 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »
|
2. How would you feel if Dash reduces the capital requirement for setting up a masternode, in the absence of protocol level shared masternodes? Clearly, this forms a high barrier to enter our service provisioning market (masternode network) and not everyone wants to use 3rd party shared masternode services (they should only do that if they are willing to take on the risk). Would you agree that reducing the capital requirement for masternodes should lead to an increased influx of investment? Seems like a no brainer to be honest if we want to see more "investment" into masternodes. With people like birdonthewire going mental about not being able to enter the 'centralized scam' masternode network, I think it would be time to consider it. I believe there is also no longer any technical constraint to manage a much larger masternode list (since DIP003), but the devs would need to confirm that again.
With regards to point 2 : having too many masternodes will slow the masternode network. If the collateral of 1000 Dash would be cut to 500 Dash and our current masternode operators double their masternodes because of this, we could be looking at close to 10.000 masternodes. That would be too much for our network. I am not sure how exactly or where exactly it slows down, maybe in the block propagation area or in the quorum area or with Chainlocks perhaps? Also the time between MN payments would double (from 8,5 days to roughly 16 days). I know another Dash Community member in here was also entertaining that thought, and i did not respond to that. But now that its getting raised again, i seem to recall that there are technical limitations to our number of masternodes and the network still running efficient and fast. Get too many masternodes active on the network and it will negatively effect the network .. somehow. Edit : found the post in question, where this was asked and answerred. Source : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/temporary-measures-quick-wins.49138/#post-219044So a very large increase in number of masternodes (double number of masternodes for example), could have an negative effect on Dash scalability and speed. While a slow and limited increase in number of masternode (as is currently foreseen) is much less of a problem. At least that is how i read it. Ok, thanks for digging up Ryan's (or DCG's) point of view on it. Appreciate it. He does say 'slightly' which is subjective, but indicates minimal effect. Important point is that he assessed the effect to be logarithmic and not linear. It would be good to have a deeper (technical) analysis on it, like you say, in what sense it affects block propagation, quorum management and so on. This could be used to counter anyone asking to lower the capital requirement for masternodes, because today I presumed that there was no longer any reason to not do this. I wonder if he took into consideration the point that this creates a barrier to entry. With Dash price rising it will become even more so. If DCG's argument is convincing, then the only option left to have more people enter the masternode network is by implementing shared masternodes on protocol level (at least without having them take on risk). As Ryan states, I'm fully aware that we have more than enough masternodes already giving our actual usage, but if we really want people to buy more dash for masternodes, then we don't have many options. Do we know how many masternodes are already running in 3rd party shared masternode services? (Crowdnode has 25). I also think the masternode collateral serves as protection against sybil attacks. Maybe you remember this one ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bz6rFZQywOEI have no idea how many masternodes are already running in 3rd party shared masternode services. Ok, good refresh on that angle. I also checked the deeper analysis referred to by Mastermined. The presented layman's explanation by Amanda explains that Dash was already very resistant to sybil attacks with a price of $13 per coin. It was already very cost prohibitive to buy up enough Dash to have a very very small chance at performing a successful deanonymization of a single transaction. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg16106256#msg16106256Today's price is over $100, even with real support around $40-$60 it has become several hundreds of percent more expensive to own 1 node (compared to 2016). In that sense I presume we could still have more than adequate protection against this form of attack compared to 2016, if we were to lower the collateral requirement for a masternode. I honestly think that sybil attacks are not realistic anymore in Dash. Plus, we now have the possibility to increase rounds of mixing to 16, instead of the applicable maximum 8 rounds back in 2016. An important element to keep in mind no doubt, but likely not th้ argument to not consider lowering the masternode collateral. It likely comes down to network efficiency, which surely was the case before DIP003, but I imagined this was now no longer the case. Thanks for your input though. An update to the referred calculation (see bitcointalk link) in above comment.  Some info on how to use PrivateSend can be found at : https://docs.dash.org/en/stable/wallets/dashcore/privatesend-instantsend.html |
|
|
|
Percentage from ATH -- cryptocurrency competitors: Percentage from ATH -- general top 30 list:
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin broke $20,000. Lift off.
