It seems some Darkcoiners are upset that we're badmouthing them. I haven't seen it in this thread, but I have pretty thick skin and sometimes miss such things. If you have been, please stop, there's no need to and doesn't help the cause. This of course doesn't mean you can't discuss what you feel Darkcoin is doing wrong or SPR can do better/different.
Examples:
"Darkcoin is a shitcoin" - Bad
"Darkcoiners are idiots" - Bad
"Due to reference nodes, Darkcoin is centralized. Spreadcoin can improve upon that." - Good
"MyFarm is one sexy bitch" - Good
I haven't seen this personally. |
|
|
|
Thinking on more. The higher the marketcap of spreadcoin you would think the higher barrier to entry into spreadnodes. Say SPR marketcap is $1,000,000,000 - 10,000,000 SPR supply - 1 SPR = $100 The demand for tiny transactions like 0.005($0.50) will be huge. We will need masternodes that have like 0.01spr in them to mix only 0.001 denominations. We will also need MN's that have hundreds of SPR for larger transactions. But the masternode network will have to select a node which can handle the transaction size and pay accordingly. Say you(as a MN operator) only want to denominate 0.001 transactions, you only receive a tiny mining fee because of the small transaction, but the masternode only costs you 0.1SPR($10). If you store more coins in a wallet and a big fat whale wants to denominate/send a large amount of coins he pays the large node relative to the transaction size (Much more than the 0.001 transaction MN would get paid). So i can see it being very easy for new people to enter the market for as little as $10 if the market cap was $1 bil. Depending how many decimal places a masternode can denominate down to, it could theoretically cost penny's to operate a MN! This will create a huge market place of price discovery as people try to figure out the maximum amount of coins to leave in a wallet! For example, i leave 5spr in a MN but only denominate/process 0.001 transactions. If the MN is profitable enough to justify having 6spr in their, then someone will do it and boot me off. Taking coins out of the system, making my coins more valuable, by the way. But if it become's unprofitable for me to hold 6 coins in one MN to only denominate 0.001 transactions i will withdraw 1-2spr to become more profitable elsewhere, but by me doing this i reduce the barrier to entry. Does that make sense to anybody? Because i know how bad i am at dicribing something  |
|
|
|
So any idea about how much coins per MN? Just a guesstimate.
This is the thing... No one knows.... ooooOOOOOooooo Edit: The question is, what's the maximum amount of MN's allowed? |
|
|
|
And now let's make a more difficult example:
An early adopter whale is a little wiser and has 1 Million SPR in his control. (which already the distribution shows is impossible, but let's just continue.)
So what he does is, he creates 1000 MNs with 1000 SPR each. He's a darkcoiner gone Spreadcoin obviously.
Now if I am a newcomer, what can I do to enter the game?
Well, obviously I just have to invest 1001 or more SPR to take over one of the whales seats.
All other newcomers can do the same: they just have to invest just 1 SPR more than ANY SEAT they desire to overtake, and they can reduce any lower ranks by one!
Always kicking the last one out of the game, and reducing everyone below them 1 rank.
----
Probably the best way how you can setup your mutiple nodes will be to SPREAD them over multiple ranks.
Have one of them be very expensive, e.g. 5000 SPR, the next one 4500 SPR, then 4000 SPR, 3500 SPR, etc...
But still, all this will just server for you to have a little bit more security against losing your seat.
But you will NEVER be able to restrict newcomers from entering the market, and this is brilliant.
