|
StakeBox
|
 |
February 05, 2016, 01:11:47 AM |
|
We are creating a proposal to serve as both a test and introduction to the decentralized voting system and to also get the opinions of the Masternode owners. This is what we are planing for the PoS at Block 259201: The PoS mechanism for DarkNet will be something that has to my knowledge never been tried in crypto before. We will be using a sort of seesaw mechanism based on the ratio of Masternodes to Staking Addresses (Wallets that are left open 24/7 and supporting the network) with a fixed overall reward per block. The ratio we will be aiming for will be 3 staking addresses to 1 Masternode. Assuming this ratio is maintained, when a PoS block is found the equal rewards will be delivered to Winning Masternode and Winning Staking Address, but if there are more staking addresses than the 3:1 then Masternodes will get a portion of the staking wallets reward and vice-versa. Block Rewards PoS Phase 1 100 DNET 40 to Masternode 40 to Staker 20 to Budget Monthly Budget: 864000 Yrly Coin Cap: 52560000 PoS Phase 2 50 DNET 20 to Masternode 20 to Staker 10 to Budget Monthly Budget: 432000 Yrly Coin Cap: 26280000 PoS Phase 3 25 DNET 10 to Masternode 10 to Staker 5 to Budget Monthly Budget: 216000 Yrly Coin Cap: 13140000 PoS Phase 4+ 5 DNET 2 to Masternode 2 to Staker 1 to Budget Monthly Budget: 43200 Yrly Coin Cap: 2628000 [Coin Supply after 4.5 yrs on 159408000] More details to follow when the Proposal is Active and Available for Voting Ah ha! I see you realized you would never be able to guarantee that masternodes are a better investment than staking with the approach you had originally taken. I was curious to see what you would come up with to solve the problem. I think you are on the right track to a solution but it's not quite there yet. There is one crucial thing you are forgetting. You don't want a ratio of 3 staking addresses per masternode because not all staking addresses are created equal, while all masternodes are. Individual addresses can contain any number of coins. Obviously an addresses holding 1 DNET should not be treated the same as an address holding 1,000,000 DNET. What you want is to ensure that a 10,000 DNET investment into a masternode pays out on average exactly 3x what you would receive from staking those same 10,000 DNET. Thankfully, POS 2.0 and a flat reward should provide a fairly simply mechanism for achieving this. Since POS 2.0 removes coinage from the equation, a given number of DNET is going to add the same amount of weight to the network no matter how old the coins are. So, we start with network weight as this reflects all the actively staking coins. Then, we count all the masternodes and multiply by 10000 DNET to figure out how many coins are locked up in them. Multiply this number by 3 and calculate how much weight that many coins would add to the network IF they were staking and not in masternodes.Now compare the ratio of the theoretical weight of 3x the masternode coins to the actual weight of the current PoS network, and your ideal will have you end up at a 3:1 ratio. If that ratio is not met, then use the seesaw mechanism you proposed to adjust the rewards accordingly. EDIT : I know I am on the right track with this line of thinking, but I just got this nagging feeling like I said something incorrect or there is a detail I am forgetting. Hold on, the adderall is kicking in............. 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. |
|
|
|
|
SockPuppetAccount
|
|
February 05, 2016, 01:55:04 AM |
|
We are creating a proposal to serve as both a test and introduction to the decentralized voting system and to also get the opinions of the Masternode owners. This is what we are planing for the PoS at Block 259201: The PoS mechanism for DarkNet will be something that has to my knowledge never been tried in crypto before. We will be using a sort of seesaw mechanism based on the ratio of Masternodes to Staking Addresses (Wallets that are left open 24/7 and supporting the network) with a fixed overall reward per block. The ratio we will be aiming for will be 3 staking addresses to 1 Masternode. Assuming this ratio is maintained, when a PoS block is found the equal rewards will be delivered to Winning Masternode and Winning Staking Address, but if there are more staking addresses than the 3:1 then Masternodes will get a portion of the staking wallets reward and vice-versa. Block Rewards PoS Phase 1 100 DNET 40 to Masternode 40 to Staker 20 to Budget Monthly Budget: 864000 Yrly Coin Cap: 52560000 PoS Phase 2 50 DNET 20 to Masternode 20 to Staker 10 to Budget Monthly Budget: 432000 Yrly Coin Cap: 26280000 PoS Phase 3 25 DNET 10 to Masternode 10 to Staker 5 to Budget Monthly Budget: 216000 Yrly