Careful... if BTC and the alts follow the previous pattern from early 2017 then we might see Bitcoin crater by 30%+ before finding support at the 21 weekly moving average. This could be anywhere between $15K and $17K I'd guess. With this dump we could see DASH easily form a double bottom around 420000 sats or even form a new bottom as low as 380000 sats or so... (about $60 or so) And if then DASH follows LTC's previous script from 2017 we might see DASH and other alts rocket up 7x or so as BTC recovers and re-passes the $20K mark and beyond. The bull run will have officially started for alts. This could all play out by mid Jan to early Feb. Of course, who knows, just because the crypto market has followed much of the previous 4 year cycle, doesn't mean it won't deviate in the next 2 months... Bitcoin is in full bull trend now without any sign that a serious correction will happen. Too many huge investment funds involved and they are all betting on the one and only. They are simply buying up every attempt to correct and they continue pumping. FOMO building in small investors. Consequently as previously discussed, DASH/BTC is in complete reset mode. No hard support whatsoever. There is no floor at 380000 sats. We may see 1 BTC = 1MN. :'-//  DASH/BTC entering the zone of Dash's first four months after inception. Surprised. Not surprised.  |
|
|
|
@toknormal.
1. What do you think about the yearly -7% miner reduction scheme? Bitcoin uses a halving (-50%) scheme every 4 years and there seems to be a general consensus that it creates strong upwards pressure on the price. Some time after the halving, price seems to strongly push higher. It almost confirms that the pure PoW mining model pushes price higher... I think if we stick to a core principle, this question gets answered quite easily. That core principle is that: Dash needs to be as LIKE bitcoin as humanly possible in store of value and as DIFFERENT from bitcoin as humanly possible for utility Therefore Dash needs to mine the sh* out of as much of its supply as possible to make it extremely scarce because that's what bitcoin does. At the same time Dash needs to leave just enough blockchain budget to fund its service layer - a dimension of utility that bitcoin does not have. That is very easy for us because it only costs us around 1% of our mining budget to fund the service layer to gain a huge advantage over bitcoin. Ever less as the price rises. (So why do we spend 60% on it  ). The smoother 7% reduction is therefore far more suited to that priority than the disruptive halving IMO because it makes masternode adoption less disruptive and allows investors a more predictable ROI. Yes I tend to agree on that point that it creates a smoother more linear push upwards. At least it should. As you imply it likely gets distorted by the split ratio. I don't know why we spend 60% on it and I don't agree at all with it. You have addressed this matter multiple times with Ryan Taylor. Could you even synthesize what his point of view is? I honestly can't. Can anyone? 2. How would you feel if Dash reduces the capital requirement for setting up a masternode, in the absence of protocol level shared masternodes? Clearly, this forms a high barrier to enter our service provisioning market (masternode network) and not everyone wants to use 3rd party shared masternode services (they should only do that if they are willing to take on the risk). Would you agree that reducing the capital requirement for masternodes should lead to an increased influx of investment? I would not support that. The masternode collateral level should remain high IMO, otherwise we'd just end up as a proof of stake coin which would be disastrous. Masternode "sharing" should occur in the fintech commercial sector IMO, not at the blockchain protocol level, nor by trying to reduce the collateral to ever smaller amounts. By keeping the collateral threshold high we create a clear market in the fintech sector for security type products that are Dash backed. I've always argued that we should not think of a masternode as a "person". That only happened because when the price was low, a masternode and an individual human were largely synonymous. But the masternode is actually an archetypal element of the protocol and should remain so. It should be investible like an ocean liner is, as an "all or nothing" thing, not an infinitely divisible thing. It is not a "person". Nor is the masternode vote a "person". Everybody on board the ocean liner can have a vote but it's the role of the fintech retail sector to manage and ultimately direct the course of the one "ocean liner" which they control and that one vote then gets forwarded to the protocol. We need the idea of a masternode to stay with the protocol but the idea of its ownership to be able to float and be marketed by whoever wants to in a free enterprise manner IMO. Keeping the collateral high forces that decoupling at an earlier stage. It was already starting to happen during the last round of revaluation when we started seeing institutionalised investement coming in to the masternode sector. But we're not going to see that again unless we address the reward ratio so that ROI in Dash can be replaced (mostly) with capital gain ROI. That's why it's important IMO to get Spork 21 reversed ASAP and restore mining across the majority of our blocks to protect their scarcity. 