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

[sangoku]

Development Update - 5/30/2014 - Fork Causes and Solutions

https://darkcointalk.org/threads/development-update-5-30-2014-fork-causes-and-solutions.994/

Big respect my lord ;-)

[1714226321]

1714226321

[1714226321]

1714226321

[1714226321]

1714226321

[1714226321]

1714226321

[balu]

That's right, the Dark is rising........

multiple tickets for MN......getting a few more while they're cheap off the ATH.

This multi ticket idea is not good from three angles:
1. Reduces the number of MNs, which decreases resiliency.
2. If the MN with the huge pot in it gets compromised, the whole pot is gone.
3. If gov't infiltrated the large pot MN, you will have a compromised coinjoin service. i.e. This is back to the centralised coinjoin problem again.

Completely agree. The whole point of the masternode system is to incentivise running nodes, in order to stabilize and decentralize the network. Such a feature would extremely descrease the amount of nodes. It is more comfortable for big bagholders to run only 1 vps, sure, but stability comes first.

Please reconsider this feature evan and InternetApe.

[toknormal]

Ability to stack multiple lots of 1000 darks on one MN to get more chances of winning MN reward.

Ah.

I thought it was the ability to pool 1 master node amongst multiple contributors to the 1000 DRK.

Now I see your point. It allows for weighting of individual master nodes on the network so it's not homogeneous in terms of redundancy. On the face of it that seems a crazy idea that does directly undermine the network integrity, but what is the thinking behind it ?

This is where people have to be absolutely clear about separating technical priorities from economic ones, otherwise things can go right off the rails. Both have their place but they mustn't step on each others toes.

[Minotaur26]

That's right, the Dark is rising........

multiple tickets for MN......getting a few more while they're cheap off the ATH.

This multi ticket idea is not good from three angles:
1. Reduces the number of MNs, which decreases resiliency.
2. If the MN with the huge pot in it gets compromised, the whole pot is gone.
3. If gov't infiltrated the large pot MN, you will have a compromised coinjoin service. i.e. This is back to the centralised coinjoin problem again.

Completely agree. The whole point of the masternode system is to incentivise running nodes, in order to stabilize and decentralize the network. Such a feature would extremely descrease the amount of nodes. It is more comfortable for big bagholders to run only 1 vps, sure, but stability comes first.

Please reconsider this feature evan and InternetApe.

Sorry for repeating myself, just really want to get this point across:

1. The multi ticket idea does not imply infinite number of tickets, somebody suggested a cap of 3, in the end it can be capped so we find the right balance between network performance and resiliency.
2. You are not obliged to create a single node with a huge pot (I dont think it will be possible anyway as it can be capped), the community is working on security guidelines I think the only case we have had was because of very poor security and completely the fault of the op.

3. See 1.

[Lariondos]

Hey Darkies, X-men, trolls and all the other types who seem to be lurking around this thread.

Some other guy( I don't remember the name) came up with the idea to support Evan financially to create this amazing dev-team we've been talking about. After all it doesn't seem fair that he has so spend his own savings to make savings for us! I know some of you doesn't have alot of darks or btc either but I also see plain loaded users who should be busy munching plankton and setting out whalebait. A little will also do because as we say in Denmark: Mange bække små, gør en stor å (Many small creeks, create a large liver) I advice you guys to get this confirmed first before you throw you darks this way, just to get you use to having a sceptical attitude towards things like this. Just pm Evan and get him to confirm or maybe he could confirm in this thread. Either ways thanks and please help spread the word and let's get this devteam to kick some ass!

Message from eduffield:

Hey, thanks for this. I made a software development wallet that I'll use to support all of the developers. It's address is here: XpAy7r5RVdGLnnjWNKuB9EUDiJ5Tje9GZ8

Thanks!

And now a brief PSA:

Please always check the primary source where the donation address was originally posted before donating to this or any other cryptocurrency address.  Why?  Even if an address is accurately quoted at first (I haven't checked), it can always be edited maliciously later down the line, or it can fail to be updated even if Evan abandons the donation address/wallet.

I believe the original can be found here, but doublecheck for yourself:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg6982496#msg6982496

I do not mean to impugn StefanJ's honor or reputation in any way.  He may be the most trustworthy man on the planet.  Just a PSA.

