qwizzie
Well-known member
We are not talking about HPMNs, we are talking about the 1K solution where the 1K collateral does not change.
See : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...gh-performance-nodes.53374/page-4#post-232275
Last edited:
Should Platform run on all nodes or should Platform run only on High Performance nodes ?
- Thread starter qwizzie
- Start date
- Status
We are not talking about HPMNs, we are talking about the 1K solution where the 1K collateral does not change.
See : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...gh-performance-nodes.53374/page-4#post-232275
I'm still waiting for someone to explain - beyond intuition / hunch - why the price to use Platform is an issue. There is no competition, it's unique and a game changer, right? If no one can answer this basic question then this whole discussion is void.
What was 7 years for if ultimately you're going to get lazy, cheat and centralize it? Could of taken that route with usernames a LONG time ago. That is a genuine question, why wasn't a more centralized username system introduced earlier?
What was 7 years for if ultimately you're going to get lazy, cheat and centralize it? Could of taken that route with usernames a LONG time ago. That is a genuine question, why wasn't a more centralized username system introduced earlier?
That was an error, sorry. I've edited my post.
qwizzie
Well-known member
So in this 1K masternode situation how would the reward distribution work ?
platform=1 --> 1K Platform nodes --> MN Rewards for Core service (which could increase if normal 1K Masternode group gets smaller) --> Platform Credits to compensate for higher hardware requirements, claimable every 18 days (after an epoch)
Have to pay for additional hardware requirements / higher VPS costs.
Versus
platform=0 --> The Normal 1K Masternodes --> MN rewards for Core service (which could increase if this group gets smaller)
No additional hardware requirements / no higher VPS costs.
That is it, right ?
It provides no messing with the collateral, no centralization and if Platform nodes were to go down due to a bug, we would still have the normal masternodes operational. Only disadvantage would be (just like for the 4K & 10K collateral solution) that it divide the network in two smaller groups of masternodes.
Last edited:
I don't think so, but I can be wrong.
This is, what I've understood:
The reward for Core services is distributed among all MNs (platform=0 and platform=1).
The reward for Platform services is distributed among all MNs with platform=1.
qwizzie
Well-known member
i think i did that ? Let me adjust a few things in my previous post. Maybe it gets more clear.
edit : adjusted.
Last edited:
Ok. But then, why would the reward increase, when some of the MNOs switch the "platform" toggle?
I guess, that I don't understand your logic...
qwizzie
Well-known member
Because the mn payment interval would get shorter. Interval between payments is based on number of active masternodes expressed in blocks between payments. If that gets smaller than the number of blocks between mn payments get smaller ---> more mn payments over time.
Currently we have 3717 active masternodes = 3717 blocks between payment for Core service (3717 blocks=approx 6 days). If a lot of those masternodes switch to Platform then that number drops / blocks between payment drops. More MN payments for Core service will occur over time (perhaps mn payments will then occur every 1858 blocks / 3 days).
This is assuming there is a clear differentiation between active 1K Platform nodes and active normal 1K nodes on the network itself.
Last edited:
QuantumExplorer
Administrator
Staff member
Core Developer
Dash Core Group
Founder
Foundation Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Dash Support Group
Chief Sock Advisor
To dispel rumors that this was going to take a while I asked Ody to write it up, in less than an hour he did most of the work, still needs review and some minor adjustments (maybe). But yeah, this wouldn't cause ANY delay, and might even speed things up as testnet and mainnet would be more similar which would mean fewer required complicated large scale tests.
qwizzie
Well-known member
Does it include changes to how those High Performance Masternodes vote throughout Dash codebase ? (4x / 10x)
Does it include changes within the Dash Core wallet (for all platforms) with regards to Governance section and Masternode section ?
(Governance section handles the budget vote count, Masternodes section should differentiate between normal masternodes and HPM's)
Possible update of Dash mobile phone apps ? (not sure if that requires changes as well)
Update of the official Dash Documentation ?
Is that all taking into consideration as well ?
Last edited:
I don't think so. Again: Platform MNs are supposed to provide Core services too.
qwizzie
Well-known member
Basically Core services is getting provided by two seperate assets, by normal 1k nodes and by 1K Platform nodes.
If 1K normal nodes drops in numbers then you end up with more masternode rewards on the 1K normal nodes side, which should spread to the 1K Platform nodes as well (as they are providing Core service as well).
