vazaki3
Well-known member
It is a discussion topic that I repeatedly suggest since 2016 , but nobody takes my suggestion seriously.
Should Platform run on all nodes or should Platform run only on High Performance nodes ?
- Thread starter qwizzie
- Start date
- Status
haha! Of course you do, because you run a hosting service, so you are the one that will get the most profits when every MNO has to carry the burden of higher hosting costs and lower ROI with the 1K solution, meanwhile nothing but premium vacations for you in the south of France!
uniuniverse
New member
MICE TALKING TO MICE:
You've got the cart in front of the horse! Everybody is worried about centralization and nobody is worried about marketing! Unless Dash utilization increases dramatically, all this centralization argument means nothing!
You've got the cart in front of the horse! Everybody is worried about centralization and nobody is worried about marketing! Unless Dash utilization increases dramatically, all this centralization argument means nothing!
amanda_b_johnson
Well-known member
With regard to @virgile 's and @QuantumExplorer's comments about having to choose either A) low fees, or B) network-wide distributed storage--is that perhaps a false dilemma if we consider than we can (and should) subsidize the storage costs? In other words, can't Platform storage be a "loss leader" for us?
For example, does Google/Gmail/YouTube not allow anyone and everyone to upload basically as much crap as they want to their platform--for free?
And they can do that, because they're not in the business of selling storage (not primarily, anyway). They're in the business of selling ads and enterprise software packages (and more).
Similarly, the Dash network is not in the business of selling storage. It's in the business of selling Dash tokens.
"Loss leading is a common practice when a business first enters a market." - Investopedia
Dash is looking to enter the Web3 market. Surely we can afford to have storage as our loss leader, even if just initially?
Also, I'll hear no more of the wording of a network-wide Platform upgrade as being "forced." As though every single network-wide upgrade we've done since 2014 hasn't also been "forced"? We always hard-forked away from those who didn't upgrade, didn't we? So let's stop this unnecessary labeling of Platform-on-all-nodes as an act of "force."
For example, does Google/Gmail/YouTube not allow anyone and everyone to upload basically as much crap as they want to their platform--for free?
And they can do that, because they're not in the business of selling storage (not primarily, anyway). They're in the business of selling ads and enterprise software packages (and more).
Similarly, the Dash network is not in the business of selling storage. It's in the business of selling Dash tokens.
"Loss leading is a common practice when a business first enters a market." - Investopedia
Dash is looking to enter the Web3 market. Surely we can afford to have storage as our loss leader, even if just initially?
Also, I'll hear no more of the wording of a network-wide Platform upgrade as being "forced." As though every single network-wide upgrade we've done since 2014 hasn't also been "forced"? We always hard-forked away from those who didn't upgrade, didn't we? So let's stop this unnecessary labeling of Platform-on-all-nodes as an act of "force."
Last edited:
If you think I keep the hosting service running for the money you are definitely wrong Michael.
edit: my arguments behind the 1k idea was described but cutting only a piece of the txt is not nice man, your behavior really sounds like newspaper/photographs agencies cutting only a piece of the photo and showing it for the world and making it in bad view.
edit2: personally taking all arguments on the table I'm for HPMNs 4k collaterals though.
Last edited:
rion
Active member
@amanda_b_johnson is exactly right. That's why I say the main purpose of platform is to acquire Dash users (not sell storage, computation, etc).
Dash platform is a user-acquisition tool. It's a means, not an end. The purpose is to get people using Dash as money/currency (let's not lose sight of the main goal). Companies, for example banks, pay hundreds, if not thousands of dollars to acquire users. We can afford to sell block/tree space below cost if that means our main product (Dash the asset) goes up in value due to increasing our active users and transaction volume, which is best form of organic marketing there is.
Fortunately @QuantumExplorer and team have designed a system that allows for this, with the "cost multiplier". This will be a consensus variable that MNOs can set from time to time. To achieve below-cost storage pricing we'd set it to something less than 1 (if I'm not mistaken about how it's designed).
Dash platform is a user-acquisition tool. It's a means, not an end. The purpose is to get people using Dash as money/currency (let's not lose sight of the main goal). Companies, for example banks, pay hundreds, if not thousands of dollars to acquire users. We can afford to sell block/tree space below cost if that means our main product (Dash the asset) goes up in value due to increasing our active users and transaction volume, which is best form of organic marketing there is.
Fortunately @QuantumExplorer and team have designed a system that allows for this, with the "cost multiplier". This will be a consensus variable that MNOs can set from time to time. To achieve below-cost storage pricing we'd set it to something less than 1 (if I'm not mistaken about how it's designed).
vazaki3
Well-known member
Of course it is an act of force.
The masternodes were always supposed to be servers that participate in a financial-numismatic scheme.
And now you are forcing them to become pornhub and wikileaks databases.
It is a tottaly different job, an unexpected job, so it is outside the pre-agreed unwritten masternode "contract".
Last edited:
rion
Active member
Those of you who really value "decentralization", do you value that primarily as a means to:
a) "fairness" (participation accessibility, not changing the rules as much, etc)
b) security (censorship resistance, attack resistance, etc)
c) some combination of both of the above.
d) some other reason.