3. What do you think about the previously discussed idea to move the decimal backwards which would lower price per coin with a factor 100 for example? So if 1 Dash equals $100, it would become 100 Dash equals $100 or 1 Dash equals $1. It is not my personal preference, but during the 2017 pump to +$1500 it became quite clear that it provides a psychological barrier for potential investors who really want to own full units and simply don't understand the relation of our price with our extremely scarce supply. Firstly, our supply isn't "scarce" unless it's made so through mining. Currently we give it away for free in cornflakes packets to masternodes in exchange for providing a service which bitcoin & litecoin get for free. (Dash would still retain all of its functional advantages even if all it did was to make operating a node profitable over operating a bitcoin node). Re. the decimal point moving, that is another desperation move by people who don't understand where our store-of-value function is. Our store of value dimension comes from mining, not from either of: trying to get the protocol to restrict traffic to order books or playing around with the decimal point To test the irrelevance of the "decimal point" theory, follow these steps: 1. Go to https://coinmarketcap.com/2. Click "Filters" 3. Click "Mineable" 4. Click "Circulating supply" to reverse sort You should now be seeing the most valuable coins at the top if the theory holds. Ok, well, just trying to think out of the box, since I don't see the reallocation hard fork being reversed. The cognitive dissonance is too strong. Like qwizzie said "that ship has sailed", I just hope it doesn't sink ... |
|
|
|
2. How would you feel if Dash reduces the capital requirement for setting up a masternode, in the absence of protocol level shared masternodes? Clearly, this forms a high barrier to enter our service provisioning market (masternode network) and not everyone wants to use 3rd party shared masternode services (they should only do that if they are willing to take on the risk). Would you agree that reducing the capital requirement for masternodes should lead to an increased influx of investment? Seems like a no brainer to be honest if we want to see more "investment" into masternodes. With people like birdonthewire going mental about not being able to enter the 'centralized scam' masternode network, I think it would be time to consider it. I believe there is also no longer any technical constraint to manage a much larger masternode list (since DIP003), but the devs would need to confirm that again.
With regards to point 2 : having too many masternodes will slow the masternode network. If the collateral of 1000 Dash would be cut to 500 Dash and our current masternode operators double their masternodes because of this, we could be looking at close to 10.000 masternodes. That would be too much for our network. I am not sure how exactly or where exactly it slows down, maybe in the block propagation area or in the quorum area or with Chainlocks perhaps? Also the time between MN payments would double (from 8,5 days to roughly 16 days). I know another Dash Community member in here was also entertaining that thought, and i did not respond to that. But now that its getting raised again, i seem to recall that there are technical limitations to our number of masternodes and the network still running efficient and fast. Get too many masternodes active on the network and it will negatively effect the network .. somehow. Edit : found the post in question, where this was asked and answerred. Source : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/temporary-measures-quick-wins.49138/#post-219044So a very large increase in number of masternodes (double number of masternodes for example), could have an negative effect on Dash scalability and speed. While a slow and limited increase in number of masternode (as is currently foreseen) is much less of a problem. At least that is how i read it. Ok, thanks for digging up Ryan's (or DCG's) point of view on it. Appreciate it. He does say 'slightly' which is subjective, but indicates minimal effect. Important point is that he assessed the effect to be logarithmic and not linear. It would be good to have a deeper (technical) analysis on it, like you say, in what sense it affects block propagation, quorum management and so on. This could be used to counter anyone asking to lower the capital requirement for masternodes, because today I presumed that there was no longer any reason to not do this. I wonder if he took into consideration the point that this creates a barrier to entry. With Dash price rising it will become even more so. If DCG's argument is convincing, then the only option left to have more people enter the masternode network is by implementing shared masternodes on protocol level (at least without having them take on risk). As Ryan states, I'm fully aware that we have more than enough masternodes already giving our actual usage, but if we really want people to buy more dash for masternodes, then we don't have many options. Do we know how many masternodes are already running in 3rd party shared masternode services? (Crowdnode has 25). I also think the masternode collateral serves as protection against sybil attacks. Maybe you remember this one ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bz6rFZQywOEI have no idea how many masternodes are already running in 3rd party shared masternode services. Ok, good refresh on that angle. I also checked the deeper analysis referred to by Mastermined. The presented layman's explanation by Amanda explains that Dash was already very resistant to sybil attacks with a price of $13 per coin. It was already very cost prohibitive to buy up enough Dash to have a very very small chance at performing a successful deanonymization of a single transaction. