I don't know if this is still happening but there is still spots left! Quick, get in before it's too late!

http://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/2knolx/spreadcoin_giveaway/

For masternodes, instead of a simple, "You need X SPR to be on the list" and if someone beats you by 1, you're kicked off... what is there was a ranking algorithm.  Variables:

1.  How much SPR you have in the masternode.
2.  If your masternode is in a country with less than X% of masternodes, +Y
3.  If your masternode is at an ISP with less than A% of masternodes, +Z
4.  Other variables that help secure the network.

Those are obviously simplified.

Your masternode is then scored based upon these variables and you can see where you are on the list.  If you're on the bottom of the score list, better change something!  Or if you want a new masternode but have less SPR than a lot of people, simply get hosting in a country at an ISP nobody else has.

Darkcoin has a shitload of VPS masternodes at just a few ISPs in just a few countries.  Not good for the network.

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.

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

Even if they have some points I personally like the fact that SPR will be different from DRK in more ways. I think SPR will be more valuable if it will be something different and not just DRK with solo mining. So let the history chooses which approach is right.

@MyFarm

You may know my view on SPR: it is a clone of DRK and so any work done for SPR can be used by DRK.  It is behind DRK, has fewer devs, well one actually, and is basically a project I suggested 7 months ago - A second tier mainnet R&D project for DRK, something that won't have value because it is not the brand leader.

Solo mining is attractive, but really? Is that it?

I have found some problems that will be encountered when masternodes get introduced and while you called them FUD, they were sufficiently significant issues for me to keep away.

But hey, its crypto. best of luck; and just a friendly reminder - this is the DRK thread.

I think the idea itself is brilliant (hey, I LOVE self-regulating systems), but it's not a good idea for Darkcoin.

Right now, an institution (Government, some billionaire, some agency) can buy whatever they want number of Masternodes and there are still "free" Masternodes owned by you and me to secure the anonymity.

If driven by market-force, they could buy-out EVERYONE else and get 100% control.

I know it sounds a bit tribal and predictable to criticise that approach in the DRK thread - diversity is always interesting - but I can think of a few problems with it.

For a start, it doesn't make for a very attractive investment proposition if your ROI is completely undeterminable like that. Think about it - you sit and do the calculations of whether it's worth it to invest in a masternode at current prices and you decide that you'll be in 'profit' in say 6 months, so you go and purchase $1500 worth of coin or whatever it is.

But then just a week after setting up your masternode, learning Linux, pissing about with permissions, node hardening, hosting services etc, your masternode gets kicked offline because somebody came along with more money than you.

How would you feel about that ?

If wanted to design a 'cryptocoin-mechanism' for generating ill will amongst masternode holders, anxiety, mean-spiritidness and competitive rather than co-operative spirit, you couldn't do much better than with this approach. No-one would want to help each other with technical stuff because there'd such a strong financial incentive to inhibit any new masternode holders.

On the other hand, look at how the Darkcoin network has evolved - there is a huge amount of co-operation and mutual support. There is predictable ROI - you pay your money and your node's secure for as long as you've got your 1000 DRK parked. The devs tweak the network parameters, not some bunch of baying wolf, tongues dangling on the floor investors who haven't a clue how to decide what number of masternodes is healthy for the network.

Are we ATH yet?

Seven minutes...

holy cow.... that wall was eaten immediately 

If we haven't hit a new all-time high within 30 minutes of this post, I'm taking us there.  I'm giving you guys the opportunity to buy the SPR first.

If we start at 1SPR min and 100,000SPR max over time MN owners would increase there masternode balance to be more competitive. So say 100,000 people put up 100,000 masternodes, with 1 SPR per masternode. If 50% of those owners put another 1SPR in their MN balance the network would kick the MN's only holding 1SPR, reducing decentralization to only 50,000 MN. That's not really a bad thing as 50,000 MN remain. Also this coin is quite hard (will become) even harder to accumulate. It has extremely good distribution, lowering the chance of centralization.
Large holders will now see huge ROI and will slowly dump over time, again reducing centralization.

I doubt one person would try to dominate a system which is reliant on decentralization. Althogh how many MN count as  decentralized is subjective.