As many of you may know, recently there has been some talk https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...orm-run-only-on-high-performance-nodes.53374/ and
of running Dash Platform aka Evolution on a subset of masternodes. On the table are three options each almost as bad as the other, with one IMO marginally better than all the rest, none of them will add value to Dash or do anything to improve the sentiment in our community and from curious onlookers.
A shit sandwich or the Douche bag
The options are:
Let's look at the first option. Under the first option everyone must run the Evo stack or else they will only receive half their current rewards. This is a coercive upgrade and very different to our regular hard forks that everyone is accustomed to and implicitly agreed to when they bought into Dash. This changes the rules. The upgrade itself will involve running a fully indexed dashd, this means straight off the bat an almost doubling of disk space required due to the additional indexes and higher CPU work load for processing transactions. TL;DR you will have to upgrade your hosting to the next higher tier. Next comes the Evo (Platform) install, you will be at the mercy of DashMate which basically never works to install four other separate packages that are themselves are unstable, poorly maintained, improperly installed and very resource intensive. If you manage to get through the installation, next comes the rapidly increasing storage costs as Platform allows the storage of arbitrary data objects (BLOBS) that will quickly fill up your VPS and force you to pay more for hosting further eating away into your profits. As if that wasn't bad enough, by running platform, a decentralised API and storage solution where anyone without identification can store any data they wish, you better be ready to store and host child pornography from your masternode. You cannot prevent this. This will open you up as the Masternode owner to personal liability in the particular police state you live in AND the one you host your masternode in, assuming they are different. You cannot hide or disguise your service, everything is tracked on the blockchain including your IP4V on the Dash L1 blockchain as a provider transaction (protx). BUSTED.
Option 1 gives you no choice but to run Evo while making you responsible for the data hosted from it and eating away into your precious profits. It's a shit sandwich and the result of this if the decision proposal passes this way, is we will see another massive wave of selling as those that want no part of this sell and move into other safer coins where they can earn yield at even higher rates, for example HEX at 10% APY for a stake of 1 month or greater.
Option 2 and 3 can go together because they are both the same, expect one is better than the other. Under these two options, we form a 2-teired network where MNOs that wish to opt into running an Evo node and always have the choice to shift out of it and go back to running a regular node. By being opt-in, it is immediately more fair and democratic. Under these two options, 50% of the masternode rewards will be paid into the Evo pool and the other 50% will be paid to the regular masternode pool, this creates an arbitrage opportunity where some masternodes will move into the evo pool, thus pushing the APY down there while their abscence from the regular pool pushes the APY up there. Before too long, the two pools equalise at some equibrium where both pools are paid more or less the same APY - democratically. Over all, due to the increased collateral requirements made of Evo nodes, there will be fewer of them in the evo pool compared to the regular MN pool, this means they will save on hosting fees, which means their effective APY will be higher, which means more MNs will leave the regular pool to join the evo pool which means the APY will increase there too! All this without regular MNOs lifting a finger !
Of the two options between 4k and 10k, 10k is then clearly the superior option, which calls in the question of decentralisation, how much is enough? The amount of decentralisation you need depends on what it is you are trying to decentralise and how likely it is to come under any attack. Recall that Platform is supposed to store mundane data like contact lists, friend requests, merchant directory, nothing that actually needs any level of decentralisation at all, all this data would be perfectly happy sitting in the Google cloud, this isn't the type of data we are likely to see censored in the near future, so for this I feel that even with the 100 or so nodes the 10k option would afford us is still plenty to protect the network. The other thing Platform stores are credits, credits are what we call Dash when it has been sent to Platform. Credits in Platform are created in one of two ways, a Dash user sends Dash to platform to fund their account, a block is mined and 50% of the MN coinbase is sent to Platform. These coinbase rewards accumulate on Platform for 18 days upon which they are distributed to the masternodes who will then convert them back into Dash and sell them, how do I know? well if rewards were not being sold, then the Masternode network would be growing in size by 1.5 Masternodes each day and it is not, so those rewards are sold.
So, what is the prize pool on Platform them? Well a block pays 1.4 Dash to the masternode every 2.625 mins and the Platform Epoch is 18 days. So, 6912 Dash. So, we would have 100 masternodes securing let's say 7000 Dash, since an attacker could try and drain Platform just before the Epoch block mints, while on L1 we are securing 10.5 million Dash with 3700 Masternodes. I am happy with those numbers. I am not happy with 3700 Masternodes securing a measly 7k Dash on platform, it is a massive overkill!
