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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Knipsel.JPG


Source : https://github.com/dashpay/FAQs/blob/master/Platform/platform-activation-hpmn-faq.md

This directly contradicts earlier statement of virgile and clearly shows there was no consensus for only the HPMN solutions among DCG. And yet here we are, asked to vote on Governance proposals that even DCG itself could not reach internal consensus on. So much for Sam's statement to only issue decision proposals, if internal consensus among DCG was reached for a HPM solution. At the time i was inclined to ask for those final vote numbers, but let it pass because i trusted virgile to provide us with reliable information (which is why i liked his post). I feel a bit like a fool now.

Knipsel0.JPG


Knipsel2.JPG


Knipsel3.JPG
 
Last edited:
As development for the release of Dash Platform nears completion, certain drawbacks of the original plan that every Masternode would host Dash Platform have come to light. Voices of concern started forming this year that can be grouped into five main categories:

  • The approach of forcing Masternode owners to run Platform.
  • The performance of the system.
  • The safety of the system (it not going down).
  • The cost of the system to the network (ROI).
  • The fee cost to users.
We took these concerns seriously and thought about the best way to remedy them with solutions that would be relatively easy to implement. We came up with a solution called High Performance Masternodes that will be explained in this FAQ.
Click to expand...
Source : https://github.com/dashpay/FAQs/blob/master/Platform/platform-activation-hpmn-faq.md

Another contradiction. The safety of the system and possible safety issues were actually never disclosed to the Dash community and only came to light in this discussion thread when Sam voiced concern about it himself. Which then led to questions about the safety of the system from me and from other Dash community members.

I am not getting a good impression of this FAQ so far.

I am starting to think it is perhaps best to just vote on which solution is best for the Dash network (which solution provides : the highest level of decentralization, the highest level of censorship resistance, the highest level of masternode whale concentration resistance with regards to future Platform voting) and for now just ignore the safety of the system part. Platform developers ignored it themselves for many many years, never discussed it before with MNO's / Dash community, so why should MNO's worry about it now, during this decision-making on how to start Dash Platform ?
 
Last edited:
The stubborn c* didn't listen to any of the feedback or alternative solutions.

All three proposals must be considered void as DCG has made a shameless attempt to make substantial changes to the network topology, consensus and tokenomics without acquiring super majority. The Trust Protectors must intervene now and make a statement, this is exactly what you are here for.
 
Platform on all nodes solution estimate on dash.org/forum
Date : 13th of October 2022

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%

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%

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%
Click to expand...

Source : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...gh-performance-nodes.53374/page-7#post-232371

Platform on all nodes solution estimate in the actual DCG decision proposal text
Date : 29th of November 2022

Every Masternode must run Platform (this solution) : 4.70%
Click to expand...

Source : https://www.dashcentral.org/p/EVO-DECISION-EVERY-NODE-RUNS-PLATFORM

WTF ? How did we get from 6.11% annual yield to 4.70% annual yield ?

Update :

Knipsel.JPG

Check out row 14 and 19 here for proof: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...gyr8CL2zSJwSmcic0NzIw8X-74/edit#gid=395944304
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Looks like Dash annual yield / ROI for masternodes is nothing more then the percentage difference between 1000 dash (mn collateral) and 1073.2 dash (mn collateral + yearly masternode earnings).

*** Masternode hosting cost does not come into play. ***

See : https://dash-news.de/dashtv/#curr=USD&value=1000

Collateral : 1000 dash
Masternode Earnings : 6,10 dash per month x 12 months = 73.2 dash

Percentage difference between 1000 & 1073.2 is 7.32% (Dash masternode annual yield / ROI)

So why should DCG include masternode hosting cost in the calculations for Platform masternode annual yield, when pretty much every website showing masternodes annual yield / ROI does not include masternode hosting cost, when calculating the annual yield for normal masternodes ?

Is it not comparing apples with oranges ? And is it even needed ?
What would the annual yield / ROI percentage look like for each Platform start solution, without the masternode hosting costs ?
 