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg16106256#msg16106256Today's price is over $100, even with real support around $40-$60 it has become several hundreds of percent more expensive to own 1 node (compared to 2016). In that sense I presume we could still have more than adequate protection against this form of attack compared to 2016, if we were to lower the collateral requirement for a masternode. I honestly think that sybil attacks are not realistic anymore in Dash. Plus, we now have the possibility to increase rounds of mixing to 16, instead of the applicable maximum 8 rounds back in 2016. An important element to keep in mind no doubt, but likely not th้ argument to not consider lowering the masternode collateral. It likely comes down to network efficiency, which surely was the case before DIP003, but I imagined this was now no longer the case. Thanks for your input though. |
|
|
|
2. How would you feel if Dash reduces the capital requirement for setting up a masternode, in the absence of protocol level shared masternodes? Clearly, this forms a high barrier to enter our service provisioning market (masternode network) and not everyone wants to use 3rd party shared masternode services (they should only do that if they are willing to take on the risk). Would you agree that reducing the capital requirement for masternodes should lead to an increased influx of investment? Seems like a no brainer to be honest if we want to see more "investment" into masternodes. With people like birdonthewire going mental about not being able to enter the 'centralized scam' masternode network, I think it would be time to consider it. I believe there is also no longer any technical constraint to manage a much larger masternode list (since DIP003), but the devs would need to confirm that again.
With regards to point 2 : having too many masternodes will slow the masternode network. If the collateral of 1000 Dash would be cut to 500 Dash and our current masternode operators double their masternodes because of this, we could be looking at close to 10.000 masternodes. That would be too much for our network. I am not sure how exactly or where exactly it slows down, maybe in the block propagation area or in the quorum area or with Chainlocks perhaps? Also the time between MN payments would double (from 8,5 days to roughly 16 days). I know another Dash Community member in here was also entertaining that thought, and i did not respond to that. But now that its getting raised again, i seem to recall that there are technical limitations to our number of masternodes and the network still running efficient and fast. Get too many masternodes active on the network and it will negatively effect the network .. somehow. Edit : found the post in question, where this was asked and answerred.  Source : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/temporary-measures-quick-wins.49138/#post-219044So a very large increase in number of masternodes (double number of masternodes for example), could have an negative effect on Dash scalability and speed. While a slow and limited increase in number of masternode (as is currently foreseen) is much less of a problem. At least that is how i read it. Ok, thanks for digging up Ryan's (or DCG's) point of view on it. Appreciate it. He does say 'slightly' which is subjective, but indicates minimal effect. Important point is that he assessed the effect to be logarithmic and not linear. It would be good to have a deeper (technical) analysis on it, like you say, in what sense it affects block propagation, quorum management and so on. This could be used to counter anyone asking to lower the capital requirement for masternodes, because today I presumed that there was no longer any reason to not do this. I wonder if he took into consideration the point that this creates a barrier to entry. With Dash price rising it will become even more so. If DCG's argument is convincing, then the only option left to have more people enter the masternode network is by implementing shared masternodes on protocol level (at least without having them take on risk). As Ryan states, I'm fully aware that we have more than enough masternodes already giving our actual usage, but if we really want people to buy more dash for masternodes, then we don't have many options. Do we know how many masternodes are already running in 3rd party shared masternode services? (Crowdnode has 25). |
|
|
|
Edit : Wow, we actually have a Trump fan / Ryan Taylor hater in here.. that is unexspected and a bit disappointing. There goes any respect i had for that person. Definitely no more merit points for you mister !
