Well, it couldn't be staking, that hasn't been enabled yet. Is it mining? What does your darknet.conf look like? That would seem to be the only reason it should be using that much CPU.

Nope, because it can't be done. Each Masternode needs its own external IP address on port 51472. You can't have multiple Masternodes on one computer.

I don't know about that. Mining is a pretty direct investment in DNET, it is not free to mine, you are trading your money for DNET and at the same time helping to create a secure network for DarkNet. We could have no buy orders on exchanges and the coin would still work fine as long as miners were mining it, if we had no miners and all kinds of buy orders things would not be as confidence inspiring.

What we are proposing for the PoS stage is something that has, to my knowledge, not been done before. It is going to take some time and lots of testing to get it right. That is time that is being allowed to us by PoW.

The end block is actually half way through the budget period after the proposal, so the payment will already have been made by then. You can't change the end block.

For proposals that are intended to gauge support for ideas you can set an arbitrary end of voting in the description of the proposal, as long as it is not ridiculous short, like a few days or less, we will honor it.

You can't delete proposals, and Masternodes only get one vote each per proposal, but you can change your vote back and forth as many times as you like.

If you make new proposals, following similar reward structures, just with changes a bit more in the future, and PM me your address I will refund the cost of your initial proposals as my way of saying thanks for doing your part. I would suggest making the changes in reward coincide with budget blocks, so every 43200 blocks, and start at block 86400, that way the budget for the month would be easier calculated. If the reward changes in the middle of a budget period, and the budget is 10% of the rewards for that period it is not as straightforward coming up with the total budget for the month. It wouldn't be that much more difficult, but I like to keep things as simple as possible.

I still don't like the idea of changing the rewards, it really feels to me like people trying to profit from an early investment. Not that I don't think that is a reasonable expectation, but everyone got into this coin knowing ahead of time what the coin roll out would look like for the initial 6 months. I feel the whole "lets cut the number of overall coins" debate stems from a place of greed, not just what is best for the coin. I don't see the difference between 32 million coins at 2k sats and 64 million coins at 1k sats, you still have the same market cap. I hold a substantial pile of coins, and stand to have my holdings worth more with fewer coins, but that is not what I am really here for. Sure, I would like to monetize my time invested in this project at some point, but I am also interested in creating something new, sustainable, and innovative.

Thank you for going ahead and following through with submitting a proposal. It wasn't really that hard once you did it, was it?

There are a few problems I see with your proposals.

You propose to change the rewards per block at block 59200, yet don't set any type of a deadline for voting. Typically it set for you, but seeing as how you want to start the change before voting would technically be over, you should probably specify a block to be the deadline for voting.

You also intend to have the change take effect in ~10 days, I think you may need to allow more time before the change would go into effect, I would suggest allowing a week for voting and a week for the change to go into effect, at a minimum, that may even be a little quick. I can make the change in the source quickly, and put out new wallets, but everyone should be given ample opportunity to update their wallets.

With that said, again, regardless of my personal stance on your ideas, thanks for actually submitting proposals, without that type of community involvement no changes to the reward structure or anything else will help to maintain, and increase the value of DarkNet.

The wheels were already set in motion, we knew it was coming, but we aren't all about hype, so figured it would be a nice surprise. You don't really think we were added that quickly because of a tweet, do you?

I also wanted to chime in here with a correction. The quark algo is not CPU only anymore, and hasn't been for a while. A quick google search should yield you a GPU mining program with the capability to mine on the quark algo, if that's what you're into.

You need to own a Masternode in order to vote, so, yes, you would need at least 10,000 DNET. To see all current proposals enter "mnbudget show" in the console, to see which proposals are currently set to make it into the next budget payment enter "mnbudget projection".

As far as submitting proposals, I wrote this a few pages back:


I will probably write something just a bit more polished soon for s3v3nh4cks to put in the OP.


Thanks for that, we have something in the works on that front, so stay tuned.


"masternode vote-many"


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355203.0 Is another service offered for hosting Masternodes. Don't take my mentioning them as an endorsement of their service. The cost is substantially higher than http://my.mp-hosting.co.uk, but they are another option. You can also set up your own VPS and run your Masternode on there, which is, I think, what most folks are doing.

