If Evan were to implement key generation for anyone owning 100 drk, or even 10 drk, where those keys could be combined to run a masternode with other people... someone would only need to own 10 drk to receive trustless payments. Where does that leave your argument?
Yes, why not, let's make all kinds of masternode deals, I see a bright future in this. But in the process of this, why kill mining? Both can coexist. Your desire is only based on greed, and it's not the good kind of greed (getting wealthy by adding value)... it's the bad sociopathic kind of greed ("Give me your stuff, you useless eater, why do you even exist") |
|
|
|
...It's the subsequent death of darkcoin that causes horror in my mind, should people like you get their way.  And how exactly do you see that coming about?? Miners selling their DRK? Do you not think they do that already?? [in such a scenario] Darkcoin will be called FEDcoin or ELITISTcoin, since it doesn't treat individual newcomers the same way it treats its wealthy members. As I said in the darkcointalk thread. It's basic psychology. Nobody wants to make rich people even more richer. Everybody wants to be able to participate in a system that is beneficial to everybody involved and that treats the weakest among us the same way it treats the strongest. Don't create a gated community and expect large masses to join. Evan has never disappointed me, and I know he is from the austrian school of economics, so individualism as in "everybody can join/mine" is very important to him. Accessibility is key. But you want this accessibility to be restricted, do you not see how this will damage the coin overall?[/in such a scenario] |
|
|
|
....COUPLED with the horror scenario that only Masternode owners were creating coins.
Elaborate, please. I haven't seen anyone mention valid "horror" scenarios, including having butthurt miners. It's not the miners that will be butthurt, they will simply switch to mine another coin. It's the subsequent death of darkcoin (following such a scenario) that causes horror in my mind, should people like you get their way. |
|
|
|
If Evan were to implement key generation for anyone owning 100 drk, or even 10 drk, where those keys could be combined to run a masternode with other people... someone would only need to own 10 drk to receive trustless payments. Where does that leave your argument? Edit: buying drk on an exchange isn't so bad, seeing as how you can anonymize them quickly and forget about being tracked...  I have no problem with buying DRK on an exchange. I have a problem when buying DRK on an exchange is the only option I were given COUPLED with the horror scenario that only Masternode owners were creating coins. |
|
|
|
I don't blame the German people, it happened in their country, but it can happen in ANY country and I think we're well on our way in this country to something similar, maybe more ala Stalin, but what is the real Absolutely true. Larken Rose has created a documentary about exactly this kind of false belief that many people have: "It can't happen here"(it can only happen with those other people who have evil DNA or something /sarc) People must understand how it can happen that a dictator gets voted into power by promising justice, jobs and free stuff and then openly turns into the biggest tyrant imaginable once he is in power. (click video to play)  I believe that basically every country that has forced taxation (and obedient people who believe government is here to help them) and enforces (or plans to enforce) some kind of gun control (taking away guns from people and leaving only police and military armed) is very prone to turn into a fullblown tyranny sooner or later. |
|
|
|
finished rendering:  i hope we can use them instead of stock footage in some press releases https://mega.co.nz/#!NUkSmKIY!3_nU419UbdZf-jAV0kWcG3skQVnvLRmBDPYiBunBA5Y https://mega.co.nz/#!xREhWTIR!pkeEe-vmvOYdL5VK6L_u3bHm2-3nF79vMnT-dqrfCSU next render series is titled "to the moon". Nice, may I ask, what rendering software do you use? cinema 4d I thought so. Can you try HDR rendering with global illumination? I think it would look insanely realistic then, but will probably take 10 x longer to render. |
|
|
|
finished rendering: i hope we can use them instead of stock footage in some press releases https://mega.co.nz/#!NUkSmKIY!3_nU419UbdZf-jAV0kWcG3skQVnvLRmBDPYiBunBA5Y https://mega.co.nz/#!xREhWTIR!pkeEe-vmvOYdL5VK6L_u3bHm2-3nF79vMnT-dqrfCSU next render series is titled "to the moon". Nice, may I ask, what rendering software do you use? |
|
|
|
Where in the heck are you getting that? Having MNs generate the blockchain would have absolutely no affect on the things you named...?? THe blockchain would be just as visible as it ever was, not that anyone could trace transactions anyway.
Try again.