Intention process. It's just a meme. I figured it was kind of funny, but I guess it triggers some people. There was a time i thought Trump was funny, now i just think he is dangerous, extremely dangerous. So yes, promoting Dash through using Trump memes is something i think we should try to avoid in here.
And yes, i may have mistaken your two trump memes in twose two seperate posts, as a sign of a you being a firm Trump supporter, with a drive to extend that Trump support to this forum.
Which means i may have overreacted in my previous post.
I'm surprised that you wouldn't want millions of Trump supports to join Dash, because of some personal stance on Trump. We could only dream of such an influx. Dash would probably pump to $10,000.
I and many others have countered toknormal so many times this year that i lost count, so i am no longer interested in countering any blockreward allocation change discussion point.
Frankly that ship has long sailed.
What is then the final convincing argument? "We don't need all that hashrate, miners dump, masternode owners are holders ... " ?
If people like you and toknormal can not come to terms with the blockreward reallocation change being massively supported by masternode operators and feel that by keeping a laserfocus attention on this specific topic in here will somehow make a difference, by all means please continue. And if you want to keep it as low level as you recentely started to, by focussing on one specific person (Ryan Taylor), then by all means continue.
I actually want to talk about anything. Toknormal only wants to talk about the split. I'm actually disappointed to see almost no talk on Dash Platform. Hopefully that changes around drastically when it's on testnet and we can experience it for ourselves. Really, I'm very excited about it and still see a very bright future for Dash.
I will just ignore your posts then, no big deal. In the end i want to read something interesting and new on this forum, not a constant rehashing of old arguments on one specific topic. It gets boring after awhile. It does not mean i necessarily put you on ignore, just that i will stop paying attention to your posts. Same as with posts of toknormal on that specific topic. I am pretty done with the whole blockreward allocation change topic by now.
Little bird up there i do have on ignore, just to protect my ears (little bird sings some pretty ugly songs).
I understand and even asked him not to be 'laser focused' on it. I tried to change the subject towards Dash Platform, but toknormal seems to ignore everything that is not about the split. He feels really strongly about his point of view and I share his concern, so I didn't mind rehashing the topic. Don't think I'm personally stuck on this topic. I'm honestly still waiting for the actual release of Dash Platform to go into shill mode. DCG is cutting it close again. To be honest, you know what's really boring qwizzie? You being the only who posts here. This thread was dead and it's coming back to life. If more people would join, it could become something again. Let's get it rolling again. Outsiders don't know what is going on in the Discord(s) and at least we get some views here from people who want to check the latest on Dash and see that Dash is still alive. Feel free to ignore anyone you want. I won't. I look forward to your excellent 'Legendary' posts. |
|
|
|
|
@toknormal.
Aside from the MINER/MN/DCG/OTHER split...
Just for discussion purposes. Can I pick your brain on the following points?
1. What do you think about the yearly -7% miner reduction scheme? Bitcoin uses a halving (-50%) scheme every 4 years and there seems to be a general consensus that it creates strong upwards pressure on the price. Some time after the halving, price seems to strongly push higher. It almost confirms that the pure PoW mining model pushes price higher as inflation decreases and mining competition increases. Also, it leads to a reduced emission rate which is significantly slower than Bitcoin and other coins. How would you assess the impact of increasing the miner reduction scheme (possibly in combination with increased miner share)?
2. How would you feel if Dash reduces the capital requirement for setting up a masternode, in the absence of protocol level shared masternodes? Clearly, this forms a high barrier to enter our service provisioning market (masternode network) and not everyone wants to use 3rd party shared masternode services (they should only do that if they are willing to take on the risk). Would you agree that reducing the capital requirement for masternodes should lead to an increased influx of investment? Seems like a no brainer to be honest if we want to see more "investment" into masternodes. With people like birdonthewire going mental about not being able to enter the 'centralized scam' masternode network, I think it would be time to consider it. I believe there is also no longer any technical constraint to manage a much larger masternode list (since DIP003), but the devs would need to confirm that again.