Coin Cap: 13140000 PoS Phase 4+ 5 DNET 2 to Masternode 2 to Staker 1 to Budget Monthly Budget: 43200 Yrly Coin Cap: 2628000 [Coin Supply after 4.5 yrs on 159408000] More details to follow when the Proposal is Active and Available for Voting Ah ha! I see you realized you would never be able to guarantee that masternodes are a better investment than staking with the approach you had originally taken. I was curious to see what you would come up with to solve the problem. I think you are on the right track to a solution but it's not quite there yet. There is one crucial thing you are forgetting. You don't want a ratio of 3 staking addresses per masternode because not all staking addresses are created equal, while all masternodes are. Individual addresses can contain any number of coins. Obviously an addresses holding 1 DNET should not be treated the same as an address holding 1,000,000 DNET. What you want is to ensure that a 10,000 DNET investment into a masternode pays out on average exactly 3x what you would receive from staking those same 10,000 DNET. Thankfully, POS 2.0 and a flat reward should provide a fairly simply mechanism for achieving this. Since POS 2.0 removes coinage from the equation, a given number of DNET is going to add the same amount of weight to the network no matter how old the coins are. So, we start with network weight as this reflects all the actively staking coins. Then, we count all the masternodes and multiply by 10000 DNET to figure out how many coins are locked up in them. Multiply this number by 3 and calculate how much weight that many coins would add to the network IF they were staking and not in masternodes.Now compare the ratio of the theoretical weight of 3x the masternode coins to the actual weight of the current PoS network, and your ideal will have you end up at a 3:1 ratio. If that ratio is not met, then use the seesaw mechanism you proposed to adjust the rewards accordingly. EDIT : I know I am on the right track with this line of thinking, but I just got this nagging feeling like I said something incorrect or there is a detail I am forgetting. Hold on, the adderall is kicking in............. 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. I edited my post above while you were replying to me. Then I read my original post and edited post and I pretty much said the same thing but even less clearly in my edited version! Ugh, brain fog and I feel like I am not getting myself across but it seems you understand what I am saying, so I'm just gonna leave both versions be! I completely agree that 3x the rewards for masternodes is too high. I think 1.5x-2x maximum is appropriate. I was using 3x as an example because s3v3nh4cks said 3 staking addresses for each masternode, so I was assuming 3x was the level he was shooting for. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SockPuppetAccount
|
|
February 05, 2016, 08:17:32 AM |
|
So is using a specific ratio of staking addresses:masternodes the method you are going to use for sure? Because I liked everything else about your proposal except for this one point which is why I talked about using network weight as a guide to maintain a consistent ratio of rewards between stakers and masternodes. I'm not trying to hype up my idea just for the sake of it. I'm just saying that I really liked everything about your idea except for the way you implement it. You were 90% of the way toward a really unique variation of PoS 2.0, but if you do the set ratio of staking addresses : masternodes thing and not the approach I outlined, it will be shit. I don't know a nicer way to describe it but shit. Would that even work? How would you define a specific staking address as being "active"? Is it even possible to assess how many different addresses are online at any given time? I mean, if an address isn't submitting a block, the network doesn't know whether that address is "actively" staking or not. Then there is the fact that treating an address with 1 DNET the same as an address with 1,000,000 DNET is just pants on head retarded for obvious reasons. I just thought of a much simpler way of explaining what I am proposing rather than the paragraph's I wrote above. I'm not concerned with the specific ratio atm, just need to use numbers to illustrate my point. You originally said you were aiming for a ratio of 3 staking address to 1 masternode. I am saying you are approaching the problem the wrong way. You need to aim for a ratio of 30,000 staking coins to 10,000 masternode coins. |
|
|
|
|
|
hepilord
|
|
February 05, 2016, 11:47:16 AM |
|
i'm searchin working version of sgminer quark optimized for AMD. My sgminer do not work, i have error:
Startup GPU initialization... Using settings from pool gcpool.eu.
