[ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency

[jdmcg]

This seems to be a no-brainer, trustless shared masternodes should be top priority after Dash Platform's release. And it shouldn't even be that complicated.

So what happens if you have 1000 contributors to a single trustless shared collateral address and one of them moves their funds ? The entire node stops receiving rewards ?

A queing system where leavers are swapped out for joiners ? How do you then manage all that without traffic windows where the node is unserviceable ? How do you manage priority ?

1000 contributors to a single collateral address? What?

No, what I clearly proposed was allowing for 10 separate 100 DASH UTXO collateral addresses (or alternatively 5 separate 200 DASH UTXO collateral addresses).

What happens when the 1000 DASH are moved from a masternode's collateral address right now? Isn't there a window where the masternode owner can move the collateral back before a check happens to kick them out of the payment queue? Why wouldn't it just work the same way with 5 or 10 collateral addresses? Just make sure they still hold what they originally went online with. And if not, then yes, the masternode is considered offline and removed from the payment queue. Nothing too complicated there.

But you don't want this managed by the protocol but instead some kind of institution or middle man? Not sure why, when crypto's huge success has arguably been because it has eliminated middle men.

With a bit if imagination it's not difficult to get the best of both worlds. Dash is a peer to peer monetary system and there's no change there but it isn't Dash's job to manage who owns its holdings and there's always going to be a contractural ecosystem "out there" away from the blockchain that grows around it. If you don't have clear demarkations between the two, you end up with nasty couplings into a world of business logic that's the thin end of a very large wedge of headaches. The gold trying to be the safe as well.

We do not want that IMO.

I don't really understand this argument. Sure, DASH can't and shouldn't want to manage trusted masternode services like CrowdNode and StakeHound. But why shouldn't we want DASH to support a 5 and/or 10 owner masternode? As a bonus this might actually be good for increased privacy. Because who's to say that the 5 or 10 collateral addresses are or are not owned by the same holder?

[birdonthewire]

This seems to be a no-brainer, trustless shared masternodes should be top priority after Dash Platform's release. And it shouldn't even be that complicated.

So what happens if you have 1000 contributors to a single trustless shared collateral address and one of them moves their funds ? The entire node stops receiving rewards ?

A queing system where leavers are swapped out for joiners ? How do you then manage all that without traffic windows where the node is unserviceable ? How do you manage priority ?

1000 contributors to a single collateral address? What?

No, what I clearly proposed was allowing for 10 separate 100 DASH UTXO collateral addresses (or alternatively 5 separate 200 DASH UTXO collateral addresses).

What happens when the 1000 DASH are moved from a masternode's collateral address right now? Isn't there a window where the masternode owner can move the collateral back before a check happens to kick them out of the payment queue? Why wouldn't it just work the same way with 5 or 10 collateral addresses? Just make sure they still hold what they originally went online with. And if not, then yes, the masternode is considered offline and removed from the payment queue. Nothing too complicated there.

But you don't want this managed by the protocol but instead some kind of institution or middle man? Not sure why, when crypto's huge success has arguably been because it has eliminated middle men.

With a bit if imagination it's not difficult to get the best of both worlds. Dash is a peer to peer monetary system and there's no change there but it isn't Dash's job to manage who owns its holdings and there's always going to be a contractural ecosystem "out there" away from the blockchain that grows around it. If you don't have clear demarkations between the two, you end up with nasty couplings into a world of business logic that's the thin end of a very large wedge of headaches. The gold trying to be the safe as well.

We do not want that IMO.

I don't really understand this argument. Sure, DASH can't and shouldn't want to manage trusted masternode services like CrowdNode and StakeHound. But why shouldn't we want DASH to support a 5 and/or 10 owner masternode? As a bonus this might actually be good for increased privacy. Because who's to say that the 5 or 10 collateral addresses are or are not owned by the same holder?

With a hard fork, accessing shared Mnodes on the original DASH chain is easy. Very easy. Whether the DAO hijackers like it or not.

The most surprising thing about all this party of scoundrels is that no dev with a passion for DASH has come out willing to recover the potential of this project. For my part, I'm still waiting for it.  This post is a call to it, for example. To a dev passionate about DASH ... and not the centralized slop that they have turned it into.

[toknormal]

No, what I clearly proposed was allowing for 10 separate 100 DASH UTXO collateral addresses (or alternatively 5 separate 200 DASH UTXO collateral addresses).

