Should Platform run on all nodes or should Platform run only on High Performance nodes ?

[DASHvestor]

Imagine there's a bucket of water representing rewards. Now you split the water into two groups, one with with 62.5% of the water (Core Bucket) and the other with 37.5% (Platform bucket), one thing is apparent you have the same amount of water, just in two different containers.

Now let's split the collateral 50/50 between MNs and HPMNs, with 50% of MNs getting 50% of the overall water, but coming from the core bucket. Well 50% of the original collateral getting 50% of the origin rewards they are getting the same amount as before. For the HPMNs they are getting 37.5% from platform and 62.5 - 50 = 12.5% from core, added up they are also getting 50%, so they are getting the same as well. (This is the 4K solution).

Sorry, i am too stupid to understand it.
Maybe in one of the buckets is no water, but something else.

Regarding the 4K solution:
You confirmed a HPMN will earn just the same as a regular 1K node from Core (Payment Network).
With 4K HPMN this means, such a HPMN would have to earn in about 7-8 days time about 3times the amount of its Core Reward additionally from Platform Rewards,
so it would be economically sustainable in comparison to Rewards from four regular 1K nodes.
We know where the Rewards come from Core (Payment Network), those are basically new Dash coins generated from inflation.
But the Platform Chain will have not this priviledge of being able to generate Dash coins, right?
Therefore i am still wondering about the source of the Platform Rewards, because it will have to create a powerful stream of constant Rewards, to make 4K nodes economically viable.
In my humble opinion it could prove nearly-impossible to compensate HPMN according to their increased collateral with 75% being Platform Rewards (4K solution).

An Example:
Say we have 100 different 4K HPMN running Platform.
This means, in order to sufficiently offset missed-out Core Rewards from converting to HPMN,
Platform Rewards in about 7-8 days time (Core payment cycle), to those 100 different 4K HPMN would need to amount to
the Earnings of 300 regular 1K nodes. (basically those which vanished from the Core Payment Network through the conversion to HPMN)
According to my math, this is amounting to nearly 420 Dash equivalent worth of Platform Rewards which would need to get paid to those 100 HPMN in about 7-8 days time.
I have a hard time comprehending where those 420 Dash worth of Platform Rewards could possibly come from, every 7-8 days.

 

[qwizzie]

Platform rewards come from a Dash sidechain (a forked PoS Tendermint blockchain), which produce blocks very fast (every 5-6 seconds ?)
Platform rewards get pooled together and then distributed to (Platform) masternodes every 18 days.

Apparently the rewards from Core received by normal masternode and the rewards from Platform received by Platform masternodes (Core+Platform rewards), equal out when compared on a longer time frame (a yearly time period).

These are estimations for annual yield percentage between Platform on all nodes, 4K split system and 10K split system from QE :

At network start (no fees generated) AND Assuming the rewards even out with the market we get the following values..

All nodes run platform: 6.11%
4K split system: 7.05%
10K split system 7.16%

At network start (no fees generated) AND Assuming platform nodes get slightly more rewards (educated guesses on how the system will stabilise).
All nodes run platform: 6.11%
4K split system:
Masternodes: 6.9%
HPMasternodes: 7.2%
10K split system:
Masternodes: 7%
HPMasternodes: 7.3%


At network start (no fees generated) AND Assuming platform nodes get slightly more rewards AND platform nodes run stronger hardware to better server the network and ensure their profits(educated guesses on how the system will stabilize and hardware used).
All nodes run platform: 6.11%
4K split system:
Masternodes: 6.75%
HPMasternodes: 7%
10K split system:
Masternodes: 6.9%
HPMasternodes: 7.2%

Source : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...gh-performance-nodes.53374/page-7#post-232371
(i removed the 1K split system from QE's quote, as that turned out to be not workable)

I am curious if with the 4K split system and 10K split system, the annual yield could get even higher for HPMasternodes if Platform gets heavily used.
Causing an increasing mismatch between annual yield for normal masternodes and annual yield for HPMasternodes.

 

[DASHvestor]

Platform rewards come from a Dash sidechain (a forked PoS Tendermint blockchain), which produce blocks very fast (every 5-6 seconds ?)
Platform rewards get pooled together and then distributed to (Platform) masternodes every 18 days.

