counter-argument of your own, who's spamming?
eth1
Member
I did bring arguments.
So far, I don't believe the masternode system is nearly ready to handle all of that. It has shown a bunch flaws so far. Things have been running smooth so far on the other side of Darkcoin (regular pools). I agree with change, I also agree with choice.
PS: Also, as you can see most of the MN's run on low-end vps and most run at the same providers. It is still some sort of centralisation right? Instead of centralizing at a pool, you are doing so at some specific isps such as Amazon, Choopa, DigitalOcean, OVH, which all have a large number of MN's themselves. This would be another form of centralization in it's way right?
moli
Well-known member
You're the spammer. You've been spamming this thread and on BCT. Don't you think by now Evan has already seen this? And we've seen enough!! And enough people have told you what they think but do you read them? No.
Eth1 atleast yoyos back and forth from having good points and having his epeen block his eye sight. Moli on the other hand is just flailing away at the wind. Yes masternodes have issues at this moment. Evan has proved he's able to react. No we shouldn't abandon pool mining today. But even if there were only 50 people in control of the majority of masternodes, that would be better than 13 pools, who may or may not play by the rules. Satoshi didn't intend for pool mining, and it is a flaw. Just because you own a pool or are heavily invested in mining hardware does not change this fact.
eth1
Member
In both cases there is some centralization, wether you like it or not. The exception is there can be many pools while there can only be so much masternodes.
I encourage more pools to spawn. It allows people who are not already in possession of a considerable amount of coins to participate in the network.
I encourage more pools to spawn. It allows people who are not already in possession of a considerable amount of coins to participate in the network.
moli
Well-known member
Like I said, if you have a better idea, if you think you're smarter than Satoshi, feel free to write your own code and submit it to Evan, I am sure Evan would be glad for any help he can get. So get in line and do something concrete that can help with the project. We've discussed this in the irc channel, I am all for it if it can be done. Just put your money where your mouth is.
I don't know much but one of the questions is: How can you keep the blockchain healthy if there's only one system? How can you send your tx when MN is being dosed to the moon? How does MN handle the blockchain? Right now MN can't even be trusted to handle its own MN payment and we have to have "reference nodes".. How can MN be trusted in controlling the pools? Maybe this is more than one question. But before we jump into getting rid of pools or whatever, don't you think we need to research and think of all possibilities of unintended consequences? Maybe good intention is not enough? BTW, if this is such a good idea, why hasn't Evan done it? or it's not his interest because he does need to buy time anyways to test his code on mainnet before doing any enforcement???
Your wishful thinking does not tally with reality. Most cryptocurrencies are at the mercy of 3 or 4 big pools. This is not a good thing.
*<Unnecesary attack>
Yeah I saw your "discussion". You and Eth1 having a giggling circle-jerk about what a "retarded fucking jew" lonecrouton is.
The blockchain would not change, it would still be supported by mining. It would just be enforced p2p. Basically the answer to all your questions is a spork, First you allow masternodes to act as p2p nodes, and if that is successful, then you enforce. Use some imagination, or brain-cells. This discussion is not hurting anything, and you do not need to be able to code to throw around ideas. I for the life of me cannot figure out why it is making you freak out so much.
Last edited by a moderator:
moli
Well-known member
Then why don't you take this up to Evan? Why hasn't he implemented it? Are you saying he has no imagination or brain-cells and an ignorant bore as well? I've seen you and crouton post pages after pages and from one forum to another but you're preaching to the wrong choir perhaps?
BTW, I wasn't "giggling circle-jerk about what a "retarded fucking jew" lonecrouton is." Matter of fact i told eth he couldn't be a jew. Why were you hiding in the channel? why didn't you speak up?
It's a discussion. I am interested in the idea, as are tons of other people. I mostly stay out of it. But you freaking out at crouton for proposing interesting ideas is just ridiculous, and you need to know that. It's just ideas, you don't need to be afraid.
moli
Well-known member
NO i am not afraid, I am just tired of people keep talking about "some" idea but have no legitimate reason or how it can be done. I would love to see some logics from his idea and I asked Evan to explain to me about this if it can be done but there was no answer from him. I think right now Evan has enough of his own weight with trying to make MN secure from attacks and able to do what it's supposed to do so he has no interest in this discussion.
eth1
Member
It's quite simple and I don't know what the big issue here.
STRICT enforcement, and problem is solved for now. Darkcoin won't be mineable forever, once it's complete then you guys get to have everything for yourself.. You just don't want to leave any meat left for anybody else wich such projects, Masternodes will be generating and getting the coins for everything.
STRICT enforcement, and problem is solved for now. Darkcoin won't be mineable forever, once it's complete then you guys get to have everything for yourself.. You just don't want to leave any meat left for anybody else wich such projects, Masternodes will be generating and getting the coins for everything.