I don't think you realise the can of worms that this opens. Whether it's 5 shared owners or 5000, the principle's the same and so are the problems.

Dash is bitcoin in terms of protocol. The blockchain works in granular units denoted by an address. Those are the "accounts". What you're describing is a meta account that would need entry, exit and balancing protocols just to support exactly the same multi-ownership logic that a single address does at the moment with multi-sig except it would need a lot more on top.

It 's neither practical nor advisable to do this on-chain IMO. It's an off-chain commercial activity.

What's more likely to happen IMO is that this type of service will be supported cross chain, along the lines of the "wrapped Dash" type of idea on say the Ethereum blockchain or one of the other De-Fi chains. That way the actual masternode collateral would continue to be held in the simple, single address configuration but all the complex business logic associated with securitising that holding would be performed on other chains. You'd probably even get multiple platforms doing it with a variety of contractural terms and conditions. (e.g. different minimum timelocks, reward address options, automated currency conversion, fee structures etc). All of that sh* is not stuff you want in the Dash blockchain. It's going to happen anyway whatever Dash does or doesn't do, and not just for masternode addresses, for ALL, so we're better off concentrating on core services that are native to the protocol layer IMO.

[jdmcg]

No, what I clearly proposed was allowing for 10 separate 100 DASH UTXO collateral addresses (or alternatively 5 separate 200 DASH UTXO collateral addresses).

I don't think you realise the can of worms that this opens. Whether it's 5 shared owners or 5000, the principle's the same and so are the problems.

Dash is bitcoin in terms of protocol. The blockchain works in granular units denoted by an address. Those are the "accounts". What you're describing is a meta account that would need entry, exit and balancing protocols just to support exactly the same multi-ownership logic that a single address does at the moment with multi-sig except it would need a lot more on top.

Explain in more detail the can of worms that this opens.

Masternodes do stuff on the blockchain but they aren't the blockchain. Currently masternode logic requires a single collateral address and a single payout address (also owner and voter addresses). A masternode is not an address or account either. What else is required but to have pairs of collateral and payout addresses? Do you need a multi-sig transaction? Not necessarily. Couldn't this be implemented in such a way that each collateral address owner signs their own independent transaction identifying their collateral and payment address as well as the list of collateral addresses they will share with? Each time such a transaction is sent, nothing will happen until all shared collateral addresses have sent their own valid transaction. Once the last is sent from the shared group the masternode can be registered and added to the payment queue. The group of people who wish to run the shared masternode are responsible for getting together and figuring out who among them need to set up and maintain the actual masternode server. The masternode should still get its one vote. This could either be a single voting key or each share has its own key and last vote before the deadline counts.

It 's neither practical nor advisable to do this on-chain IMO. It's an off-chain commercial activity.

What's more likely to happen IMO is that this type of service will be supported cross chain, along the lines of the "wrapped Dash" type of idea on say the Ethereum blockchain or one of the other De-Fi chains. That way the actual masternode collateral would continue to be held in the simple, single address configuration but all the complex business logic associated with securitising that holding would be performed on other chains. You'd probably even get multiple platforms doing it with a variety of contractural terms and conditions. (e.g. different minimum timelocks, reward address options, automated currency conversion, fee structures etc). All of that sh* is not stuff you want in the Dash blockchain. It's going to happen anyway whatever Dash does or doesn't do, and not just for masternode addresses, for ALL, so we're better off concentrating on core services that are native to the protocol layer IMO.

No one should want to stop or necessarily replicate anything anyone does to build on top of Dash. But a simple new option for 5 and/or 10 owner masternodes is so basic and has few if any downsides that I can see.

[Nthelight]

DashPay Alpha

Get first-hand experience on the latest DashPay builds. Test it out, give feedback, and connect with the other Alpha users on our development and test networks.

https://www.dash.org/dashpay/
https://www.dash.org/dashpay-alpha-program/

[Nthelight]

So what happens if you have 1000 contributors to a single trustless shared collateral address and one of them moves their funds ? The entire node stops receiving rewards ?
A queing system where leavers are swapped out for joiners ? How do you then manage all that without traffic windows where the node is unserviceable ? How do you manage priority ?

