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

[Adding1kDash]

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.

That would be dream come true if this would be the case ! , Dash value per coin would at minium be 10x where it is now, you would more than enough funds to higher suffient amount of devs to work exclusively on Dash platform sharding, and well before that happens we could set some limit (much higher do than eth still has) and just earn a cool 10dollars+ per transactions (just like eth did). You could also higher a team to implement Schnorr signatures, saving even more data storage.

I am not sure if you understand the concept of decentralisation well enough, it not just math, its about people NOT being able to form a cartel. One can easily image that you fit a crowd of of about 100people in one building and get to consensus, the Davos/WEF/Bilderberg are able to do it !

Maybe read(it's about the creation of the FED):
The Creature From Jekyll Island
by G. Edward Griffin

You'll get a good idea where I am talking about. Please don't kill Dash.

 

[Semarg]

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.

Ok, let's try again. Just to be clear.
Let's say I'm a MNO, and I have 1 MN. Or 2. Or 9. Not enough to establish a HPM, however. I made it through years of constant DCG's delays, failures and quits, bear market and slow dying of Dash. The only beacon of light was the Evo-Platform that was supposed to Make Dash Great Again, that was delayed countless times but kept baking somehow. Now you appear and say: "Hey, bro! Platform is almost ready to roll out, but here is a thing: I think your collateral is too small to provide reasonable fees. I'm not sure if it's the case, since we don't have any real data and no Platform itself at hand, but.. anyway! So... feel free to wait till we implement trustless shares or whatever".
How do you think "I" will react? The ones like "me" are the majority (in identities, not necessarily in voting nodes - or else I wouldn't be worrying), some of them will sell their collaterals sending the price down, some of them will post VERY negative feedback in socials, some will vote against DCG's funding.

Again, you clearly have your technical reasons, but do you really understand all the economic and social consequences of what you are about to do? If HPMs are the only way to go forward (which I doubt) - is it the right moment to implement them?

 

[GrandMasterDash]

@Semarg exactly, I feel completely cheated. Been here SEVEN YEARS and it turns out all the long they were building an alt coin. The treasury funded DCG, telling us they don't have enough resources for the simplest of changes and refused to implemented usernames in a similarly centralized manner. We all sat back and watched Binance and CrowdNode obtain and control large numbers of nodes, and then they rug pull us by demanding their alt coin supplant our masternodes. Is it really an alt coin? - yes, one masternode is the super currency of dash, we don't just measure wealth and power in dash, we do so in ownership of masternode units.

This is a hijack of the highest kind, it's borderline deceitful and possibly grounds for legal scrutiny. I am voting No on all DCG proposals, we need to stop this now.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

The main proponents for HPMNs here have asserted that collateral requirements prevent Sybil attacks i.e. the accumulation of dash to attain malicious HPMNs would push the price of dash up to unimaginable highs. This is fake and disproved by the current state of the network whereby some entities control hundreds of masternodes. Whether it was a long term accumulation or using other people's money, the fact remains this state was achieved yet dash currently sits at a mere $41.58. How could anyone prevent a HPMN attack when there has been zero effort to prevent this type of centralization on regular masternodes?

The writing is on the wall. DCG are failing to address masternode centralization and now allowing it to happen to HPMNs.

 

[qwizzie]

There is just so much incentive for masternode owners with 4.000 dash or 10.000 dash to vote yes on DCG HPM's decision proposals.
An incentive not directly aligned to the best interest of the network itself.

Benefits for masternode whales :

* They can now concentrate their masternodes in a few setups over a few servers (attractive incentive for those masternode whales)
* Less maintenance and upkeep required (something Sam actually referenced in the presentation --> attractive incentive for those masternode whales)
* Elite status among masternodes, basically they become super masternodes (attractive incentive for masternode whales who like influence and power)
* Receiving of Platform rewards, when voting for the DCG HPM decision proposal (attractive incentive for those masternode whales)
* Less hosting fee for their rented VPS servers, depending on either the 4k HPM or 8K HPM (each has their own hardware requirements and therefore each has their own impact on the hosting fees)