Startup Pool No = 0
Initialising kernel quarkcoin.cl with nfactor 10, n 1024
Error -46: Creating ExtraKernel #0 from program. (clCreateKernel)
Failed to init GPU thread 0, disabling device 0
|
|
|
|
|
raetsch
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 957
Merit: 1006
|
|
February 05, 2016, 11:52:03 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hepilord
|
|
February 05, 2016, 12:09:04 PM |
|
can someone shows his config? with 5.1.1 i have the same error
|
|
|
|
|
|
userpacman1
|
|
February 05, 2016, 01:31:01 PM |
|
So is using a specific ratio of staking addresses:masternodes the method you are going to use for sure? Because I liked everything else about your proposal except for this one point which is why I talked about using network weight as a guide to maintain a consistent ratio of rewards between stakers and masternodes. I'm not trying to hype up my idea just for the sake of it. I'm just saying that I really liked everything about your idea except for the way you implement it. You were 90% of the way toward a really unique variation of PoS 2.0, but if you do the set ratio of staking addresses : masternodes thing and not the approach I outlined, it will be shit. I don't know a nicer way to describe it but shit. Would that even work? How would you define a specific staking address as being "active"? Is it even possible to assess how many different addresses are online at any given time? I mean, if an address isn't submitting a block, the network doesn't know whether that address is "actively" staking or not. Then there is the fact that treating an address with 1 DNET the same as an address with 1,000,000 DNET is just pants on head retarded for obvious reasons. I just thought of a much simpler way of explaining what I am proposing rather than the paragraph's I wrote above. I'm not concerned with the specific ratio atm, just need to use numbers to illustrate my point. You originally said you were aiming for a ratio of 3 staking address to 1 masternode. I am saying you are approaching the problem the wrong way. You need to aim for a ratio of 30,000 staking coins to 10,000 masternode coins. If you "thought a simpler way explaining what you're proposing" please share with us. I want to be sure I understood everything before supporting any decision. |
|
|
|
|
|
userpacman1
|
|
February 05, 2016, 01:32:51 PM |
|
can someone shows his config? with 5.1.1 i have the same error
Can you show us your? What videocard are you using? My config file is pretty standard, except the argument -k quarcoin -k quarkcoin -o stratum+tcp://xxxxxx.xxxx.xxxxx:1234 -u xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -p X --intensity 18 --worksize 64 -g 2 |
|
|
|
|
tylerderden
Copper Member
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1025
|
|
February 05, 2016, 01:48:07 PM |
|
We are creating a proposal to serve as both a test and introduction to the decentralized voting system and to also get the opinions of the Masternode owners. This is what we are planing for the PoS at Block 259201: The PoS mechanism for DarkNet will be something that has to my knowledge never been tried in crypto before. We will be using a sort of seesaw mechanism based on the ratio of Masternodes to Staking Addresses (Wallets that are left open 24/7 and supporting the network) with a fixed overall reward per block. The ratio we will be aiming for will be 3 staking addresses to 1 Masternode. Assuming this ratio is maintained, when a PoS block is found the equal rewards will be delivered to Winning Masternode and Winning Staking Address, but if there are more staking addresses than the 3:1 then Masternodes will get a portion of the staking wallets reward and vice-versa. Block Rewards PoS Phase 1 100 DNET 40 to Masternode 40 to Staker 20 to Budget Monthly Budget: 864000 Yrly Coin Cap: 52560000 PoS Phase 2 50 DNET 20 to Masternode 20 to Staker 10 to Budget Monthly Budget: 432000 Yrly Coin Cap: 26280000 PoS Phase 3 25 DNET 10 to Masternode 10 to Staker 5 to Budget Monthly Budget: 216000 Yrly Coin Cap: 13140000 PoS Phase 4+ 5 DNET 2 to Masternode 2 to Staker 1 to Budget Monthly Budget: 43200 Yrly Coin Cap: 2628000 [Coin Supply after 4.5 yrs on 159408000] More details to follow when the Proposal is Active and Available for Voting Ah ha! I see you realized you would never be able to guarantee that masternodes are a better investment than staking with the approach you had originally taken. I was curious to see what you would come up with to solve the problem. I think you are on the right track to a solution but it's not quite there yet. There is one crucial thing you are forgetting. You don't want a ratio of 3 staking addresses per masternode because not all staking addresses are created equal, while all masternodes are. Individual addresses can contain any number of coins. Obviously an addresses holding 1 DNET should not be treated the same as an address holding 