Moving Dash away from your collateral address will result in your masternode going offline as the collateral requirement will no longer be found by the masternode network. The applicable UTXO will be 'spent'. This is verified via the registered 'collateralHash' (TXID hash) parameter used in the DIP003 'protx register_prepare' command. You will need to reinitiate the entire DIP003 registration procedure, even if you move Dash back to the same address to meet the collateral requirement, simply because it will now be sitting at a new UTXO.

Even if you define a new system with multiple UTXO's for the collateral requirement, you will still face the same problem.

Of course you could define a new MN collateral requirement with multiple UTXOs, maybe even define a new type 'shared MN' so we don't affect scalability and network efficiency too much.
The complexity of moving in and out would probably have to be managed off-chain as far as I can tell. Perhaps something with a queueing system (as you say) could be worked out which automatically registers the MN again, but with other stakes waiting in the queue. Also, you need to make a payment to register, so access to the fee address is required. You can just sense there is going to be a whole array of challenges. Perhaps people who really want to join an on-chain shared MN should lock in their collateral for a period of time to eliminate this variability.

Anyhow, the core developers should address the matter of "shared masternodes" after Dash Platform is released, as previously discussed.

[Nthelight]

LOL on the entire 'ROI' discussion. It's not that important, but the term is obviously incorrectly used for Dash masternodes and staking projects for example.

ROI applies to anyone with 1 Dash or 10 masternodes. It is your return on your invested capital, thus in USD/EURO/... It can be positive or negative. It can be -98% or +10,000%.

Dash masternodes (and staking) coins give you a return or reward which is not ROI. Currently the masternode service reward is around 6%, but that is not 6% ROI. If that were true, Dash would be a scam. Ergo, Dash should never apply the ROI term when it comes to Dash masternodes.

[qwizzie]

LOL on the entire 'ROI' discussion. It's not that important, but the term is obviously incorrectly used for Dash masternodes and staking projects for example.

ROI applies to anyone with 1 Dash or 10 masternodes. It is your return on your invested capital, thus in USD/EURO/... It can be positive or negative. It can be -98% or +10,000%.

Dash masternodes (and staking) coins give you a return or reward which is not ROI. Currently the masternode service reward is around 6%, but that is not 6% ROI. If that were true, Dash would be a scam. Ergo, Dash should never apply the ROI term when it comes to Dash masternodes.

It is not Dash applying the ROI term, it is countless other websites and articles covering crypto in general that are applying the ROI term to masternodes projects, staking projects and DeFi projects.
Obviously they have a different opinion about the terminology of 'ROI' in the crypto space.

ROI is currently applied to :

* Calculate the price performance of cryptocurrencies over a certain time period
* Calculate the annual percentage increase on the Dash collateral and MN payments / shared masternodes projects / staking projects
* Calculate the return of gain from investment divided by cost of investment in FIAT
* Calculate the percentage return on DeFi projects.

I have no problem with any of that, it just means ROI in crypto has more then one specific definition and is moving beyond the traditional calculation in FIAT.
I suspect the more crypto gets mainstream used, the more it will incorporate and expand some of the more traditional terminology.

[birdonthewire]

LOL on the entire 'ROI' discussion. It's not that important, but the term is obviously incorrectly used for Dash masternodes and staking projects for example.

ROI applies to anyone with 1 Dash or 10 masternodes. It is your return on your invested capital, thus in USD/EURO/... It can be positive or negative. It can be -98% or +10,000%.

Dash masternodes (and staking) coins give you a return or reward which is not ROI. Currently the masternode service reward is around 6%, but that is not 6% ROI. If that were true, Dash would be a scam. Ergo, Dash should never apply the ROI term when it comes to Dash masternodes.

I have no problem with that, it just means ROI has more then one specific definition.


 

Sure, sure ... you don't have it, we already know. 

The potential DASH buyers you are trying to cheat are the ones who have it ... "coincidentally" with your "usual" confusion always in the same direction: Your pocket.

[qwizzie]

DCG Head of Marketing
https://blog.dash.org/dcg-head-of-marketing-52fa56619eac

Dash Core Group is officially kicking off the process to select a Head of Marketing.

[jdmcg]

This seems to be a no-brainer, trustless shared masternodes should be top priority after Dash Platform's release. And it shouldn't even be that complicated.

So what happens if you have 1000 contributors to a single trustless shared collateral address and one of them moves their funds ? The entire node stops receiving rewards ?

