[ANN] SpreadCoin | True Decentralization (No Pools) | Testing New Masternodes

[georgem]

The next question regarding DM has to be: will a DM with more SPR in it earn MORE SPR than a DM with fewer SPR?

To stay on the decentralized I would have to assume: NO!

It can't be that way, since it would destroy the competition principle and more or less go back to how darkcoin handles it.
DM owners will just constantly put their earnings back into their DM, earning more and more all the time, until they have a quasi monopoly over everything.

Therefor: a DM with 1000 SPR will earn exactly as much SPR as a DM with 10k SPR.

[e1ghtSpace]

The next question regarding DM has to be: will a DM with more SPR in it earn MORE SPR than a DM with fewer SPR?

To stay on the decentralized I would have to assume: NO!

It can't be that way, since it would destroy the competition principle and more or less go back to how darkcoin handles it.
DM owners will just constantly put their earnings back into their DM, earning more and more all the time, until they have a quasi monopoly over everything.

Therefor: a DM with 1000 SPR will earn exactly as much SPR as a DM with 10k SPR.

How will it destroy the competition? The lower ranked MN's will be kicked off the list.
And what does DM stand for?

[Oldriga]

No one block per 24 hours.
 1.81 Mh/s  x 6  280x ~ 10.85 Mh/s

sgminer -I 19 -w 256 --thread-concurrency 8192 -g 2
Anybody know better config?

ah yea what is ur catalyst version

 14.6 RC2 miner closes with eror I make bins on 14.9 then put in 14.6 machine and all work

[LiteMine]

No one block per 24 hours.
 1.81 Mh/s  x 6  280x ~ 10.85 Mh/s

sgminer -I 19 -w 256 --thread-concurrency 8192 -g 2
Anybody know better config?

Variance is horrible when you have so little of the total hashrate (10.85/3780=0.29%). I have only 24 MH and can go 12 hours without a block. And the network almost doubled in the last 24 hours, so patience is needed. Over a week's (or more) time, it should even out somewhat. Your setup seems fine, you can always play with clock speeds and overclock to 1100/1500 or whatever your card will handle and get 2.00 MH out of each card.

Code:

sgminer -o 127.0.0.1:41677 -u xxxxxx -p xxxxxxx --thread-concurrency 8192 --lookup-gap 2 --worksize 256 -I 19 --gpu-fan 45 --gpu-engine 1050 --gpu memclock 1250 -g 2 

[georgem]

The next question regarding DM has to be: will a DM with more SPR in it earn MORE SPR than a DM with fewer SPR?

To stay on the decentralized I would have to assume: NO!

It can't be that way, since it would destroy the competition principle and more or less go back to how darkcoin handles it.
DM owners will just constantly put their earnings back into their DM, earning more and more all the time, until they have a quasi monopoly over everything.

Therefor: a DM with 1000 SPR will earn exactly as much SPR as a DM with 10k SPR.

How will it destroy the competition? The lower ranked MN's will be kicked off the list.
And what does DM stand for?

DM - Decentralized Masternodes (spreadcoin)
MN - MasterNodes (darkcoin)

We have to use different names, we can't just call them both masternodes or it will cause confusion.

[georgem]

There is another consequence which shows the brilliance of DM (decentralized masternodes):

Since DMs with different amounts of SPR deposited STILL earn the same amount of SPR, a very competition encouraging effect emerges:

Suppose I own 10k SPR.
I now have two options:

1) Either I create 1 DM only and put all my 10k SPR in it, making it a STRONG DM, a practically indestructible DM. Nobody can challenge it. Not even in the year 2106.

2) or I can create 10 DMs with only 1000 SPR each, making them WEAK DMs, but since every DM earns the same amount of SPR I will be possibly earning 10 Times the amount of SPR compared to the strong DM I could have installed instead.

BUT HERE'S THE CATCH:
Those WEAK DMs run the constant risk of being shut down by someone else who is happy to invest just 1 SPR more than you.

HAHA, this is sooo brilliant.

Everybody:

YES, WEAK DMs (backed by little SPR) can be shut down any moment, but you have the incentive of running MANY OF THEM, because you can potentially earn MORE SPR than a strong DM, and be it only temporarily.

This is brilliance in the making.  

[thelonecrouton]

I'm not seeing any advantage to having a dynamic MN collateral requirement.

I can tell you right now what will happen: the biggest holders will monoplise the MN 'allowance' and lock everyone else out.

Plus it adds code overhead to monitor and enforce the whole thing.