Apparantly the rewards from Core received by normal masternode and the rewards from Platform received by Platform masternodes (Core+Platform rewards), equal out when compared on a longer time frame (lets say looking at this on a monthly time period / yearly time period).

If its not DASH what is created there, the question will be what is it worth ?? Especially if there is no market trading it, and no price discovery mechanism in place.
Fixing an exchange rate with DASH would basically be the same as creating real Dash. If there is an exchange rate pegged to Dash price, it would be DASH.
Will it generate the equivalent worth of 420 Dash every 7-8 days, in my above-mentioned example, to compensate 100 different 4K HPMN with Platform Rewards,
to sufficiently offset missed-out Core Rewards to make HPMN ecnomically viable?

 

[qwizzie]

If its not DASH what is created there, the question will be what is it worth ?? Especially if there is no market trading it, and no price discovery mechanism in place.
Fixing an exchange rate with DASH would basically be the same as creating real Dash. If there is an exchange rate pegged to Dash price, it would be DASH.
Will it generate the equivalent worth of 420 Dash every 7-8 days, in my above-mentioned example, to compensate 100 different 4K HPMN with Platform Rewards,
to sufficiently offset missed-out Core Rewards to make HPMN ecnomically viable?

The Platform rewards (Credits) can be (and most likely will be) directly converted to dash (after receiving them every epoch / 18 days).
I think it is constructed this way, as a way to stimulate Platform usage (Platform services require Credits).

Correction : Platform rewards are mostly internal Credits and also a small portion of dash, for providing services on Core !!

 

[DASHvestor]

The Platform rewards (Credits) can be (and most likely will be) directly converted to dash (after receiving them every epoch / 18 days).
I think it is constructed this way, as a way to stimulate Platform usage (Platform services require Credits).

Converted by a Floating Exchange Rate from a publicly traded market where price discovery happens ??
If such Credits are planned to have a Fixed/Pegged Exchange Rate with Dash, they are creating additional Dash outside of our Core Payment Network.
Something that would at the very least require the Mandate, Authorization and Oversight by the MNO network.
We are talking here about printing additional Dash, potentially a lot.

I no longer understand what is going on here folks, and who has authorized all this.
Wouldn't be surprised if i will get banned soon, for raising a red flag here.

 

[qwizzie]

Platform rewards are not dash units, they are internal Credits units that can be internally converted to dash units or be used to pay for Platform services.
Correction : Platform rewards are mostly internal Credits and also a small portion of dash, for providing services on Core !!

No public exchange for Credits, this is all internally (within Dash) with optional convertion to dash units.
I am not sure how much 1 Credit unit exactly is in dash unit. I thinked it is fixed, but i can't remember the exact Credits unit -> Dash unit rate.

Update 1 duff : 1000 credits

Source : https://dashplatform.readme.io/docs/tutorial-topup-an-identity-balance

There will also be a way for Dash users to internally convert their dash to Credits (maybe inside the upcoming DashPay wallet ?) to pay for Platform services. And there will be promotions i imagine, with free Credits to potentially new users. To get them to use Platform.

 

[DASHvestor]

Platform rewards are not dash units, they are internal Credits units that can be internally converted to dash units.
No public exchange for Credits, this is all internally (within Dash) with optional convertion to dash units.
I am not sure how much 1 Credit exactly is in dash. I thinked it is fixed, but i can't remember the exact Credits unis -> Dash unit rate.

I cannot believe all this.
If what you say is true, somebody or a group of people greatly overstepped what they are allowed to do.

Perhaps you do not realize what you claim is happening, but if an Exchange Rate with Dash is Fixed/Pegged
(or even if they introduce fake volatility to dilute the waters and make it less obvious), it means that they are in fact creating more Dash,
irrespectively whether 1 Credit = 1 Dash or 1 Credit = 0.1 Dash or 1 Credit = 0.01 Dash.
1 Credit could be say 0.02313435 Dash but if this Exchange Rate is Fixed/Pegged, they still create Dash by generating those Credit Tokens.
In all those scenarios they are creating additional Dash, and potentially a lot.

If those Credits are not backed by real Dash that somebody put in there from the Treasury, Incubator or whatever,
then they are attempting to create more Dash, until the convertability may or may not break down at some point.

Creating an uncovered/unbacked Credit Token with a Fixed/Pegged convertability is certainly and clearly illegal if not having the explicit
Mandate, Authorization and Oversight by the MNO network. I am totally baffled at what is obviously happening.