A queing system where leavers are swapped out for joiners ? How do you then manage all that without traffic windows where the node is unserviceable ? How do you manage priority ?

Moving Dash away from your collateral address will result in your masternode going offline as the collateral requirement will no longer be found by the masternode network. The applicable UTXO will be 'spent'. This is verified via the registered 'collateralHash' (TXID hash) parameter used in the DIP003 'protx register_prepare' command. You will need to reinitiate the entire DIP003 registration procedure, even if you move Dash back to the same address to meet the collateral requirement, simply because it will now be sitting at a new UTXO.

Even if you define a new system with multiple UTXO's for the collateral requirement, you will still face the same problem.

Of course you could define a new MN collateral requirement with multiple UTXOs, maybe even define a new type 'shared MN' so we don't affect scalability and network efficiency too much.
The complexity of moving in and out would probably have to be managed off-chain as far as I can tell. Perhaps something with a queueing system (as you say) could be worked out which automatically registers the MN again, but with other stakes waiting in the queue. Also, you need to make a payment to register, so access to the fee address is required. You can just sense there is going to be a whole array of challenges. Perhaps people who really want to join an on-chain shared MN should lock in their collateral for a period of time to eliminate this variability.

Anyhow, the core developers should address the matter of "shared masternodes" after Dash Platform is released, as previously discussed.

Thanks for the reply but you quoted me as saying something toknormal actually posted... anyways I fixed it for you above...

I don't think anything I laid out for a trustless shared masternode would be overly complex to implement. I also don't see why there would be any need to lock in collateral or any need for a waiting queue. There is no need to move in and out collateral. A shared masternode needs to be registered right from the beginning with the collateral txs (either 1 UTXO of 1000 DASH, 5 UTXOs of 200 DASH each or 10 UTXOs of 100 DASH each). If anything is moved out the masternode no longer meets the collateral requirements and is no longer considered online.

I don't think there should be any attempt to develop a waiting queue for people who only have 100 or 200 DASH. Rather the person with only 100 or 200 DASH should go seek out other people who are willing to complete the collateral requirement together. Then each person with a share can send special transactions which instruct the masternode network that they wish to set up a masternode together and which address each one would get paid at. Then as long as all the requirements are met, the masternode is registered and behaves no differently then any other masternode fully collateralized by a single UTXO.

[Whiskey Jar]

LOL on the entire 'ROI' discussion. It's not that important, but the term is obviously incorrectly used for Dash masternodes and staking projects for example.

ROI applies to anyone with 1 Dash or 10 masternodes. It is your return on your invested capital, thus in USD/EURO/... It can be positive or negative. It can be -98% or +10,000%.

Dash masternodes (and staking) coins give you a return or reward which is not ROI. Currently the masternode service reward is around 6%, but that is not 6% ROI. If that were true, Dash would be a scam. Ergo, Dash should never apply the ROI term when it comes to Dash masternodes.

I have no problem with that, it just means ROI has more then one specific definition.

Sure, sure ... you don't have it, we already know. 

The potential DASH buyers you are trying to cheat are the ones who have it ... "coincidentally" with your "usual" confusion always in the same direction: Your pocket.

I still remember price tag on Dash masternode during peak of masternode's hype back in 2017/2018. About 1.5 fuking million of dollars. People that actually bought 1000 coins for that price to set up masternode now probably live under a bridge 

[birdonthewire]

LOL on the entire 'ROI' discussion. It's not that important, but the term is obviously incorrectly used for Dash masternodes and staking projects for example.

ROI applies to anyone with 1 Dash or 10 masternodes. It is your return on your invested capital, thus in USD/EURO/... It can be positive or negative. It can be -98% or +10,000%.

Dash masternodes (and staking) coins give you a return or reward which is not ROI. Currently the masternode service reward is around 6%, but that is not 6% ROI. If that were true, Dash would be a scam. Ergo, Dash should never apply the ROI term when it comes to Dash masternodes.

I have no problem with that, it just means ROI has more then one specific definition.

Sure, sure ... you don't have it, we already know.  

The potential DASH buyers you are trying to cheat are the ones who have it ... "coincidentally" with your "usual" confusion always in the same direction: Your pocket.

I still remember price tag on Dash masternode during peak of masternode's hype back in 2017/2018. About 1.5 fuking million of dollars. People that actually bought 1000 coins for that price to set up masternode now probably live under a bridge  

I used to communicate with a very kind person, humble, idealistic and quite receptive and objective in his judgments, owner of 3 Mnodes and integrated into the DASH structure at a fairly high level.

