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

[georgem]

a nightmare for everybody else.

How?

The purpose of the coin is to be used as a currency. Explain your nightmare situation or how this proposal interferes with the purpose of this coin.

I think the problem of centralization and consolidation is much higher with masternodes than with miners.

[smoothdoger]

a nightmare for everybody else.

How?

The purpose of the coin is to be used as a currency. Explain your nightmare situation or how this proposal interferes with the purpose of this coin.

When a handful of people hold double digit % of the total coin supply then this is a HUGE problem(and they do!)!
now they are the only ones creating dark shutting out everyone else, kinda like you know the IMF and big banks?

not to mention the miners add another layer of security to the network

[georgem]

I have no problem with buying DRK on an exchange.
I have a problem when buying DRK on an exchange is the only option I were given COUPLED with the horror scenario that only Masternode owners were creating coins.

I agree with this.  There is a problem when asics come along and suddenly only an elite group has the chance to mine though.  Personally, I'd like to see a way to keep a ceiling on ability to garner hash power, such as changing the algo once it becomes clear x11 asics are on their way, and to just keep changing it.  But I have no idea what is involved, certainly another hard fork, so maybe that's not possible.

Yah, mining and masternodes are hurdles to investing into DRK.  In the end though, that's an investor thing and not a user thing.  There are other ways of gaining DRK.  You can also sell things and accept DRK as payment.  Though, at this time, that's not easy.  Nobody wants to spend their DRK yet.  Adoption is everything.

Until DRK becomes widely used and liquid, it'll be so.  BTW, I also think that having a dual system can possibly protect against things like 51% attack with some sort of checking system, but again, that would require a hard fork again....

But ASICS when massproduced become very cheap, much cheaper then CPU or GPU, all the cheap USB ASIC miners are proof of that (and they run with 5 Volts). I am looking forward to that!
That is just the natural progression of any innovation, we should embrace this, not be afraid of it!

Doesn't matter what the unit cost is, rich people will just buy more of them. At bulk discoint.

And that is not different with CPU or GPU, it's just that everything is suddenly energy-efficient.
That's what I mean when I say: we should embrace this.

[thelonecrouton]

There is a problem when asics come along and suddenly only an elite group has the chance to mine though.  

Hey Tante,
The idea being proposed isn't to only allow MN operators to mine, but to do away with mining completely. The MN network would handle block generation and distribute payments in the same manner as the current 20% they receive off blocks. So no asics at all.

wow, so the entire future of DRK lies in the hands of a few completely centralized masternode owners?

3 people control >50% of the Bitcoin network.

ASICs are not the answer, p2pool is, and p2pool through Masternodes solves a whole host of potential problems.

[thelonecrouton]

I have no problem with buying DRK on an exchange.
I have a problem when buying DRK on an exchange is the only option I were given COUPLED with the horror scenario that only Masternode owners were creating coins.

I agree with this.  There is a problem when asics come along and suddenly only an elite group has the chance to mine though.  Personally, I'd like to see a way to keep a ceiling on ability to garner hash power, such as changing the algo once it becomes clear x11 asics are on their way, and to just keep changing it.  But I have no idea what is involved, certainly another hard fork, so maybe that's not possible.

Yah, mining and masternodes are hurdles to investing into DRK.  In the end though, that's an investor thing and not a user thing.  There are other ways of gaining DRK.  You can also sell things and accept DRK as payment.  Though, at this time, that's not easy.  Nobody wants to spend their DRK yet.  Adoption is everything.

Until DRK becomes widely used and liquid, it'll be so.  BTW, I also think that having a dual system can possibly protect against things like 51% attack with some sort of checking system, but again, that would require a hard fork again....

But ASICS when massproduced become very cheap, much cheaper then CPU or GPU, all the cheap USB ASIC miners are proof of that (and they run with 5 Volts). I am looking forward to that!
That is just the natural progression of any innovation, we should embrace this, not be afraid of it!

Doesn't matter what the unit cost is, rich people will just buy more of them. At bulk discoint.

And that is not different with CPU or GPU, it's just that everything is suddenly energy-efficient.
That's what I mean when I say: we should embrace this.

Masternodes are even more energy efficient, and just as resistant to decentralisation as mining ever was, arguably more so, with the added benefit that any attempt at centralisation makes DRK holders rich, not GPU/ASIC manufacturers.

[georgem]

Masternodes are even more energy efficient, and just as resistant to decentralisation as mining ever was, arguably more so, with the added benefit that any attempt at centralisation makes DRK holders rich, not GPU/ASIC manufacturers.

But GPU/ASIC manufacturers create jobs... masternode holders are just happy fat pigs in shit who get fed even more?   (just kidding, but the image shall hopefully remain)

[thelonecrouton]

a nightmare for everybody else.

How?

The purpose of the coin is to be used as a currency. Explain your nightmare situation or how this proposal interferes with the purpose of this coin.