3. What do you think about the previously discussed idea to move the decimal backwards which would lower price per coin with a factor 100 for example? So if 1 Dash equals $100, it would become 100 Dash equals $100 or 1 Dash equals $1. It is not my personal preference, but during the 2017 pump to +$1500 it became quite clear that it provides a psychological barrier for potential investors who really want to own full units and simply don't understand the relation of our price with our extremely scarce supply. We simply don't have the recognition that Bitcoin has and some people erroneously feel like the price is high without understanding the mechanism behind it. Price is actually very cheap, given our total supply is going to be one of the lowest of the entire crypto space, but new investors don't see or understand it.
|
|
|
|
You seem really obsessed about Dash. It's not good for your health ;-) A lot of your statements are negative hyperbole (hate) which have no basis in reality. Maybe you should try to take it down a notch or two if you want people to actually read what you're saying. |
|
|
|
Edit : Wow, we actually have a Trump fan / Ryan Taylor hater in here.. that is unexspected and a bit disappointing. There goes any respect i had for that person. Definitely no more merit points for you mister !
Intention process. It's just a meme. I figured it was kind of funny, but I guess it triggers some people. I couldn't care less about merit points. That system is completely flawed. - Old accounts received merit according to their status, not because of high quality posts they made. - People with merit only give merit to posts they like. Quality criticism will receive no merit. - It creates an echo chamber where people say what they think people want to hear. Reddit has exactly the same problem. So after one meme, you decide that I hate Ryan Taylor? I don't. I guess certain people really do live in an alternative reality where everything gets twisted, the truth gets cut into little pieces and lies get spread through twitter on a hourly basis by Trump and people just accept that and actually believe it and support it even on a crypto-focused forum.
I don't do Twitter. My other post has nothing to do with Trump. There is a reason why people are shifting capital into the crypto space and it's not because governments and financial institutions are doing such a great job. If they were, Satoshi would never have created Bitcoin. My country now has 120% debt versus GDP and zero interest rates on savings accounts. People's savings are being wrecked and there is no real escape for ordinary people other than considering a risky move into crypto. Most people are completely clueless as to how the world works or what goes on. So Ryan Taylor should be fired huh ? Maybe we should fire the whole Dash Core Group as well ? Maybe we should do this in the coming months ? Just before Dash Platform & DashPay gets released ?
If Ryan Taylor's store of value analysis is wrong, he may have made things worse. Any CEO who makes a capital mistake should be fired. I'm worried that our 'base economics layer' is parameterized in a way that provides continuous down pressure on price. There is no serious influx of money to set up new masternodes, but masternodes continue to have a high return no matter what happens. We have a design that deviates strongly from Bitcoin. Our design is unique and provides undeniable benefits, but we should not pretend it is perfect. There are clear indications in my opinion (and others) that the recent change will make things worse. My initial assessment of Ryan's tokenomics in 2019 was that it was flawed. I was very worried about the intent to move away from the oldskool way of thinking, which is that a (100%) Proof of Work mining model (and the cost involved) pushes price upwards. I countered toknormal's statements and point of view here on bitcointalk, so he could give a more convincing explanation. With the insight into 'total network cost' which translates into a 'hidden transaction cost' it has become more clear that it's likely true that high masternode revenues actually provide continuous downward pressure on the price. Masternode revenue can be dumped at any price. Miners need a high price. There is probably truth in the statement that "price finds an equilibrium around its production cost (with a slight margin)". I love Dash, but I'm very open to criticism. Blind faith will not get us to where we want to go. If this is how discussions about the masternodes / miners rewards are done these days (this low level), i don't want any part in it.
You don't really discuss any of the points that are brought up. You make attempts to counter some elements and ignore everything else. Any more of those kind of posts and it will be instant ignore from me. I have no time or intention to read that kind of crap on this forum, Nthelight.