You're totally right. I just asumed it was the correct adress because he wrote it to me in a personal message. But yeah you can't be too careful with this stuff these days! By the way I really fucked up that saying didn't I?  (Many small creeks, create a large liver) WTF I meant river. Haha! Anyways you get it

Sent really tiny amount.

+10 (not very much but it all adds up)

[Sleepyx]

No ones going to stop people making separate masternodes for their 10k drk to sit on instead of 1 masternode. If you are worried about security then just do it the old way...

[Ozziecoin]

This multi ticket idea is not good from three angles:
1. Reduces the number of MNs, which decreases resiliency.
2. If the MN with the huge pot in it gets compromised, the whole pot is gone.
3. If gov't infiltrated the large pot MN, you will have a compromised coinjoin service. i.e. This is back to the centralised coinjoin problem again.

Personally I prefer the security (real or imagined, because if you have 2FA, good password / air gapped ssh key, all ports except 9999 closed, disabled root access and only ssh access from specified IPs, and most importantly a strong wallet password, nobody can steal your DRK) of several MNs vs. just one, but I don't think giving people the choice is the end of the world - it may even lead to more MNs as you now only have to pay for a single server, not two or three or twenty seven...

Agree it's not end of world but all VPS are vulnerable to infiltration. And from what I can see 99% of MNs are on VPSs. A big pot just makes it that much easier for infiltration.

[Ozziecoin]

Completely agree. The whole point of the masternode system is to incentivise running nodes, in order to stabilize and decentralize the network. Such a feature would extremely descrease the amount of nodes. It is more comfortable for big bagholders to run only 1 vps, sure, but stability comes first.

Please reconsider this feature evan and InternetApe.

Sorry for repeating myself, just really want to get this point across:

1. The multi ticket idea does not imply infinite number of tickets, somebody suggested a cap of 3, in the end it can be capped so we find the right balance between network performance and resiliency.
2. You are not obliged to create a single node with a huge pot (I dont think it will be possible anyway as it can be capped), the community is working on security guidelines I think the only case we have had was because of very poor security and completely the fault of the op.

3. See 1.

I can live with cap of 3.

[Sleepyx]

This multi ticket idea is not good from three angles:
1. Reduces the number of MNs, which decreases resiliency.
2. If the MN with the huge pot in it gets compromised, the whole pot is gone.
3. If gov't infiltrated the large pot MN, you will have a compromised coinjoin service. i.e. This is back to the centralised coinjoin problem again.

Personally I prefer the security (real or imagined, because if you have 2FA, good password / air gapped ssh key, all ports except 9999 closed, disabled root access and only ssh access from specified IPs, and most importantly a strong wallet password, nobody can steal your DRK) of several MNs vs. just one, but I don't think giving people the choice is the end of the world - it may even lead to more MNs as you now only have to pay for a single server, not two or three or twenty seven...

Agree it's not end of world but all VPS are vulnerable to infiltration. And from what I can see 99% of MNs are on VPSs. A big pot just makes it that much easier for infiltration.

Why are you worried. Last time I read, you dont have enough for 1 masternode yet 

[Ozziecoin]

Ability to stack multiple lots of 1000 darks on one MN to get more chances of winning MN reward.

Ah.

I thought it was the ability to pool 1 master node amongst multiple contributors to the 1000 DRK.

Now I see your point. It allows for weighting of individual master nodes on the network so it's not homogeneous in terms of redundancy. On the face of it that seems a crazy idea that does directly undermine the network integrity, but what is the thinking behind it ?

This is where people have to be absolutely clear about separating technical priorities from economic ones, otherwise things can go right off the rails. Both have their place but they mustn't step on each others toes.

This is because there are very large holders who do not want to setup 25+ MNs.

[toknormal]

I can live with cap of 3.

I can't. It's the thin end of a very dangerous wedge who's whole principle is flawed.

What exactly is the objective of weighting the master node according to wallet size ?

[Ozziecoin]

Why are you worried. Last time I read, you dont have enough for 1 masternode yet 

Yes you are right. I'm very poor. I have no darks.

[Ozziecoin]

I can live with cap of 3.

I can't. It's the thin end of a very dangerous wedge who's whole principle is flawed.

What exactly is the objective of weighting the master node according to wallet size ?

The principle is flawed, which is why I pointed it out. If Dark does not fix this, another coin will. Cap of 2 or 3 could provide some room for compromise.

