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

Status
Not open for further replies.
GrandMasterDash said:
The coming timeline looks something like this:

1. Establish 4K HPMNs.
2. Remove 1K MNs because 4K HPMNs do everything anyway.
3. Establish 10K HPMNs because that was always the magic number.
4. Move completely to Proof of Stake, HPMNs being the largest controlling share holders.
5. To get in bed with financial institutions, HPMNs will voluntarily filter Platform content and in the process overcompensate to please their masters.
6. Game over.
Click to expand...

From what source did you get this timeline?
 
GrandMasterDash said:
The backstory is, Evan had these ideas of how to make dash "so easy your grandmother could use it". It was fueled by community members such as myself because that also was exactly my first thought on crypto in general. Evan mentioned usernames and savings accounts and actual physical branches you could walk into for help. MNOs would eventually run dedicated hardware and everything would be funded from the treasury, a money printing machine that would feed itself and keep growing into a monster money machine. Global domination.

After Evan left, DCG spent years scratching their head trying to build a foundation. They tried this several times, over the years abandoning and rebuilding. After a few years they decided what they wanted could be generalized resulting in the current stack that can not efficiently be run by just a few thousands nodes that the network already has in place.

The comparison with Ericsson is spot on. Ironically, Erlang, explicitly built (largely) by Ericsson to massively scale network programming. What can we say about competing programming languages that won market share despite their shortcomings?

One of the benefits cited for Platform is the result set proofs, that the returned data is actually complete. What is the killer app for this feature? I suspect the truth is, the growing toolsets for generalized ZKPs is fast outpacing what Platform is doing without the need for a very small federated network (HPMNs).

Not to mention the content filtering coming to Platform, required because data privacy was never considered essential.

The coming timeline looks something like this:

1. Establish 4K HPMNs.
2. Remove 1K MNs because 4K HPMNs do everything anyway.
3. Establish 10K HPMNs because that was always the magic number.
4. Move completely to Proof of Stake, HPMNs being the largest controlling share holders.
5. To get in bed with financial institutions, HPMNs will voluntarily filter Platform content and in the process overcompensate to please their masters.
6. Game over.
Click to expand...

I think i remember the days when Evan and i think even amanda_b_johnson talked about the wallet with username / picture and how it would be very simple to use. That would be the killer app for making Dash truly useful for everyday user or your grandma.
I keep going back to that idea! Did we really need to build a monster platform + adding HPMN for that usecase?
And yes ZK has evolved allot and it would be better to re-use allot of existing toolkit then to re-invent the wheel.
But anyway now that 4k is voted i assume its to late to stop the machine.

Sadly your 1-6 scenario dont look very far fetched. When you start to centralize it will just grow into one direction...
 
legitimately decentralized finance is the killer app that platform will unlock. Until dash users can be shielded from price fluctuations, the need for stable coins, and centralized exchanges, Dash will flounder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kot
GrandMasterDash said:
The Large Hadron Collider, which was sold and moved to China in the year 2027 was able to send the info back via the Quantum Interchain Wormhole.
Click to expand...

I am not sure why are you writting such crap then. This doesn’t do anything positive but pushes people away instead.
 
GrandMasterDash said:
Use cases is one thing but finding the killer use cases is something entirely different. Personally, I don't see how anyone can know with certainty. We do know that dash wallet and treasury will move to it, but that's too self-serving. I will say, though, that a lot of what Platform does can be achieved through Bullet Proofs and Zero Knowledge Proofs. Generalized ZKPs are advancing quite a bit now, it's just that DCG don't have enough technical ability to deal with it, so they built Platform instead.
Click to expand...
Proper wallets with a friendly user interface was always the goal, ZKP are dangerous in the long term when it comes to getting cracked, it bye bye to the whole network and its history, that simply the trade-off of of having a oppaque blockchain. Data contracts are something totally different, the point your making is so stupid it brins into question everything you said up to this point even do quite allot makes sense.
 
@Adding1kDash this topic is about Platform not circulating supply. You are confusing how ZKPs are applied.