It is f*&%#@g brilliant! Or we are bat shit crazy? Only the implementation and time will tell  You're nuts.  With rising prices and dwindling supply that 1 extra SPR is going to cost you ever more dearly. Dynamic pricing is going to restrict newcomers entering the market, that's all it's going to achieve - the opposite of your stated goal of decentralisation. Regular folk will take one look at how Spread's dynamic MN pricing favours the rich and walk away laughing. After all the hard work done so far to get the only truly decentralised PoW currency up and running you want to throw it away by handing half the block reward to the whales on a plate. Guess what, you can cut a pretty good deal with a provider if you want to rent 100 VPS instances... It's a vicious feedback loop for the small guy and the small guy is going to take his money elsewhere. Still waiting for an answer to, "what advantages does this bring?" that doesn't involve nebulous blather about free markets...  Introducing another mechanism for the rich to profit at the expense of the poor is not a cunning plan for Spread. But if I haven't convinced anyone yet I'm never going to... Man, like i said earlier Darkcoin with a $9billion market cap would make a masternode cost $300,000! That's a gerantee. This is the barrier to entry to end all barriers to entry! You cannot guarantee what a masternode would cost if spreadcoin had the same market cap. You have no idea, only speculations. But i can 100% say that if darkcoin had a $9bil cap, a masternode would cost $300,000. And again, it all comes down to what the max MN amount is. I'd have problems if it was set to 1000 for example. I would be more in your camp, but at 3-4000 MN's i don't see a group of individuals controlling enough coin supply to corner the market, its impossible.(Unless the government came in with $10billion and just made everyone here(including MrSpread) a millionaire). |
|
|
|
I have no VPS and can't participate in this game  Is it possible to run a DM with my home PC ? VPS only cost $5 a month... Not a problem what the requirement of VPS do I need? like CPU,mem,disc space,brandwidth,etc. Click pricing -> monthly. The 5$ one is more than enough. But try to avoid Vultr and amazon server when you come to build a MN. Be creative, dig deep to find a more independent VPS. Most MN will be hosted on amazon and vultr=not good for decentralisation. |
|
|
|
Now let's assume I am an angry whale who doesn't like all the newcomers who enter the game and kick my servers down to a lower rank, and possibly out of the game. The only thing such a whale can do, is invest more SPR in his servers, but to do so, he will have to sacrifice a few of his seats! Suppose I have 1 Million SPR, and 1000 MN with 1000 SPR again. Very easy for newcomers to grab a seat, obviously. Now, the moment I start securing my MNs by moving their SPR deposit up to say 10k, I will have to take those SPRs from somewhere, and since all my money is tied in my MNs, I will have to sacrifice some WEAK MNs, to create a few VERY STRONG MNs... Maybe do a little bit of both... keep a few strong MNs nobody can touch... and play around with a few weak ones which constantly strive to stay alive but create a lot of profit if they succeed. Exactly! Deffo on the same page here... MrSpread, are we anywhere close to correct here? Is what georgem and I are insinuating or are we completely off? |
|
|
|
And now let's make a more difficult example:
An early adopter whale is a little wiser and has 1 Million SPR in his control. (which already the distribution shows is impossible, but let's just continue.)
So what he does is, he creates 1000 MNs with 1000 SPR each. He's a darkcoiner gone Spreadcoin obviously.
Now if I am a newcomer, what can I do to enter the game?
Well, obviously I just have to invest 1001 or more SPR to take over one of the whales seats.
All other newcomers can do the same: they just have to invest just 1 SPR more than ANY SEAT they desire to overtake, and they can reduce any lower ranks by one!
Always kicking the last one out of the game, and reducing everyone below them 1 rank.
----
Probably the best way how you can setup your mutiple nodes will be to SPREAD them over multiple ranks.
Have one of them be very expensive, e.g. 5000 SPR, the next one 4500 SPR, then 4000 SPR, 3500 SPR, etc...
But still, all this will just server for you to have a little bit more security against losing your seat.
But you will NEVER be able to restrict newcomers from entering the market, and this is brilliant.
It is f*&%#@g brilliant! Or we are bat shit crazy? Only the implementation and time will tell |
|
|
|
Hmm... I think crouton might be correct - with variable pricing and a hard limit on MNs (let's say 1000), an early adopter whale could possibly monopolize the network. By investing in hundreds of MNs, she could rake in a bigger passive income than anyone else and re-invest those earnings into her MN network, making it increasingly harder for any latecomers to join in, especially if the price keeps rising (as we all expect it to!).
Let's just look at it more closely. So I am an early adopter and also have many servers in my control (which costs a lot of money). I think I am a wise guy and start 1000 MN since they only cost me 1 SPR each. (lets forget for a moment that you will probably pay 30-50k $ a month for all those servers, not including the manpower to manage them) What happens in the next minute: A guy who is a little wiser than me, (but still pretty stupid) starts grabbing MN seats away by investing 2 SPR each. But already we see wiser guys who invest 500 or 1000 SPR per MN because they have something called "foresight". They know that when they invest too little they will have to do everything again in short time. Slowly new people enter the game and the price increases. I don't doubt that for the first few days and weeks everybody will want to setup a MN basically for free, because you just have to rent a server. There are enough MN seats free for thousands of servers. But watch what happens after ALL SEATS ARE OCCUPIED! This whole mechanism will work EXACTLY like you would expect it from mining: the first miners have it VERY EASY, they mine tons of blocks, until more and more people join the coin and start mining too... that's when the competition kicks in. Let's make Masternodes play the game like everybody else has to. Enough with those privileges and exceptionalism. Id also like to add that unlike mining it cannot become centralized due to the sheer amount of SPR you would need to be in position of monopoly. |
|
|
|
I have no VPS and can't participate in this game Is it possible to run a DM with my home PC ? VPS only cost $5 a month... Not a problem |
|
|
|
I have an idea for a meme! A stock floor covered in mini SPR spermmen all screaming to buy their "share" in the MN list.