I'd like to add, irrespective of what the Fixed/Pegged rate is, and irrespective whether you call it "Credits", "Points", "Tokens" or whatever,
if its uncovered/unbacked by real Dash(Core Payment Network), then it is an attempt to create more Dash outside of the Core Payment Network.
This fact should be self-evident.

 

[qwizzie]

As mentioned above, credits provide the mechanism for paying fees that cover the cost of platform usage. Once a user locks Dash on the core blockchain and proves ownership of the locked value in an identity create or topup transaction, their credit balance increases by that amount. As they perform platform actions, these credits are deducted to pay the associated fees.

Source : https://dashplatform.readme.io/docs/explanation-identity#credits

So i don't think this will inflate Dash Circulating Supply, what you seem most worried about.
And what Platform masternodes receive are mostly internal Credits instead of dash, which also does not inflate Dash Circulating Supply (they do get a small portion of dash rewards from Core, for providing services on Core, but they would have received that small portion of dash anyways).

I do wonder with Platform masternodes receiving mostly Credits, if this would not actually make Dash Circulating Supply smaller. Depends if Platform masternodes convert their credits to dash or not, i guess. I remember thinking about this before, i can't remember the outcome. What i do remember is being told that this would not affect Dash supply inflation rate (it would not bring that down unfortunetely).

 

[qwizzie]

Something else to think about for those currently in favor of 4K HPM / 10 HPM solutions : it not only leads to Platform network centralization (450 nodes in case of 4K HPM / 180 nodes in case of 10K HPM), it could also lead to centralization with regards to future voting on what type of content is allowed on Platform and what type of content not.

At this point it can not be ruled out that in the nearby future DCG could decide that a low number of HPM's ultimately get to decide what type of content can be stored on Platform. Is that wise or desirable ? I am not sure.

 

[DASHvestor]

Herewith i challenge QE and Virgile to prove my math is wrong.

Presumed that 1 Duff = 1,000 Credits as Qwizzie mentioned.
This translates to 100 billion Platform Credits = 1 Dash

Now, if we know that a 4K HPMN would need to earn about 4.20 Dash (3 x MN Block Reward of approximately 1.40 Dash) equivalent worth from Platform Rewards every 7-8days in order to earn the same amount of Rewards as compared running 4 regular 1K masternodes, this would mean each and every 4K HPMN would have to earn approximately 420 billion Platform Credits every 7-8days.
A Platform Network consisting of 100 different 4K HPMN would therefore need to earn no less than a combined 42 trillion Platform Credits every 7-8days.

And of course, provided that the convertibility from Platform Credits to Core Dash coins is well-funded, reliable and sustainable.
Because if not, a massive imbalance could result in the convertibility being unsustainable, if you eventually run out of Core Dash coins to convert Credits to.

So perhaps 4K HPMN are not economically viable because their Rewards will be unable to compete with 4 regular 1K masternode Rewards and by far.
Please show me where my math is wrong.

 

[rion]

@DASHvestor, I think what may not have been explained well enough to you is the source of platform "credits".

Platform "credits" are just units of account on the platform (Proof of Stake - PoS) chain.
These units of account are only increased when units of account on the payment (Proof of Work - PoW) chain are "locked" / "destroyed". This includes the scenario where block rewards from the PoW chain are converted into platform credits on the PoS chain to pay platform masternodes.

You are correct that the exchange rate is fixed between units on each chain. This is by definition, by design, and by the fact that the chains convert units at a protocol-defined exchange rate. 1 DASH = 100,000,000 DUFF = 100,000,000,000 CREDIT (1 DUFF = 1,000 CREDIT), all by protocol definition. You can think of them as the same "material", just expressed in different denominations and for different locations. A CREDIT is actually a denomination of DASH, but instead of the accounting being secured by miners with PoW consensus, the accounting is secured by a subset of masternodes with PoS consensus.

Proposals for any and all viable version of platform will not increase the money supply. Extensive work has been done by DCG to ensure that unit exchanges are secure between chains. Hope that helps.

