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

[Lukas_Jackson]

if one server became two servers i would pay 10 USD per month renting costs instead of 5 USD but also the increase in masternodes (from 3300 to 6600) will automatically
force lower MN rewards for everyone, wont it ?
 

But you have now two masternodes instead of one.

[AzzAz]

Thought this would be relevant -> https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3nz1p9/ongoing_cryptsy_withdrawal_issues/

Yes someone at the meetup has quite a few bitcoin and litecoin stuck for last 2 days and account has become locked.
He got his Dash out, and was hoping its merely a hot wallet/cold wallet limitation due to the recent 'news' ...

I have o.75BTC withdrawal stuck too - "Pending Wallet/Network Fix"...

[Macrochip]

There is zero evidence either it was not intentional.

In dubio pro reo

You're wrong. You can only prove coins were moving or not on the blockchain, it tells you nothing about ownership.

I never spoke of "ownership" but of distribution and picking on semantics doesn't invalidate my point. The massive amount of "moved coins" is an irrefutable indicator of distribution. If you want to build a case from this that these were all orchestrated fake trading events by the same few people: Good luck finding people who a) matter and b) believe you.

How were there incentivized if they got rid of their instamined coins? This was and is a honest question.

This might shock you, so tighten your sphincter: The core devs are running masternodes ("Holy shit, stop the presses! Core devs profiting from their own invention!!!")

I'm done playing with you and watching you act the retard. Go back to your XMR sandbox building your castles while the big boys get something done here.

[oaxaca]

haha, on a happier note, Portugal just beat Denmark 1-0 , I won 10 extra Dash 

<Public Service Reminder>
This is a NO SPOILERS thread.  I'm still downloading today's action.  I came in here to NOT know the results.
</Public Service Reminder>

[coins101]

haha, on a happier note, Portugal just beat Denmark 1-0 , I won 10 extra Dash 

<Public Service Reminder>
This is a NO SPOILERS thread.  I'm still downloading today's action.  I came in here to NOT know the results.
</Public Service Reminder>

He was referring to the women's teams. You're still good to go on watching the action without spoilers spoiling your game.

[qwizzie]

if one server became two servers i would pay 10 USD per month renting costs instead of 5 USD but also the increase in masternodes (from 3300 to 6600) will automatically
force lower MN rewards for everyone, wont it ?
 

But you have now two masternodes instead of one.

and it will be a lot more easy for others to join the masternode market (first-timers) with a collateral of 500 Dash so in the end its reasonable to guess
the total number of masternodes will be more then those calculated 6600 .. driving the rewards down.

Anyways there is a lot of time to think about this, its totally not a problem yet.    

 

[eduffield]

.....
What about reducing the collateral to 500 DASH? Now we have 6600 masternodes....

I'm not sure that works. But perhaps I'm missing something.

If you half the collateral, it doesn't follow that you double the masternodes.

First, the block reward hasn't changed, so the revenue to run nodes remains the same overall.

Second, going from one MN to two would potentially double the cost to run them - you have to ignore any speculation on price increases, although it would (speculating) potentially go up with real world adoption.

So, one server goes to two servers, but the reward remains the same.

If you introduce a micro fee, that would enable the network to scale with a reduction in collateral requirement.

Currently the true ROI is about 14%:

(blocks per day * avg reward * mn share / masternodes * days) = (reward at the end of the year)
576*6*.5/3270*365  = 192.88 DASH (19.2% of 1000 DASH)

Let's say a server costs $10 a month, so true ROI is about 144 DASH per year (14.4% of 1000 DASH).

---

What happens if we cut it in half?