His frustration, and worst of him, his resignation and skepticism no longer in DASH, but in crypto in general were devastating. I never read the slightest PUBLIC criticism of the system, when in private,he made it clear that his idealism and altruism were tremendously attacked.

With nearly 5 million $ down the toilet, you have little more to do than hope to round them up from this point ... and fly out of this "bad dream." Even in the hypothetical case of recovering 4 figures , I would bet a finger that he is not even close to half to collect and flee like a soul chased by the devil.

They don't realize that decentralizing DASH and recovering a disregarded and thrown-away network effect is their best resource to turn it into a solid value ... or they simply don't have the least motivation to do so after such personal injury to a level that could have changed his life.

Unfortunately, many with more devices than him go free ride after a previous profit taking above and laugh no longer at the damage created with deception by action and/or omission, but at any aspiration of the ecosystem with respect to its initial values ​​... which, in public, of course, they continue to defend - I also know another case in that sense -. The enormous benefit that they have already secured not only does not invite them to optimize that project, but to more theft and more theater.

[toknormal]

I don't think there should be any attempt to develop a waiting queue for people who only have 100 or 200 DASH. Rather the person with only 100 or 200 DASH should go seek out other people who are willing to complete the collateral requirement together. Then each person with a share can send special transactions which instruct the masternode network that they wish to set up a masternode together and which address each one would get paid at. Then as long as all the requirements are met, the masternode is registered and behaves no differently then any other masternode fully collateralized by a single UTXO.

Ah, now I understand how you see it. I didn't realise you were intending for the co-ordination of 'members' to be managed off-chain. Apologies.

So you just mean that the collateral would be held in multiple addresses instead of 1 ?

That would be simpler to do than what I was understanding. To me "trustless" meant that you don't even need any "friends" to collateralise the node. But I can still see issues, mainly that any one of them could just bring down the node by moving their funds, so it depends on human co-operation. But I can still see the perceived benefit. It's not one that I think is a very high priority because it's not a great solution for anything other than "friends". Institutionals couldn't rely on it because they'd need to control the address on behalf of their subscribers. So even if the address was split they'd still be controlling them all.

So I still think all this stuff needs to be in the trusted sector and securitised. I don't think multiple address collateral adds anything to the service potential of the chain other than as you say "friends".

But technically it's a lot simpler than what I thought you originally were advocating.

[qwizzie]

Bitcoin price can hit $25K before 2021 if this key support level holds
https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-price-can-hit-25k-before-2021-if-this-key-support-level-holds

Altcoins are mentioned there as well.

[Nthelight]

This seems to be a no-brainer, trustless shared masternodes should be top priority after Dash Platform's release. And it shouldn't even be that complicated.

So what happens if you have 1000 contributors to a single trustless shared collateral address and one of them moves their funds ? The entire node stops receiving rewards ?

A queing system where leavers are swapped out for joiners ? How do you then manage all that without traffic windows where the node is unserviceable ? How do you manage priority ?

Moving Dash away from your collateral address will result in your masternode going offline as the collateral requirement will no longer be found by the masternode network. The applicable UTXO will be 'spent'. This is verified via the registered 'collateralHash' (TXID hash) parameter used in the DIP003 'protx register_prepare' command. You will need to reinitiate the entire DIP003 registration procedure, even if you move Dash back to the same address to meet the collateral requirement, simply because it will now be sitting at a new UTXO.

Even if you define a new system with multiple UTXO's for the collateral requirement, you will still face the same problem.

Of course you could define a new MN collateral requirement with multiple UTXOs, maybe even define a new type 'shared MN' so we don't affect scalability and network efficiency too much.
The complexity of moving in and out would probably have to be managed off-chain as far as I can tell. Perhaps something with a queueing system (as you say) could be worked out which automatically registers the MN again, but with other stakes waiting in the queue. Also, you need to make a payment to register, so access to the fee address is required. You can just sense there is going to be a whole array of challenges. Perhaps people who really want to join an on-chain shared MN should lock in their collateral for a period of time to eliminate this variability.

Anyhow, the core developers should address the matter of "shared masternodes" after Dash Platform is released, as previously discussed.

Thanks for the reply but you quoted me as saying something toknormal actually posted... anyways I fixed it for you above...

