Umm, a few hours ago s3v3nh4cks asked for volunteers to help with testing out the Tor nodes we have been working on. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1262920.msg13977355#msg13977355. Please take your nonsense elsewhere. This has been a thread that was devoid of mindless drivel of the sort you are spewing until recently, let's keep it that way.

How much RAM do you have available? I usually see "g++: internal compiler error: Killed (program cc1plus)" compiling on Raspberry Pi with too many cores and I run out of RAM.

The darknet-cli is used to pass commands to the wallet. The command to start the wallet is ./darknetd for the daemon.

Yeah, SockPuppetAccount pretty well summed up what the plan is. The percent of coins locked up in Masternodes vs. staking is still to be determined, as well as the rewards for Masternodes vs. staking. Other than that I think what he laid out is more or less where the consensus is. In the next day or 2 we will be submitting a few more proposals for voting, probably going to break things up into separate proposals to make it easier to vote yea for the things you like and nay for those you don't with out having to reject or accept things as a whole.

OK, we have released a mandatory update. Some people were noticing issues with Masternode payments. Looking into it revealed that there was a miner not paying Masternodes their fair share. Masternode payments were not being enforced by the network, when I went to enforce Masternode payments I learned that the public key that was created was not the one that was in the code. There was a mad rush to get everything pulled together at the last minute after we were finished with testing, in the chaos I overlooked that crucial piece of the puzzle. I accept complete responsibility for the oversight. The past day has been spent double checking to make sure nothing else like that was missed, it seems that was the only issue.

The new wallet version 1.0.1.0 is up on github, please upgrade as soon as possible. We will be enforcing Masternode payments in 48 hours, at that time you may find your wallet being banned if you haven't updated. 

Wow. This has got to be the most serious and intellectual page I have seen on this forum in a long time, completely devoid of the mindless drivel commonly found around here, it is refreshing. I had to read the page several times before posting a response, and I still may miss some things I meant to touch on.


This is the fundamental issue at hand. Where is the line to be drawn? I think it may be best to consider the ideal ratio over time, keeping an eye on the number of coins locked up in Masternodes, evaluating the performance of that part of the network. Right now, with little hard data to go off of, my gut tells me they should be close to even, with slightly more coins staking. I reserve the right to change my opinion on that. That is actually one of the easier parts to code and calculate, and could be put off until closer to crunch time.


While it is the most fair way of doing the initial distribution, I think it is off the table as the long term method of securing the blockchain. Both s3v3nh4cks and myself are believers in the idea of PoS, and the energy efficient blockchain security it provides.


You are exactly right, that is the whole point of the "seesaw". When there is a higher than desirable ratio of coins staking the reward split between the stakers and the Masternodes would swing in favor of the Masternodes, increasing the percentage of the block rewards sent to the Masternodes. this would make Masternodes have a higher than normal desirability, increasing their numbers and bringing the ratio back into balance. The opposite would be true when the number of Masternodes grows beyond the decided ratio. The stakers would get a higher percentage of the block rewards, which would have the effect of pulling coins out of Masternodes to stake, once again bringing the system in check.


You have highlighted 2 of the primary reasons Masternodes should earn more than staking your coins. But, you have left out another, maybe more important, reason. That would be the higher initial investment. Right now, 10k DNET may only require an investment of $8-$15 dollars, depending on the cost to mine or purchase them, but that will change as the coin matures, and gains value as we are working to make happen. It may come to pass that the investment required to own a Masternode would become substantial. The additional profits given to Masternodes, I feel, should reflect the disparity in the required investment. As SockPuppetAccount pointed out, I am not sure that the transaction fees and voting rights alone would be able to justify the added initial investment.


I get your hesitance to attempt to establish a ratio, but, I don't think the ratio needs to be "pulled out of our asses". That will be one of the most important pieces of the puzzle, but I think, with a bit of careful observation and research, an ideal ratio can be deduced without the need to resort to guessing. Without a built in mechanism controlling the ratio of Masternodes to stakers, over time, any additional incentive to Masternodes would tend to push all available coins into Masternodes.