Brilliant. I thought about SPR spermmen and have a few related memes in preparation. I promise you will laugh your ass off. I will use those spermmen (half a SPR logo, 1 logo = 2 sperm men) to show how they spread around, how they solo mine (and show how "perverted" it is when bitcoin pool mines), how they become masternodes, etc... This is going to be so much fun. Awesome! I can't wait! I will spread some love once you've posted |
|
|
|
This would lock down the list. No competition to enter the list once its full. I don't like the sound of that. It breads a whole new market place. Like miners jumping to different coins for profit (not the best example to give to yourself ), spr holders will denominate their holdings to the minimum amount they can before getting kicked of the list. And if someone doesn't want all that stress they can just fund their accounts higher, say 1000 and be comfortable in the knowledge your masternode will be live for at least 2 hours . It also sets a "fair" market price for entry into the market, weather you like it or not its a free market(with 1 rule(max amount MN preset,thats it.)). Will big money enter the market and buy up lots of spr? I hope so! I don't worry about a small group buying alot of coins as i don't think its possible to monopolize the network (going with the figures i presented). Exactly, it's so easy to spot a bad idea: Does it allow for competition? Good idea. Does it restrict competition? Bad idea. Does it create decentralization? Good idea. Does it create incentives for centralization? Bad idea. We need market forces, not people who decide for us. Let market forces decide what is best for all of us. That's the spirit of the free market. Anarchistic but beneficial for everybody EXCEPT the central scrutinizers who want to rule over everybody else. I have an idea for a meme! A stock floor covered in mini SPR spermmen all screaming to buy their "share" in the MN list. |
|
|
|
Wait wait, your saying dynamic is for the rich but static is not?
Imagine this
Darkcoins MarketCap = $9,000,000,000. The cost of a DRk MN at this marketcap? around $340,000... Hey, poor people see you can just set a DRK MN up with your $340,000.
But you say SPR's method "favers the rich".
Edit: By the way, I'm pulling the dollar figures out my backside, but are not far off.
Yes it favours the rich, because my DRK MNs can't be bought out from underneath me. With dynamic pricing my SPR MNs could be, repeatedly, by anyone with a few SPR more than me, so I may not even bother to begin with. At least with DRK you can pool together with others and own a MN share. Nobody is going to go to the trouble though with SPR if it can be taken away by the next passing whale with deeper pockets than you and your partners. Again i understand that you can be "taken out", but this will only happen to the opportunist's who seek as many MN's as they can with there current holdings. So at the start someone will be able to make a masternode with 1spr, but someone can knock him off by having 2spr. Is that bad, no. What about someone with 500spr in a MN? Well to be kicked from the network (at 3000 total slots in the list) there would need to be around 1.5million spr alocated to MN's. To have 51% of the MN's you would need around 750,000 spr. Say 7 people had 51% of the coin supply between them (100,000spr each) and created MN's with those coins, its still not a monopoly. 7 heavily financially invested individuals, yes please. So why not call it a 500 SPR requirement and a 3000 MN cap and leave it at that? What advantage does dynamic pricing bring?This would lock down the list. No competition to enter the list once its full. I don't like the sound of that. It breads a whole new market place. Like miners jumping to different coins for profit (not the best example to give to yourself ), spr holders will denominate their holdings to the minimum amount they can before getting kicked of the list. And if someone doesn't want all that stress they can just fund their accounts higher, say 1000 and be comfortable in the knowledge your masternode will be live for at least 2 hours . It also sets a "fair" market price for entry into the market, weather you like it or not its a free market(with 1 rule(max amount MN preset,thats it.)). Will big money enter the market and buy up lots of spr? I hope so! I don't worry about a small group buying alot of coins as i don't think its possible to monopolize the network (going with the figures i presented). |
|
|
|
Wait wait, your saying dynamic is for the rich but static is not?