I see, my bad.

I don't think anything I laid out for a trustless shared masternode would be overly complex to implement. I also don't see why there would be any need to lock in collateral or any need for a waiting queue. There is no need to move in and out collateral. A shared masternode needs to be registered right from the beginning with the collateral txs (either 1 UTXO of 1000 DASH, 5 UTXOs of 200 DASH each or 10 UTXOs of 100 DASH each). If anything is moved out the masternode no longer meets the collateral requirements and is no longer considered online.

I don't think there should be any attempt to develop a waiting queue for people who only have 100 or 200 DASH. Rather the person with only 100 or 200 DASH should go seek out other people who are willing to complete the collateral requirement together. Then each person with a share can send special transactions which instruct the masternode network that they wish to set up a masternode together and which address each one would get paid at. Then as long as all the requirements are met, the masternode is registered and behaves no differently then any other masternode fully collateralized by a single UTXO.

I don't think there should be any attempt to develop a waiting queue for people who only have 100 or 200 DASH. Rather the person with only 100 or 200 DASH should go seek out other people who are willing to complete the collateral requirement together. Then each person with a share can send special transactions which instruct the masternode network that they wish to set up a masternode together and which address each one would get paid at. Then as long as all the requirements are met, the masternode is registered and behaves no differently then any other masternode fully collateralized by a single UTXO.

Ah, now I understand how you see it. I didn't realise you were intending for the co-ordination of 'members' to be managed off-chain. Apologies.

So you just mean that the collateral would be held in multiple addresses instead of 1 ?

That would be simpler to do than what I was understanding. To me "trustless" meant that you don't even need any "friends" to collateralise the node. But I can still see issues, mainly that any one of them could just bring down the node by moving their funds, so it depends on human co-operation. But I can still see the perceived benefit. It's not one that I think is a very high priority because it's not a great solution for anything other than "friends". Institutionals couldn't rely on it because they'd need to control the address on behalf of their subscribers. So even if the address was split they'd still be controlling them all.

So I still think all this stuff needs to be in the trusted sector and securitised. I don't think multiple address collateral adds anything to the service potential of the chain other than as you say "friends".

But technically it's a lot simpler than what I thought you originally were advocating.

@jdmcg
There does not have to be a time lock feature on it, it was just an idea which would reduce the variability caused by people moving away their collateral from the shared MN making the shared MN service more stable. Looking for a new friend to join every time someone drops out is not going to be an enjoyable experience.

What I was thinking was a third party service where the newly defined shared MN type is monitored and available spots are displayed when the shared MN does not meet the collateral requirement. On this website, people who want to join a shared MN could see how they need to register their 'share' (e.g. 100) to join an available spot of a non-compliant shared MN, facilitating arbitrage between those who are already part of the shared MN and the one(s) looking to join one. It is perhaps possible that a new person simply registers his share through the normal process, with reference to the 'shared MN identifier' so the network knows which 10 UTXOs are linked into a shared MN and is compliant again with the 1000 Dash collateral requirement for MNs.

Even so, shared MNOs would still have to deal with the variability of shared MNOs leaving and joining. I'm not sure how attractive this setup would really be in reality.

As said, introducing shared MNs will likely have a scaling and network efficiency effect and therefore it would be good to hear from the devs what the best design would be. They have always said that it is "technically possible", but I'm not sure to what extent they think it's a good idea.

@toknormal
It's definitely not a priority, but many people have been requesting this feature for a long time. So it would be good to have a formal analysis on it when more time is available, to see what is really possible and if the benefits outweigh the downsides.

Your idea of a derivative market for Dash/MNs is of course also possible, but would likely only speak to a certain class of investors. It has also been tried already. I can't seem to recall the name of the company who provided this. They got wrecked as they started offering this service around the peak of the Dash 2017 bull market.

The more options the better I suppose.


Ideally, people stop looking at masternodes as an investment and stop caring about the service reward. Dash is an asset which should be attractive in itself because of its upside potential. Whether that Dash is used in an MN or not, should not matter. Too many people are distracted with this service reward. It should be understood that it is of inferior importance to the capital gains upside potential.

Masternodes have always had this duality of being infrastructure created to service the network on one hand, but are also regarded by some/many as an investment vehicle.

Truth is, we don't need more masternodes. There is no immediate benefit to the end user. The focus of investment potential should be on Dash itself, not on masternodes in my opinion.