Satoshis principles of how a blockchain is secured and validated. You just want to let the validation be done by an elitist club of early adopters, instead of giving EVERYBODY a chance of participating in the coin creation. That's what I don't get. Mining gives everybody the possibility to get to some DRK without the need to go thru an exchange or thru some smug MN holder who thinks he is now supposed to be the sole source of DRK. I am mining all kinds of coins, so I don't need to go thru the whole established banking system with all their KYC etc... No bank anywhere has my personal information and knows that I bought cryptocurrencies, EXACTLY because I was able to get to some coins by running a mining machine!So, if you get rid of mining, you take away from people the possibility that they can create coins themselves, instead you are forcing them to only be able to buy darkcoins thru an exchange, which is INSANE!Darkcoin is VERY COOL in that regard, because it let's you still mine with your CPU/GPU. (And imagine in the future having X11 USB ASICS that cost 10 $? Isn't that fantastic? Giving some kid a X11 miner as present and having him participate in the network. Ok, maybe in some rich elitist famility they can give some kid 1000 DRK complete with managed server, .... ) If the blockchain were to be validated by MN network only, I would not trust it. Sure, everybody can provide a blockchain, it's not just about its visibility, it's about its integrity! You have the burden of the proof to show that MN network can really replace mining. Not me! Such extraordinairy claims require extraordinairy evidence. |
|
|
|
First look into the mirror and ask yourself, what sensible arguments do you have that masternodes should recieve EVEN MORE darkcoins than they already do?
Georgem, Please explain succinctly why miners deserve 4x more of the coins from each block than masternodes do, when masternodes can do the job the miners do, potentially even MUCH MUCH safer than miners do currently? As I just posted in the darkcointalk forum: Let's not forget that we need darkcoin to also work without darksend, without anonymity. There are many reasons why someone will want to show other people a transaction list of an address. For example a donation based charity or something. Voluntary transparency can be a very valuable function.I always liked that darkcoin can be BOTH anonymous and not anonymous, depending on the needs of the user.If we get rid of the miners, we get rid of that, and this would in turn limit the amount of things one can do with darkcoin, wouldn't it? Even batman turns into bruce wayne by day. Imagine him being batman 24/7... he would probably have commited suicide by now (if he really existed). ... So, g4q34g4qg47ww, you want as a next step that we don't have any option anymore, right? No option anymore to use or not use darksend depending on our own needs? No public ledger possibility anymore, right? You just need you to come clean and tell me what your final goal is here. Don't ask me to be succinct when it is you who makes moves with unforseable consequences. |
|
|
|
The key is to have as much redundancy as possible.
That's why I cringe when I hear smug masternode holders talk down to miners...
It would be like me trying to get rid of the bacteria in my gut, not realizing that they help me digest food and that I will die without them.
Smug? I mined my first Masternode and bought the rest all the way up to 0.019. If miners whine that Masternodes are 'too profitable,' nobody is stopping them selling some GPU's and buying a Masternode too. They'd also save on electricity!  I am questioning the 80/20 split because I think Masternodes bring more to the table than miners do, that's all. What table are you even talking about. I wasn't aware there is a table. We have nothing yet with darkcoin. We need adoption, we need to prove ourselves. We need to become the best security experts of the world (regarding server security), etc... when we reach that point I will accept that there is a "table". Are you joking? Anonymous transactions, forthcoming InstanTX, there's the table. What did miners have to do with that? You know, the whole point of Darkcoin?We will see. Just don't talk down to those gut bacterias man, because we absolutely NEED them. I'm not talking down to anyone, I'm asking miners to come up with sensible arguments as to why they are four times as valuable as Masternodes to the coin. First look into the mirror and ask yourself, what sensible arguments do you have that masternodes should recieve EVEN MORE darkcoins than they already do? You already expressed a view that you start doubting that the job of a miner is at all valuable. So isn't this discussion only going to end to your satisfaction if miners get no reward at all? Are you even talking about sharing? Or more about taking away from someone you now deem a "useless eater"? edit: 6am for me, time for bed... thanks for the debate.  I love it. |
|
|
|
The key is to have as much redundancy as possible.
That's why I cringe when I hear smug masternode holders talk down to miners...
It would be like me trying to get rid of the bacteria in my gut, not realizing that they help me digest food and that I will die without them.