Imagine this
Darkcoins MarketCap = $9,000,000,000. The cost of a DRk MN at this marketcap? around $340,000... Hey, poor people see you can just set a DRK MN up with your $340,000.
But you say SPR's method "favers the rich".
Edit: By the way, I'm pulling the dollar figures out my backside, but are not far off.
Yes it favours the rich, because my DRK MNs can't be bought out from underneath me. With dynamic pricing my SPR MNs could be, repeatedly, by anyone with a few SPR more than me, so I may not even bother to begin with. At least with DRK you can pool together with others and own a MN share. Nobody is going to go to the trouble though with SPR if it can be taken away by the next passing whale with deeper pockets than you and your partners. Again i understand that you can be "taken out", but this will only happen to the opportunist's who seek as many MN's as they can with there current holdings. So at the start someone will be able to make a masternode with 1spr, but someone can knock him off by having 2spr. Is that bad, no. What about someone with 500spr in a MN? Well to be kicked from the network (at 3000 total slots in the list) there would need to be around 1.5million spr alocated to MN's. To have 51% of the MN's you would need around 750,000 spr. Say 7 people had 51% of the coin supply between them (100,000spr each) and created MN's with those coins, its still not a monopoly. Edit: Reason being the group that owns 51% of the currency can only fund 3000 wallets with 501spr. I my self could knock a few of those off and im small fry. 7 heavily financially invested individuals, yes please. |
|
|
|
How can you centralize 3000 MN's?
Because a comparatively few people will end up running all of them. You'll have a situation as bad as a handful of people controlling other PoW coins' hashrate via their centralised pools. For a few people to control this network we are talking hundred's of thousands of spr(with current supply), and in years to come million's. Utoh on darkcoin thread has over 100 MN's 100,000 DRK! And he still is only 1/16th of the entire DRK MN network. It's unrealistic for a small group to have enough coins between them to build a monopoly, as shown above. It all comes down to how many MN's MrSpread set's as the maximum. You are right about my calculations but solidify's my argument. With 5 million spr you can only fund 3000 MN's with 1666 SPR, making your monopoly even weaker than i thought.
I still have no idea what your point is here, sorry.  And Mr Spread was talking about a hard limit on the max number anyway. I will keep trying. MrSpread sets the maximum amount of MN's to 3000. So there are 3000 available slots on the MN network. Me and 5 other people own 40% of the current supply 600,000SPR. We try to gain 50% of the MN network with our 600,000SPR and find out we can only fund 1500 MN's with 400SPR. I understand your points, but you must understand that to gain a monopoly over this system is to own over 50% of the currency, which is ridicules. Would love to hear MrSpread's opinions on this matter. That was clearer, thank you, but I still think a dynamic requirement is a bad idea and offers no advantages over a fixed requirement, only disadvantages. There are 5 people that I know for certain have over 100 Darkcoin Masternodes each. That's a minor issue though because of the n-of-m subsetting that Masternodes operate on. The real problem with dymanic pricing is that a richer party can always drive out a poorer party. However unlikely you think this might be it shouldn't be a possibility at all as it will inevitably lead to centralisation in the hands of a few. The whole of human history shows us that this is what always happens. With fixed MN price I will always have my MNs. Nobody can buy them out from under me. With dynamic pricing I could lose them at any time to someone with more resources, and I would have to be constantly spending time and money to recover my position. I can set up a Masternode as quickly as anyone on Earth, I have it all scripted, it's easy, but it takes time. After a while, after having been repeatedly outbid, I'm just not going to bother any more, I'm going to say fuck it and lose interest, while the richer folk proceed to monopolise the whole show. Dynamic pricing favours the rich few at the expense of everyone else and consequently diminishes decentralisation. Wait wait, your saying dynamic is for the rich but static is not? Imagine this Darkcoins MarketCap = $9,000,000,000. The cost of a DRk MN at this marketcap? around $340,000... Hey, poor people see you can just set a DRK MN up with your $340,000. But you say SPR's method "favers the rich". Edit: By the way, I'm pulling the dollar figures out my backside, but are not far off. |
|
|
|
How can you centralize 3000 MN's?