There is no question if ZKPs work, the math is not disputed. The application and implementation is very important. This means, in an economy where you need to prove that no extra coins were mined, then yes, the void between opaque and random strings has not been sufficiently reconciled (though there has been substantial progress). This is exactly why I always say people need to hold both types of assets because of this lack of reconciliation.

Having said that - and a little off-topic - there are mechanisms to keep the circulating supply in check, though the methods are not the same as transparent chains.

In any event, you will notice my comment was highlighted to mention use cases. There are several projects doing what Platform does. Take a look at ProvenDB. Of course, it won't meet Sam's standards but this is still about use cases and killer apps.
 
GrandMasterDash said:
@Adding1kDash this topic is about Platform not circulating supply. You are confusing how ZKPs are applied.

There is no question if ZKPs work, the math is not disputed. The application and implementation is very important. This means, in an economy where you need to prove that no extra coins were mined, then yes, the void between opaque and random strings has not been sufficiently reconciled (though there has been substantial progress). This is exactly why I always say people need to hold both types of assets because of this lack of reconciliation.

Having said that - and a little off-topic - there are mechanisms to keep the circulating supply in check, though the methods are not the same as transparent chains.

In any event, you will notice my comment was highlighted to mention use cases. There are several projects doing what Platform does. Take a look at ProvenDB. Of course, it won't meet Sam's standards but this is still about use cases and killer apps.
Click to expand...

I was actually responding how your are confusing how ZKP's are apply, but appearently you realized that datasize storage requirements are different than privacy.
We can debate the topic all the but I will stand with the following facts
1) almost all code ever made had some mistakes in it, many unknow unknows including backdoors, and later to invented ways to abuse/miss-use software.
2)If the blockchain is transparant you will always an instantly see abuse/hacks/attacks that make changes in the blockchain, there is an added risk for opaque blockchain no matter how clever the protections systems are in place.

How large are those risks ? well nobody can give you the numbers with 100% certainty. Which means a risk even well below 1% could bring in hyper inflation and complete destruction of a coins value, which is acceptable risk, however this is not for crypto as currency. Centralisation such as Sam will now be adding Dash platform is also totally unacceptable, it's very sad to see this happen as it means dash will likely be losing it nr1 spot for crypto as currency in the coming time.
 
Adding1kDash said:
I was actually responding how your are confusing how ZKP's are apply, but appearently you realized that datasize storage requirements are different than privacy.
We can debate the topic all the but I will stand with the following facts
1) almost all code ever made had some mistakes in it, many unknow unknows including backdoors, and later to invented ways to abuse/miss-use software.
2)If the blockchain is transparant you will always an instantly see abuse/hacks/attacks that make changes in the blockchain, there is an added risk for opaque blockchain no matter how clever the protections systems are in place.

How large are those risks ? well nobody can give you the numbers with 100% certainty. Which means a risk even well below 1% could bring in hyper inflation and complete destruction of a coins value, which is acceptable risk, however this is not for crypto as currency. Centralisation such as Sam will now be adding Dash platform is also totally unacceptable, it's very sad to see this happen as it means dash will likely be losing it nr1 spot for crypto as currency in the coming time.
Click to expand...

I know and explained all this but again you are talking about ZKPs in the context of money creation and I am not. ZKPs doesn't only apply to blockchain money. Re-read what I said, this is a discussion about Platform.

But if you want to talk about ZKPs in the context of money then sure I am happy to advocate for both sides because they both have unique qualities. Just a couple of years ago those qualities were mutually exclusive but I do believe that void is less now.
 
Looks like DCG have released v19.0.0 RC1 on the develop side of Dashpay Github (see : https://github.com/dashpay/dash/commits/v19.0.0-rc.1)
Hopefully it will not take 11 additional release candidates, like it did with v18.0.0 on Testnet.
This somewhat speedy v19.0.0 RC1 for Testnet does look promising (i did not expect it this soon), hopefully it will soon be followed by a release to Dash Mainnet.

DCG also created a pull request for v20.0.0 on Github (see : https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5215)

So on the DCG Core team side, things are shaping up nicely at the looks of it (with regards to Dash Core v19 and v20). Hopefully the same goes for the DCG Platform team, we will learn more about that with the next DCG Core and Platform development update (tomorrow?).