Smug? I mined my first Masternode and bought the rest all the way up to 0.019. If miners whine that Masternodes are 'too profitable,' nobody is stopping them selling some GPU's and buying a Masternode too. They'd also save on electricity! I am questioning the 80/20 split because I think Masternodes bring more to the table than miners do, that's all. What table are you even talking about. I wasn't aware there is a table. We have nothing yet with darkcoin. We need adoption, we need to prove ourselves. We need to become the best security experts of the world (regarding server security), etc... when we reach that point I will accept that there is a "table". Are you joking? Anonymous transactions, forthcoming InstanTX, there's the table. What did miners have to do with that? You know, the whole point of Darkcoin?We will see. Just don't talk down to those gut bacterias man, because we absolutely NEED them. |
|
|
|
Oh you will come to learn the true costs of running a masternode my friend.
The key thing about the miners is that they simply have to be good at mathematics to prove their worth. They need to hash fast and nothing else.
They don't need to hash fast at all, PoW exists to try and ensure decentralisation of whatever that total hash is, that's all. The remaining coins are scarce, and more and more people want to be the first ones to harvest those coins. That's the simple explanation why miners need to hash faster and faster. Sure, you can hash slow if you like, ok ok! But don't complain when a faster miner eats all the coins away.  More Masternodes make those coins even scarcer... and a tiny % of miners having a small advantage over the others doesn't matter IMO, someone always has some advantage somehow, in anything. I am not sure about that. As you said, I could setup and run 2 masternodes in a few hours. But it only takes me a few minutes to withdraw those coins to an exchange and sell them. So those 2000 DRK are not really far removed from the market at all. A masternode is a very volatile form of "fixated asset". It's not a tightly fixated asset like e.g. a house. Far from it. |
|
|
|
The key is to have as much redundancy as possible.
That's why I cringe when I hear smug masternode holders talk down to miners...
It would be like me trying to get rid of the bacteria in my gut, not realizing that they help me digest food and that I will die without them.
Smug? I mined my first Masternode and bought the rest all the way up to 0.019. If miners whine that Masternodes are 'too profitable,' nobody is stopping them selling some GPU's and buying a Masternode too. They'd also save on electricity! I am questioning the 80/20 split because I think Masternodes bring more to the table than miners do, that's all. What table are you even talking about. I wasn't aware there is a table. We have nothing yet with darkcoin. We need adoption, we need to prove ourselves. We need to become the best security experts of the world (regarding server security), etc... when we reach that point I will accept that there is a "table". |
|
|
|
Oh you will come to learn the true costs of running a masternode my friend.
The key thing about the miners is that they simply have to be good at mathematics to prove their worth. They need to hash fast and nothing else.
They don't need to hash fast at all, PoW exists to try and ensure decentralisation of whatever that total hash is, that's all. The remaining coins are scarce, and more and more people want to be the first ones to harvest those coins. That's the simple explanation why miners need to hash faster and faster. Sure, you can hash slow if you like, ok ok! But don't complain when a faster miner eats all the coins away. |
|
|
|
I have the darkcoins to run 2 Masternodes, but I am veeeeeeeeeeeeeery hesitant to do so, exactly because I know how insecure the internets are.
I will operate masternodes eventually, but this strange push to more and more masternodes and more and more rewards for masternodes (at the expense of miners) I find just wrong.
And now even talks questioning the validity of mining itself? LMAO!
We should be careful is all I am saying, don't let it go to your head.
I'm in the same boat as you. I haven't started any masternodes yet either. And truth be told, a good portion of the modest stash of DRK I have was acquired by mining. I think it's important to have a system of checks and balances. Any one sided affair gets dangerous. However, having said that, I can understand what sir crouton is saying as well. Just because something has always been done a certain way, doesn't mean that there isn't room for improvement. Don't get me wrong, I will never stop anybody from expressing his ideas, even if I don't like them. All I am saying is, we need to act more like an evolutionary organism... let's have a little redundancy. Our bodies have many redundant systems that help them function even when some nutrient is missing or scarce. We need miners and masternodes, and in the future probably even more new kinds of "workers" that help the system survive, be strong and evolve. The key is to have as much redundancy as possible. That's why I cringe when I hear smug masternode holders talk down to miners... It would be like me trying to get rid of the bacteria in my gut, not realizing that they help me digest food and that I will die without them. |
|
|
|
2. Why can't a single crappy CPU process a few transactions per minute and broadcast them to the network? In what way exactly am I wrong about that?