 
While yes, it would be possible, I don't think it would be a good idea. First, it would introduce an added level of complexity into coding the rewards structure. Second, it would be taking an increased amount away from the stakers, but only when a "Supermasternode" was the winning Masternode, making the income from staking much more unpredictable. Third, it would lead to the desire for bigger and bigger Masternodes, earning a higher and higher percentage of the block rewards, which could quickly become a runaway train. Finally, it would create more of a cast system, a kind of haves and have nots scenario, where the "Supermasternodes" are getting paid more and pull away from everyone else as far as the number of coins they control, which I don't think anyone wants.

Let's keep this dialog going, I really appreciate the input of everyone. Let me know if you think I am wrong about anything, and if you think I am right about anything. As we come to consensus on some issues we can hone in on other aspects where there may still be some disagreement or confusion. Be sure to let it known if you didn't understand anything I said, or would like clarification of any points, or if you think I skipped over something important. Based on the level of conversation I have seen in here, I feel as a group we can come up with something that could only be dreamed about when working on an individual basis.

OK, the original idea behind submitting this proposal was really more intended to serve as an introduction to the decentralized blockchain voting part of DarkNet for the uninitiated, gauging support for the idea being fleshed out for rewards in the PoS phase was intended to be secondary. We never expected such an in depth analysis of the proposed reward determination mechanism. That just shows that there is genuine interest in this project, and comes as a welcome surprise. We have been tossing around different ideas regarding how exactly the "seesaw" mechanism would function, and have come to no firm conclusions.

SockPuppetAccount has proposed an incredibly simple and clever way to gauge the number of coins staking vs. locked up in Masternodes. By utilizing PoS 2.0, which does away with the concept of coin age, we can get an accurate estimate of the total number of coins that are staking by simply looking at the overall network stake weight. That can then be compared to the number of Masternodes and the ratio of coins that are staking to coins in Masternodes can easily be calculated. Barring a better idea, I feel that method best answers the questions that the "seesaw" concept poses. It really is a Eureka type idea.

The initial 3:1 ratio that was announced has been slightly misinterpreted to mean that the intent was for Masternodes to have 3X the profitability of staking. That was not the intent, we felt that having roughly the same number of coins in both general circulation and staking as locked up in Masternodes was probably a good ratio. The 3:1 came about from attempting to determine how that distribution might look, while not entirely arbitrary, that ratio was based on a lot of guessing, and probably shouldn't have been included in the proposal. In hindsight, it is probably good that it was, without SockPuppetAccount seeing, thinking about, and questioning it he may have never come up with the idea he did, I would like to think that we would have, but that could be wishful thinking, and I don't want to take anything away from him.

So, with all of that out of the way, we are still working to determine the ideal ratio of coins in general circulation and staking vs. coins in Masternodes, there is a delicate balance to achieve here. The profitability of Masternodes vs. staking is also not entirely determined yet. The consensus is that Masternodes should be more profitable compared with staking your coins, but how much more is open for debate. I, personally, think that when the ratio of Masternode coins to all other coins is at the determined ideal ratio Masternodes should be 1.25 to 1.5 times as profitable. Enough to encourage accumulation to build Masternodes, which will help the price, but not so much as to take away from the number of coins staking, which would reduce the security of the network. Input, opinions, and discussion in those regards are both welcome and encouraged.

Like I said before, I totally agree with your method. I think you are focusing to much on the wording of the proposal. To my mind, what you laid out is really the mechanics of determining the ratio of Masternodes to staking addresses. If you don't like the way the proposal is worded then you could submit your own proposal for voting, but I think that your idea could be used with the proposal as it is written. PoS doesn't start for nearly 6 months, leaving plenty of time for discussions on the appropriate ratio and profitability of Masternodes vs. staking. As you said, it would be nearly impossible to accurately determine the number of active staking addresses, but the method you came up with basically returns a number representing that, while simultaneously calculating the ratio of stakers to Masternodes.

Don't get too hung up on semantics, you have a great idea, and I am sure that will be recognized.