I think the problem of centralization and consolidation is much higher with masternodes than with miners.

Show me numbers.

Three big mining pools colluding can fork the DRK blockchain. How many MN ops would be needed to pervert the network? A much higher percentage, that's how the MN system was designed, you need far more than 51% to cause problems, because 'active' Masternodes are randomly selected each block.

The MN system is inherently more robust than mining will ever be.

Miners have been made obsolete, deal with it.

[bitalkpl]

can someone with native English write to the Diaspora and Bleep to collect donations in DRK

[thelonecrouton]

Masternodes are even more energy efficient, and just as resistant to decentralisation as mining ever was, arguably more so, with the added benefit that any attempt at centralisation makes DRK holders rich, not GPU/ASIC manufacturers.

But GPU/ASIC manufacturers create jobs... masternode holders are just happy fat pigs in shit who get fed even more?   (just kidding, but the image shall remain)

Why am I interested in bolstering AMD's profits?

And if Masternodes are just so goddamn profitable, how about miners flog a rig or two and buy some Masternodes, eh?

[camosoul]

We are currently paying 80% of new coins generated for a service we don't need! What is the benefit of having POW at all in comparison to having the MN network handle block generation?! A good point made by crouton is that even having POW is actually a weakness and creates an attack vector. Dissenting opinions are not only welcomed but sought!

PoW still has value because it involves outsiders. Without that, one could say the network just makes more coins for itself for no reason. Kinda like the Federal Reserve. It's just printing more money... There should be effort done to create money, a value provided in exchange for it, and the party who does the most gets the most. It's an external contribution that assures the network is honest and by sheer force of computing power, cannot be broken. Everything has an attack vector...

You're aiming to fix the part that's working just fine instead of the part that's busted.

Allowing the mining pools to determine the distribution and function is part of the problem. PoW should always be a part of the process that validates a block. It shouldn't be the only process that validates a block. The answer is not to change metrics, but to combine more than one metric such that even if there is a successful attack on one aspect, that attack is dead in the water because it's only part of the game. PoW works. Don't throw it away just because it's gotten clumsy and nobody has un-clumsied it yet... MNs can un-clumsy it while also facilitating the voting system as a hybrid metric. Mining is a genius idea, but like so many others, when it stands alone, it's kinda stupid. We've gotten by with it so far because that's all we've known and brute-force has been the decider and it works, but a hybrid proof would be better.

Block proof is the issue we're really discussing. PoW works. It's crude, but that's part of why it's so great. We wouldn't have mining pools if nobody wanted to do it. The problem is that mining pools are a bandaid and a point of much consternation, disproportionality, and failure. If the MNs handled it, there wouldn't be one poll getting more than another. Everyone would remain an individual hashpower contributor to one network, no pools.

Mining is not the problem. How we're handling BTC's flaw of needing mining pools is the problem. the raw brutality of it is part of the paradoxical ruleset that makes crypto work so well. Even if it can be defined as vestigial, it still serves us better as part of a hybrid proof, than to abandon it and have another solitary proof system. That's the lesson we should be learning; no single proof system will ever be as good as a combined hybrid proof system, no matter what it is. You can't get rid of the attack vectors, but you can make them impotent by requiring that several be accomplished at once in order to break it. No one is going to go 51% AND spoof the whole MN voting system at the same time. But one or the other might be possible. Even if mining is stupid, it's still useful... Like shojayxt.

This.

The current POW is good because it lets anyone start mining from the get go.
With a 100% PoS system, only the people who are invested mint the coins. Also, it's easier to fork a coin with 100% PoS as well.

How it is now with PoW is good.

Simply eliminating pools eliminates the 51% concern. IF the network handles it's own mining consolidation and individual inputs, there are no groups growing hashpower. There isn't anyone on the map to get the 51% in the first place.

Look where 51% comes from; mining pools. No more mining pools, there is nobody to have the 51%. If there is nobody to do the job, the job doesn't get done. 51% is a threat of the BTC-centric way we mine with a band-aid ad-hock mining pool system. If we stop doing that, we also get rid of the 51% concern.

[georgem]

a nightmare for everybody else.

How?

The purpose of the coin is to be used as a currency. Explain your nightmare situation or how this proposal interferes with the purpose of this coin.

I think the problem of centralization and consolidation is much higher with masternodes than with miners.

Show me numbers.

Three big mining pools colluding can fork the DRK blockchain. How many MN ops would be needed to pervert the network? A much higher percentage, that's how the MN system was designed, you need far more than 51% to cause problems.

Top 100 wallets buy 4 times the masternodes that are now in existence. Top 10 wallets buy 1.5 times the masternodes that are now in existence. And contrary to miners it would just take them an evening to set everything up and mess with the system and a few seconds to disappear again.