 

[stan.distortion]

If you're determined to go the centralised and censorable route the just get on with it, there's no need for any screwing around with rewards. Plenty of MNOs will run it just to contribute, MN rewards are still over 10x VPS costs and their incentive is to see that figure get higher. Sacrificing 4x now for a reasonable chance at seeing 20x tomorrow is a crapload better than a guarantee of seeing them dwindle below 1x. The lower of the fees quoted should provide plenty of long term incentive if you where making proper use of the resources you have available.

 

[DASHvestor]

@DASHvestor, I think what may not have been explained well enough to you is the source of platform "credits".

Platform "credits" are just units of account on the platform (Proof of Stake - PoS) chain.
These units of account are only increased when units of account on the payment (Proof of Work - PoW) chain are "locked" / "destroyed". This includes the scenario where block rewards from the PoW chain are converted into platform credits on the PoS chain to pay platform masternodes.

You are correct that the exchange rate is fixed between units on each chain. This is by definition, by design, and by the fact that the chains convert units at a protocol-defined exchange rate. 1 DASH = 100,000,000 DUFF = 100,000,000,000 CREDIT (1 DUFF = 1,000 CREDIT), all by protocol definition. You can think of them as the same "material", just expressed in different denominations and for different locations. A CREDIT is actually a denomination of DASH, but instead of the accounting being secured by miners with PoW consensus, the accounting is secured by a subset of masternodes with PoS consensus.

Proposals for any and all viable version of platform will not increase the money supply. Extensive work has been done by DCG to ensure that unit exchanges are secure between chains. Hope that helps.

They may not be able to sustain such a Fixed Exchange Rate, if massive amounts of Platform Credits are created, which Platform Node Operators will regularly try to convert to Core Dash coins. They will eventually run out of Core Dash coins to convert all those Platform Credits to.
Unless it will be subsidized by the Treasury, but this will cost a damn lot, as i have outlined above.

But i think you missed my point, that nobody will run a 4K HPMN if he/she won't receive around 420 billion Platform Credits every 7-8 days.
This corresponds to 4.20 Dash in addition to the Core blockreward of 1.40 Dash.
If a 4K HPMN will obtain much less Platform Credits over a 7-8day period (or the convertibility becomes broken), every MNO will rather run 4 regular 1K masternodes,
that will yield him/her about 5.60 Dash every 7-8days (less hosting costs).

Therefore i wait for the confirmation from QE and Virgile, that indeed a 4K HPMN will easily and constantly earn around 420 billion Platform Credits every 7-8days.
Because if that is not the case, then 4K HPMN are not economically sustainable, at least not when rewarding them only 1 Core Reward, despite 4times the collateral.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

@QuantumExplorer

I'm curious. You say the collateral options for HPMNs will be either 4x or 10x greater than a regular MN. So does it still work if we make HPMNs 1000 dash and MNs 4x or 10x smaller? e.g. 250 dash or 100 dash.

If it does still work, why isn't this a voting option?
If it does not work, why not?

 

[GrandMasterDash]

My paranoia continues...

140 MNs coming online in the past 24 hrs. Previously told it's possibly due to people updating their nodes but this line is not staggered, it looks like a single entity.

This thread was started Sep 23, and if you look at the 90 day chart you will see this reversal started around the same time. The 90 day chart is up for debate but the past 24 hours looks like someone is priming their nodes for voting. I hope mnowatch is on this.

I am keen to see the difference between CrowdNode voting and the rest. If there is a different outcome, then all votes will be void. Or will DCG only accept the outcome that suits them best? Either way, if DCG make protocol changes without proper consent from the network, it will be considered a fork and forbidden to use the dash name and brand.

 

[AgnewPickens]

There are a lot of competing views on this topic and there are sure to be Governance Proposals coming out of
all of this from multiple parties. I invite you to flesh out some of the alternatives to the Platform hosting solutions
in this new category and focus some of this energy.

https://www.dash.org/forum/topic/new-governance-proposal-discussions.154/

@strophy you like?

 

[QuantumExplorer]

@QuantumExplorer

I'm curious. You say the collateral options for HPMNs will be either 4x or 10x greater than a regular MN. So does it still work if we make HPMNs 1000 dash and MNs 4x or 10x smaller? e.g. 250 dash or 100 dash.

If it does still work, why isn't this a voting option?
If it does not work, why not?

I had just not payed much thought to this option because of the negatives of extra costs to the network, however it might technically work. Thank you for bringing it up. @virgile would you have some time to run the numbers on 250 dash masternodes 1000 HPMNs?

