Thank you, such comments are appreciated. Indeed positive feedback is important as well. We are but a tool of the network and if the network only points out when things go wrong, we cannot know when things go right.
what does DTRT?
Should Platform run on all nodes or should Platform run only on High Performance nodes ?
- Thread starter qwizzie
- Start date
- Status
Thank you, such comments are appreciated. Indeed positive feedback is important as well. We are but a tool of the network and if the network only points out when things go wrong, we cannot know when things go right.
what does DTRT?
QuantumExplorer
Administrator
Staff member
Core Developer
Dash Core Group
Founder
Foundation Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Dash Support Group
Chief Sock Advisor
Do the right thing?
qwizzie
Well-known member
Looking at the different people that commented so far in this 18 pages long thread .. i would say there is a very negative majority, not a very negative minority.
Only a few people seem to support 4k or 10K so far....
xkcd thread does not seem to trigger much supportive responses either : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...gh-performance-masternodes.53394/#post-232576
It would be interesting to observe what the actual voting response will be, once the DCG decision proposals hit the Dash network and masternode owners need to vote on them.
Last edited:
It's the same handful persons commenting negatively in both threads though. We let the 3-4 of you voice your negative feedback for almost 18 pages, Let them voice their positive feedback for a comment or two, aren't you a proponent of free speech?
qwizzie
Well-known member
Nobody is restricting anybody from making comments, either in favor for or against the decision proposals. xkcd even created his own thread for it.
But to say that just 3-4 people voice negative feedback for almost 18 pages is just plain wrong. A lot more people provided negative feedback.
Maybe you should read those earlier pages before you entered into this discussion thread ?
I went over 5 pages in a few minutes, it was indeed only you few. And a person making a lighthearted joke and two persons being neutral. But yeah, i don't know why we are discussing that. Point is if you are the majority you don't need to point that out usually...
stan.distortion
Well-known member
WTF? How many other technical discussions have been somehow deleted from this forum?
qwizzie
Well-known member
Page 1 :
Semarge
vazaki3
dashfriend
kot
splawik21
GrandMasterDash
GNULinuxGuy
Macrochip
Me
All leaving negative feedback to the 4K HPM & 10K HPM ... and thats just page 1
We both know that feedback before any discussion even happened isn't really telling is it not? If you scroll back far enough you will also find negative feedback from xqc probably, i know he was against the idea of not enforcing platform on all nodes at first, and then he came back a few days later agreeing. That said, not very constructive, topic closed on my part.
qwizzie
Well-known member
It is telling to me, specially after those same people expressed their negative feedback a number of times during this 18 page thread.
If you want to ignore that, that is fine.
Of course people can change their opinion about this topic, specially after learning of the shortcomings / benefits of each solution.
But looking at the people that participated in this thread and commented so far, i would still say a majority left just negative feedback.
Last edited:
This is just your interpretation. And actually a quite negative interpretation.
You cannot know it. You don't know the number of Dash users, of forum users, of MNOs, and you don't know neither the number of silent persons in each of these 3 groups.
But you know the facts: there are about 4 or 5 overly loud voices in the group of forum users, and there are about 600 MN-votes acknowledging the work of DCG.
My interpretation is quite different: I guess, that there is a vast majority in all 3 groups, acknowledging the work of DCG, and keeping silent here, because they don't see any need to express their acknowledgment.
qwizzie
Well-known member
let me requote myself :
If this thread is considered pre-proposal feedback on the upcoming DCG decision proposals, it could be handy for DCG to take that into consideration as well.
Last edited:
vazaki3
Well-known member
598 MN-votes (approximately 76 individuals) acknowledge the work of DCG, but not necessarily the work of DashPlatform.
If DCG really wants to discover the truth, then they should split their next DCG-COMP-JAN-MAR23 into DASHPAY-COMP-JAN-MAR23 and DASHPLATFORM-COMP-JAN-MAR23 .
But I am afraid they will not, because truth hurts.
Last edited:
I don't know. Maybe the spam filter, because at the same time I was also banned from posting. The administrator promptly restored my privilege to post when I contacted him, but could not restore the thread. It is somewhat surprising that a spam filter can retroactively delete a thread.
