I don't know, Gliss is at least being open about the decision making and options available...
|
|
|
I would love to meet Icebreaker in real life if only to see what kind of man/teenager firstly considers insults to be an effective method of debate and secondly, considers "DashHole" to be an insult.
I took him off ignore a few weeks ago because I enjoyed laughing while imagining what he must be like in real life. Now I just feel sorry for a man who feels that he has to act in this way. It is really depressing. If I'm feeling depressed for him, I can only imagine how Icebreaker must feel about himself.
Icebreaker. Its got to the point that people pity you. Good luck, I genuinely hope you overcome whatever is consuming your sanity at the moment.
Back on ignore.
|
|
|
Ha! Just noticed the Turing reference in your profile Coins
|
|
|
graham ... eloquence is obviously and evidently your strong point ... pity it was never mine ... Thanks for the kind words. Does it help if I reveal that i) it can take me a couple of days to research and couple of hours to write a post like that and ii) I probably get the most benefit out of the exercise? Cheers Graham +1 Its all too easy to write rapid responses on internet forums without really researching and thinking about what you want to say. And as you mention, it benefits yourself as well as the community. I shall try to learn from your example.
|
|
|
Great post. I'll reply in a few hours when I've had time to digest it!
|
|
|
Did you guys miss where I said that a smartnode can handle more spr than it holds? (same for dash's masternodes)
Fair enough. So what do you suggest, get rid of "more spr = higher score"? this seems to me like the existing banking situation ( yes - i called it a situation ) ... the more you have the higher the score the better the chance of gaining more ... the rich get richer - the poor still struggle ... but why wouldnt you reward those that put the effort AND spr in? ... touch one that ... #crysx I agree that the hypothetical macbook with 24/7 internet connection that never goes to sleep will be as "reliable" as a cloud hosted node, fair point. I just don't like the idea that a node with a higher balance being scored higher than a node with a lower balance. If a node has a lot of downtime, then wouldn't it probably get paid less anyway? EDIT: Lets take the top 10 wallets as an example...surely they have the most to gain from a balance influenced score?
|
|
|
So, will masternode payments still depend on a score, because if so it will defeat the purpose of them being dynamic.
I must admit that was something I didn't care for with the original SPR masternode testing. I didn't understand the benefits of the highest scoring masternodes getting paid. Am I missing a really obvious benefit? Surely the network can only be fair if all masternodes get paid roughly the same amount over a period of time? Why define a max number of masternodes? Surely the ROI, coin supply and value of SPR will define this organically? People won't run masternodes at a loss for long... I also remain to be convinced of the dynamic masternode model other than its brilliant ease of setup. Once again...am I missing a fundamental advantage? The score was designed to sort the men from the boys. Servicenode owners will try to load their nodes with as little SPR as possable (so to have move nodes/profit). This create's instability in the network, as people are getting kicked off the list because of the small amount in the node. So to create some stability, long term nodes that are well funded get a higher rating and probably more SPR block rewards. That's my understanding anyway But then it would remove the competition if they were paid more, and hence defeating the purpose of a limit. Their not paid more because that's in the code. There paid more because they're more consistent, handle more transactions and respond 100% of the time. Also the larger your servicenode balance is, the larger transactions your node can handle. And we need the ability to handle large transactions so we need large wallets. Am i right in saying Dash nodes can only handle 1000 dash at a time? Ok, so in this hypothesis the people with the bigger SPR wallets with VPS hosted masternodes would receive more payments than somebody with one masternode hosted on their macbook. Doesn't seem right somehow. Anyway...new ANN today. Plenty of time to thrash out semantics and test various hypotheses!
|
|
|
You're right but you can't blame me for being excited
|
|
|
Surely the network can only be fair if all masternodes get paid roughly the same amount over a period of time?
