But the great thing about it would be that it would have a restored a robust scarcity to the chain which would turn-around the marketcap drain by making the primary supply expensive again. That would in turn attract all the expertise needed since legacy holders would still have their stake in it.

But the whole point of a hardfork is to revise the protocol lock stock & barrel. So don't you just end up with 2 chains: 1 with a 40% mining reward ratio and one with a 80%-90% mining reward ratio, both of which have internal protection from double-spends with chainlocks ?

The question is, do chainlocks do anything to prevent a contentious hardfork ?

How does the "we don't need all this hashrate" contender fare in such a contest ?

A greeting.

You're alluding to anecdotal evidence, which is like asking for anecdotal evidence that smoking causes cancer. It's a way of evading a general principle which works through at an aggregate level.

In the case of hybrid mining the principle is easy to identify without recourse to anecdotal evidence - i.e. that it results in a reduction of the aggregate difficulty level incurred by the mining group. That then has two effects which defy the intended actions of the protocol-based reward split:

1. moves the reward ratio back in miner's favour in terms of USD (rendering the protocol reward ratio somewhat meaningless and counter productive)

2. reduces the aggregate cost of mined blocks, thereby reducing the price for all Dash (and thereby loss of "capital value")

Because you're claiming that hybrid mining does not happen/is not significant in Dash's economics when it's been clearly demonstrated that it is highly incentivised.

It's actually more incumbent on you to demonstrate that they're not since the protocol encourages hybrid mining as the most profitable configuration. So if you're trying to make the argument that for some reason this option is not being pursued and that miners & masternodes are distinct demographics than that would go against natural economic incentives and would be quite a bold claim.

Hybrid mining doesn't so much contribute to a "price decline" as a relative loss of marketcap compared with our 100% mined competitors. The reason for that is that they don't have the option of reducing their aggregate difficulty by running masternodes which can mine at zero difficulty alongside their mining rigs.

To a mining cartel, a masternode is simply a $67,000 miner capable of bypassing the difficulty barrier. Therefore = zero scarcity.

The evidence is here. Whether they are doing it or not right now is irrelevant. The protocol encourages the hybrid configuration as the optimal approach to mining because it results in reduces aggregate difficulty and an earlier break-even point. The reduced aggregate difficulty contributes to "driving down prices" when compared with 100% mined competitors.

Here's a chart that totally supports thunderjet's assertions: (Though you get the same for LTC at this scale. Worth studying in more detail).

The only way to get a decent scale from that source is to chop out the stress tests.

With respect I think you're the one who's in "denial", jdmcg.

You've been presented with facts-a-plenty but tend to engage the way you have above - by addressing the motivations of the poster rather than the matter at hand. The fact that masternode profits come from a capital drawdown while mining rewards do not, is academic. The fact that hybrid mining is supported and economically encouraged by Dash protocol is also academic. thunderjet's commentaries are made in good faith in that regard as far as I can see. You're the one that's being evasive.

The point you make regarding the scaling on the graphs above is a straw man because the loss of competitively in chain utility with XMR and LTC is unambiguous. Further, it's kind of ironic that the Dash transaction chart is so ridiculously rescaled. When you think about the reason for that, it's due it having to accommodate the stress tests which were conducted to address a problem we don't have - scaleability. (Would that we did have such a problem).

Regarding "the vote has been taken" perspective, if the governance system becomes a mechanism for institutionalised denial rather than constructive progress then we really are in trouble. These issues exist independently of the governance system and are addressed by the market if not by the community.

Unfortunately, believing that forces you to continue arguing for a failed strategy. You don't feel you have the choice whereas I do.

It will become apparent, whether through force of reason or chronic underpricing and under-usage, that uneconomic profits are uneconomic regardless of what decisions are taken by masternodes and miners. There is no free money that's sustainable since monetary flows are simply the mirror of value flows and no value flows from the blockchain to masternodes unless it flows into it from somewhere else. Masternode margins are a drawdown, plain and simple whereas other coins rewards are not which is why they're beating us on every metric including now, utility.

Well since it involves signalling to the market that we no longer value mining there's about as much logic to that as taking the engine out of your car so it's lighter going uphill.

Needs to be re-thought & reversed IMO.

Well it's a clueless strategy because is isn't going to change our emission schedule. It's not been remotely priced in but rather priced out. We have the inflation whatever the reward ratio is set at. At best it's an attempt to game orderbook liquidity which is a fool's errand at the best of times. What we'll get is more volatility because the more the price rises the greater the tension between masterode profitability and mining profitability and its then simply a question of time before it collapses back down. That point is also brought ever closer the more masternodes we have.