Of the two options 4k, 10k, the 10k offering is clearly the best of the two. For all the reasons above and more, I will be voting on the 10k collateral option and you should too.
of running Dash Platform aka Evolution on a subset of masternodes. On the table are three options each almost as bad as the other, with one IMO marginally better than all the rest, none of them will add value to Dash or do anything to improve the sentiment in our community and from curious onlookers.
A shit sandwich or the Douche bag
The options are:
- Run Evo on the entire Masternode network.
- Opt into running Evo with a 4,000 Dash collateral.
- Opt into running Evo with a 10,000 Dash collateral.
Let's look at the first option. Under the first option everyone must run the Evo stack or else they will only receive half their current rewards. This is a coercive upgrade and very different to our regular hard forks that everyone is accustomed to and implicitly agreed to when they bought into Dash. This changes the rules. The upgrade itself will involve running a fully indexed dashd, this means straight off the bat an almost doubling of disk space required due to the additional indexes and higher CPU work load for processing transactions. TL;DR you will have to upgrade your hosting to the next higher tier. Next comes the Evo (Platform) install, you will be at the mercy of DashMate which basically never works to install four other separate packages that are themselves are unstable, poorly maintained, improperly installed and very resource intensive. If you manage to get through the installation, next comes the rapidly increasing storage costs as Platform allows the storage of arbitrary data objects (BLOBS) that will quickly fill up your VPS and force you to pay more for hosting further eating away into your profits. As if that wasn't bad enough, by running platform, a decentralised API and storage solution where anyone without identification can store any data they wish, you better be ready to store and host child pornography from your masternode. You cannot prevent this. This will open you up as the Masternode owner to personal liability in the particular police state you live in AND the one you host your masternode in, assuming they are different. You cannot hide or disguise your service, everything is tracked on the blockchain including your IP4V on the Dash L1 blockchain as a provider transaction (protx). BUSTED.
Option 1 gives you no choice but to run Evo while making you responsible for the data hosted from it and eating away into your precious profits. It's a shit sandwich and the result of this if the decision proposal passes this way, is we will see another massive wave of selling as those that want no part of this sell and move into other safer coins where they can earn yield at even higher rates, for example HEX at 10% APY for a stake of 1 month or greater.
Option 2 and 3 can go together because they are both the same, expect one is better than the other. Under these two options, we form a 2-teired network where MNOs that wish to opt into running an Evo node and always have the choice to shift out of it and go back to running a regular node. By being opt-in, it is immediately more fair and democratic. Under these two options, 50% of the masternode rewards will be paid into the Evo pool and the other 50% will be paid to the regular masternode pool, this creates an arbitrage opportunity where some masternodes will move into the evo pool, thus pushing the APY down there while their abscence from the regular pool pushes the APY up there. Before too long, the two pools equalise at some equibrium where both pools are paid more or less the same APY - democratically. Over all, due to the increased collateral requirements made of Evo nodes, there will be fewer of them in the evo pool compared to the regular MN pool, this means they will save on hosting fees, which means their effective APY will be higher, which means more MNs will leave the regular pool to join the evo pool which means the APY will increase there too! All this without regular MNOs lifting a finger !
Of the two options between 4k and 10k, 10k is then clearly the superior option, which calls in the question of decentralisation, how much is enough? The amount of decentralisation you need depends on what it is you are trying to decentralise and how likely it is to come under any attack. Recall that Platform is supposed to store mundane data like contact lists, friend requests, merchant directory, nothing that actually needs any level of decentralisation at all, all this data would be perfectly happy sitting in the Google cloud, this isn't the type of data we are likely to see censored in the near future, so for this I feel that even with the 100 or so nodes the 10k option would afford us is still plenty to protect the network. The other thing Platform stores are credits, credits are what we call Dash when it has been sent to Platform. Credits in Platform are created in one of two ways, a Dash user sends Dash to platform to fund their account, a block is mined and 50% of the MN coinbase is sent to Platform. These coinbase rewards accumulate on Platform for 18 days upon which they are distributed to the masternodes who will then convert them back into Dash and sell them, how do I know? well if rewards were not being sold, then the Masternode network would be growing in size by 1.5 Masternodes each day and it is not, so those rewards are sold.
So, what is the prize pool on Platform them? Well a block pays 1.4 Dash to the masternode every 2.625 mins and the Platform Epoch is 18 days. So, 6912 Dash. So, we would have 100 masternodes securing let's say 7000 Dash, since an attacker could try and drain Platform just before the Epoch block mints, while on L1 we are securing 10.5 million Dash with 3700 Masternodes. I am happy with those numbers. I am not happy with 3700 Masternodes securing a measly 7k Dash on platform, it is a massive overkill!
Of the two options 4k, 10k, the 10k offering is clearly the best of the two. For all the reasons above and more, I will be voting on the 10k collateral option and you should too.