Risks to the network

* Much more centralization of the Dash network
* Less security either through the code itself compromising on security or through getting more vulnerable to possible DDoS attacks, because the masternodes get split in two groups (with the HPM's group being significantly smaller and far more easy to DDoS attack)
* Possible increased sell pressure from masternode owners, that do not want Dash to get so centralized
* Possible increased negative voting pressure on DCG budget proposals (where this is all originating from), causing chaos with regards to development
* Some really vague game theory that somehow would drive normal masternodes to run as Platform nodes (without getting Platform rewards !!) not working at all and causing the exact opposite effect (keeping the HPM group small)
* Direct undermining of our future Dash marketing efforts, where every Dash marketing move could simply be counter moved, by pointing to Dash centralization
* Further delay of development and impacting the speed of future releases, due to more changes / coding required than orginally foreseen (there is now talk about introducing Trustless Masternode Shares to prevent masternode whales concentration with the HPM's solutions, but who knows how long that will take and how that effects the speed of future releases)

Advantages for the network

* Much smaller Platform fees, a few cents instead of a few 10th's of cents. Which may not even lead to increased adoption rate among endusers, and which could most likely also be achieved by just fine tuning and optimizing Dash Platform after release, without the HPM's solutions
* Some vague estimated numbers on higher Throughput and higher Transactions Per Second on Dash Platform. Some so vague, it is difficult to even work with those estimated numbers.

In this situation where DCG plans to put the decision proposals of DCG HPM's so quickly on the network, without even having achieved consensus among DCG (5 devs so far in favor of HPM's in an ongoing poll, which was started only after the HPM announcement) , i have serious concerns that the masternode whales that already dominate the voting in Dash governance and where voting participation is already very low, will really vote in the best interest of the network, when their self interest so much interfers with the best interest of the network.

Personally i would have no problem setting up a Platform node and actually receive those Platform rewards (at least with the 4K solution), but it would totally violate everything i believe in with regards to decentralization and i also think it will bring a high level of unrest to the Dash community.

 

[BoomStick]

My few thoughts

Watching sprint reviews, interviews with the team (eg. Ivan) it seems like developers are trying to build product that will compete with centralized solutions.

Sam asked to give some examples of businesses willing to implement dapps on DASH Platform almost always gives "pizzeria"/"restaurant" example. So let's think about it for a while - would any pizzeria or restaurant want to use unproven, not battle tested solution of storing their data on blockchain anyway ? (especially that there aren't any real incentives to do so). Ivan OTOH asked about business examples that would be willing to use Platform said basically that he doesn't think about it and he focuses on development at first place (it was during brown-bag session with Marianne)

It clearly shows lack of imagination among developers what could be a future DASH platform killer-app. And is probably the reason why most of them are positive if it comes to HPMNs.

IMO having assumption that Platform can actually compete with centralized DB money-wise lead to decision of introducing HPMN. But this assumptions is utterly wrong - no decentralized solution will ever be able to be as cheap as centralized data/processing centers.


So now let's think what we could actually use DASH Platform for:

• twitter where no-one can censor your tweets
• facebook where you own your own data and no-one will sell it to other companies
• tinder where you can store your cheesy pick-up lines and nude photos without fear that someone has an access to it
• patreon where people can chip in so you could realise your more or less idiotic ideas freely and no-one will censor it
• bounty hounting portal with escrow services
• freelancers with escrow services
• etc.

All of these solutions have 2 common things : they have to be DECENTRALIZED and they don't have to be free. How much would I (or you) pay for having full control of my own data, for censorship-resistant expressing my thoughts, for being sure that my data will stay mine and won't be resold ? $7 / year, $100 / year ? I'd hesitate to pay $1000 / year but I'm totally fine with estimates Sam provided for current number of masternodes without changing a thing.

Now looking at DASH (or actually DarkCoin) from perspective - first we were being pushed narrative that anonymity is just nice to have feature and not really that important - as development of DASH anonymity features is non-existent right now. Now we are being pushed narrative that decentralization is not really important. If we don't need decentralization then I (and probably most of others) would prefer solana, ripple or any other of thousands centralized shitcoins.

If this proposal passes I envision downfall of DASH, if it is only an idea and not something already decided by Sam then I'm fine with paying extra for Platform features - at least I'll know what I'm paying for.

I urge every community member to express his opinion as future (or lack of it) of DASH is being decided right now

 

[Stealth923]

Just a quick thought for everyone screaming decentralize is the only way and we are being scammed etc lol

What if everyone runs platform on their shitty cheapskate hardware that they used to run their normal MNs on, and platform doesnt even launch and fails from the get go? Would you wish we had HPMN then???? Imagine the headlines and PR disaster. Or even worse, forks the network and or Dash stops running like Solana. I was there when Evan had to roll back a release many years ago and it was very embarassing and painful - now imagine this but for Dash's biggest project for 5+ years.....