There have been a few mentions of reducing the inflation rate, I am not going to quote them all. I personally don't see a need for this during the PoW stage, the intent is to get as even a distribution as possible going into PoS, at which point the block rewards could be cut dramatically, if that is what the community wants. However, we want the involvement of all of the community members, and value everyone's opinions. If you want to submit a proposal for lowering the block rewards, go right ahead, if it is approved that's what we will do. That is the beauty of the voting mechanism built into the wallet, you, as a community, can have a real hand in steering this ship. I will mention one specific point that was brought up. It wouldn't be done by block 86400, that is the earliest date that voting could be scheduled to end for a proposal submitted now. It wouldn't take long to implement any well thought out proposal, but it would be a bit over a month from now, and not within a month as it seems was suggested.

Keep the ideas, suggestions, and questions coming. Also, don't forget to go vote on the current proposals if you are a Masternode owner. We want everyone to weigh in.

I was wondering the same thing when I saw it. Google pointed me here, http://bitcoindoc.com/shop/product/details/948/byob-be-your-own-bank-t-shirt.

Voting ends at block 43200. If multiple proposal receive enough votes to be approved the one with the most yes votes is paid first, and then the one with the second most yes votes is paid. This continues until all budget proposals are paid or there is not enough left in the budget to pay the next proposal in line.

#3 Proposal to add 10 DNET to the general fund (10 DNET is the minimum allowable payment when preparing a proposal, this is effectively a vote to add nothing to the general fund)
hash=07d79d32962b0337ee7bfc026f2394a4f44d59016d393affd1ac27277f1ab25c
"mnbudget vote 07d79d32962b0337ee7bfc026f2394a4f44d59016d393affd1ac27277f1ab25c yes" to vote in favor
"mnbudget vote 07d79d32962b0337ee7bfc026f2394a4f44d59016d393affd1ac27277f1ab25c no" to vote against

#2 Proposal to add 500k DNET to the general fund
hash=d884ccec200bdf737ac522c1dd7afa8a78fe8eb67b49385cc477dd9e28eb9e69
"mnbudget vote d884ccec200bdf737ac522c1dd7afa8a78fe8eb67b49385cc477dd9e28eb9e69 yes" to vote in favor
"mnbudget vote d884ccec200bdf737ac522c1dd7afa8a78fe8eb67b49385cc477dd9e28eb9e69 no" to vote against

We are getting close to the first budget payout, s3v3nh4cks and I have decided we should see how people feel about throwing a bunch of coins into a general fund address. This could be used for just about anything related to the advancement of the coin, and we wouldn't have to wait until the next budget payment cycle. There have already been a few ideas regarding its use, paying to get listed on a larger exchange, funding a faucet, paying the fellow we have working on the new website, maybe a different block explorer, those types of things. Any money spent from the general fund would be done so with complete transparency.

I am breaking these 3 proposals into 3 posts. They will all be for a filling of the general fund's coffers, just for different amounts. The monthly budget allows for a total of 1,080,000 DNET, Vote for the amount of that you would like to see go into the general fund. I will edit each one of these with the voting information for it in just a bit.

#1 Proposal to add 1 million DNET to the general fund
hash=322a8e3132c5dc4fd59c7c97d97c9198cbb6beeb87da6b8f5000f4161125f7f8
"mnbudget vote 322a8e3132c5dc4fd59c7c97d97c9198cbb6beeb87da6b8f5000f4161125f7f8 yes" to vote in favor
"mnbudget vote 322a8e3132c5dc4fd59c7c97d97c9198cbb6beeb87da6b8f5000f4161125f7f8 no" to vote against

The proposal system is part of the built in decentralized blockchain voting feature. Starting at block 43200 10% of the block rewards will be set aside for the budget, this budget is used to fund anything that the community of Masternode holders vote to approve. It can also be used to transparently gauge support for ideas. I am sure that others will be able to come up with even more clever uses. Anyone can submit proposals for voting, and Masternode holders vote for what they like and against what they don't. Every 43200 blocks, or once a month, all items in the finalized budget will be paid out. In order for a proposal to be accepted into the finalized budget it must be active for at least 1 day and receive a yes vote from at least 10% of the current Masternodes. If many proposals are approved they will be added to the budget starting with the most yes votes until all of the budget is spent.