The collateral gets halved
The reward gets halved
Expenses remain the same
Overall return goes down
Node count should nearly double (slightly lower because of the reduced reward)

(blocks per day * avg reward * mn share / masternodes * days) = (reward at the end of the year)
576*6*.5/6490*365  = 97 DASH  (19.6% of 500 DASH)
 ( notice it's not double 3270, that would be 6540... it's lower)

Let's say a server costs $10 a month, so true ROI is about 49.18 DASH per year (14.6% of 500 DASH)

All things being equal, it's just supply and demand working themselves out in something like a bond market. The market demands a return on average currently of about 14% after expenses, the idea is it carries over no matter what collateral is required. Nodes that are allocated before should be allocated after, even if the user decides he doesn't want to do it, that would raise the ROI on the market, which would drive people to setup more nodes, getting us back to where we're at now.

That help? It's a tad confusing

[AzzAz]

For anyone interested in AdamWhite's real motivation for scam-trolling the Dash thread every day for the last 8 months, you can check his deleted posts from the Monero Speculation thread:

"im in this coin for the long haul. I've exchanged all my alts for XMR."

https://bitcointa.lk/threads/ann-mro-monero-a-coin-with-strong-privacy-based-on-cryptonote-technology.304375/page-509#post-7491079

Yup, it's a Monero Troll.

(A big one too, something like ~500 "Scam!" accusations posts on his competitor, i.e. Dash, threads, that's commitment.)

EDIT: If you look, he's deleted all posts relating to his Monero investments on BCT.  Guess he didn't know they are saved out there on the internets....

Ha! Fighting by reposting!
So how much is he paid for Trolling? Is it in XMR?

[toknormal]

What happens if we cut it in half?

The collateral gets halved
The reward gets halved
Expenses remain the same

Wouldn't expenses double ? For a given holding, you've got to run twice the number of nodes for the same return.

[GhostPlayer]

What happens if we cut it in half?

The collateral gets halved
The reward gets halved
Expenses remain the same

Wouldn't expenses double ? For a given holding, you've got to run twice the number of nodes for the same return.

 No, because in essence a pro linux sys admin with semi-ninja skills can run 2 or more MN's from the same server.
 Though the point still stands for the majority at this point.

[eduffield]

What happens if we cut it in half?

The collateral gets halved
The reward gets halved
Expenses remain the same

Wouldn't expenses double ? For a given holding, you've got to run twice the number of nodes for the same return.

I mean per masternode.

Collateral gets cut in half
The reward gets cut in half
Expenses remain the same
etc

[Fatov]

What happens if we cut it in half?

The collateral gets halved
The reward gets halved
Expenses remain the same

Wouldn't expenses double ? For a given holding, you've got to run twice the number of nodes for the same return.

And we should wait 12 days per payment... pay 2 vps... no @eduffield reduce to 500 dash it isnt the solution...

[noobtrader]

I'm all in for coin improvement, and if that mean 1 coin can be masternode which can handle 1000.000. of tx per second so be it. but economically would you do that ?

economically i say when coin price rises 150x 1500x, reduce MN collateral

thanks

...
In this video Evan  explains decentralized oracles, is a must watch to understand subquorums.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGh43BQrxK0

Quick and possibly daft question on the method for selecting the 10 masternodes. The 10 nodes to handle a transaction are selected by the 10 nearest transaction IDs for the 1000 Dash transaction needed to set up the masternode (I think). Is that vulnerable to the malleability issues Bitcoin is seeing at the mo? ie. could transaction IDs be modified to direct to a small number of malicious masternodes?

Unless I'm mistaken, it's based off the block hash, not the transaction IDs.

All security is inherited from the mining network, which basically is deterministically setting up the quorum system, in a way that is provable. For example when you use DAPI, it will do something like create a transaction from Xaddr1 to Xaddr2 for 10 DASH. You then get back your command, a result status and all of the signatures from the quorum participants. You as the end user will know what quorum is activated for that node already, so you can tell if they're lying.

In terms of scalability, if we have 3300 masternodes and a quorum size of 10, that means we can handle 330 requests at once. If the average time per request is about 100 ms, that means we can do 3300 requests per second. The estimate is based on the fact that the network is also doing maintenance at all times (propagating blocks, shard updates, syncing clients, etc), so I'm guessing ~50% of a fully utilized network will go to other activities. Therefore we end up with 1650 requests per second.