If I had my wish it would be that we could somehow do a test to see if the server can run platform to give a good user experience from the get go. My bet is, given the opportunity the cheap skates will try and run platform and ruin it for everybody.

My opinion is decentralize as much as possible to ensure security is excellent and a good experience is upheld. There is no need to go completely over the top decentralized when its not needed. The same for number of MNs, sometimes too many can be detrimental to the network rather than help.

I wish we had some data from testnet to show how much platform can thrash a server to see where we stand with spec's and requirements.

 

[qwizzie]

Just a quick thought for everyone screaming decentralize is the only way and we are being scammed etc lol

What if everyone runs platform on their shitty cheapskate hardware that they used to run their normal MNs on, and platform doesnt even launch and fails from the get go? Would you wish we had HPMN then???? Imagine the headlines and PR disaster. Or even worse, forks the network and or Dash stops running like Solana. I was there when Evan had to roll back a release many years ago and it was very embarassing and painful - now imagine this but for Dash's biggest project for 5+ years.....

If I had my wish it would be that we could somehow do a test to see if the server can run platform to give a good user experience from the get go. My bet is, given the opportunity the cheap skates will try and run platform and ruin it for everybody.

Is this all not already part of the last phase before releasing Dash Platform to Dash Mainnet : Testing the shit out of Dash Platform and see if we can break it ?
The devs are just not at that phase right now.

And no, i don't wish we had HPMN's then, who is to say the same does not happen with HPM's where masternode whales fail to use the correct hardware and get booted out ? Causing a too small HPM group to work with. Or a Platform bug causing the HPM's not to work ? Same kind of headlines and PR disaster.

The devs should really only launch when they have Dash Platform running stable as final release candidate on Testnet. With as many test masternodes as possible to stress test the whole thing. And after having done their whole internal security audit through internal team rotation thing.

At least with the 'Platform on all nodes' solution there should be enough masternodes with the recommended Dash Platform hardware requirements to keep the network up. The jump from current recommended hardware requirements to recommended hardware requirements for 'Dash Platform on all nodes' is much smaller, then the jump from current recommended hardware requirements to 4K or 10K HPM's. Those masternode whales may even be tempted to just test a few cheaper hardware configurations first.

Links :

https://docs.dash.org/en/stable/masternodes/understanding.html#masternode-requirements
www.dash.org/forum/threads/should-platform-run-on-all-nodes-or-should-platform-run-only-on-high-performance-nodes.53374/page-3#post-232227

Also lets not forget the incentive to upgrade to the recommended hardware requirements for 'Dash Platform on all nodes' as soon as possible after launch, to profit from the drop in number of active masternodes during the upgrade to Dash Platform, causing the MN payment interval to get shorter, thereby allowing active masternodes to receive a lot more MN payments during the upgrade. That also happened during the previous large update that brought higher hardware requirements for masternodes. Most masternode owners were eager to upgrade then too. I think that was 2x jump in hardware requirements ? (from minimum hardware requirements to recommended hardware requirements)

 

[GrandMasterDash]

What if everyone runs platform on their shitty cheapskate hardware that they used to run their normal MNs on, and platform doesnt even launch and fails from the get go? Would you wish we had HPMN then???? Imagine the headlines and PR disaster. Or even worse, forks the network and or Dash stops running like Solana. I was there when Evan had to roll back a release many years ago and it was very embarassing and painful - now imagine this but for Dash's biggest project for 5+ years.....

Currently, what percentage of masternodes do you think are running on "cheapskate hardware"? From what I've seen, there are plenty of people trying to cut corners, including virtualizing on the same hardware.

The only two things that actually matter regardless of collateral:
1. robust Proof of Service, in which case the collateral has no meaning at all.
2. a distribution that is actually battle tested through Proof of Service, to which there is none at all in dash. For example, https://www.usenix.org/system/files/sec22summer_kohls.pdf

Sam says a gradual rollout can't be done but I disagree, all they need to do is apply a mask to the block difficulty (or similar). As for incentives, I just have absolutely no idea why there should be 4x, 10x or any other multiplier. No increase in collateral is needed because of PoSe and the nodes receive fees from users, so what's all this misdirection about?

Frankly, this whole saga makes me question everything about DCGs true intentions. Not prepared to trust them going forward on anything.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

"Oh, the risk is too high, our Platform Evolution might take down the entire dash network!"

"But we cant fork and create our own chain, our scam would be too obvious and we wouldn't have an audience. Let's gentrify the Dash network and squeeze out the middle-class."