1,000,000 DNET. What you want is to ensure that a 10,000 DNET investment into a masternode pays out on average exactly 3x what you would receive from staking those same 10,000 DNET. Thankfully, POS 2.0 and a flat reward should provide a fairly simply mechanism for achieving this. Since POS 2.0 removes coinage from the equation, a given number of DNET is going to add the same amount of weight to the network no matter how old the coins are. Start by counting how many coins are locked up in masternodes. This is a simple calculation that I trust I don't need to spell out. Now figure out how much weight that would put on the network IF those coins were staking instead of in masternodes. Since we are talking about PoS 2.0, network weight should simply be equal to the number of maturing and actively staking coins, but I think I have seen a few random PoS 2.0 represent network weight by running the number of actively staking coins through some sort of seemingly arbitrary multiplier. But I digress..... Anyway, take the theoretical network weight of the masternode coins and multiply it by 3. This should be the weight of the actual active PoS network if we are in a perfectly balanced and ideal 3:1 ratio of masternode:PoS rewards. Each coin that is locked up in a masternode is getting 3x the ROI a staking coin is, and rewards can be as you outlined above. Of course, in the real world, that perfect balance will never be maintained. You would need to compare the actual PoS network weight to the theoretical ideal PoS network weight (which, again, is 3 times the weight that the masternode coins would provide if staking) and adjust the rewards every block according to how much those 2 numbers differ. I hope this all makes sense. I felt like I could be explaining this clearer but am not finding the right words. Yeah dude, pretty well thought out. Right on |
|
|
|
|
ocminer
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2660
Merit: 1240
|
|
February 05, 2016, 01:57:31 PM |
|
can someone shows his config? with 5.1.1 i have the same error
Can you show us your? What videocard are you using? My config file is pretty standard, except the argument -k quarcoin -k quarkcoin -o stratum+tcp://xxxxxx.xxxx.xxxxx:1234 -u xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -p X --intensity 18 --worksize 64 -g 2 ./sgminer -k quarkcoin -o stratum+tcp://dnet.suprnova.cc:2906 -u suprnova.1 -p x -I 18 --worksize 64 -g 2 working fine here too. |
suprnova pools - reliable mining pools - #suprnova on freenet https://www.suprnova.cc - FOLLOW us @ Twitter ! twitter.com/SuprnovaPools |
|
|
|
hepilord
|
|
February 05, 2016, 02:16:20 PM |
|
can someone shows his config? with 5.1.1 i have the same error
Can you show us your? What videocard are you using? My config file is pretty standard, except the argument -k quarcoin -k quarkcoin -o stratum+tcp://xxxxxx.xxxx.xxxxx:1234 -u xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -p X --intensity 18 --worksize 64 -g 2 thanks for your help, problem solved |
|
|
|
|
|
StakeBox
|
|
February 05, 2016, 04:14:12 PM
Last edit: February 05, 2016, 07:27:35 PM by StakeBox |
|
So is using a specific ratio of staking addresses:masternodes the method you are going to use for sure? Because I liked everything else about your proposal except for this one point which is why I talked about using network weight as a guide to maintain a consistent ratio of rewards between stakers and masternodes. I'm not trying to hype up my idea just for the sake of it. I'm just saying that I really liked everything about your idea except for the way you implement it. You were 90% of the way toward a really unique variation of PoS 2.0, but if you do the set ratio of staking addresses : masternodes thing and not the approach I outlined, it will be shit. I don't know a nicer way to describe it but shit. Would that even work? How would you define a specific staking address as being "active"? Is it even possible to assess how many different addresses are online at any given time? I mean, if an address isn't submitting a block, the network doesn't know whether that address is "actively" staking or not. Then there is the fact that treating an address with 1 DNET the same as an address with 1,000,000 DNET is just pants on head retarded for obvious reasons. I just thought of a much simpler way of explaining what I am proposing rather than the paragraph's I wrote above. I'm not concerned with the specific ratio atm, just need to use numbers to illustrate my point. You originally said you were aiming for a ratio of 3 staking address to 1 masternode. I am saying you are approaching the problem the wrong way. You need to aim for a ratio of 30,000 staking coins to 10,000 masternode coins. 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. |
|
|
|
|
SockPuppetAccount
|
|
February 05, 2016, 11:18:17 PM |
|
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.