Also we're going to aim for your average every day user, so we're talking just a few requests per month. So how many users can we support if they use 15 requests per month? 86400*1650*30/15 = 285,120,000. Ok, 285 million, that's pretty good.

What about reducing the collateral to 500 DASH? Now we have 6600 masternodes and can handle 570 million users. Isn't the masternode count going up anyway? Yep. That number should hit about 700M about when we launch. This is why it says 500-1500 tx per second, I guess that should say "requests per second" because it's not really accurate. Also the 700M should be a range also, that's the high end, the low end is 285M for current Dash requirements.

I've done a lot of guesswork to figure out these numbers, we'll see how close I am when we start seeing some serious adoption. Either way the system is built to scale with adoption in a way nothing else can, it should be pretty cool. I figure if we start to see a good deal of adoption and usage, we'll always either ask for more storage, processing power or reduce the collateral to split the network before it becomes an issue . They'll be good problems to have and we'll have lots of solutions available.

[Lebubar]

What happens if we cut it in half?

The collateral gets halved
The reward gets halved
Expenses remain the same

Wouldn't expenses double ? For a given holding, you've got to run twice the number of nodes for the same return.

I mean per masternode.

Collateral gets cut in half
The reward gets cut in half
Expenses remain the same
etc

If the importance of MN is increased in the new system design, and the miner is decreased, why not continue a little more the payment for MN?
45/45% now, then 40/50 .. Then until where?... We'll see maybe 30/60? To increase the number of MN?

Because yes I think it's not good to decrease(change) the 1k colateral..

[toknormal]

I mean per masternode.

I think a more investor-oriented way to look at it is per amount of holding. The reason the 'incentivisation' works is because of a gain on holdings. I don't think people care how many masternodes they're personally running. They measure it as a return on holdings, so if you've got 1k Dash you want to invest that whole amount to get a return. 1 masternode is 1 unit of expense to get a fixed return on that 1000 Dash. 2 masternodes is 2 units of expense, so the expenses double for the same return.

For that reason I don't think you'd see a doubling of masternodes with a halving of the collateral.  (At least not automatically. If the dollar price doubled then possibly).

[qwizzie]

What happens if we cut it in half?

The collateral gets halved
The reward gets halved
Expenses remain the same

Wouldn't expenses double ? For a given holding, you've got to run twice the number of nodes for the same return.

And we should wait 12 days per payment... pay 2 vps... no @eduffield reduce to 500 dash it isnt the solution...

6 days receiving 1 MN payment or 12 days receiving 2 MN payments doesn't really matter then....

[qwizzie]

Wasn't the 500 coin masternodes just an example of how the network could scale to even higher potential? Please, the Bitcoin block size debate has been bad enough and surely something like a change in the collateral needed for a masternode would be an issue for the voting mechanism.

sure but its still an interesting topic to discuss and it beats fighting trolls

[Fatov]

Are more MN neccesary? Maybe we could reduce 1000 to 500 if the price will be a problem to buy a MN or the network needs more MN to improve the network.
Reduce miners payment could be a good option 30/10/60 should be a incentive to increase the number of MN

[eduffield]

Wasn't the 500 coin masternodes just an example of how the network could scale to even higher potential? Please, the Bitcoin block size debate has been bad enough and surely something like a change in the collateral needed for a masternode would be an issue for the voting mechanism.

Yeah, I was just talking hypothetically. We don't need to do it at all, our current network scales to 1M+ and the Evolution scales to 200M+ out of the box. When we hit 50M or so, we can start debating. We'll be doing an Evolution v1 release, then v2, then v3. These scaling changes will be included in those later updates.

[qwizzie]

the optimist in me says we will be having this discussion for real in two years....

edit : i'm also taking that optimist to bed right now.... its getting late.