 

[Stealth923]

Is this all not already part of the last phase before releasing Dash Platform to Dash Mainnet : Testing the shit out of Dash Platform and see if we can break it ?
The devs are just not at that phase right now.

And no, i don't wish we had HPMN's then, who is to say the same does not happen with HPM's where masternode whales fail to use the correct hardware and get booted out ? Causing a too small HPM group to work with. Or a Platform bug causing the HPM's not to work ? Same kind of headlines and PR disaster.

The devs should really only launch when they have Dash Platform running stable as final release candidate on Testnet. With as many test masternodes as possible to stress test the whole thing. And having done their whole internal security audit through internal team rotation thing.

At least with the 'Platform on all nodes' solution there should be enough masternodes with the recommended Dash Platform hardware requirements to keep the network up. The jump from current recommended hardware requirements to recommended hardware requirements for 'Dash Platform on all nodes' is much smaller, then the jump from current recommended hardware requirements to 4K or 10K HPM's. Those masternode whales may even be tempted to just test a few cheaper hardware configurations first.

Links :

https://docs.dash.org/en/stable/masternodes/understanding.html#masternode-requirements
www.dash.org/forum/threads/should-platform-run-on-all-nodes-or-should-platform-run-only-on-high-performance-nodes.53374/page-3#post-232227

Also lets not forget the incentive to upgrade to the recommended hardware requirements for 'Dash Platform on all nodes' as soon as possible after launch, to profit from the drop in number of active masternodes during the upgrade to Dash Platform, causing the MN payment interval to get shorter, thereby reeking in a lot more MN payments during the upgrade. That also happened during the previous large update that brought higher hardware requirements for masternodes. Most masternode owners were eager to upgrade then too. I think that was 2x jump in hardware requirements ? (from minimum hardware requirements to recommended hardware requirements)

Then this whole conversation might need to wait until testnet is up and some tests can be run.

I dont think the fee's being too high is such a big issue from the start as there will be minimal usage. That can be tuned later on.

I would rather Evo launch be successful and STABLE to begin with and pay a little more.

Still a bit confused on why we need the 4k/10k collateral though, I am guessing its just about fee's or something....someone needs to create a graphic for each solution.

 

[qwizzie]

Then this whole conversation might need to wait until testnet is up and some tests can be run.

I dont think the fee's being too high is such a big issue from the start as there will be minimal usage. That can be tuned later on.

I would rather Evo launch be successful and STABLE to begin with and pay a little more.

Still a bit confused on why we need the 4k/10k collateral though, I am guessing its just about fee's or something....someone needs to create a graphic for each solution.

this graphic ? https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...gh-performance-nodes.53374/page-3#post-232207

Source :

DCG : Introductory presentation on High Performance Masternodes
Link : www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ0iJZ1pvsc

Date : 7th of October 2022

(i added this to my first post just now, to help with this discussion in general)

 

[QuantumExplorer]

Frankly, this whole saga makes me question everything about DCGs true intentions.

Could you please explain a way that DCG itself would benefit from the 4K Masternodes? We have different ways we can roll out platform and are presenting the pros and cons of each way forward so that the network can vote. Would you prefer that DCG makes these calls without network buy in?

I think the biggest issue here is a base level of distrust so when we propose anything there are some that immediately distrust it. There doesn't seem to be much ways to mend this situation unless those that are distrustful explain what would make them trust DCG again.

If the network votes and prefers the "everyone runs Platform solution" then we will go with that one. I will pray that I was wrong if we go in that direction. Once again I do not understand why people are unhappy with DCG asking the network what they prefer to do? Isn't that how our governance should work?

 

[qwizzie]

Once again I do not understand why people are unhappy with DCG asking the network what they prefer to do? Isn't that how our governance should work?

www.dash.org/forum/threads/should-platform-run-on-all-nodes-or-should-platform-run-only-on-high-performance-nodes.53374/page-6#post-232331
(this describes my view on the possible benefits of masternode whales for your 4K / 10K solution versus the risks and advantages towards the network)

i have serious concerns that the masternode whales that already dominate the voting in Dash governance and where voting participation is already very low, will really vote in the best interest of the network, when their self interest so much interfers with the best interest of the network.

(this describes why i think that going through with a decision proposal (or 3) is a bad move)

We have a saying in our country : binding the cat on the bacon

It is basically tempting someone so much, that they can't resist. In this case the bacon is the benefits / self interest that masternode whales have with the 4K / 10K solution, benefits that do not seem to align with the best interest of the network (staying decentralized).