Last edited:
xkcd said:
big splash for the 4k proposal
Click to expand...
Something, that I cannot understand.
Let me cite Solarguy on dashcentral.org:
But once I recognized the (in my view) inevitability of shared HP Evo-Platform nodes, my primary objection to the 10k solution evaporated and it is now a serious contender _for me._ It _is_ more profitable, which is fine by me.
Click to expand...
And furthermore, 10k offers better performance and better security...
 
rion's video presentation : Dash Platform Node Model Explanation


This not only describes in easy to understand words his 1K Dash Collateral High Performance Masternode (Voluntary) Solution, but also goes into full detail on all the other solutions. Very good video to watch, to get a better understanding of every Platform start solution currently on the network.

I am impressed with his multi-solution model.

He also use Masternodes & Platform nodes gross annual yield (excludes masternode hosting cost) and Masternode & Platform nodes net annual yield (includes masternode hosting cost. Precisely what i was wondering about before. Now we can compare apples with apples.

For those that need more understanding for each solution on the network with regards to annual yield estimate, overall chance of failure in a Platform quorum, masternodes / Platform network count, reaching equilibrium, how profitable each solution could potentially be for the early joiners before equilibrium is reached :
go watch his video.
 
Last edited:
As you can see above in Rion's superb video , if the 4k(10k) proposal passes the economic analysis reveal that it will result the reduction of masternodes from 5000 to 2500(2180).

What can an ordinary masternode (that owns less than 4k) do in order to prevent this catastrophic senario? The only way to stop the reduction of the number of the masternodes (if the 10k or 4k proposal passes) is to change the hardcoded (by the DCG) number of the 50% rewards allocated to the DashPlatform (a reward stolen from the masternodes's reward). But how can we change that number?

As always, the way to strike the stupid and the agents is to vote the numbers. And how can we vote the numbers in the current budget system?

Simple, you have to use the TERNARY or ΤRINARY or BASE3 NUMERAL system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_numeral_system

If you make the assumption that ABSTAIN VOTE=0, NO VOTE=1 and YES VOTE=2 , then you can vote from numbers 0-2.
if you cast TWO proposals (at the cost of 2 dash proposal fee) under the TERNARY system, you can vote numbers from 0-8
if you cast THREE proposals (at the cost of 3 dash proposal fee) under the TERNARY system, you can vote from 0-26.

So if you want to vote from 0% to 100%, you can divide 100/26=3.84 and thus if the average of the voting result of the budget vote is 1 then 3.84% is voted, if the average result of the budget vote is 10 then 38.4 is voted, if the average result of budget vote is 15 then 57.6% is voted e.t.c.

I have no incentives to propose such a system, because I am poor delegate voter holding 1 masternode vote, and also I hold only 6 dash in my wallet.

But if I were a masternode I would definitely ask a governance decision in order for this voting the numbers system to become legitimate.

Then I would cast a proposal in order to vote about the percentage of the masternode rewards that the platform system is planning to steal.
 
Last edited:
Conveniently, despite the pre-proposal "debate", DCG have provided only one solution with different parameters. From start to finish, they did not alter one thing in their one-and-only design.

And they completely ignored my suggestion for each masternode to have a public Liquidity Pool to raise the needed collateral. I know why; they have already written most of the code for HPMNs, so it's all a bit inconvenient to research and write a different solution.

Sam did admit 1K HPMNs would work with a lowering of collateral for regular MNs.. but once again, not good enough - never going to be good enough. The stubborn SOB just plowed ahead with his first and only idea, never had any intention of listening to anyone but himself.

So, I wish voting by numbers was a thing but unfortunately it all falls apart when there's a selfish c* at the top.

Maybe if someone makes a donation to mnowatch you do with it what you please.
 
People who vote YES for the 4K proposal.
https://mnowatch.org/latestlink_DashdUniqueHashVotes.html?3=EVO-DECISION-4K-HPMN

As you can see in the above link, approximately 32 individuals are proponents of the 4k solution, among them approximately 18 individuals own less than 4K.

These 18 individuals that own less than 4k are actually voting in favor of the reduction of their masternodes rewards!!!!
Are they nuts????

Obviously they are either agents, or completely stupid.
"Two things are infinite: The universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." -- Einstein.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top