[TanteStefana2]

3 people control >50% of the Bitcoin network.

ASICs are not the answer, p2pool is, and p2pool through Masternodes solves a whole host of potential problems.

Now that's an interesting idea, only how do you set up many p2pools and keep them decentralized?  I mean, who will run them?  You perhaps mean that each MN will automatically have their own p2pool running?.... interesting.  I'm still not 100% convinced that an entity can't have 51% of the network (someone might have that now) and we'd never know it.  I like the fact that we can have a checks and balance with the way things are now.  Security over simplicity/power consumption, IMHO

[thelonecrouton]

a nightmare for everybody else.

How?

The purpose of the coin is to be used as a currency. Explain your nightmare situation or how this proposal interferes with the purpose of this coin.

I think the problem of centralization and consolidation is much higher with masternodes than with miners.

Show me numbers.

Three big mining pools colluding can fork the DRK blockchain. How many MN ops would be needed to pervert the network? A much higher percentage, that's how the MN system was designed, you need far more than 51% to cause problems.

Top 100 wallets buy 4 times the masternodes that are now in existence. Top 10 wallets buy 1.5 times the masternodes that are now in existence. And contrary to miners it would just take them an evening to set everything up and mess with the system and a few seconds to disappear again.

You cannot buy enough Masternodes to have a realistic chance of subverting the network. There aren't enough DRK in existence. Any attempt would cost you many times more than the whole currency is worth. Evan thought that one well and truly through.

And you can switch where your mining farm is pointed about 10000x times faster than you can set up a thousand Mastetnodes.

[TaoOfSaatoshi]

“I just won the DRK jackpot Baby! Does that make you horny? Randy? Rrrrrarr!” #getintothedark #darkcoin #bitcoin http://t.co/pUYdW84glg



#getintothedark
#buildthedarkness
#DarkcoinChameleon

Join the fun on Twitter!

@TaoOfSatoshi

[thelonecrouton]

3 people control >50% of the Bitcoin network.

ASICs are not the answer, p2pool is, and p2pool through Masternodes solves a whole host of potential problems.

Now that's an interesting idea, only how do you set up many p2pools and keep them decentralized?  I mean, who will run them?  You perhaps mean that each MN will automatically have their own p2pool running?.... interesting.  I'm still not 100% convinced that an entity can't have 51% of the network (someone might have that now) and we'd never know it.  I like the fact that we can have a checks and balance with the way things are now.  Security over simplicity/power consumption, IMHO

There is only one p2pool... Have it distributed across a few thousand MNs (each MN runs a p2pool node) - problem solved.

[TaoOfSaatoshi]

How's the debate going? I've been busy getting people into the Dark.....

[TanteStefana2]

How's the debate going? I've been busy getting people into the Dark.....

Quite fiery actually  Nice and healthy

BTW, is mintpal still down?

[thelonecrouton]

How's the debate going? I've been busy getting people into the Dark.....

It's an uphill struggle Tao, but so far none of the dinosaurs have credibly justified why they're 4x as valuable as the upstart mammals.

[georgem]

You cannot buy enough Masternodes to have a realistic chance of subverting the network. There aren't enough DRK in existence.

And you can switch where your mining farm is pointed about 1000x times faster than you can set up a thousand Mastetnodes.

Yes you can.
A masternode serverfarm has to be setup too. Crazier yet, since you don't need to transfer the DRK to the masternodes, but can keep them external, imagine a really clever hacker who gets a few thousand unsecured webservers into his control, just to use them for this masternode takeover operation. He wouldn't even need to buy or rent the hardware...
He would just need to collude with rich enough DRK holders.

[spatula]

a nightmare for everybody else.

How?

The purpose of the coin is to be used as a currency. Explain your nightmare situation or how this proposal interferes with the purpose of this coin.

I think the problem of centralization and consolidation is much higher with masternodes than with miners.

Show me numbers.

Three big mining pools colluding can fork the DRK blockchain. How many MN ops would be needed to pervert the network? A much higher percentage, that's how the MN system was designed, you need far more than 51% to cause problems.

Top 100 wallets buy 4 times the masternodes that are now in existence. Top 10 wallets buy 1.5 times the masternodes that are now in existence. And contrary to miners it would just take them an evening to set everything up and mess with the system and a few seconds to disappear again.

You cannot buy enough Masternodes to have a realistic chance of subverting the network. There aren't enough DRK in existence.

And you can switch where your mining farm is pointed about 1000x times faster than you can set up a thousand Mastetnodes.

Exactly. There is no reason that a network supported by masternodes would be less secure than POW. Masternodes are already more decentralized than POW block finders, and if a change away from POW were to happen, there would be a multitude more masternodes added to the network because of the added profitability of owning one, even further increasing the level of decentralization.

Full disclosure, I am a miner AND masternode operator. I would continue to mine other coins in order to buy more masternodes