Thanks. I think I was obsessing over how to explain the idea properly because I wanted to ensure that those who are less experienced with crypto or with less technical knowledge would understand how and why the system I am proposing is superior. You and tylerderden have expressed support, but of course you guys have been around long enough that I don't have to explain every detail to you. Newbies don't need to know every detail though. They just need to know what the end result will be, and my proposal along with the seesawing rewards would make DNET the first and only PoS coin with masternodes that is able to ensure a consistent distribution of newly minted coins between stakers and masternodes. It will ALWAYS be more profitable to masternode vs. staking, guaranteed. So, I will be voting "no" to the proposal laid out by s3v3nh4cks. Perhaps I will submit my proposal for a vote, but the thing is, I am not a software developer. I know my proposal is a good idea, but I wouldn't know where to begin with coding it. I am not sure who else is working on this coin behind the scenes with s3v3nh4cks, but it would be nice if the developers would jump into the discussion and give some feedback here. After all, I could draft proposals all day and we could all vote on them, but if we don't have people capable of implementing those proposals then it is all a waste of time. |
|
|
|
|
4x13 (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1011
|
|
February 06, 2016, 01:29:17 AM |
|
at this point is is just Stakebox and myself, and I am not in disagreement with you, we want to make this coin everything it can be and want everyones opinion of what they would like to see..
s3v3n
|
|
|
|
|
|
userpacman1
|
|
February 06, 2016, 01:58:55 AM |
|
Hello guys, I took some time to read everything about the PoS proposal.
Please forgive me, my english is not very good, so I'll try to be as clear as possible. OP proposal is interesting but it has a big theoretical flaw. As pointed out we don't need a ratio of 3x staking addresses every 1x masternode. We need 10k DNET masternode investment pays out as 30k DNET staking coins. (if 3x will be the chosen ratio).
So as masternode owner I'm voting no to the proposal, I understand the theory behind SockPuppetAccount proposal, pretty linear and more fair than considering every "staking address" worth the same without considering its weight.
I guess we'd need a programmer/the OP telling us how hard is to code such a feature. I can't understand last reply by S3v3n, it seems like he partially agrees too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SockPuppetAccount
|
|
February 06, 2016, 02:40:42 AM |
|
at this point is is just Stakebox and myself, and I am not in disagreement with you, we want to make this coin everything it can be and want everyones opinion of what they would like to see..
s3v3n
Ah, I see. I didn't read through the whole thread and didn't even know stakebox was officially on the team. I think we are all in agreement then, and the issue here is again, semantics. Saying "3 staking address per 1 masternode" is clumsy and inaccurate phrasing if what you meant was "newly minted coins will be rewarded at a ratio of 3:1 between masternodes and stakers" or "75% of newly minted coins will be rewarded to masternodes and 25% of newly minted coins will go to those who stake". If I had realized what it was you meant to say, I would have been on board besides complaining that the 3:1 ratio was too high. Hello guys, I took some time to read everything about the PoS proposal.