Just call it 1000SPR and have done with it, let market forces sort the rest out without things being weighted massively in favour of whoever holds the most SPR, which is all that a dynamic requirement is going to achieve.

A 1000SPR collateral would give a maximum theoretical number right now of 1500 MNs, which we know from DRK is not too many.

If decentralisation is the goal, implement some code to reject new MN's from certain IP ranges beyond a set % to prevent 75% of people just using Amazon, Vultr, OVH... or even better, come up with a way of allowing MNs to have dynamic IPs so people can run them on their home connections too.

[driedgrape]

Spread Simple Wallet v1:

http://s4.postimg.org/u9yf5fuhp/spr4.png

refreshing UI,I just love it! 

[NoobKidOnTheBlock]

There is another consequence which shows the brilliance of DM (decentralized masternodes):

Since DMs with different amounts of SPR deposited STILL earn the same amount of SPR, a very competition encouraging effect emerges:

Suppose I own 10k SPR.
I now have two options:

1) Either I create 1 DM only and put all my 10k SPR in it, making it a STRONG DM, a practically indestructible DM. Nobody can challenge it. Not even in the year 2106.

2) or I can create 10 DMs with only 1000 SPR each, making them WEAK DMs, but since every DM earns the same amount of SPR I will be possibly earning 10 Times the amount of SPR compared to the strong DM I could have installed instead.

BUT HERE'S THE CATCH:
Those WEAK DMs run the constant risk of being shut down by someone else who is happy to invest just 1 SPR more than you.

HAHA, this is sooo brilliant.

Everybody:

YES, WEAK DMs (backed by little SPR) can be shut down any moment, but you have the incentive of running MANY OF THEM, because you can potentially earn MORE SPR than a strong DM, and be it only temporarily.

This is brilliance in the making.  

OMG OMG!!! This is truly brilliance in the making But you are just blowing my Noobish mind right now with all this man I need a moment to breathe here and accept that this is a one of a kind opportunity being built here and I'm just so glad to be a part of it right now SPREADERS UNITE!

[defunctec]

Some Darkcoiners were kind enough to engage me in a debate about the dynamic market pricing of Spread Masternodes.  While I was initially sold on the idea, they did bring up some good points and now I'm not quite so sold.  I tried to play devils advocate and counter their arguments, but I did actually agree with some of them.  Mr. Spread, you may want to read the debate starting here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.78200 before making your final decision.  

I saw nothing there to persuade me that static master nodes are better than dynamic matter nodes. I think we will just have to see for ourselves how well this works out in a live environment and stop all this hypothetical 'if-then' stuff.
JL

I'm certainly not against it, just not 100% for it anymore.  I just wanted Mr. Spread to take the other insight into account before he makes his decision.  Whatever decision he goes with, I'll support at that point.

I hope dynamic masternodes will not require more technical knowledge or time to operate than the static ones. People who are busy with their daily work/responsibilities will not like the idea of constantly checking to see if their SPR masternodes are in the list or not. That might greatly discourage investment.

I doubt it will discourage investment, infact it will create a whole new market. Opportunist will crunch the numbers to find what the lowest amount they can have in a MN, without being kicked from the list.

Also, people who don't have the time to deal with all that can just stack a reasonable amount of SPR in a MN and check it once a week.

[antonio8]

Sorry for the noobie question, cannot solo mine this coin, getting 500 Internal Server error on tsiv nvidia miner...

Any ideas?


spreadcoin.conf used:

rpcuser=jpouza
rpcpassword=cash
rpcallowip=127.0.0.1
rpcallowip=192.168.1.*
rpcport=41677
port=41678
gen=0
server=1

Miner:

spreadminer -o http://127.0.0.1:41677 -u jpouza -p cash

Never solo mined before, my network internal IP range is 192.168.1.x, Wallet full syncronized and open...

Fixed! The only way to unlock the wallet is mining with the CPU?

Just pointed 1 core to the cpu mining and GPU miner is now allowed.

Cheers

I am not a Pro but try this.

First if you using the same computer to solo mine with and you have the latest wallet you do not need a cinfig file. Everything is in the Wallet.

You can not gpu mine if the wallet is locked. It must be unlocked. It can still be encrypted but it must be unlocked.

In your config file you have 2 rpcallowip. I don't believe you need that second one. Delete it. Restart the wallet then unlock if encrypted let it resync and restart bat for miner.

By the way what type of card are you using?