This is how incentive is currently build into Dash : if enough masternodes sell or get PoSe banned, the mn reward interval gets shorter and more mn payments occur over time. I assume that is also the case with two seperate 1K assets. Otherwise there would be no incentive stabilisation anymore. The network will need to monitor number of active 1K normal nodes and number of active 1K Platform nodes (both will have different number of active nodes) and have some kind of interaction. It would be nice to get some dev opinion on this though, because i am not totally sure if that works this way.
What all these solutions (1K / 2K / 4K /10K) do have in common : they divide the network in two masternode groups.
Only the 'Dash Platform on all nodes' solution keeps the network working with one large masternode group.
The only reason why i am paying so much attention to the 1K solution (normal 1K nodes & platform 1K nodes) is because it addresses the security issue with the Dash 'Platform on all nodes' solution (if Platform goes down due to a possible bug, all masternodes go down), while not sacrificing decentralisation / not messing with the 1K collateral. And it offers an option to masternode owners.
Last edited:
Yes, I like this idea too. Sam wants to take away an option while these solution gives a choice AND aims to solve the same problem.
Last edited:
QuantumExplorer
Administrator
Staff member
Core Developer
Dash Core Group
Founder
Foundation Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Dash Support Group
Chief Sock Advisor
I am not taking away any options. I am proposing to the network various solutions to vote on. When I get some time I will analyze what was requested of me, but right now I am sadly very busy.
No, Sam. You want to cut off "small" MNOs from Platform, allowing only "whales" to participate. That's what your proposals aimed for. You're exactly taking away an option and a choice to run Platform or not. You may have your reasons, but that's the immediate effect - hundreds of MNOs with balance less than 4k will be kicked out of the future of crypto they have invested to.
Last edited:
qwizzie
Well-known member
Well, masternode owners that do not have 4.000 dash or 10.000 dash can not setup Dash Platform masternodes. By raising the collateral they are denied the option to support Dash Platform.
With the 1K solution, current masternode owners have the option to either setup a 1K Dash Platform masternode or stay with their current 1K masternode.
And this is without raising the collateral. And it solves the security problem (Dash platform down --> all masternodes down).
QuantumExplorer
Administrator
Staff member
Core Developer
Dash Core Group
Founder
Foundation Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Dash Support Group
Chief Sock Advisor
There are a few misconceptions that need to be addressed.
Anyone can run a platform node, though you would only get *direct* rewards from Platform if you have the collateral of 4k Dash.
The second misconception is that going with the 4k solution would deprive normal masternodes of higher rewards gained through platform. And this is the one that is somewhat hard to understand. The equilibrium for rewards always takes into to account the fees that platform masternodes get minus the cost to run the network, meaning that if platform rewards go up it will incentivize normal Masternode owners to run High Performance nodes themselves instead, reducing the number of normal Masternodes and pushing up normal Masternode rewards.
The third misconception is that I want only whales to participate. This is false. I want us to focus on masternode shares asap to allow users with less Dash to stake in a Trustless way (even though crowdnode is a great service). We're very soon at a point where we can take on this feature.
There is another point that I might not have mentioned. Let's assume we are at 1TB of storage, with 4k nodes thats 4k TB. Most MNOs use VPS's that cost around 1$/GB/Year. This would cost each MN 1000$ / year in storage costs alone or 4M for the network. If platform takes off it will be a lot more. We can either decide to basically give a shit ton of money to VPS providers -- OR -- we can be smarter and have things cheaper for our users or the MN network with little tradeoffs and maybe even benefits.
Anyone can run a platform node, though you would only get *direct* rewards from Platform if you have the collateral of 4k Dash.
The second misconception is that going with the 4k solution would deprive normal masternodes of higher rewards gained through platform. And this is the one that is somewhat hard to understand. The equilibrium for rewards always takes into to account the fees that platform masternodes get minus the cost to run the network, meaning that if platform rewards go up it will incentivize normal Masternode owners to run High Performance nodes themselves instead, reducing the number of normal Masternodes and pushing up normal Masternode rewards.
The third misconception is that I want only whales to participate. This is false. I want us to focus on masternode shares asap to allow users with less Dash to stake in a Trustless way (even though crowdnode is a great service). We're very soon at a point where we can take on this feature.
There is another point that I might not have mentioned. Let's assume we are at 1TB of storage, with 4k nodes thats 4k TB. Most MNOs use VPS's that cost around 1$/GB/Year. This would cost each MN 1000$ / year in storage costs alone or 4M for the network. If platform takes off it will be a lot more. We can either decide to basically give a shit ton of money to VPS providers -- OR -- we can be smarter and have things cheaper for our users or the MN network with little tradeoffs and maybe even benefits.
vazaki3
Well-known member
And why you assume that? Why 1TB and not 1GB?
