A temporary "reference node" isn't anymore centralized than a dev who releases a wallet that everyone downloads and starts to use. Only after a coin is at the stage where it doesn't depend on one developer it begins to be decentralized.
There is a big difference. A wallet that everyone can download gives them a choice of weather to accept the changes or not, unlike a reference node, which can make changes to the network at its will and everyone automatically accepts it. Good point. Also, especially when a lot of money is involved, investors will tend to build the wallets/masternodes themselves using the open source code. They will not allow for any uncertainties. In fact they will insist on open source code. Try and offer any investor a closed source wallet, and see how "excited" he will get...  Darkcoin did get a lot of complaints from the crypto community for going closed source for a while... but this was just in the early stages of the coin. |
|
|
|
Sorry I ask every tiem the same question. 3BTC to run a SPR masternode at the current price?
This is testnet. Masternodes don't exist in main net yet. Come again in a few weeks. |
|
|
|
@ Mr. Spread: You made this post nearly a month ago: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=715435.msg10193497#msg10193497where you said the following thing: Initial masternode implementation will not require you to have a static IP. Instant transactions simply don't require this: someone broadcasts transaction, masternode receive this transactions, sign it and broadcasts this signature, there is no need for anyone to directly connect to masternodes. Nodes will monitor time delays between receiving transactions and confirmations from masternodes and will assign scores for each masternode according to these delays. This score and deposit amount will affect which masternodes will receive payments.
If I understood you correctly here, that it is really the case that the deposit amount of a masternode does affect what masternodes will receive payments, then this is the reason for all the problems we are seeing. If the deposit amount is allowed to affect which masternodes receive payments,then this kills the competition before it has even started. The deposit amount must not have anything to do with who receives payments, or else the system is broken. The deposit amount is only here to decide if your MN is allowed to stay in the game or be kicked out because it is the weakest link. Let only the score affect which masternodes receive payments, AND NOTHING ELSE! Then the competition will really work as intended. Why should the score even affect it? Why not just randomly assign the masternodes? I guess the score will have to affect it at some later point when the masternodes actually perform all kinds of services. Then the score will serve to reward the MNs that provide a better service than MNs with a lower score (which will need to be punished). You can see how this will work when looking at instantX transactions (the first service masternodes provide): Nodes will monitor time delays between receiving transactions and confirmations from masternodes and will assign scores for each masternode according to these delays.
|
|
|
|
@ Mr. Spread: You made this post nearly a month ago: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=715435.msg10193497#msg10193497where you said the following thing: Initial masternode implementation will not require you to have a static IP. Instant transactions simply don't require this: someone broadcasts transaction, masternode receive this transactions, sign it and broadcasts this signature, there is no need for anyone to directly connect to masternodes. Nodes will monitor time delays between receiving transactions and confirmations from masternodes and will assign scores for each masternode according to these delays. This score and deposit amount will affect which masternodes will receive payments.
If I understood you correctly here, that it is really the case that the deposit amount of a masternode does affect which masternodes will receive votes (and therefor payments), then this is the reason for all the problems we are seeing at the moment in the testnet version. If the deposit amount is allowed to affect which masternodes receive votes, then this kills the competition before it has even started. The deposit amount must not have anything to do with who receives votes, or else the system is broken. The deposit amount is only here to decide if your MN is allowed to stay in the game or be kicked out because it is the weakest link. Let only the score affect which masternodes receive votes (and therefor payments), AND NOTHING ELSE! And let the deposit amount only decide if the masternode is allowed to be on the list or be kicked out. Nothing else. Then the competition will really work as intended. |
|
|
|
It is not inconceivable that we have someone who owns large amounts of SPR and tries to keep the price down as long as possible.
Based upon price action I suspect we have one or two miners regularly dumping. Or someone wants to make us think that's the case. I don't think that SPR miners belong to that kind of miners that constantly dump their coins, especially now that we are in the early phase of the coin. If it's profitable, it's rather likely they'll dump. Well this is all speculation anyway. But I am guessing that it's not the last time we have seen a coordinated troll attack COUPLED with synchronized dumping at bittrex. The good thing is that whoever does this will not be able to continue it indefinitely, and every dump always means cheap coins for the true believers. So that is a good thing too! Who says? Big miners can dump pretty much indefinitely - even I sell enough to cover power, and keep the rest. Yes, but as I said, I don't think the dumper is necessarily a miner. Just trying to keep my mind open for all possibilities. Anyway, I don't really care about the price movements at the moment. I am looking forward to what Mr. Spread will come up with next. |
|
|
|
It is not inconceivable that we have someone who owns large amounts of SPR and tries to keep the price down as long as possible.