I think that covers most of the more important aspects. If you have any more specific questions fire away.

Yeah, I think it may be my favorite feature. It really allows a degree of community involvement that is just not there with most other coins. You can submit a proposal for anything you can imagine, whether the community approves of it is another thing. One of the things s3v3nh4cks and I had discussed was using a portion of the budget to pay to get listed on certain exchanges. Go ahead and find out what it costs for any of a number of things you think would help the coin, submit a proposal, and see where it goes. In the next few days s3v3nh4cks and I will be setting up a multisig wallet that can be used for budget proposals as well. I can imagine a situation where a good idea gets shot down because trusting someone to do what they say they will with the coins once they are in their wallet is hard if you are talking about a substantial sum.

It is really not that bad. All of these instructions assume you are using the Qt wallet, you could also enter the commands on the command line preceded by "./darknet-cli" if using darknetd.

Go to the console and prepare the proposal, the syntax is "mnbudget prepare name url payment_count block_start darknet_address monthly_payment_darknet" for the BlockExplorer proposal the exact command I entered was "mnbudget prepare BlockExplorer bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1262920.msg14012433#msg14012433 1 43200 D7SP47ZN3ZGdrVsAvmG2f3CQF6Ca6grdLX 57142".
The "name" and "url" parameters should be self evident, note that there is a 64 character limit on the url, that is why I removed the "https://", the "payment_count" is the number of monthly payments to make, the "1" I used indicates a 1 time payment, a proposal could be broken up into smaller monthly payments over any period of time. The "block_start" is the block at which the proposal will be included in the budget, it must be the first block in a new 30 day period, block 43200 will be the first block that can be used, and they will increment by 43200, so the next eligible block would be 86400. "darknet_address" is the address of the you want the payment sent to, it costs 50 DNET to make a proposal, so make sure you have received at least one payment to your Masternode before preparing the proposal. The "monthly_payment_darknet" parameter is the amount of DNET to be paid monthly, or once, if it is a one time payment.

After you enter that command if all goes well you will be met with a transaction hash.

Now, you need to submit the prepared proposal. The syntax for that command is "mnbudget submit name url payment_count block_start darknet_address monthly_payment_darknet fee_tx". All of the parameters are the same, with the addition of the transaction hash that was output when preparing the proposal, add that in and hit enter, the output will be the hash for the proposal. That hash is the one used for voting.

If you need anything clarified let me know, don't let my drawn out description of the process stop you, once you do it you will realize how simple it is, and if you are anything like me you will get a fuzzy feeling of empowerment inside.

Can you do me a favor and submit a proposal, I don't want to be the only one doing it. Having more than one option for voting is really what democracy is all about, right? We really want this to be a community driven coin. If you need a guide let me know, I can throw something together.

Next proposal, s3v3nh4cks has paid presstab for 6 months of block explorer goodness, as this is a long term project we would like to go ahead and pay for another year. Despite the recent pump, we think 500 sats is a fair price to assess the value at for the purposes of this proposal. Assuming a $420 bitcoin at $10/month when paying for a year we are looking at ~.2857 BTC, or ~57,142 DNET. If the prices have changed substantially when the payout occurs I will personally cover the difference if there is a shortage, in the event of an excess, the extra coins will go into a general fund to be used for other costs associated with the furtherance of the coin, and will be spent with complete transparency. So, that is what you will be voting on in this proposal. Whether you think we should set aside 57,142 DNET for the purpose of paying presstab for the block explorer to be continued for an additional year, for a total of 18 months. Again, I will add an edit in a bit with the proposal hash and voting commands.