Ignoring people is a sign of weakness. The Dash community should welcome diversity of opinion and not always be so defensive when someone deviates from the "consensus". |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin broke $20,000. Lift off.
|
|
|
|
What determines the value of Dash, drives demand and ultimately leads to an appreciating price (or store of value)?
|
|
|
|
There are two types of mined coins from an investor perspective:
ones that deploy the capital they draw from order books in upwards difficulty adjustments
ones that deploy the capital they draw from order books in masternode Lambos
FTFY |
|
|
|
Source : https://terminal.bytetree.com/dashConclusion : Dash miners are selling more than they mine and running down inventory What i am currently not sure about is if the MRI in Dash case is specific to miners or to miners & masternodes. Which means the following will mostly be my personal assumptions : I think that Dash miners are currently far more in a selling mood then a hoarding mood and that has been driving the price down. I also think it is far more likely that miners are in a position that they need to sell their mining rewards to pay for the electricity and possibly pay off their earlier bought mining equipment. Masternode operators on the other hand have relatively low costs, they are not in a position that they need to sell their masternode rewards. They can simply save up their masternode rewards and sell them during a bull market / bull run. I know i have not been selling any of my masternode rewards, there is just little personal incentive for me to do that, when in 6 months we could be in a drastically different bull market. What i have been doing with my masternode rewards is moving them to a certain exchange, where i can stake that Dash. I am still in the process of determining if that is something i want to do longterm or not (there is risk versus reward evaluation to be done for these kind of centralized staking options). Thanks for this interesting link, but I'm not sure you can draw any strong conclusions from it. The rolling inventory (MRI) is based on the total generated coins by miners. The site makes no distinction between masternodes and miners, it simply looks at the generated coins in each coinbase transaction. The calculated rolling inventory refers to both masternodes and miners. It's possible though to create our own version of this with a Dash Miner RI & Dash MN RI. It's important though to point out that this simply looks at 'first spend' and this does not automatically equate to 'selling', so referring to this as "selling pressure" without any deeper analysis is likely misleading. |
|
|
|
So, why again must the solution involve lowering the percentage that goes to masternodes?
As pointed out, DASH is having a difficult time getting more than 5000 masternodes. With everything as it is, doesn't this suggest the incentives are not high enough to build up the masternode network further? Is 5000 enough? Shouldn't we want more?
At 5000 masternodes, and assuming 1.48 DASH reward to masternodes per block (this will go up by about 1% every quarter for the next 4+ years), a masternode owner gets just about 5.18 DASH a month, about 62.2 DASH a year... is that really that excessive? 6.2%? Many competitors offer more.
At 6000 masternodes, 4.32 DASH/mth or 51.8/yr... 5.2%
At 7000 masternodes, 3.7 DASH/mth or 44.4/yr... 4.4%
It's been mentioned people run Bitcoin full nodes for free. However they don't require the massive 1000 coin collateral like DASH does. Who would run a full DASH node with such a collateral requirement unless the incentives justified it?
Check this again: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg55745983#msg55745983As toknormal has been trying to explain, we want capital gains and should not be blinded by "revenue in Dash". If the economics theory regarding PoW is correct we could have a much higher return in USD, with a lower ROI in Dash. ROI in Dash isn't necessarily what investors are looking for, they calculate what the ROI in USD is. There needs to be general demand for Dash, not only because of masternodes.
As I've presented before, I believe trustless shared masternodes would go a long way to alleviate the concerns toknormal continues to bring up. So not sure why it has been dismissed out of hand.
This could very well push the masternode count to 7000, forcing non-shared masternode owners to consider the risk of having such a large number of coins tied up for only 4% too much and moving out as they are replaced by shared masternodes. A slow, controlled way to increase masternodes while increasing community involvement.
Another thing to seriously consider is lowering the collateral required to run a masternode. I may be wrong, but I thought Evan Duffield once said that once DASH is $100, the collateral should be reduced to 500. This simple change could go a long way in spreading out the masternode rewards to more people as well...
Trustless masternodes doesn't address the discussed issue as long as the split for MNs remain the same. There is also no technical need for more masternodes and there would be no (service) benefit to end users. The idea as such is not dismissed though, trustless masternodes can be implemented, the collateral required for masternodes can be lowered, it's just not a priority now. All devs are focused on Dash Platform and Dashpay. I haven't heard any analysis from our core devs what the impact would be if we changed requirements, e.g. in managing the deterministic MN list, quorum selection and so on. I believe since DIP003 it would be easier for the network to manage a huge increase in the list of MNs, so it can probably be done without any serious concerns as far as I know. |
|
|
|
|
DECENTRALIZED !!! 