Based upon price action I suspect we have one or two miners regularly dumping. Or someone wants to make us think that's the case. I don't think that SPR miners belong to that kind of miners that constantly dump their coins, especially now that we are in the early phase of the coin. If it's profitable, it's rather likely they'll dump. Well this is all speculation anyway. But I am guessing that it's not the last time we have seen a coordinated troll attack COUPLED with synchronized dumping at bittrex. The good thing is that whoever does this will not be able to continue it indefinitely, and every dump always means cheap coins for the true believers. So that is a good thing too! |
|
|
|
I really like this coin and support it every way I can but honestly, that rex orderbook looks so screwed... Who is running the show?
What's wrong with it? Nothing wrong there, just looks like a one man show to me. What makes you think that? What are you seeing? Not going to tell everything I see, just basic things. I´m sure You know how this game is played. Take away those .000000000 orders. What's left? Someone is also trying to hide where the real floor is. Did you mistype Cex in your first post? Go over to bitt rex and you'll see much more. It is not inconceivable that we have someone who owns large amounts of SPR and tries to keep the price down as long as possible. Based upon price action I suspect we have one or two miners regularly dumping. Or someone wants to make us think that's the case. I don't think that SPR miners belong to that kind of miners that constantly dump their coins, especially now that we are in the early phase of the coin. |
|
|
|
I really like this coin and support it every way I can but honestly, that rex orderbook looks so screwed... Who is running the show?
What's wrong with it? Nothing wrong there, just looks like a one man show to me. What makes you think that? What are you seeing? Not going to tell everything I see, just basic things. I´m sure You know how this game is played. Take away those .000000000 orders. What's left? Someone is also trying to hide where the real floor is. Did you mistype Cex in your first post? Go over to bitt rex and you'll see much more. It is not inconceivable that we have someone who owns large amounts of SPR and tries to keep the price down as long as possible. |
|
|
|
To be honest I really don't care that much about what any of these things are called as long as it helps SpreadCoin and helps make SpreadCoin a successful coin in the market  I wouldn't mind seeing all the hard work paying off and the investors seeing their dreams come true for holding through the Trollocaust during the great SPREVOLUTION!! LOL Also as long as Mr. Spread continues to deliver the features for this coin being easy to use for the first time crypto users that is what I think will definitely pioneer and make SpreadCoin a truly great coin That is what I've always loved about this coin is that Mr. Spread has always aimed to make his features for this coin as simple to use as clicking a mouse button Me too, names are important, but in the end they are not crucial. It's an interesting discussion and I like how it has excites our minds. I knew that after the trollocaust the good times would come back. |
|
|
|
So how is the testnet round 2 going you ask? What, nobody has asked? Well, I'll tell you anyway. We have about 740 DMs elected, and 1740 DMs are running. So we are half way there (the goal is to have 1440 elected DMs) It looks like Mr. Spread plans to slightly adjust the parameters of the voting process: http://spreadcointalk.org/index.php?topic=93.msg1872#msg1872So in the next version we will get more votes per block (not just 10), and the DMs will need fewer votes to be elected/deelected. (not 30 votes in the last 60 blocks) This will help the network go thru the voting process faster, so that it will be easier to get elected. This is important because we need the competitive game of "kicking the weakest DM" to start as fast as possible. At the moment it takes the small DMs much too long to be elected, and that's unfair and sabotages the competitive game. |
|
|
|
I'd personally be ok with [something] masternodes. I call them "Spreadcoin masternodes". If you want something catchier than that and Mr. Spread agrees to it, fine. But, "masternode" needs to remain in the name.
Super masternode
Dynamic masternode
Spreadcoin masternode
Stuff like that is fine.
Spreadnode? Nope.