I really like where you are going with that. The general idea is really solid, my only concern is making Masternodes 3X as profitable as staking. I agree that when the balance is ideal owning a Masternode should be more profitable than staking, I am just not sure that 3X the profitability is appropriate. I would think more long the lines of 1.5X the profitability per coin.

Both parts of the equation are important, the Masternodes provide a valuable service to the network, servicing the Obfuscation, SwiftTX, and voting on proposals, and the staking wallets are actually processing the transactions, securing the network, and keeping the blockchain moving along.

I don't think we would want to make Masternodes so desirable as to take away from the amount of coins staking.

We need to find that perfect balance point. I think your way of doing it would work better than basing it on the number of staking addresses vs. Masternodes, I just think the profitability ratio needs some more thought. Feel free to tell me I am thinking about it all wrong, but do me the favor and explain why.

That guide is only partially complete, it makes no reference to setting up the actual masternodes, only the controlling wallet used to start them. If you notice towards the beginning the environments used for the guide were mentioned, Local: Windows 8.1 64 bit, and Remote: Ubuntu 14.04 64 bit. In all likelihood the remote was on a VPS, as that is the most commonly used practice in any of the Dash masternode tutorials.

That guide assumed you had already set up masternodes elsewhere and were looking to control all of them from one wallet. If you don't have a wallet running as a masternode, and only put the information in the masternode.conf when the network looks for available masternodes it will not see your masternode, as the wallet doesn't announce itself as a masternode without masternode=1 in the darknet.conf.

A wallet will only function as a masternode for 1 private key, that is why each masternode needs its own wallet.

The reason your masternodes are expiring is because they are not actually running. You tell the network when you run "masternode start-many" "hey, I have some masternodes running at these addresses", the network takes your word for it and adds them to the list of available masternodes. The network never actually sees them, and they go to expired when the network doesn't see them for an hour or so.

I hope that was understandable, I am not always the best at explaining things.

The short answer is no.

Each masternode requires its own wallet with the darknet.conf matching the example, using a different private key. So, to have 2 masternodes set up following this example you would need 3 wallets, 1 for each masternode, and the wallet that holds the coins for each masternode and acts as the controlling wallet.

The "1" in the masternode=1 means true, "0" would mean false, "2" would not be applicable.

The port has to be 51472, not 9998. So, MN1 xxx.xx.xx.xx:51472 MASTERNODEPRIVKEY 1

OK, here is how to setup multiple DarkNet masternodes. I am going to use RPis as the masternodes in this example,
with a wallet on your laptop acting as the controller, I am also going to write this for 2 masternodes,
but the directions could be expanded to as many as you want. The concept could also be changed around as
you please using VPSs or other computers as your masternodes, as well as something else for the controller.
If using a VPS, or darknetd as opposed to the Qt wallet, all of the commands that are to be entered in the
console should be entered on the command line preceded by "./darknet-cli",for example "./darknet-cli masternode
genkey". This should go without saying, but don't enter the quotation marks when entering commands.

Step 1: From the very begining, on your laptop in the console enter "masternode genkey" twice, and enter
"getaccountaddress MN1" and "getaccountaddress MN2", the MN1 and MN2 could be substituted with any name
you would like to call the masternode addresses.

Step 2: Send 10k DNET to each of the addresses generated in step 1, making sure to send exactly 10k, in
one transaction to each. Now, execute "masternode outputs" in the console of your laptop wallets.

Step 3: Open the masternode.conf file in the data directory of your laptop's wallet and edit it. In one
line for each masternode follow this format: ALIAS IP:51472 MASTERNODEPRIVKEY TRANSACTIONHASH INDEX​. The
ALIAS can be anything you want it to be, but for simplicities sake it may be best to use the name you used
for the wallet addresses, MN1 and MN2 in this example. The IP is the IP where the masternode wallet can be
found. the MASTERNODEPRIVKEY is the output from the command "masternode genkey" you entered earlier.
The TRANSACTIONHASH and INDEX are the output you received when you executed "masternode outputs" earlier.

Step 4: Open the darknet.conf file in the data directory of the controller wallet, again, on the laptop in
this example, Modify the contents to match this:
rpcuser=long random username
rpcpassword=longer random password
rpcallowip=127.0.0.1
listen=0
server=1
daemon=1
logtimestamps=1
maxconnections=256

Step 5: Close the wallet and restart it.