Edit: The hash for this proposal is fc7b4cc188e011ef784f07ccc3f01dc66bc6e932f863f628c1156440f20e184b and the name is "BlockExplorer"
"mnbudget vote fc7b4cc188e011ef784f07ccc3f01dc66bc6e932f863f628c1156440f20e184b yes" to vote yes
"mnbudget vote fc7b4cc188e011ef784f07ccc3f01dc66bc6e932f863f628c1156440f20e184b no" to vote no
"mnbudget getinfo BlockExplorer" to see what's up

I am going to be submiting a few budget proposals today.

First, a new proposal regarding PoS reward functions.

I think we have more or less agreed that the seesaw mechanism we discussed should be implemented. A refresher for the unfamiliar, as that conversation has been lost a few pages back.

Once the block rewards switch from PoW to PoS there will need to be a certain number of coins in Masternodes to serve the functions provided by them, namely, Obfuscation, a coin mixing/anonymizing service, and SwiftTX, a method of guaranteeing zero confirmation transactions. A portion of coins will also be needed to be staking, securing the network. When there are fewer coins staking the potential income from staking an individual coin is increased, and would encourage coins to be taken out of Masternodes to stake when the potential profit might be higher staking vs. running a Masternode. The reverse is also true, when there are a smaller number of Masternodes each one can expect to receive more payments over a given period of time, thereby increasing the profitability, and making it desirable to lock up coins one may have staking into a Masternode.

In order to prevent the network from constantly swinging back and forth between an over abundance of Masternodes, and an exceptionally high percent of overall coins staking we have proposed a "seesaw" mechanism. This would alter the division of block rewards dynamically between stakers and Masternodes to minimize the difference in profitability. The desired ratio of staking coins to Masternodes has yet to be determined, that will be looked at closer to the switch. But, effectively, when there are more coins staking than the ideal ratio as compared with the number of coins in Masternodes the seesaw mechanism would award a higher percentage of the block reward to the winning Masternode than the staker of a particular block. Conversely, when there are an abundance of Masternodes, a higher percentage of the block reward would go to the staker.

This approach should lead to a stable network that ultimately finds itself in homeostasis. There are several variables that have yet to be determined, what is the ideal ratio of coins staking vs locked up in Masternodes, when the ideal balance is achieved what should be the reward split between stakers and Masternodes, how quickly should the seesaw react to a change in the balance, how sharply should the reward split vary when an adjustment needs to be made, etc. Those topics will all be discussed between now and the beginning of PoS, we have a few months to get things right, feel free to express your opinions and ideas on those issues. We need to get the level of conversation in here back to where it was a couple weeks ago.

Anyway, a vote in favor of this proposal will simply be a show of support for the seesaw mechanism, and shouldn't be confused with supporting any of the other variables that need to be determined to make it work. I will edit this in a bit with the voting instructions for this proposal. I have to actually go and submit it, I needed a URL to refer to when creating it.

Edit: The hash for this proposal is 4f043c38c4bac63b3915fd6b45d7bf07db6240cc100351ac836d00d841c52988 in order to vote, from your Masternode enter  "mnbudget vote 4f043c38c4bac63b3915fd6b45d7bf07db6240cc100351ac836d00d841c52988 yes" to vote in favor. To vote against enter "mnbudget vote 4f043c38c4bac63b3915fd6b45d7bf07db6240cc100351ac836d00d841c52988 no"

To see a list of the current proposals enter "mnbudget show", you can also look at individual proposals with the "mnbudget getinfo" command. You will need the name of the proposal to use this method, this proposal is named PoSRewardSchedulev2, so the command would be "mnbudget getinfo PoSRewardSchedulev2".

As the number of Masternodes increases it is becoming more and more difficult to find your Masternodes with "masternode list". A better way to check on your Masternodes is by using "masternode list-conf", it will show you the status of all Masternodes in your masternode.conf. Also, as opposed to using "masternode start-many", you should use "masternode start-alias XXX" replacing the XXX with the alias of the Masternode you want to start that you used in your masternode.conf. Using the start-many function causes all of you Masternodes to be moved to the end of the queue, resulting in lost payment opportunities. There are a variety of reasons for Masternodes to fall out of the list, start by double checking that the wallets are actually running, have sufficient connections, and that the appropriate configuration files are setup properly.