I call it tax because it's arbitrary and probably not very welcome, especially in a solo-mining environment.

Look, contrary to DASH, I design our competitive collateral scheme specifically so that everybody will easily be able to run a servicenode, especially in the first years.
There will be no fix collateral that lets the ownership of a servicenode get out of reach of the underprivileged class the higher the SPR price gets.

Couple that with the reality that everybody can participate in solo-mining, and miners don't just receive the block reward they also get to vote regarding servicenode rewards.
Mining will be more empowering.

Everybody will be mining and 'noding!


And therefor that will be like saying: your left hand is pitted against your right!  

There are like half a dozen things that are in development to make this happen, yep.

UBA, my own UTXO database format, new wallet, new protocol. They will all have to come together to create what you guys call "servicenodes".

I don't think that ASICs will hurt Dash.

With spreadcoin everybody solo-mines. Luckily with our current low net hashrate even a single GPU can find blocks a few times a day.

This will NOT be the case anymore when our hashrate is 100 times higher.

With other coins, if you can mine in a pool you don't care much about a fix deduction, you just want to see the milliCoins trickle down constantly.

But if you solo-mined for a week to find a single block, you'd probably enjoy your whole block much more if it isn't taxed.


Look, this will again introduce dynamics that we can't even fathom right now.

What if a short term small 1 GPU miner doesn't want to give much percentage to the servicenodes (so he votes "0", and the average makes him pay 21.345 % or something)
but a large GPU farm that is in it for the long haul votes for a very generous percentage because that's what empowerement means:
Think of it as a form of patronage.

Exactly, Spreadcoin Solo-Mining has very irregular rewards, and imagine we now just skim a certain fix percentage (30%? 50%?) away from them to give to the servicenodes.

That's why I'm thinking about alternative ways, or spreadcoin miners will be really pissed!

Also, by letting the miners decide themselves, we don't have to set new percentages with every new fork, it will not be the responsibility of the devs anymore to make decisions in the name of a whole group of people.

meh, monaco, just like vatican city... you can't really count them as countries...

Also, much like we will recommend what altcoins people could host for the decentralized blockexplorer,

we can give miners a recommendation what reward percentage they should apply.


This will add yet another market (yet another interesting chart to watch), and miners will feel empowered, not abused.

There is not a single country on this planet that doesn't force its population to pay a certain amount of taxes.

So how do you know?

I understand, but wouldn't that in turn incentivize more people to want to mine so they get to influence the result?

Imagine for example a reward system where the average of such mining reward votes of the last 24 hours (~1440 blocks) is taken to decide the current servicenode reward.

Every miner that creates a block adds a number between 0-100 in a specific field in the block header to indicate in what direction he wants to influence the average.

So a miner doesn't get to exclusively decide how much he has to award to the servicenode,
instead his current vote is just added to the pile of 1440 blocks that will derive the average value the miner must give on a protocol level.

So, if we see a large part of miners that don't want to give more than 0 reward, you just have to mine 1 block and give it a "100" to move the market quite a bit.
(well, relatively speaking: 1439 votes of "0" versus 1 vote of "100" leads to a reward of 0.07%. Well, doesn't look like much, but still! It was caused by just 1 Vote!)



Couple that with us adapting SpreadX11 to stay GPU-friendly for the foreseeable future... and this might introduce an interesting dynamic.

I would totally give servicenodes a share of my coinbase, IF the functionality they add to the network is increasing the price of SPR.

Who knows what voluntary negotiations between servicenodes and miners this will trigger.

...

All this reminds me of a dynamic I always wondered about:
What results can you expect in a society where people aren't forced to pay taxes?
Would they still voluntarily fund all the important services (like healthcare, security, fire service, etc...)
or would they just let everything go to shits?

I love to look at things in this libertarian way!
Decentralized all the way!

I think the most suited entities to participate in any voting process are miners.