Because a comparatively few people will end up running all of them. You'll have a situation as bad as a handful of people controlling other PoW coins' hashrate via their centralised pools. For a few people to control this network we are talking hundred's of thousands of spr(with current supply), and in years to come million's. Utoh on darkcoin thread has over 100 MN's 100,000 DRK! And he still is only 1/16th of the entire DRK MN network. It's unrealistic for a small group to have enough coins between them to build a monopoly, as shown above. It all comes down to how many MN's MrSpread set's as the maximum. You are right about my calculations but solidify's my argument. With 5 million spr you can only fund 3000 MN's with 1666 SPR, making your monopoly even weaker than i thought.
I still have no idea what your point is here, sorry. And Mr Spread was talking about a hard limit on the max number anyway. I will keep trying. MrSpread sets the maximum amount of MN's to 3000. So there are 3000 available slots on the MN network. Me and 5 other people own 40% of the current supply 600,000SPR. We try to gain 50% of the MN network with our 600,000SPR and find out we can only fund 1500 MN's with 400SPR. I understand your points, but you must understand that to gain a monopoly over this system is to own over 50% of the currency, which is ridicules. EDIT: 50% would not be enough to have a monopoly btw. Would love to hear MrSpread's opinions on this matter. |
|
|
|
I'm not seeing any advantage to having a dynamic MN collateral requirement.
I can tell you right now what will happen: the biggest holders will monoplise the MN 'allowance' and lock everyone else out.
Plus it adds code overhead to monitor and enforce the whole thing.
Just call it 1000SPR and have done with it, let market forces sort the rest out without things being weighted massively in favour of whoever holds the most SPR, which is all that a dynamic requirement is going to achieve.
A 1000SPR collateral would give a maximum theoretical number right now of 1500 MNs, which we know from DRK is not too many.
If decentralisation is the goal, implement some code to reject new MN's from certain IP ranges beyond a set % to prevent 75% of people just using Amazon, Vultr, OVH... or even better, come up with a way of allowing MNs to have dynamic IPs so people can run them on their home connections too.
If the max amount of MN was set to 2000? One person holding 5 MILLION SPR! could only fund 3000 MN with 2500 SPR, very weak in my opinion. This guy would be bitch slapped about all day long. I understood the individual words, but put together... not so much. I have no idea what you are talking about. :p "the biggest holders will monoplise the MN 'allowance' and lock everyone else out." Say MrSpread set's the max amount of MN's to 3000. A big holder with 5 million spr can only fund 3000 MN's with 2500SPR. This makes his "monopoly" on the MN network weak and the majority of his MN's WILL be kicked from the list, allowing others to participate (decentralization). Any help? There are only 1.5 million SPR right now. (And 3000 * 2500 = 7500000, but that's beside the point.) A dynamic collateral requirement just limits the number of people who can potentially run a MN. With a fixed requirement, those who wish to earn more can do so by setting up another MN, without limiting the ability of anyone else to do so. This will lead to awful centralisation, I guarantee it. How can you centralize 3000 MN's? You are right about my calculations but solidify's my argument. With 5 million spr you can only fund 3000 MN's with 1666 SPR, making your monopoly even weaker than i thought. If the coin become's centralized it will lose value and become less profitable for the "monopoly" rendering it financially nonviable. |
|
|
|
I can tell you right now what will happen: the biggest holders will monoplise the MN 'allowance' and lock everyone else out.
Wrong. Here's the explanation why: With darkcoin, the biggest holders get to monopolize the MN market very easily. Nobody can challenge them. Who already has MN can very easily create MORE MNs. The earnings of his already existing MNs help him buy the next MNs, etc... But with spreadcoin, new investors can simply look up how much SPR the weakest DM has, and simply invest 1 SPR more to shut the weakest one down, and become the new weakest link. (but this new weakest link is now 1 SPR stronger!)It is brilliant that such a thing is made possible with spreadcoin. Because what just happened: The new guy increased the sum of all money in all DMs by 1 SPR. So this creates a constant tendency to increase the cost of deposit for a DM, which in turn makes the amount of DMs decrease but only temporarily, because newcomers are waiting at the door, ready to enter..., so there is is a constant TURNOVER (because not every DM owner will want to keep up with the constant deposit increase) It is horrific that darkcoin does NOT allow newcomers to enter the market AND DRIVE THE DEPOSIT PRICE UP, because that's the only thing that truly DISCOURAGES THE HORDING of DM/MN. (in effect kicking lazy DM/MN owners out of the game) This is so brilliant, I am going to create a few animations soon to show what will potentially happen, and what the different scenarios are. You are drawing exactly the wrong conclusions from your own argument. Only the richest SPR holders will be able to afford Masternodes. Everyone else will be priced out with an ever-diminishing hope of ever owning one as the price rises. This is a terrible idea. The requirement to run a DM (decentralized Masternode) will start at 1 SPR if I understood Mr.Spread correctly. It is not necessary to set a minimum deposit price, much like it is not necessary to set a maximum deposit price. ONLY a maximum number of DMs must be defined. Now let me ask you, since you say only the richest SPR holders will be able to afford DMs: Who makes it EASIER to run a DM/MN? Spreadcoin with a dynamic Deposit Requirement starting at 1 SPR, (letting the free market decide) or Darkcoin who has a FIX Deposit Requirement of 1000 DRK? (Cutting out 99% of all investors from the very beginning!!!) Lets not forget that MrSpread could set the max MN amount to 4000, making it practically impossible to monopolise the network. Thelone, i do agree about the vultr/amazon thing. |
|
|
|
I'm not seeing any advantage to having a dynamic MN collateral requirement.