The clue is in the word "store. of. value.". You need to store value in the chain, not dump it straight back out as uneconomic profit givaways in the name of some silly cake-slicing scheme.

Which chains are getting the most usage and therefore for most "pumpable" ? The ones with the ease of use features or the ones with the best store of value performance ?

Looks to me like the chain that least values mining is unambiguously the one that's been abandoned here.

I am nice and thought it only common courtesy to congratulate the proposers on it passing the vote even if I didn't agree with the policy.

However, numbers are numbers. My issue isn't with DCG - they were given a job to do and are doing it. It's with the community who need to see that this path is folly, there can be no other way of putting it. Throwing half the supply down the toilet when other coins use it to strengthen their scarcity and therefore price is Kamikaze policy and we'll suffer for it. Sure we might get a pump but the higher it goes the less sustainable it will be and since we're already supporting 5000 nodes at enormous expense before it's even started I don't expect it to get anywhere near where it might do if we made more sensible use of the coin supply.

What planet are you living on ?

In dollar terms it's barely clung on by its fingernails since the original presentation was made roughly a year ago. As far as the Satoshi price goes during the course of this year, any word that improves on "collapse" is being generous.

There is one slight glimmer of hope that may support your optimism. The long range Dash/USD seems to show accumulation against a flat price trace through-ought the year which would be consistent with your #pumpIsComing mantra and us possibly getting #washedUpByTheTide.

But Dash/BTC is abysmal and shows how little of that "tidal wave" we're capturing compared with our fully mined competitors. What I find discomforting about this whole philosophy is that you all seem to be looking for an exit pump. Desperate to get out and not interested in the long term health and growth of the coin.

Hybrid mining. thunderjet already explained it. Dash protocol encourages it.

Increased MN reward therefore helps miner's profitability by lowering their aggregate difficulty.

Blindness ?

Yes he did, and so did I.


Re. this point:


What it changes is that Dash drops chronically in marketcap ranking since mining is subsidised by its own blockchain while in other (100% mined) coins it isn't subsidised at all. The entire capital that's invested in mining has to come from outside of the ecosystem which is why their blockchains are healthy while ours is atrophying by comparison.

I remind you of the quantified version since you asked for "proof" in your last post:

Excellent post. And see here for quantified examples of what he's talking about.

You have 5 mining businesses, A, B, C, D and E, each of which invest around $200k in mining equipment. A is a pure mining operation, B to D 4 are hybrids. Assume the hybrid operations acquire their masternodes at the time of purchase of the mining equipment and dispose of them at the break-even point so there's no net investment in Dash other than the hashrate which going into raising the mining difficulty.

Note that, despite all making exactly the same investment in mining and contributing exactly the same hashrate to the difficulty level, B to D reach mining profitability far faster than a pure miner because they're operating under ever reducing effective difficulty levels and so are more profitable.

The shortfall in difficulty for operations B-D is what's quantifiably lost to the network in terms of supply scarcity compared with 100% mined coins. Note also that, at this level of mining investment, the marginal benefit additional nodes tails off. It isn't linear so no "ever increasing" demand for nodes. The first 3-5 is enough to get a 50% difficulty reduction. (That's because we've set the reward ratio at near 50%).

The reason this is more favourable to the Dash Miner/masternode combo than, say [Other Coin Miner]/Dash Masternode combo is because it optimises Dash coin accumulation which can go towards masternodes and further reduce the effective difficulty. (In the examples below, nearly 3 nodes are acquired by the mining equipment break even point. In the non-hybrid example they're all from mining reward which turns that operation into a de-facto hybrid one anyway if they are held).

This is simply the "cruise ship" problem (capital loss from the chain) stated differently. There are lots of ways to express it. It's also an example of how the market simply corrects our reward ratio for us if we don't set it so that masternode/mining profitability is at near parity in the first place. (It has to devalue the coin to do that).



Refs:

https://www.coinwarz.com/mining/dash/calculator?h=8800000.00&p=3250.00&pc=0.10&pf=0.00&d=203977121.56010000&r=1.55331350&er=0.00440467&btcer=15619.44830000&ha=MH&hc=0.00&hs=0&hq=1

https://xn--bitmai-nt7b.com/product/antminer-s19-pro-110th-s/