The storage of the DashPlatform will gradually increase hopefully, but currently the storage required to host the DashPlatform is 0 kb.
So assume the initial storage first, and when the storage will increase, change you assumptions (and code that way, so that you will be flexible to adapt accordingly).
Last edited:
vazaki3
Well-known member
A Dash_Improvement_Protocol should define that. But, as usual, I will not be the one who will write any DIP. I hate writing DIPs, also I hate following DIPs, because they pose limits and restrictions to my code.
But if the Dash community likes (I mean votes) the general idea, and additionaly votes the numbers on how much an implementation of this idea should be rewarded, I may start coding a competitive solution.
Last edited:
qwizzie
Well-known member
Not much point to setting up a platform node with the much higher hardware requirements (and much higher VPS costs), when people without the 4k collateral don't get those *direct* rewards from Platform. That still does not give masternode owners people with less then 4000 dash access to Platform rewards. It is restrictive by nature. I am not even sure why its coded like that. Who would run a Platform node like that, when they don't have the collateral that enables those Platform rewards ?
How exactly does it incentivize normal 1K Masternodes owners to run High Performance nodes (in the case of Platform rewards going up) when they can't afford the collateral of 4000 dash, to get those Platform rewards in the first place ? Will they magically receive 3000 dash out of thin air, so they can actually receive Platform rewards ? I am a bit confused about your statement. Most people struggle to just gather 1000 dash, let alone gather the funds to aquire 4000 dash.
Unless those normal 1K masternodes are not bound to higher hardware requirements / higher hardware costs while running as High Performance nodes, when not having sufficient collateral (lets say they only have 1K) and the game theory is to entice them to run High Performance nodes, just to get the number of active normal 1k nodes down (leading to more mn payments). But that game theory has so many weak points :
- the number of mn payments would increase on both the normal masternode side and the Platform side, so why would other normal masternodes be enticed to setup up Platform nodes, when they can enjoy the same increase in mn payments at the normal masternodes side ?
- most normal masternodes are used as fire up and forget about it passive income way, i don't see them all understanding this game theory or getting enticed by it
- most normal masternodes will most likely take a wait and see approach after launch, which undermines this game theory
- most normal masternodes will most likely be unfamiliar with this game theory, which undermines this game theory
To be honest, i don't really trust this kind of game theory.
Well, that is the first time that i hear about this. So you now want to use Trustless Masternodes Shares, to combat the centralization that your 4K solution brings with it ? Eventhough we heard in the past that Trustless Masternode Shares was in the backlog with many many other features that devs are contemplating to put on the Dash Roadmap ? I guess that is a good move, but it does not solve the immediate centralization risk that the 4K solution brings with it and most likely brings additional research and extensive additional coding with it. Far more then that 1 hour of coding that was conducted. How long would it take before Trustless Masternode Shares were introduced by DCG ? Can we really trust DCG that this can be developed quickly and without constant delays ? i am not so sure. In the mean time Dash would have become centralized, after implementing your 4k solution.
Or we can use the 1K masternode solution of seanjae, don't meddle with the masternode collateral at all, don't create centralization and give 1K masternode owners a choice if they want to run a 1K Platform masternode (with Core MN payments & Platform rewards / Credits to compensate for the higher hardware costs) or run a normal 1K masternode (with Core MN payments and without any higher hardware costs), while taking care of the security issue where a possible Platform bug could take out all masternodes.
See :
www.dash.org/forum/threads/should-platform-run-on-all-nodes-or-should-platform-run-only-on-high-performance-nodes.53374/page-4#post-232254
www.dash.org/forum/threads/should-platform-run-on-all-nodes-or-should-platform-run-only-on-high-performance-nodes.53374/page-4#post-232275
It would be nice if you could respond to that 1K masternode solution.
I suspect hardware requirements and storage space would be a lot lower for the 1K masternode solution, then for the 4K masternode solution.
Maybe equal or lower, then the hardware requirements and storage space for the 'Platform on all nodes' solution ? (which is basically the only other option that does not lead to centralization, but involves no option / no choice .. all nodes will then support Dash Platform. And it has that security issue, where a possible Platform bug could take out all masternodes).
Last edited:
- Status