TheNetworkIsBiggerThanYou
Active member
my problem, conceptually, with the 10k HPMN plan is that is seems to be designed reactively based on the existing constraints of the network (in particular, having a couple big whales). This doesn't feel right to me. Supposing that my feeling is just a feeling and not an accurate measure of the appropriateness of the plan, and assuming it is structurally sound in set up, there is one more thing that would need to be guaranteed to me, and I suppose to the rest of the network. That the HPMNs cannot censor the platform content. There is a lot of hyperbolic talk going on about broken promises, changed vision, etc. But truly if we allow censorship baked into the design and structure we have failed the mandate.
Let me define censorship first - When MNOs, or any other entities, are able to remove content from platform, or if they are able to manipulate the fees associated with specific data so as to prohibit their practical use.
So my questions are;
1.) Is there a mechanism in theory or practice, currently developed, to censor content from platform?
2.) What sort of guarantee is there that platform cannot be censored? What would that guarantee look like?
I'm extremely tired of Dash entities promising one thing and then pivoting. We've seen it most blatantly with the DIF where they promised to put all funding to a vote and then once they became entrenched they changed their mind on that promise. Somehow these things are viewed as acceptable. Censorship resistance is a non-negotiable. It is literally the only fucking reason Dash platform is interesting. Not the speed, or low cost, or usernames. The world needs an independent tool that dash is offering. It is unique and special. Marginalized and threatened groups need to know they can rely on the dash network otherwise they will not build on it, and who can blame them.
Censorship needs to happen at the application layer, not the protocol level. It is the app developers who are ultimately responsible for moderation of content. In the analogous centralized network, ISPs are responsible for moving child porn off their servers because they *can* remove the porn. They are not decentralized. There should be no option for blocking content by HPMNs. If a reasonable application developer who is not a totally gross deviant, does't want child porn in his application he needs to filter out that garbage. There is a myriad way of doing this filtering and the Dash DAO and DCG can be leaders in making it easy to do so.
In the future, when dash gets under heat for misusage of storage it is up the DAO and the developers to go after the offending parties by again offering application filtering tools, or through even hiring investigators to hunt down the identities of the deviants. With the treasury funding system we have the tool to do this.
If we can be assured beyond a doubt that Dash is being built to maintain, and ideally improve, its censorship resistance then I personally can accept, what my layman's perspective seems to be a suboptimal dash platform setup.
Let me define censorship first - When MNOs, or any other entities, are able to remove content from platform, or if they are able to manipulate the fees associated with specific data so as to prohibit their practical use.
So my questions are;
1.) Is there a mechanism in theory or practice, currently developed, to censor content from platform?
2.) What sort of guarantee is there that platform cannot be censored? What would that guarantee look like?
I'm extremely tired of Dash entities promising one thing and then pivoting. We've seen it most blatantly with the DIF where they promised to put all funding to a vote and then once they became entrenched they changed their mind on that promise. Somehow these things are viewed as acceptable. Censorship resistance is a non-negotiable. It is literally the only fucking reason Dash platform is interesting. Not the speed, or low cost, or usernames. The world needs an independent tool that dash is offering. It is unique and special. Marginalized and threatened groups need to know they can rely on the dash network otherwise they will not build on it, and who can blame them.
Censorship needs to happen at the application layer, not the protocol level. It is the app developers who are ultimately responsible for moderation of content. In the analogous centralized network, ISPs are responsible for moving child porn off their servers because they *can* remove the porn. They are not decentralized. There should be no option for blocking content by HPMNs. If a reasonable application developer who is not a totally gross deviant, does't want child porn in his application he needs to filter out that garbage. There is a myriad way of doing this filtering and the Dash DAO and DCG can be leaders in making it easy to do so.
In the future, when dash gets under heat for misusage of storage it is up the DAO and the developers to go after the offending parties by again offering application filtering tools, or through even hiring investigators to hunt down the identities of the deviants. With the treasury funding system we have the tool to do this.
If we can be assured beyond a doubt that Dash is being built to maintain, and ideally improve, its censorship resistance then I personally can accept, what my layman's perspective seems to be a suboptimal dash platform setup.
We'll adress that in the incoming FAQ, but basically the tldr is: if you look at node distribution among owners, 4/10K is better with bonus point if you have shares. If you care about the amount of nodes, well that's a parameter to set. You surely have in mind other projects which have lots of nodes and are "decentralized" but really owned by like 2-3 entities... Ownership distribution is very important to avoid censorship.
stan.distortion
Well-known member
Trust in DCG is deep into the red, you've definitely been pushing it back up but it's so far into the negative that DCG would be better liquidated and reformed imho. I'd say this issue is the straw that broke the camels back, the real issue was finding out we'd been hoodwinked with endless promises of "it's getting there!" and you where only handed that can of worms, you're not getting the blame for causing it.
