Yep, saw that - same idea: intrinsic masternode payouts.I had a similar notion earlier that I posted on BCT:
One possible solution that occurs to me would be a slight change to the X11 algo to go with the update for the rest of us, but that's a big undertaking. Or maybe it isn't, I don't know? If the algo changes then pools/p2pool would have to update for their mined blocks to be considered valid by the network, and the algo itself could include a MN fee check... but at this point I am speculating way above my pay grade...
What about having some form of PoService p2pool running on the Masternodes, with each MN 'mining' on it?Yep, saw that - same idea: intrinsic masternode payouts.
During one of my long jogs i thought about something like your modified X11 algo, where miners are dependant on a token from the masternodes to finalize their Proof the Work. But i came to the conclusion that it would introduce another attack/spoof vector.
The current solution (miners share their reward) has the benefit to be simple, but is dependant on good actors. And as you wrote: Changing this is a big undertaking, regardess wether you change the algorithm, add another "Proof-of"-Layer or other changes to the Darkcoin blockchain logic.
I read the TorCoin/TorPath paper, and really like the approach for a Proof-of-Bandwidth algorithm for paying incentives to the exit nodes. The difference between TorCoin and Darkcoin is that Darkcoin is already live, and the coins are not mined by the masternodes, but the miners.
Nevertheless we will need to think about a model which enables us for more complex payout model when we turn to "DarkTor".
Lots of things to consider to find the right trade off between technically possible and economically necessary
Yep, my first thought as well - will not satisfy our requirements:What about having some form of PoService p2pool running on the Masternodes, with each MN 'mining' on it?
edit: I have absolutely no idea how this might be integrated with regular mining.
I think the headache lies in the integration with the existing PoW scheme.
Neither do I, I did say it was a truly terrible idea. :wink:
Hey Evan, thanks so much for taking the time to respond. I bet what's happening is, although my darksend settings are identical for both clients, the current pools of funds don't match up in terms of compatibility, so I'll match them up. Probably wouldn't hurt for me to run a testnet MN as well.
In the future, I'd suggest that the testnet be supplied with a healthy number of peers and master nodes at all times for researchers. Perhaps I can add that to documentation of my tips for crypto-currencies to ensure that their currency is friendly to researchers.
Hey Evan, thanks so much for taking the time to respond. I bet what's happening is, although my darksend settings are identical for both clients, the current pools of funds don't match up in terms of compatibility, so I'll match them up. Probably wouldn't hurt for me to run a testnet MN as well.
In the future, I'd suggest that the testnet be supplied with a healthy number of peers and master nodes at all times for researchers. Perhaps I can add that to documentation of my tips for crypto-currencies to ensure that their currency is friendly to researchers.