[thelonecrouton]

This multi ticket idea is not good from three angles:
1. Reduces the number of MNs, which decreases resiliency.
2. If the MN with the huge pot in it gets compromised, the whole pot is gone.
3. If gov't infiltrated the large pot MN, you will have a compromised coinjoin service. i.e. This is back to the centralised coinjoin problem again.

Personally I prefer the security (real or imagined, because if you have 2FA, good password / air gapped ssh key, all ports except 9999 closed, disabled root access and only ssh access from specified IPs, and most importantly a strong wallet password, nobody can steal your DRK) of several MNs vs. just one, but I don't think giving people the choice is the end of the world - it may even lead to more MNs as you now only have to pay for a single server, not two or three or twenty seven...

Agree it's not end of world but all VPS are vulnerable to infiltration. And from what I can see 99% of MNs are on VPSs. A big pot just makes it that much easier for infiltration.

The size of the pot (or whether it's on a VPS, unless the VPS provider is crooked/inept) has no effect whatsoever on the security/lack of security of the MN.  

[Sleepyx]

Hmm my 10,000 drk I dont want to put onto one masternode, what ever will I do. Oh thats right I can just make 10 separate masternodes like before..

[AlexGR]

The principle is flawed, which is why I pointed it out. If Dark does not fix this, another coin will. Cap of 2 or 3 could provide some room for compromise.

In theory one can "fix this", but in practice nobody can.

If one wants to run 10 virtual machines on the same dedicated server, they can. IPs will be .1 , .2, .3 ... .10, and credentials / operation probably imaged for every VM. It allows for more economic running through a performance-tradeoff bypass.

[Ozziecoin]

Agree it's not end of world but all VPS are vulnerable to infiltration. And from what I can see 99% of MNs are on VPSs. A big pot just makes it that much easier for infiltration.

The size of the pot (or whether it's on a VPS, unless the VPS provider is crooked/inept) has no effect whatsoever on the security/lack of security of the MN.  

My impression was that as the size of the pot increases, the chances of MN doing the coinjoin increases (correct me if I'm wrong).  In terms of security, there is nothing stopping govts from instructing VPS providers to provide the govt with access when push comes to shove.

[Sleepyx]

Agree it's not end of world but all VPS are vulnerable to infiltration. And from what I can see 99% of MNs are on VPSs. A big pot just makes it that much easier for infiltration.

The size of the pot (or whether it's on a VPS, unless the VPS provider is crooked/inept) has no effect whatsoever on the security/lack of security of the MN.  

My impression was that as the size of the pot increases, the chances of MN doing the coinjoin increases (correct me if I'm wrong).  In terms of security, there is nothing stopping govts from instructing VPS providers to provide the govt with access when push comes to shove.

If you had 10 masternodes then the chance of getting chosen increases as well.

[toknormal]

The principle is flawed, which is why I pointed it out. If Dark does not fix this, another coin will. Cap of 2 or 3 could provide some room for compromise.

You mean it's just to save people time in setting up multiple nodes ?    (Holds head in hands).

Jeez. The whole POINT of paying the dividend is as a reward for network maintenance. If you stick to the principle of 1 wallet for 1 node you get a nice homogeneous, non-lumpy, well distributed network whose strengths and weaknesses are spread out. You also make whales work for their money.

Lumping a whole load of traffic towards one node more than another just because the hosters paid more money is MADNESS !!! DO NOT DO THIS PLEASE !! DO NOT EVEN CAP IT AT 2 !!!

The loss of network redundancy is like paying a price 100 times higher than it will ever save any hosters in setup time. Not to mention the bad press we'll get for compromising on technical priorities in favour of commercial ones.

[Ozziecoin]

The principle is flawed, which is why I pointed it out. If Dark does not fix this, another coin will. Cap of 2 or 3 could provide some room for compromise.

In theory one can "fix this", but in practice nobody can.

If one wants to run 10 virtual machines on the same dedicated server, they can. IPs will be .1 , .2, .3 ... .10, and credentials / operation probably imaged for every VM. It allows for more economic running through a performance-tradeoff bypass.

Good point. Even more reason to make it hard to setup MNs with multiple lots of darks. The people with the resource can pay for expert help to stack. Which means, no need to alter code for multi tickets.