Step 6: Open the darknet.conf file in the data directory of one of your masternode wallets, on a RPi in this
example. modify the contents of the file to look like this:
rpcuser=long random username
rpcpassword=longer random password
rpcallowip=127.0.0.1
listen=1
server=1
daemon=1
logtimestamps=1
maxconnections=256
masternode=1
masternodeprivkey=XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Replacing the username and password with your own, and replacing the Xs with the masternode private key that
corresponds to the masternode alias you would like for this masternode.

Step 7: Close and restart that wallet.

Step 8: repeat steps 5 and 6 for the other masternode wallet, the other RPi in this example.

Final step: Now, both of your masternodes are setup, you just need to start them, you will do this with the
controlling wallet on your laptop. Open the console of the controlling wallet and enter "masternode start-many"
you should get an output something like this:
{
    "overall" : "Successfully started 2 masternodes, failed to start 0, total 2",
    "detail" : {
        "status" : {
            "alias" : "mn1",
            "result" : "successful"
        },
        "status" : {
            "alias" : "mn2",
            "result" : "successful"
        }
}

OK, so you want to start a DarkNet masternode, here's how to do it. Note, these instuctions are intended for
those running the Qt DarkNet wallet. If you are using darknetd the same steps apply, but, whenever a command is
to be entered in the console you would enter the command on the command line preceded by "./darnet-cli",
for example, to generate the masternode private key you would enter "./darknet-cli masternode genkey".
This should go without saying, but don't enter the quotation marks when entering commands.

Step 1: First, open the console of your wallet and create an address for your masternode, do this by entering
"getaccountaddress MN". You can replace "MN" with whatever you would like to name your masternode.

Step 2: Send 10000DNET to the address you just created. It must be exactly 10000, in one transaction.

Step 3: Execute "masternode genkey" in your wallet's console.

Step 4: Open the darknet.conf folder in the data directory for your wallet, edit it like so:

rpcuser=long random username
rpcpassword=longer random password
rpcallowip=127.0.0.1
listen=1
server=1
daemon=1
logtimestamps=1
maxconnections=256
masternode=1
masternodeprivkey=XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Replace the Xs with the key generated when you ran "masternode genkey" in step 3.

Step 5: Save the darknet.conf file, close, and restart your wallet.

Step 6: In the console of your wallet enter "masternode start", assuming everything went well you should see a
message letting you know your masternode has been started successfully.

here are a few:

31.6.30.115
217.240.107.120
109.172.55.170
68.104.0.118
162.213.154.31
173.245.148.70
151.80.206.104

I don't know what would be wrong or unoriginal about me ordering a stakestick. I got into this coin because I like high PoS coins, I understand that they have the tendency to act like Ponzi schemes, get in early and you can make a good profit, get in too late and you will lose your ass. I like riding the wave, and have some inclinations toward gambling, this way I can better calculate my risks than at a casino.

On the same note, I took a gamble on the stakestick, a $6 bet I would have been OK with losing. It served a secondary purpose as well, I have been thinking about getting some of these TV sticks to try and install linux on and setup with the same software as the StakeBox, sort of a lower end model, the same way I am playing with the Odroid XU4 with the intent of offering a higher end model, as well.

Like I said, there have been occasions when I have been less than thrilled with spots, but I don't hold grudges, and am always trying to maintain the high ground. That is why I posted those pictures, I was pleasantly surprised to get the stakestick, and when people do right by me I let others know it, no more ,no less.

Well, I must say, I wasn't holding my breath, and that was even before spots came out as the dev. I know spots has pissed a lot of people off, I have even been upset by his actions or words once or twice, but here it is. I haven't hooked it up yet, but I believe it will be just what we all expect it to be. I got mine for the equivilent of $6 worth of cube, honestly never expected to see it at that price, wish I had ordered more of them. Thanks spots.https://i.imgur.com/d0a9a8W.jpg

I haven't gotten a stake in 27 hours, I usually get 2-5 a day.