[georgem]

I can tell you right now what will happen: the biggest holders will monoplise the MN 'allowance' and lock everyone else out.

Wrong.

Here's the explanation why:

With darkcoin, the biggest holders get to monopolize the MN market very easily. Nobody can challenge them. Who already has MN can very easily create MORE MNs. The earnings of their already existing MNs help them buy the next MNs, etc...

But with spreadcoin, new investors can simply look up how much SPR the weakest DM has, and simply invest 1 SPR more to shut the weakest one down, and become the new weakest link.
(but this new weakest link is now 1 SPR stronger!)

It is brilliant that such a thing is made possible with spreadcoin. Because what just happened:
The new guy increased the sum of all money in all DMs by 1 SPR. So this creates a constant tendency to increase the cost of deposit for a DM, which in turn makes the amount of DMs decrease but only temporarily, because newcomers are waiting at the door, ready to enter..., so there is is a constant TURNOVER (because not every DM owner will want to keep up with the constant deposit increase)

It is horrific that darkcoin does NOT allow newcomers to enter the market AND DRIVE THE DEPOSIT PRICE UP, because that's the only thing that truly DISCOURAGES THE HORDING of DM/MN. (in effect kicking lazy DM/MN owners out of the game)

This is so brilliant, I am going to create a few animations soon to show what will potentially happen, and what the different scenarios are.

[MyFarm]

This is so brilliant, I am going to create a few animations soon to show what will potentially happen, and what the different scenarios are.

If the numbers are correct and logical, I'll tip you for that.

[defunctec]

I'm not seeing any advantage to having a dynamic MN collateral requirement.

I can tell you right now what will happen: the biggest holders will monoplise the MN 'allowance' and lock everyone else out.

Plus it adds code overhead to monitor and enforce the whole thing.

Just call it 1000SPR and have done with it, let market forces sort the rest out without things being weighted massively in favour of whoever holds the most SPR, which is all that a dynamic requirement is going to achieve.

A 1000SPR collateral would give a maximum theoretical number right now of 1500 MNs, which we know from DRK is not too many.

If decentralisation is the goal, implement some code to reject new MN's from certain IP ranges beyond a set % to prevent 75% of people just using Amazon, Vultr, OVH... or even better, come up with a way of allowing MNs to have dynamic IPs so people can run them on their home connections too.

If the max amount of MN was set to 2000? One person holding 5 MILLION SPR! could only fund 3000 MN with 2500 SPR, very weak in my opinion. This guy would be bitch slapped about all day long.

[MyFarm]

For masternodes, instead of a simple, "You need X SPR to be on the list" and if someone beats you by 1, you're kicked off... what is there was a ranking algorithm.  Variables:

1.  How much SPR you have in the masternode.
2.  If your masternode is in a country with less than X% of masternodes, +Y
3.  If your masternode is at an ISP with less than A% of masternodes, +Z
4.  Other variables that help secure the network.

Those are obviously simplified.

Your masternode is then scored based upon these variables and you can see where you are on the list.  If you're on the bottom of the score list, better change something!  Or if you want a new masternode but have less SPR than a lot of people, simply get hosting in a country at an ISP nobody else has.

Darkcoin has a shitload of VPS masternodes at just a few ISPs in just a few countries.  Not good for the network.

[thelonecrouton]

I'm not seeing any advantage to having a dynamic MN collateral requirement.

I can tell you right now what will happen: the biggest holders will monoplise the MN 'allowance' and lock everyone else out.

Plus it adds code overhead to monitor and enforce the whole thing.

Just call it 1000SPR and have done with it, let market forces sort the rest out without things being weighted massively in favour of whoever holds the most SPR, which is all that a dynamic requirement is going to achieve.

A 1000SPR collateral would give a maximum theoretical number right now of 1500 MNs, which we know from DRK is not too many.

If decentralisation is the goal, implement some code to reject new MN's from certain IP ranges beyond a set % to prevent 75% of people just using Amazon, Vultr, OVH... or even better, come up with a way of allowing MNs to have dynamic IPs so people can run them on their home connections too.

If the max amount of MN was set to 2000? One person holding 5 MILLION SPR! could only fund 3000 MN with 2500 SPR, very weak in my opinion. This guy would be bitch slapped about all day long.

I understood the individual words, but put together... not so much. I have no idea what you are talking about. And your maths is broken. 

[defunctec]

I'm not seeing any advantage to having a dynamic MN collateral requirement.

I can tell you right now what will happen: the biggest holders will monoplise the MN 'allowance' and lock everyone else out.