According to the recently updated Dash Roadmap :

Dash Core v19 for Mainnet : Q1-2023 (it will be interesting to see if DCG can keep to this ETA).
Dash Platform RC1 for Testnet : May 2023.
Dash Core v20 for Mainnet : June 2023
Dash Platform v1.0 Roll Out for Mainnet : June 2023
Dash Platform Activation for Mainnet : July 2023
DashPay wallet dApp launch for Mainnet : Aug 2023

(see : https://www.dash.org/roadmap/)
 
Last edited:
xkcd said:
Finally, Justin Bons weighs in on the High Collateral Masternode debt and shock horror! He's in support of them! Read on.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1670905008534040577
Click to expand...


Even if the Pope himself says it, it still remains wrong to reduce the number of masternodes.

Of course the best way is to spot the individualities. But until the stupid DCG accepts our mnowatch sofisticated solution, the big number of masternodes remains the only safe way towards BOTH decentralization AND network safety on government attacks.


.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone know where we can find documentation on the different types of special nodes (like HPMNs) that are possible in the dash ecosystem? I am exploring something interesting that might leverage new type of node.
 
TheNetworkIsBiggerThanYou said:
Does anyone know where we can find documentation on the different types of special nodes (like HPMNs) that are possible in the dash ecosystem? I am exploring something interesting that might leverage new type of node.
Click to expand...

Could you please elaborate on what you mean by
different types of special nodes (like HPMNs) that are possible
Click to expand...
I dont understand what you mean and what exactly you are searching for.

In mnowatch we group masternodes depending on their voting behavior/history, on vote similarity, on some special transactions in the blockchain or on the time they cast their votes (although the last can be tricked if you use DMT)

So we have 4 types when we discover the individualities

  • VoteHistory/Vote Behavior
  • Similarity of votes.
  • Blockchain Analysis
  • Temporal Analysis

There are also 3 types of masternodes, according to the Dash protocol

  • Normal Masternodes having 1000 collateral
  • HighCollateralMasterNodes (misleadingly named HPerformanceMN by the DCG) having 4000 collateral
  • CrowdNodes.
 
Last edited:
vazaki3 said:
There are also 3 types of masternodes, according to the Dash protocol

  • Normal Masternodes having 1000 collateral
  • HighCollateralMasterNodes (misleadingly named HPerformanceMN by the DCG) having 4000 collateral
  • CrowdNodes.
Click to expand...
The 3 types of masternodes. Anyone know where the most up to date documentation about this is?
 
Bridgewater said:
There are only two types of masternodes.

Understanding Masternodes — Dash latest documentation

Explanation of how Dash masternodes work in theory and practice to support InstantSend, CoinJoin and governance
docs.dash.org docs.dash.org
Click to expand...

There are three types of masternodes, but the Crowdnode type is not officialy recognized by the DCG.

Similarly, there are two ways to vote in the budget. Vote yes/no/abstain, or vote the numbers. But voting the numbers is not officialy recognized by the DCG.

DCG, being a Dash_state's funded organization that has no market competition at all within the Dash boundaries, it remains a setback and a delay factor to whatever progress or improvment. They claim that their delay in implementing whatever new idea is for security reasons, but in reality it is because DCG is a monopoly .
 
Last edited:
I think this trend of increasing stakeholder collateral is similar to miners needing to spend more on hardware to stay competitive.. squeezing out the small guys and demanding fewer points of failure. Some will argue the big boys were here all along but at least with cheaper nodes, the node runner had a choice to distribute their risk.. high collateral nodes take that choice away.
 
GrandMasterDash said:
I think this trend of increasing stakeholder collateral is similar to miners needing to spend more on hardware to stay competitive.. squeezing out the small guys and demanding fewer points of failure. Some will argue the big boys were here all along but at least with cheaper nodes, the node runner had a choice to distribute their risk.. high collateral nodes take that choice away.
Click to expand...
Poppycock! The network still support low collateral nodes and last I checked you can pick one up for a little over 1 Bitcoin or $36k USD.; Cheap!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top