 

[QuantumExplorer]

Just a quick thought for everyone screaming decentralize is the only way and we are being scammed etc lol

What if everyone runs platform on their shitty cheapskate hardware that they used to run their normal MNs on, and platform doesnt even launch and fails from the get go? Would you wish we had HPMN then???? Imagine the headlines and PR disaster. Or even worse, forks the network and or Dash stops running like Solana. I was there when Evan had to roll back a release many years ago and it was very embarassing and painful - now imagine this but for Dash's biggest project for 5+ years.....

If I had my wish it would be that we could somehow do a test to see if the server can run platform to give a good user experience from the get go. My bet is, given the opportunity the cheap skates will try and run platform and ruin it for everybody.

My opinion is decentralize as much as possible to ensure security is excellent and a good experience is upheld. There is no need to go completely over the top decentralized when its not needed. The same for number of MNs, sometimes too many can be detrimental to the network rather than help.

I wish we had some data from testnet to show how much platform can thrash a server to see where we stand with spec's and requirements.

You are completely right. The thing that we also need to realize is that in the situation of "every" node runs platform, we choose a random 100 nodes for consensus at a time. At the moment on our network I would say that a very large percentage of our nodes are trying to cut corners, running on not very powerful servers. I can see this quite obviously on mobile tests where my personal nodes respond with a chunk of data about 4 times faster than the network average. What most likely would happen at that point is that many will need to upgrade their hardware to about x4 stronger at the minimum. Including hosting services which will bring the costs for hosting much higher.

Two scenarios could happen, either 67% will do this and sufficient hardware to run platform well enough. The rest would probably fall behind and not get paid platform rewards. Though we would still have to worry because we could get into situations where we are just barely hitting that 67% causing the network to stumble along with minimum throughput.

The other scenario is that people just don't upgrade and platform just can't even start. Rewards would start piling up on platform so I believe those incentives would lead to people finally getting stronger nodes... hopefully.

I am going to go out on a limb and guess that there would be a lot of unhappy people in the "everyone runs platform", because platform rewards are as easy to get with minimal hardware as they are in core.

Another interesting point is that these less powerful servers will be easier to attack. That's obvious, it will be easier for a DDOS to stop platform than if we had more beefier systems.

And then let's imagine we don't have a lot of usage on rollout, but everyone is forced to run more expensive hardware. Some might decide at that point that it's just not worth the extra hosting cost and sell off their Masternodes.

A lot of people are saying let's just roll it out and see... I would much rather roll it out with a good user experience/security at the cost of some perceived security/decentralization, and work over the following years to improve decentralization.

 

[QuantumExplorer]

www.dash.org/forum/threads/should-platform-run-on-all-nodes-or-should-platform-run-only-on-high-performance-nodes.53374/page-6#post-232331
(this describes my view on the possible benefits of masternode whales for your 4K / 10K solution versus the risks and advantages towards the network)


(this describes why i think that going through with a decision proposal (or 3) is a bad move)

Let me say that if I only had 1 Masternode I would still be more in favor of the 4K/10K solution. First because I care about the network, but also even if I was only thinking in my own self interest.

I am currently paying about 25$/node (yes it's more than the average - but I run mine a little more powerful - I also prepay for 3 years at a time). But let's imagine I was a normal owner, who I would guess pay around 15$. 15$/month will just not cut it for platform, I would expect we will need at least 40$/month, and ideal would probably be about 100$/month hardware if we want good minimal TPS. Would I really want to pay 3x more for hosting to get pretty much no extra rewards on start of platform?

Usage will come over time, but I don't think we will see any significant revenue from platform fees in the first year.

So we might see a lot of masternode owners start selling as their rate of return drops, and platform being called a failure.

The 4K/10K option gives people choices to continue what they are currently doing.

 

[qwizzie]

The 4K/10K option gives people choices to continue what they are currently doing.

How does it give current 1K masternode owners the choice to continue what they are currently doing ?
You are forcing them to continue to do what they are currently doing, because you raised the collateral in such a way that it is well outside their reach
and you prevent those 1K masternodes from receiving Platform rewards.

How is that a choice for people ? It is a lack of choice.

Anyways : I am still waiting on an answer on my previous question about the 1K masternode solution from seanjae and the DDoS attack vulnerability for 1k, 4K and 8K solutions, due to much smaller group forming (specially with the 4K and 10K).

