V12 Release

Geert said:
If Dash appreciates till it's worth as much as BTC, and people clue into the fact that they can run several masternodes and live comfortably off the proceeds, masternodes may eat up most of the available Dash. Also, if there are too many masternodes, will that hamper the network's ability to reliably mix coins? I can't help feeling that at some point, there may be a real hard limit placed upon the total number of masternodes put in the code.
Click to expand...

It would be impossible for masternodes to overtake most of the "coinage" in the network as masternode revenue goes up and down proportional to how many nodes are on the network. In other words, the more nodes come online, the less each individual node will get paid, until it becomes unprofitable to run a node, so the market itself will set a balance.

Hope that helps :).

Pablo.
 
Geert said:
If Dash appreciates till it's worth as much as BTC, and people clue into the fact that they can run several masternodes and live comfortably off the proceeds, masternodes may eat up most of the available Dash.
Click to expand...

Actually that's a good thing, because hold coins stabilize a crypto-currency. That's why Dash even in this early stage is very stable.
Bad for brokers, good for everyone else.

Also, if there are too many masternodes, will that hamper the network's ability to reliably mix coins?
Click to expand...

Nope...for almost everything more Masternodes are better.
 
fible1 said:
It would be impossible for masternodes to overtake most of the "coinage" in the network as masternode revenue goes up and down proportional to how many nodes are on the network. In other words, the more nodes come online, the less each individual node will get paid, until it becomes unprofitable to run a node, so the market itself will set a balance.

Hope that helps :).

Pablo.
Click to expand...
Well for me it will be hard for a MN to become unprofitable. Maybe if the reward is less than 5$ per month (or even less), which is the cost for the rent of a vps per month.

The hard limit of #number of MN is total coin / 1000 (approx... Minus lost/destroy coins, minus people that hold less than 1000 and not in sharing MN, etc etc) this is the maximum maximorum ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lebubar said:
Well for me it will be hard for a MN to become unprofitable. Maybe if the reward is less than 5$ per month (or even less), which is the cost for the rent of a vps per month.

The hard limit of #number of MN is total coin / 1000 (approx... Minus lost/destroy coins, minus people that hold less than 1000 and not in sharing MN, etc etc) this is the maximum maximorum ;)
Click to expand...

Hey :),
I meant unprofitable in terms of opportunity cost :). Otherwise yes, you are right, it would be hard for masternodes to not be profitable in an accounting sense; although we are also not factoring on the depreciation that has been going on, but I digress.

:D

Pablo.
 
Geert said:
If Dash appreciates till it's worth as much as BTC, and people clue into the fact that they can run several masternodes and live comfortably off the proceeds, masternodes may eat up most of the available Dash. Also, if there are too many masternodes, will that hamper the network's ability to reliably mix coins? I can't help feeling that at some point, there may be a real hard limit placed upon the total number of masternodes put in the code.
Click to expand...

I think mixing needs to be faster - there needs to be a greater incentive to provide liquidity for mixing. It was suggested in the past that a budget proposal could be put forward to provide mixing liquidity, but as far as I know at the moment it would be a trusted solution, so the suggestion in the past was for trusted community members to offer the service, which I think is a reasonable idea if there has to be trust.

Let's say a masternode currently earns 0.63 DASH per day (according to http://178.254.18.153/~pub/Darkcoin/masternode_payments_stats.html), on average there are about 30.4 days per month, which would be 19.152 DASH earned per month in a masternode. I don't know what would be the best amount for a liquidity provider, but I have had a little trouble mixing 100s at times in the past, so let's say 2 x 500 DASH liquidity nodes. Obviously you would need to offer a greater incentive than that which is offered to run the Masternodes with funds in a cold wallet, so let's say instead of the estimated 19.152 for 1000 DASH for one month, 40 DASH is offered as compensation - 20 DASH for each 500 DASH liquidity provider. It's not an ideal solution, because trust is involved (one entity running both liquidity nodes would not be a good idea in my opinion), but it would be one way of increasing the speed of the mixing process.

Perhaps 20 DASH wouldn't be enough though, for the risk involved. The great thing is, even if it starts out at 50 DASH per node and people agree to it, in the future someone could beat the price, so the funds could be reallocated to the new party with the better offer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just noticed that all the files in dash-win-32bit zip file, are dated as 1/10/2014 ... which is a bit confusing?

Also a link to Release notes on downloads page, opens a page that says that version 12.0 is not yet released... ?
 
fuzzyduck said:
To follow up on my own problem. My log contains mainly:


2015-09-01 19:08:21 CheckBlock() : skipping transaction locking checks
2015-09-01 19:08:21 CheckBlock() : skipping transaction locking checks
2015-09-01 19:08:21 CheckBlock() : skipping transaction locking checks
2015-09-01 19:08:21 UpdateTip: new best=00000000003d80fea2d93bde78cba94bfb6a30afee58cf8991e0216bef607822 height=25342 log2_work=52.342203 tx=97753 date=2014-02-28 12:20:23 progress=0.026413 cache=31464
2015-09-01 19:08:21 ProcessNewBlock : ACCEPTED
2015-09-01 19:08:21 CheckBlock() : skipping transaction locking checks
2015-09-01 19:08:21 CheckBlock() : skipping transaction locking checks
2015-09-01 19:08:21 CheckBlock() : skipping transaction locking checks
2015-09-01 19:08:21 UpdateTip: new best=00000000007b32d9a6d51e55474f450f185ceec5f28554af893e7b2d08cc81f0 height=25343 log2_work=52.342364 tx=97754 date=2014-02-28 12:20:27 progress=0.026413 cache=31465
2015-09-01 19:08:21 ProcessNewBlock : ACCEPTED
2015-09-01 19:08:26 CheckBlock() : skipping transaction locking checks
2015-09-01 19:08:26 CheckBlock() : skipping transaction locking checks
2015-09-01 19:08:26 ProcessNewBlock : ACCEPTED
2015-09-01 19:08:26 CheckBlock() : skipping transaction locking checks
2015-09-01 19:08:26 CheckBlock() : skipping transaction locking checks
2015-09-01 19:08:26 ProcessNewBlock : ACCEPTED
2015-09-01 19:08:26 CheckBlock() : skipping transaction locking checks
2015-09-01 19:08:26 CheckBlock() : skipping transaction locking checks
2015-09-01 19:08:26 ProcessNewBlock : ACCEPTED