That's where a good chunk of the anger is coming from imo, but certainly not all of it. You want to implement an optimisation method that goes against (for me) the whole point of crypto, decentralised and uncensorable. A few high performance nodes is how things work in the corporate world, it's centralised and censorable. Every additional node should add to the overall performance of the network, every other optimisation path leads to greater centralisation.
rion
Active member
Agreed. I'm planning to submit an alternative proposal that's very similar to what you described; the only caveat is that it would be coupled with timelocking the 1,000 DASH stake, for various reasons that I will expound upon if I formalize the proposal.
That post was preliminary. I've refined it a bit since then, but it's still the same general idea. Thanks for spending some time explaining your modeling. I wouldn't propose something I think has an "obvious issue". The potential to "hurt the project" exists in every scenario at this point, so that's not saying much.
Whale takeover chances in my model are not high. I'll share it with everyone when I have some more time to present it properly.
The 10k option is relatively secure because, like you say, most MNOs can't participate at that level. Unfortunately that's the same reason it's very risky to the project in various other ways. We need to find a way to launch securely without introducing problems associated with increasing collateral requirements. I think timelocks solves this. Binance isn't going to launch 270 platform nodes if they require a timelock, and Binance is the main risk.
Under timelocks what's more likely?
A) all the large whales convert every single one of their nodes into platform nodes, immediately, or
B) various dedicated small MNOs convert, and some large whales convert a small portion of their nodes.
I think B is more likely (with timelocks), and that's exactly what we want. Not everyone will love this, but I think more will find it acceptable than the alternatives.
Running platform should be accessible to all MNOs who believe in the project. Timelocks allow for that in a way that 4x/10x collateral increases don't. Keeping the 1,000 DASH requirement should be a design constraint.
One more thing: Everyone should keep in mind that not all DCG devs/staff feel the same as Sam. I know of at least one dev who doesn't think that launching with 1,000 DASH collateral is a big risk.
Just a heads up. If your idea still relies on timelock + 1K collaterals + a hard limit on the number of nodes, i will have to staunchly disagree and give my advice to the community wide and large, as this in fact is insecure. Not to mention the "lack of collateral differenciation" related issues. It will be quite confrontational so i'd rather say it beforehands, i hope it will not impact our working relations in your eyes. It won't for me, but the network goes above the rest though.
As of your other statements... eh... I will wait for you to actually present your idea somewhere to refute what i think is wrong.
QuantumExplorer
Administrator
Staff member
Core Developer
Dash Core Group
Founder
Foundation Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Dash Support Group
Chief Sock Advisor
This is not the topic for this thread. I have a feeling when I respond we will go offtopic. I'll respond very succinctly here. If though you want to continue the conversation about it I would suggest making a new thread dedicated to the topic.
We need to start by having a common understanding of what censorship means. According to the dictionary it is defined as to "examine officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it." According to that definition at launch there will be no censorship. Why? Because we are limiting sizes on Dash Platform to things really very small in order to push this problem to a future release. There is no examination of content so there is no censorship, but the goal of suppression of undesirable content is somewhat achieved.
Second we need to understand what the goal is... Platform should not be used as a marketplace for contract killings, terrorism and child pornography (and other things at this level). If anyone thinks it should, then there's nothing I'm willing to debate. However I think most people when talking about censorship are thinking more about people censoring online free speech. I think many here are rational enough to see the difference between someone who wants to participate in child abuse and someone who criticises the government.
Thoughts have been put into place on how to deal with these issues. The conceptual way of how we can deal with this problem is that we create 3 piles of types of content. The first is content that everyone must host, the second is content that everyone can host, and the third is content that no one can host.
Until we have the type of PoSe that we defined in other posts (that has never been done in blockchain) the feature presented here is not possible.
So we are all aligned, our roadmap is that we will first be building smart contracts, and then PoSe. At that point platform will have much easier ways to vote specific to decisions like this. We will ask the network to vote on the types of content it wants to put in each category, it may well vote that all data must be available in every category. However if that is the case I think many would resign including myself. Once that is done we will have a release for this feature while increasing the size of "blobs" of data in platform.
- Status