Please forgive me, my english is not very good, so I'll try to be as clear as possible. OP proposal is interesting but it has a big theoretical flaw. As pointed out we don't need a ratio of 3x staking addresses every 1x masternode. We need 10k DNET masternode investment pays out as 30k DNET staking coins. (if 3x will be the chosen ratio).
So as masternode owner I'm voting no to the proposal, I understand the theory behind SockPuppetAccount proposal, pretty linear and more fair than considering every "staking address" worth the same without considering its weight.
I guess we'd need a programmer/the OP telling us how hard is to code such a feature. I can't understand last reply by S3v3n, it seems like he partially agrees too.
This guy gets it! If this is just a matter of semantics, I suggest revising the proposal again because it's that "3 staking address per 1 masternode" phrase that is throwing us off. A reward scheme that pays "3 staking address per 1 masternode" is very, very different and way, way crappier than what I've described. |
|
|
|
|
|
StakeBox
|
|
February 06, 2016, 04:24:53 AM
Last edit: February 06, 2016, 06:24:46 AM by StakeBox |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
bathrobehero
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2002
Merit: 1051
ICO? Not even once.
|
|
February 06, 2016, 08:42:17 AM |
|
mnbudget show
Doesn't seem to work anymore, it returns nothing. |
Not your keys, not your coins!
|
|
|
|
SockPuppetAccount
|
|
February 06, 2016, 12:52:43 PM |
|
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.
Ahhhh, I see now. The intent of the 3:1 ratio thing was totally lost in communication. When I had questioned s3v3nh4cks about the original PoS reward schedule, he said that masternodes would always be more profitable than staking. The only way to guarantee that is to implement PoS 2.0 with a flat reward and tightly control the distribution of coins between masternodes and stakers, so I immediately assumed this was what he meant when he revealed the latest proposal. You are correct though in that I would have never thought of my idea if it wasn't for this miscommunication. I think that if someone sat me down and asked me to come up with a reward scheme for a PoS coin with masternodes where it was guaranteed that masternodes would be more profitable than staking, I would have come up with pretty much the same idea IF I had thought of the "seesaw" reward scheme. You guys came up with that, I just came up with a way to implement it simply and efficiently. Combine the two and you end up with a very elegant solution to the problem of controlling distribution of new coins in a PoS coin with masternodes, something that has never been done before. 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.
Yes, this is the big question mark. I have seen both of you around the forum before and I get the sense you are both serious about this project and in it for the long haul. When you think about it, has there ever been a "serious" PoS coin with masternodes? No. They have all been shit-coins and scam-coins. This is because when you think about it, a pure PoS coin does not play well with masternodes. It works fine in DASH because PoW is securing the blockchain so in theory 100% of the coins could be locked up in masternodes and it would not compromise network security. With a pure PoS coin though? Well, the same resource (coins) is securing the blockchain and the masternode network. Too many coins locked up in masternodes compromises the blockchain. Too many coins staking leads to a weak masternode network. If the goal is to find the ideal balance between both while ensuring that masternodes will always be more profitable than staking, we are in uncharted territory. Not ending PoW and making the coin mixed PoW/PoS for the long run is something to consider. Minor point to keep in mind with mixed PoW/PoS though is that a masternode will be getting rewarded every block, while miners and stakers will be splitting the blocks 50/50. So if the goal is guaranteeing that masternodes will always pay 1.25-1.5x as much as staking, the "seesaw" reward algorithm with need to account for this so that stakers aren't cheated out of half their reward and the masternode bonus becomes effectively 2.5-3x. If PoW is off the table though? It will be all about finding just the right balance and it maybe wise to seesaw the rewards back towards PoS at a certain point. Rather than designing the seesaw rewards to always pay 1.25-1.5x the reward to masternodes, maybe only guarantee the masternode bonus up until a certain percentage of total coins are locked up in masternodes. Then tilt the rewards back in the other direction to discourage new masternode creation and encourage some masternode owners to stake instead. Admittedly, I am not knowledgeable enough with this stuff to say for sure at what point too many masternodes begins to seriously threaten the security of the blockchain. |
|
|
|
|
|
Poll