-Besides although i removed maxconnections, its stuck at exactly 8 connections always.
-During startup of dashd it reads about 7000 blocks, then it renames it to bootstrap.dat.OLD and starts downloading them.
-Block count creeps up sloooowwwwly.
-I got this also:

Binding RPC on address :: port 9998 (IPv4+IPv6 bind any: 1)
2015-09-01 18:02:15 ERROR: Binding RPC on address :: port 9998 failed: open: Address family not supported by protocol
2015-09-01 18:02:15 Binding RPC on address 0.0.0.0 port 9998 (IPv4+IPv6 bind any: 1)

and

Error: Couldn't open socket for incoming connections (socket returned error Address family not supported by protocol (97))
2015-09-01 18:02:15 Bound to 0.0.0.0:9999


EDIT: am i hijacking the thread? If so sorry... :p
EDIT2: Hold on. its adding blocks like the wind now. Boostrap.dat still live and not renamed.. Im so confused.
EDIT3: Ok stopped...

tail -f debug.log
2015-09-01 19:22:38 keypool reserve 2
2015-09-01 19:22:38 keypool return 2
2015-09-01 19:22:38 keypool reserve 2
2015-09-01 19:22:38 keypool return 2
2015-09-01 19:22:40 keypool reserve 2
2015-09-01 19:22:40 keypool return 2
2015-09-01 19:23:01 keypool reserve 2
2015-09-01 19:23:01 keypool return 2
2015-09-01 19:25:39 keypool reserve 2
2015-09-01 19:25:39 keypool return 2
2015-09-01 19:27:35 Loaded 24810 blocks from external file in 899974ms

renamed to .Old again :(
Back to 'skipping transaction locking checks'

EDIT4: concluded that 'skipping transaction locking checks' is in fact importing blocks from file. When using 'tail -f debug.log' all this stuff flies by on screen.
Click to expand...

Alright.... To finish my problem: Where i couldnt get .51 to work, version .52 worked out of the box after compiling & starting it from wallet.

One happy camper once more.
 
We've just revoked the release of .52
Please stick to .51 until the new version is fixed.

Sorry
"hope no animals were harmed"
:wink:
 
hmm. I am really curious how the MN winners are selected in current situation.
From what I understood, winners are selected only from MNs running on latest version.
So, assuming the (unlikely) situation that we would not get new .52 replacement for a few days... what would happen?
Would only the .51 MNs be selected for winners, or would the .52, as its the newest version (although it was revoked)...
Is some central node "prescribing" the network which dashd version is the right for MN winning/payment selection?

if I already updated - should i wait on .52 ... or should i downgrade to .51?
what will raise my chances of winning MN payment?
 
weirdgod said:
hmm. I am really curious how the MN winners are selected in current situation.
From what I understood, winners are selected only from MNs running on latest version.
So, assuming the (unlikely) situation that we would not get new .52 replacement for a few days... what would happen?
Would only the .51 MNs be selected for winners, or would the .52, as its the newest version (although it was revoked)...
Is some central node "prescribing" the network which dashd version is the right for MN winning/payment selection?

if I already updated - should i wait on .52 ... or should i downgrade to .51?
what will raise my chances of winning MN payment?
Click to expand...
"Latest version" refers to "latest protocol version" - as long as your node is on protocol version 70103 it will get paid - regardless of client version string
 
tungfa said:
We've just revoked the release of .52
Please stick to .51 until the new version is fixed.

Sorry
"hope no animals were harmed"
:wink:
Click to expand...

Oh you bad boy! My son's MN fell off the network! (but it's ok, he got paid only about 24 hours ago, so no biggie) You're lucky this time! No spanking, you get off with a warning ;P JK
 
TanteStefana said:
Oh you bad boy! My son's MN fell off the network! (but it's ok, he got paid only about 24 hours ago, so no biggie) You're lucky this time! No spanking, you get off with a warning ;P JK
Click to expand...

Me ?
i did not do ANYTHING (as usual)
i am just 'translating' things
look at that face :smile: could i really do anything wrong
lol
 
Oh no no no no, I distinctly remember last night before going to bed, reading a post encouraging us to update! That was YOU! LOL I still haven't loaded up the wallet to restart the node, I'm feeling so lazy! LOL.
 
TanteStefana said:
Oh no no no no, I distinctly remember last night before going to bed, reading a post encouraging us to update! That was YOU! LOL I still haven't loaded up the wallet to restart the node, I'm feeling so lazy! LOL.
Click to expand...

Hahaaaaaa
you totally got me now !
Guilty as ...
no worries there
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top