If you're not posing a merely rhetorical question, what's the definition of “fair” in this instance? Cheers Graham It wasn't intended as rhetorical. I guess my roots are deeply set in DRK where the idea was that the entry point for a masternode was fixed and that over a given period of time, all masternodes would receive a similar return on investment. In this context, I am using fair to refer to the fact that in order to run a service node, it will cost the owner money to run it. If the service node owner is not guaranteed roughly the same income as other service node owners is there a chance this will mean that some service nodes will generate less income for doing the same amount of work at the same expense therefore causing an "unfair" situation? I guess the advantage is that it will drive the price of Spreadcoin up if it succeeds. Nope, I'm not sure if I get that either. I think I'm probably just half (at best) informed and trying to guess at how the initial proposals will look and I'm missing something fundamental. I'm sure all will become clear.
|
|
|
Surely the network can only be fair if all masternodes get paid roughly the same amount over a period of time?
If you're not posing a merely rhetorical question, what's the definition of “fair” in this instance? Cheers Graham It wasn't intended as rhetorical. I guess my roots are deeply set in DRK where the idea was that the entry point for a masternode was fixed and that over a given period of time, all masternodes would receive a similar return on investment. In this context, I am using fair to refer to the fact that in order to run a service node, it will cost the owner money to run it. If the service node owner is not guaranteed roughly the same income as other service node owners is there a chance this will mean that some service nodes will generate less income for doing the same amount of work at the same expense therefore causing an "unfair" situation?
|
|
|
So, will masternode payments still depend on a score, because if so it will defeat the purpose of them being dynamic.
I must admit that was something I didn't care for with the original SPR masternode testing. I didn't understand the benefits of the highest scoring masternodes getting paid. Am I missing a really obvious benefit? Surely the network can only be fair if all masternodes get paid roughly the same amount over a period of time? Why define a max number of masternodes? Surely the ROI, coin supply and value of SPR will define this organically? People won't run masternodes at a loss for long... I also remain to be convinced of the dynamic masternode model other than its brilliant ease of setup. Once again...am I missing a fundamental advantage?
|
|
|
Rad
|
|
|
I am nearly finished with the website (shouldn't take more than 24 hours)
Now, in the downloads category I have a section called "wallets" where I have the win, mac and linux builds (and a link to github)
Then I also have the AMD + NVidia miners, in their own section called "GPU miners"
Am I forgetting anything important that should also go into the download section?
EDIT: everything "media" related like buttons, design elements etc goes into its own category called "media".
Thanks George! Can't think of anything right now personally...
|
|
|
Any idea how long until we have a forum again?
So many questions...so excite.
|
|
|
There is a lot of consideration being given to how to keep the community updated on a consistent and regular basis. Everybody is busy as hell and that's why it hasn't come together yet.
If the core team can agree on how and when the updates are written, proof read and published then it should be like a nicely oiled machine.
I too wish updates were more regular. They will become more regular soon, I'm sure of it.
Just in case it was lost in the gifs.
|
|
|
There is a lot of consideration being given to how to keep the community updated on a consistent and regular basis. Everybody is busy as hell and that's why it hasn't come together yet.
If the core team can agree on how and when the updates are written, proof read and published then it should be like a nicely oiled machine.
I too wish updates were more regular. They will become more regular soon, I'm sure of it.
|
|
|
That some of the coins that were mined early on
That some of the coins that were instamined - Corrected Fine. Can you explain why the instamined coins being sold at price peaks is scandalous? It proves nothing as to who was selling them. I don't understand what that graph is showing other than the people who bought some of those coins cheap sold them at a good time!
|
|
|
And what does that mean exactly? That some of the coins that were mined early on were sold at the price peaks? Doesn't seem that scandalous to me!
|
|
|
That's a lot of fithy lucre.
|
|
|
Bitrex SPR withdrawals have been really slow for me. Up to 45 minutes from the time that I received a TXID on Bittrex to the TX turning up on the blockchain/my wallet.
|
|
|
|