 

[QuantumExplorer]

Well I really do feel like the rewards will even out, as there is a bridge (by nodes changing their type) between the two system pushing things to equilibrium.

Qwizzie could you link me to the 1k masternode solution? or repost it here so people can easily follow what I'm responding to?

 

[qwizzie]

Well I really do feel like the rewards will even out, as there is a bridge (by nodes changing their type) between the two system pushing things to equilibrium.

Qwizzie could you link me to the 1k masternode solution? or repost it here so people can easily follow what I'm responding to?

What about seanjae's post with regards to setting up 1K masternodes with the same construct as with 4k / 10k masternodes (by coding that state into existence) : could that technically work and would that increase security, when chosing the 1K solution ? Because then there would be classical 1K nodes (to possibly fall back to in case of a network threathening bug) and platform 1K nodes. Platform 1K nodes would require higher hardware requirements, while classical 1K nodes could run on current hardware requirements.

See : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...gh-performance-nodes.53374/page-4#post-232254

Perhaps a simple line in the dash.conf could make a node either a Platform 1K node or a classical 1K node
(platform=1 versus platform=0)

There is one thing that concerns me with both the above described 1K masternode solution and the 4k / 10k masternode solution : it will be more easy to DDoS attack the 1K nodes and the 4k / 10k nodes as well (all of them end up with smaller groups, then our current one large masternode group system).

Dash experienced DDoS attacks in the past and with so much credits circulating on Dash Platform, it will form an attractive target for hackers seeking to exploit or disrupt Dash.

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 Classical 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 --> 1K Classical nodes --> MN rewards for Core service (which could increase if this group gets smaller)
No additional hardware requirements / no higher VPS costs.

It provides no messing with the collateral, no centralization and if 1K Platform nodes were to go down due to a bug, we would still have the 1K Classical nodes operational. Only disadvantage would be (just like for the 4K & 10K collateral solution) that it divide the network in two smaller groups of masternodes.

You could even use this as interim solution, where you phase out this solution over time (once Dash Platform has stabilized on Mainnet and the bugs have been squashed and everything runs smoothly) in favor of the 'Dash Platform on all nodes' solution. So basically you would then give 1K Classical nodes a time period to upgrade to 1K Platform nodes.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

Could you please explain a way that DCG itself would benefit from the 4K Masternodes? We have different ways we can roll out platform and are presenting the pros and cons of each way forward so that the network can vote. Would you prefer that DCG makes these calls without network buy in?

I think the biggest issue here is a base level of distrust so when we propose anything there are some that immediately distrust it. There doesn't seem to be much ways to mend this situation unless those that are distrustful explain what would make them trust DCG again.

If the network votes and prefers the "everyone runs Platform solution" then we will go with that one. I will pray that I was wrong if we go in that direction. Once again I do not understand why people are unhappy with DCG asking the network what they prefer to do? Isn't that how our governance should work?

If it's not obvious, there is a loyal group of OG's that are still here based on a vision, a promise if you like, that they would one day be a part of something big, "a decentralized wallet your grandma could use". In fact, it is burned into my username here:

Grand = 1000
Master = node
Dash = Dash

Should I change it to QuatroGrandMasterDash or DezaGrandMasterDash?

I already have issues with the decreasing decentralization of masternodes i.e. masternode whales slowly but surely squeezing out the 1K masternodes. These whale entities can easily move to 4K / 10K nodes. But it is not the money that bothers me, it is the centralization of voting, the hijacking of the treasury, to introduce more proposals that benefit a few.

If Proof of Service is robust and a node - any node - has completed what was asked of it, what does it matter how much dash or voting power they have? You interview someone for a job and they pass every hurdle you throw at them, do you then demand they must also have enough shares in your company? Of course not.

It's true, the original idea behind collateral was to prevent Sybil attacks, but this mechanism is showing clear signs of weakness, and that weakness remains / amplified when you introduce 4K / 10K nodes without fixing this underlying problem.

I think some of this distrust comes from a seemingly out of the blue rush to set things in stone via a formal proposal. Seven years in and a major design decision is thrust upon us imminently. Not enough finger prodding to test the waters, and somewhat really late at this stage.

I think I can understand your view. Here is an easy and wonderful way to ask questions - any questions - via the DAO. And while you may view it quite casually / fluid and, dare I say, flippantly, others may see it more like concrete and determined, like trying to amend a constitution.

So I would say, don't rush this, just let the 1K solution ride its course and try to give our bread and butter - payments - a bit more attention and love.