I ask because some systems can be as (or even more) secure, despite (or even because of) some degree of strategic centralization:
- I consider my rough proposed solution both more "fair" and more secure than the high collateral systems.
- I also consider it better than the original plan of running platform on every node, even though it's more "centralized". The lower fees and other economic advantages far outweigh the minimal advantages of storing data on every single masternode.
a) "fairness" (participation accessibility, not changing the rules as much, etc)
b) security (censorship resistance, attack resistance, etc)
c) some combination of both of the above.
d) some other reason.
I ask because some systems can be as (or even more) secure, despite (or even because of) some degree of strategic centralization:
- I consider my rough proposed solution both more "fair" and more secure than the high collateral systems.
- I also consider it better than the original plan of running platform on every node, even though it's more "centralized". The lower fees and other economic advantages far outweigh the minimal advantages of storing data on every single masternode.
amanda_b_johnson
Well-known member
@vazaki3 , don't be silly. If you are running a node of basically any blockchain, you likely already are hosting data related to porn/WikiLeaks/etc and have been for years.
vazaki3
Well-known member
Many blockchains may facilitate hidden financial transactions (also may publish url links) related to porn/wikileaks/etc, but most of these blockchains dont have the database that contains the raw, non fragmented data of the porn/wikileaks/etc. There is a big difference on this. If you facilitate the transactions or you publish the links to illegal content, you may argue in front of a court and claim plausible deniability, and be found not guilty. But If you store the raw/non_fragmented illegal data, the plausible deniability argument weakens, especially in case these illegal data are unencrypted.
Last edited:
No. He is saying, forced to go with hard forks that were never part of the Dash vision. In 7 years, when did DCG communicate to us this change in vision whereby some MNOs would be deemed more privileged than others?
Not forced, in the sense the code is open source, but if we're going to deviate from a 7 year vision, then let that deviation go their own way with a new name and team.
What if tomorrow, DCG asked for ALL collateral to be raised to 10K and that they would accept the longest straw regardless of super majority. Would you accept this too?
Plausible deniability only applies to the largest / wealthiest companies (Apple, Microsoft etc) or to those licensed (telcos etc).
The company policy must also be consistent. It's not going to work if other parts of your business enforce moderation. You're either completely hands-off or you moderate. Middle ground would be the hardest to defend.
vazaki3
Well-known member
When the agents are asking to the large companies to spy or to delete some data, these companies comply immediatly and censor the data or inject spying viruses (they call them "security updates") into the targeted hardware or software. There is no hands-off at all. Everyone is forced to censor or to spy.
I think this is what @QuantumExplorer implies, about open source developers compeled to insert back doors into their software, in fear of prosecution if they do otherwise.
QuantumExplorer said in discord.
QuantumExplorer@DashDiscord said:
Last edited:
No they don't. The majority want DCG to meet the expectations they held for 7 years. Do tell us, when did DCG communicate to the network that our expectations couldn't or wouldn't be met and that an altcoin with it's own node requirements would be delivered instead?
If you want to start a new project with different node requirements and consensus, then by all means, please take your project and team elsewhere. But understand, I will not let you use the Dash name.
vazaki3
Well-known member
Correct.
Although the real problem is not that we are ego-maniacs, the real problem is that we do not speak in a formal way, and thus the same things are repeated again and again.
Lets stop the endless discussion, and put a damned governance question.
Will you add a governane question in the dash budget system?
Shall I?
Last edited:
Just wait for the heat when Sam actually submits the proposals. Am going to have a field day with this one. But hopefully the Trust Protectors will of stepped in by then.
For now we have 3 more ideas on the table (AFAIK):
1. Time-locked 1000 DASH collateral MNs by @rion
2. Time-locked 4000 DASH trustless MN shares by @QuantumExplorer
3. Kind of "sharding" by @krilen
Could devs please review viability of solution proposed by @krilen ? I'd like to have a better overview of alternatives
Cheers
1. Time-locked 1000 DASH collateral MNs by @rion
2. Time-locked 4000 DASH trustless MN shares by @QuantumExplorer
3. Kind of "sharding" by @krilen
Could devs please review viability of solution proposed by @krilen ? I'd like to have a better overview of alternatives
Cheers
vazaki3
Well-known member
Last edited:
I agree that there seems to be multiple ways to look at the decentralization/distribution issue. Maybe my vote would be for (c). I see Quantum/DCG looking at it consistently from the standpoint of the entire network's security--which is understandable because if the whole platform goes down or is compromised by a bad actor, then you don't have a Platform at all.
However, I think this topic of distributed storage has brought up an equally important property of decentralization and distribution: protecting the end user personally. I say equally important, because without people willing to use it, you won't have a network at all.
Take our privatesend security as an example. For the user, the protection is already one of obscurity and plausible deniability. That is actually our strength compared to the encryption-based competition. Maybe a similar approach could be taken with hosting unencrypted data. Is there any way to blind the nodes as to which client uploaded what data?
I don't even mind the ability to have a supermajority vote or an election of trusted custodians to monitor and remove certain files to keep things clean for good PR in certain jurisdictions. The main thing is to indemnify both the users and the nodes. The network as a whole can decide to do some spring cleaning if they want to after-the-fact. That's one way I could see the storage thing working without encryption.
- Status