What If I decide to buy lots and lots of those CPUs, what if I try to corrupt the system, make double spends, etc.. we still need someone to hash the timestamps and transactions into the public/anonymous ledger, right? What, you want to completely do away with this? Again, it's not just about transactions, its about the ledger. You have not proven to me that masternodes alone can help guarantee the integrity of the public ledger. I don't think they can. Only hashing mathematics can do that... |
|
|
|
If we only had masternodes... we would basically take darkcoin out of the most insane innovation cycle we have seen in the last decades. (If only servers had the innovation that miners have, lol , but how are they going to have innovation without competition? Just masternode holders sitting on their piles of coins is not something that is very "competitive") So, the key concepts to not forget are: competition creates innovation which in turn creates scarcity (value). Ergo mining. I'm not actually proposing doing away with miners, but please explain to me what great innovations have come about through chasing pointless hashpower? The Darkcoin developers provide innovation, a bunch of people running up electricity bills in the hope of a quick buck do not. Oh you will come to learn the true costs of running a masternode my friend. The key thing about the miners is that they simply have to be good at mathematics to prove their worth. They need to hash fast and nothing else. That's why they are so valuable, they are pure functional tools, that do only this, and nothing else. It's perfect, like a hammer. But prove to me that every masternode holder truly knows how to secure and maintain a server? Are most masternodes still running on amazon clouds, for crying out loud? I have the darkcoins to run 2 Masternodes, but I am veeeeeeeeeeeeeery hesitant to do so, exactly because I know how insecure the internets are. I will operate masternodes eventually, but this strange push to more and more masternodes and more and more rewards for masternodes (at the expense of miners) I find just wrong. And now even talks questioning the validity of mining itself? LMAO! More masternodes will come slowly over time, by market demand. Let the amount of coins rise to 9 million and we can have 2000 masternodes, NOT before. We should be careful is all I am saying, don't let it go to your head. |
|
|
|
Darkcoins come into existence thru mining. And only thru mining.
Evan Duffield and team, and the whole Masternode concept had nothing to do with it? Just miners? Everybody you mentioned here had to mine to get to some darkcoins, don't you agree? What do you even say here? Did they just push a button? The miners share a few of their new found coins with the masternodes.
Mining is not only about maintaining the blockchain.
Even if there are no transactions for days, it doesn't matter. If there are NO transactions for days, then THAT'S the state of blockchain that has to be integrated and shared for everybody to accept.
A single old Celeron can do all that. You are dellusional. The amount of transactions (low or high or whatever) has nothing to do with the validity of mining. It just is what is. What does that even mean? Even if we have no transactions for a while, the integrity of the blockchain would still need to be maintained. You made it sound like it matters how many transactions go thru when in fact the amount of transactions is completely irrelevant to the integrity of the blockchain. As I said, if there were for some reason NO transactions for a period of time, then this state of blockchain would still need to be checked and shared by everybody in the network. |
|
|
|
That's actually a pretty good idea but there would come a day when MN's start dropping like flys, inversely affecting the system as a whole.
If you look at the DGW - in MN protocol.... as you describe
// DIFF goes down - rewards goes up - number of coin to make a MN goes down
// DIFF goes up - rewards goes down - number of coin to make a MN goes up
The would require MN owners to maintain a reserve of DRK
also - the current 1000DRK to OWN a MN, as Evan has already said - cannot be changed....
So what you ask, cannot be done......
..... Well that was fun - lol - NEXT !!!!
Just use mathematics then. If there is an inverse effect at some point, create a higher degree formula that counteracts the effect. If someone can do that, it's the DGW creator himself. Also, how is "MN owners maintinaing a reserve of DRK" a bad thing? I'd love to make the MN owners sweat a little from time to time, they are far too comfortable where they are now... they are even starting expressing some very DECADENT ideas, LMAO!!! |
|
|
|
The more master-nodes we have in existence the better it will be for miners, prices will be higher...
The more miners we have in existence the better it will be for master-nodes, difficulty will be up and in general, prices go up with difficulty...
Right now, miners are pulling the short straw because of power bills, it's a lot more expensive to run mining rigs than it is to run master-nodes...
I personally think increasing the master-node reward will be a good thing for miners...
More and more I think that both master-node reward and number of coins needed to run a masternode should be something that is not set by an authority (evan) but something that is inherently calculated by the protocol itself, based on many different parameters like difficulty, total amount of coins, etc... Maybe those two things (master-node reward and number of coins needed to run a masternode) need to fluctuate over time? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