Contrary to @qwizzie I never invested in Darkcoin because of the masternodes service reward. There were no masternodes in early 2014. Nobody knew back then that there would be a service reward for running masternodes. Investment in Darkcoin happened because Evan published a white paper talking about implementing trustless coinjoin on-chain (in the protocol). That is what gets people going, because it provides a huge benefit over the current market offerings with trusted centralized mixing services. It was a radical innovation that made Darkcoin the first privacy enhanced cryptocurrency in the market. This is what provides huge upside potential in terms of capital gains, not some imo irrelevant service reward. There is so much focus on masternodes that it completely distorts the main benefits of Dash over other cryptocurrencies. In many people's minds Dash is (just) a "masternode coin" and that does not do justice to Dash's innovations.

[qwizzie]

Dash's Masternodes, what are they ? how many are there ? why should i care?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=860067.0
Date : 17 Nov 2014

See specifically in that thread : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=860067.msg10193880#msg10193880 (the Masternode Payment schedule)
That was my initial reason for trying to get as many masternodes as i could. In 2015 the blockreward split settled on 45% / 45% / 10%, but i was still in buy mode till 2017,
when the Dash bull run emerged (pretty much out of the blue) and drove up the Dash price too high for me to continue buying.

I seem to recall other altcoins followed with their bull run a bit later (early 2018 ?).

[Nthelight]

DCG Head of Marketing
https://blog.dash.org/dcg-head-of-marketing-52fa56619eac

Dash Core Group is officially kicking off the process to select a Head of Marketing.

I honestly think that Ryan is wrong to continue 'focusing' on South America. His stuborness on this strategy is worrying. No matter how well intended it is, it is wrong to put too much focus on a market in an underdeveloped region.

We need someone who is present in the crypto space and promotes the hell out of Dash and I have much doubt that this new head of marketing will be able to do so.

I understand Ryan's reasoning, but he needs to face up to reality and that is that crypto still is a speculative asset and therefore you need to primarily attract speculative investment where it is available!

Honestly, everyone involved in Dash needs to step up and do their part in promoting Dash on all his available channels. Promote Dash on social media (Twitter, Youtube, Reddit, Facebook ...). Use your existing accounts or make new ones to talk about or promote Dash. Get active. Add comments about Dash to popular crypto videos, but also on Dash's official videos. Get the number of views and comments up. Add comments about Dash on tweets. Make memes. Whatever. Make noise. It will have much more effect than the 'Venezuela' adoption strategy. Hundreds, thousands of Dash holders spreading the message is far more powerful than what any single 'marketing' person can ever achieve.

[jdmcg]

I don't think there should be any attempt to develop a waiting queue for people who only have 100 or 200 DASH. Rather the person with only 100 or 200 DASH should go seek out other people who are willing to complete the collateral requirement together. Then each person with a share can send special transactions which instruct the masternode network that they wish to set up a masternode together and which address each one would get paid at. Then as long as all the requirements are met, the masternode is registered and behaves no differently then any other masternode fully collateralized by a single UTXO.

Ah, now I understand how you see it. I didn't realise you were intending for the co-ordination of 'members' to be managed off-chain. Apologies.

So you just mean that the collateral would be held in multiple addresses instead of 1 ?

That would be simpler to do than what I was understanding. To me "trustless" meant that you don't even need any "friends" to collateralise the node. But I can still see issues, mainly that any one of them could just bring down the node by moving their funds, so it depends on human co-operation. But I can still see the perceived benefit. It's not one that I think is a very high priority because it's not a great solution for anything other than "friends". Institutionals couldn't rely on it because they'd need to control the address on behalf of their subscribers. So even if the address was split they'd still be controlling them all.

So I still think all this stuff needs to be in the trusted sector and securitised. I don't think multiple address collateral adds anything to the service potential of the chain other than as you say "friends".

But technically it's a lot simpler than what I thought you originally were advocating.

Ok, good point regarding this being limited to a group of friends. So, perhaps a collateral lock is required and each share owner would have to include the lock length (no lock, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, etc) so as then to keep the masternode in tact for at least that time. Once the lock has expired either the masternode automatically goes offline or maybe it stays online indefinitely as long as none of the share owners move their collateral.

Any other possible downsides?

[Nthelight]

I'm a Dash Bull, are you?