 

[xkcd]

Anybody voting on the 4K or 10K "solutions" will ultimately vote for more centralization and creating an elitist cartel running Platform exclusively.
Correct me if i'm wrong

You're wrong. We've already shown you how requiring a large collateral size makes it impossible for large stake holders in Dash to form a majority in the Platform pool which would be bad the very definition of centralised.

, but the way they have planned this, those 4K or 10K nodes could use the lamest bandwidth connections and/or high-latency
connections, but as long as they have the collateral, everything is fine. Right?
Higher collateral doesn't guarantee better service, especially not in an environment which has no PoSe. Can we agree on that?

Yes, we can. The power of the nodes will always be dictated by what it takes to get paid and nothing more, we live in a capitalist society where optimizations will be made such that profits are maximised, this is normal and something that socialists don't understand.

Then supposedly, they are planning to just payout 4fold or 10fold the MN rewards for such 4K or 10K HPMNs.
But in doing so, they will basically create a second type/category of blockreward or at the very least a variable blockreward, where the amount of the
MN reward is depending on the collateralization of the node, whether its either a regular 1K node or a HPMN. This is going to affect Dash Tokenomics.
Because if a subset of nodes, gets paid 4fold or 10fold on an average 2.625 minute blocktime block, it will mean that the Dash coins still to be mined
until reaching Max Supply, will be mined way faster than planned and outlined in our Tokenomics. One doesn't need to be a math genius to understand that.

Whoa! Settle down there! You have no clue what you are talking about. First off, the rate of emission of new Dash and the final supply WILL NOT CHANGE! So, the total blockreward stays the same and the blocktime too. As for the 4k and 10k nodes, they will get to compete for 50% of the block reward that goes to Masternodes currently, ie approx 0.7 Dash per block. What they actually get will depend on how many of these nodes form, their effective ROI will be almost the same as the 1k nodes, why? Because if it too much more or less than than 1k nodes, they will move back to the 1k node pool OR more 1k nodes will collect to form the new 4k or 10k nodes. The SYSTEM WILL BALANCE ITSELF OUT. I can't understand why so many people in here still don't get that.

They won't give us the opportunity to vote on regular 1K MN with Voluntary Adherence to Platform (with or without Hardware-related competition).
They keep on repeating that it would be unsafe or somehow unsecure, but i don't believe them.
If they would spend only 5% of their effort with which they try to impose 4K or 10K, they would easily find a proper and safe way to do it.
Because it would be the most natural, non-coercive and sensible way to start Platform.

This is the proper way to start platform and so far nothing better has been put forward.

Anyway, its pointless to have this alibi discussion here for them.
Those DCG guys especially QE and Virgile are hell-bent on introducing either 4K or 10K, have already made their mind up, and will stop at nothing.
They will try to arrange the Voting in such a way, that either 4K or 10K comes out winning, perhaps by only a few Yes votes, and then use those Fake Votings
(even if its technically an unpassing Governance proposal with no enacting power whatsoever) as an excuse to impose this abomination.
Unpassing proposals have no merit at all. Unpassing proposals do not show you any direction. Unpassing proposals will not absolve you from your deeds.
Be warned: If you cross this red line, you can expect lawsuits for damages coming your way.

This is rampant speculation on your part, the voting will be legitimate and you can tune in to https://mnowatch.org/ for all the details, we will keep you posted on it and make sure there is no fuckery in the votes.

 

[vazaki3]

You're wrong. We've already shown you how requiring a large collateral size makes it impossible for large stake holders in Dash to form a majority in the Platform pool which would be bad the very definition of centralised.

I still dont understand how requiring a large collateral size makes impossible for the large stake holders to form a majority.
Could you provide a url link having both the rationale and the calculations?

 

[DASHvestor]

I still dont understand how requiring a large collateral sizes makes impossible for the large stake holders to form a majority.
Could you provide a url link having both the rationale and the calculations?

Simple answer: it doesn't
Its a lie.
What it does is the exact opposite, a much higher collateral will favor only the few large stakeholders. Nobody else can participate (unless Trustless Shares are introduced).
Now they talk about Trustless Shares being a solution for a problem which is both, self-imposed and totally unnecessary.
And nobody will run a 4K HPMN anyway (for long), unless its economically viable. It will have to at least match the profitability of running 4 regular 1K masternodes.