I can tell you right now what will happen: the biggest holders will monoplise the MN 'allowance' and lock everyone else out.
Plus it adds code overhead to monitor and enforce the whole thing.
Just call it 1000SPR and have done with it, let market forces sort the rest out without things being weighted massively in favour of whoever holds the most SPR, which is all that a dynamic requirement is going to achieve.
A 1000SPR collateral would give a maximum theoretical number right now of 1500 MNs, which we know from DRK is not too many.
If decentralisation is the goal, implement some code to reject new MN's from certain IP ranges beyond a set % to prevent 75% of people just using Amazon, Vultr, OVH... or even better, come up with a way of allowing MNs to have dynamic IPs so people can run them on their home connections too.
If the max amount of MN was set to 2000? One person holding 5 MILLION SPR! could only fund 3000 MN with 2500 SPR, very weak in my opinion. This guy would be bitch slapped about all day long. I understood the individual words, but put together... not so much. I have no idea what you are talking about. :p "the biggest holders will monoplise the MN 'allowance' and lock everyone else out." Say MrSpread set's the max amount of MN's to 3000. A big holder with 5 million spr can only fund 3000 MN's with 2500SPR. This makes his "monopoly" on the MN network weak and the majority of his MN's WILL be kicked from the list, allowing others to participate (decentralization). Any help? |
|
|
|
I'm not seeing any advantage to having a dynamic MN collateral requirement.
I can tell you right now what will happen: the biggest holders will monoplise the MN 'allowance' and lock everyone else out.
Plus it adds code overhead to monitor and enforce the whole thing.
Just call it 1000SPR and have done with it, let market forces sort the rest out without things being weighted massively in favour of whoever holds the most SPR, which is all that a dynamic requirement is going to achieve.
A 1000SPR collateral would give a maximum theoretical number right now of 1500 MNs, which we know from DRK is not too many.
If decentralisation is the goal, implement some code to reject new MN's from certain IP ranges beyond a set % to prevent 75% of people just using Amazon, Vultr, OVH... or even better, come up with a way of allowing MNs to have dynamic IPs so people can run them on their home connections too.
If the max amount of MN was set to 2000? One person holding 5 MILLION SPR! could only fund 3000 MN with 2500 SPR, very weak in my opinion. This guy would be bitch slapped about all day long. |
|
|
|
Some Darkcoiners were kind enough to engage me in a debate about the dynamic market pricing of Spread Masternodes. While I was initially sold on the idea, they did bring up some good points and now I'm not quite so sold. I tried to play devils advocate and counter their arguments, but I did actually agree with some of them. Mr. Spread, you may want to read the debate starting here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.78200 before making your final decision. I saw nothing there to persuade me that static master nodes are better than dynamic matter nodes. I think we will just have to see for ourselves how well this works out in a live environment and stop all this hypothetical 'if-then' stuff. JL I'm certainly not against it, just not 100% for it anymore. I just wanted Mr. Spread to take the other insight into account before he makes his decision. Whatever decision he goes with, I'll support at that point. I hope dynamic masternodes will not require more technical knowledge or time to operate than the static ones. People who are busy with their daily work/responsibilities will not like the idea of constantly checking to see if their SPR masternodes are in the list or not. That might greatly discourage investment. I doubt it will discourage investment, infact it will create a whole new market. Opportunist will crunch the numbers to find what the lowest amount they can have in a MN, without being kicked from the list. Also, people who don't have the time to deal with all that can just stack a reasonable amount of SPR in a MN and check it once a week. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