I like dynamic masternode. I hate spreadnode. What is the node spreading? nothing. I hope that one day we will call it servernode. At the moment I am ok with decentralized masternode. |
|
|
|
From scratch. That is the definition of a new item. Building it from the ground up. Like building a car from the ground up. When that happens you never end up with the same car. Another popular phrase: back to the drawing board. New idea, new name.
so if a build a house from the ground up i must not call it house anymore because it was build from the ground up? WTF??? What kind of house is it? A hospital or firestation can also be considered "a house".... but they have been planned in advance and built with a special purpose to fulfil certain conditions. In the early days, hospitals didn't look much different than normal houses... but over time people realized that those buildings have special needs. |
|
|
|
A DRK masternode can also be run on a local computer. It's not recommended, and it will only cause you headaches... but it is still possible... hm....
It took me just a few minutes to set up a MN on my local computer. If for nothing else that is a major difference between the two. Yeah, we should absolutely use that in our marketing campaign once decentralized masternodes are available for main net. "Do you have a spare laptop?" "What about a NAS?" "Ever thought about running a Decentralized Masternode on them?" |
|
|
|
He then takes the MN code and changes that also.
I don't take and change MN code, masternode implementation in SpreadCoin is my own. But there, you called it "masternode" yourself... This whole discussion we are having here is about what to call this servernode. Masternode for DRK. Decentralized Masternode for SPR? Are you ok with that, Mr. Spread? |
|
|
|
How is that unethical?
Evan Duffield built upon litecoin code, changed it dramatically and renamed it to x11 coin.
Was that unethical? No.
But MrSpread takes DRK's codebase and changes it. He then takes the MN code and changes that also.
Thinking about it more, DMN sounds good. We respect darkcoin by keeping MN, but at the same time show's its uniqueness, in that SPR was the first to have decentralized reference nodes.
I guess we should have a poll to decide what abbreviation we should use for "decentralized masternodes" DM or DMN |
|
|
|
I enjoy those discussions. I don't even notice the trolls anymore... it's like they have turned into a quiet background noise.... ssssssshhhhhh.... like white noise.....  But aren't SPR's masternodes different than DRK's masternodes? It's a little subjective. Again, using a car theme here BTC is a 1.3 1999 diesel engine. DRK is a 2L petrol V6. SPR (if works on realese) is the same engine as DRK but a V8 (reference nodes/competing for a place in the MN chart/fluctuating amount needed for MN) Ofcourse DRK has the Dev to make DRK a V12 But wouldn't it be reasonable to call ours a V8 and not a V6? Ours is different if only slightly improved. If we call both engines a V6 then people will not know the difference. Yes, if it's a V8 then say it's a V8. So if spreadcoin is the first coin to have decentralized MN's, then boast that. Call them, DMN (Decentralized MasterNodes). I completely agree with this. We have many people saying that it is unethical and wrong to do this though. SPR's masternodes are different, for that reason we should call them something else. Decentralized MasterNodes is good, Spreadnodes is good, heck Smartnodes is good. We just need something that makes ours obviously different. If we don't change the name it will trash our marketing. I think nobody has every complained or has a problem with us calling them DMs, or decentralized masternodes. But we should really be consistent with it, and from now on, ALWAYS use the name decentralized masternodes and the abbreviation DM. Let's make it a meme |
|
|
|
I enjoy those discussions. I don't even notice the trolls anymore... it's like they have turned into a quiet background noise.... ssssssshhhhhh.... like white noise..... But aren't SPR's masternodes different than DRK's masternodes? Hm, let me do a code analysis first, and I'll get back to you. Meanwhile define "difference". Anything that has any level of variation. One thing that is separate from another by even a minuscule amount. Essentially not a copy/paste job. And what do you mean with a VPS? I'm running it on my local computer now. Isn't everyone doing that? A DRK masternode can also be run on a local computer. It's not recommended, and it will only cause you headaches... but it is still possible... hm.... |
|
|
|
I enjoy those discussions. I don't even notice the trolls anymore... it's like they have turned into a quiet background noise.... ssssssshhhhhh.... like white noise..... But aren't SPR's masternodes different than DRK's masternodes? Hm, let me do a code analysis first, and I'll get back to you. Meanwhile define "difference". |
|
|
|
I enjoy those discussions. I don't even notice the trolls anymore... it's like they have turned into a quiet background noise.... ssssssshhhhhh.... like white noise..... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