They are already involved in some sort of voting process just by deciding what version/fork of the protocol they are going to use.

I will probably let the miners decide the amount of reward they are willing to give to the servicenodes.

BTW, I recognize your avatar pic. That's the trippiest film I ever saw.  

Yesyes, how does the saying go:


...

this might make sense regarding your political affiliation ....
(when young you want to change the world, when older and established you want the things to stay as they are (easier for retirement planning and what not))

...but what we are involved with here in cryptoworld is the creation of disruptive technologies, permissionless decentralized systems that let you do your thing even if large parts of the population disagree or have a pragmatic problem with it, right?

We design systems like bitcoin or bittorent to withstand the mood swings / influence of especially those established/conservative people who think they now know what's good for us, and what we are allowed to do or not.

Anyway, what Kristov Atlast said here, makes it almost sound like he considers accepting that a certain amount of centralization is now ok again?
It could be interpreted this way.
If he thinks that decentralization has lost a few sympathy points, doesn't he imply that he gives a few points back in favor of centralization?

Well, my opinion is that decentralization/centralization is a completely black and white matter.
ALL involuntary centralized systems can be vastly improved by turning them into voluntary decentralized systems.

No question about this in my mind!

But this statement doesn't make sense if we don't mention the voluntary/involuntary character of the system we analyze.

Ofcourse a driver/pilot will always be a necessarily centralized entity of a car/plane.
And in the same way, a privately owned business will require a top down centralized hierarchy.

And that's ok, because those systems are either restricted to individuals, or based on voluntary interactions/agreements between all participants.

alright, so it's a question of spectrum/gradient I guess.


He certainly isn't greek, but what is he anyway? Doesn't matter.

Can someone help me with this (since english isn't my first language):

I had a little twitter exchange with kristov atlas.

Part of it is here:

https://twitter.com/cryptoons/status/722138156687089664



What is the semantic difference between


and


...

I see no difference. Is he trolling me?  
Does my english suck?

But that's cool, I respect that. Some things need to be revisited often, and put in context when new data emerges.

Publishers who just desperately hunt for the newest thing will fall for every buzzword and rumour that is spread around.
Such publishers aren't informing anybody, they are just loudmouths echoing whatever they picked up.

Thanks for mentioning us.
Good journalism, well explained the principles!

Kristov seems to have a bad day.
I'm sure he'll soon come back to his senses.  

You see, advancing the principles of decentralization is like solving one of the Millenium Prize Problems..

It's really, really hard, but once a solution is found (like with bitcoin) it opens up so many possibilities and advances humanity like nothing else.

Some people work on solving those problems, and sometimes after long periods of failure they just throw in the towel.

I could never do that, because the shining example of bitcoin is bright enough for me to continue forever.

It can work. It was already proven that decentralization indeed works!
That which was thought impossible just a few years ago is now possible!

Fantastic years ahead of us.

Sounds cool, it's like a decentralized localbitcoins.

They use automated escrow (bitcoin multisignature) and a dispute resolution system (which requires you to make a security deposit).

For this their system needs arbitrators (who are humans) to help resolve in case of a dispute between users.
(That's where I start to scratch my head: it requires humans?)

But that's what you would expect from an exchange that involves fiat money.

thanks, so it's no secret.

I see, makes sense.

Imagine I soon turn legendary, and later for some reason this whole thread here is deleted. (Or the old mr.spread thread)
I would literally lose half of my posts, but my status would likely remain.

Or has there ever been observed a status reversion? Where e.g. a legendary reverted to a hero?
They probably disabled this forum function to reduce database calls.
Many people get posts deleted all the time, and this could be a problem if the status had to be updated all the time too...

BTW, I have to wonder by what rules the legendary status is awarded.

If you for example look at this guy here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=62794

He has legendary status with an activity and post count of just 287.





Seems like this formula can be hacked. Or does it have something to do with how long ago you registered?

Anyway... everywhere I look I see something that could be hacked!