Plus it adds code overhead to monitor and enforce the whole thing.

Just call it 1000SPR and have done with it, let market forces sort the rest out without things being weighted massively in favour of whoever holds the most SPR, which is all that a dynamic requirement is going to achieve.

A 1000SPR collateral would give a maximum theoretical number right now of 1500 MNs, which we know from DRK is not too many.

If decentralisation is the goal, implement some code to reject new MN's from certain IP ranges beyond a set % to prevent 75% of people just using Amazon, Vultr, OVH... or even better, come up with a way of allowing MNs to have dynamic IPs so people can run them on their home connections too.

If the max amount of MN was set to 2000? One person holding 5 MILLION SPR! could only fund 3000 MN with 2500 SPR, very weak in my opinion. This guy would be bitch slapped about all day long.

I understood the individual words, but put together... not so much. I have no idea what you are talking about. :p

"the biggest holders will monoplise the MN 'allowance' and lock everyone else out."

Say MrSpread set's the max amount of MN's to 3000.

A big holder with 5 million spr can only fund 3000 MN's with 2500SPR. This makes his "monopoly" on the MN network weak and the majority of his MN's WILL be kicked from the list, allowing others to participate (decentralization).

Any help?

[thelonecrouton]

I can tell you right now what will happen: the biggest holders will monoplise the MN 'allowance' and lock everyone else out.

Wrong.

Here's the explanation why:

With darkcoin, the biggest holders get to monopolize the MN market very easily. Nobody can challenge them. Who already has MN can very easily create MORE MNs. The earnings of his already existing MNs help him buy the next MNs, etc...

But with spreadcoin, new investors can simply look up how much SPR the weakest DM has, and simply invest 1 SPR more to shut the weakest one down, and become the new weakest link.
(but this new weakest link is now 1 SPR stronger!)

It is brilliant that such a thing is made possible with spreadcoin. Because what just happened:
The new guy increased the sum of all money in all DMs by 1 SPR. So this creates a constant tendency to increase the cost of deposit for a DM, which in turn makes the amount of DMs decrease but only temporarily, because newcomers are waiting at the door, ready to enter..., so there is is a constant TURNOVER (because not every DM owner will want to keep up with the constant deposit increase)

It is horrific that darkcoin does NOT allow newcomers to enter the market AND DRIVE THE DEPOSIT PRICE UP, because that's the only thing that truly DISCOURAGES THE HORDING of DM/MN. (in effect kicking lazy DM/MN owners out of the game)

This is so brilliant, I am going to create a few animations soon to show what will potentially happen, and what the different scenarios are.

You are drawing exactly the wrong conclusions from your own argument.

Only the richest SPR holders will be able to afford Masternodes. Everyone else will be priced out with an ever-diminishing hope of ever owning one as the price rises. This is a terrible idea.

[e1ghtSpace]

I'm not seeing any advantage to having a dynamic MN collateral requirement.

I can tell you right now what will happen: the biggest holders will monoplise the MN 'allowance' and lock everyone else out.

Plus it adds code overhead to monitor and enforce the whole thing.

Just call it 1000SPR and have done with it, let market forces sort the rest out without things being weighted massively in favour of whoever holds the most SPR, which is all that a dynamic requirement is going to achieve.

A 1000SPR collateral would give a maximum theoretical number right now of 1500 MNs, which we know from DRK is not too many.

If decentralisation is the goal, implement some code to reject new MN's from certain IP ranges beyond a set % to prevent 75% of people just using Amazon, Vultr, OVH... or even better, come up with a way of allowing MNs to have dynamic IPs so people can run them on their home connections too.

If the max amount of MN was set to 2000? One person holding 5 MILLION SPR! could only fund 3000 MN with 2500 SPR, very weak in my opinion. This guy would be bitch slapped about all day long.

I understood the individual words, but put together... not so much. I have no idea what you are talking about. :p

"the biggest holders will monoplise the MN 'allowance' and lock everyone else out."

Say MrSpread set's the max amount of MN's to 3000.

A big holder with 5 million spr can only fund 3000 MN's with 2500SPR. This makes his "monopoly" on the MN network weak and the majority of his MN's WILL be kicked from the list, allowing others to participate (decentralization).

Any help?

Who would be stupid enough to do that anyway? If one person controls the majority of the masternodes then the market price would go down significantly. I don't see anyone here wanting to sacrifice their investment. Do you?

[e1ghtSpace]

I can tell you right now what will happen: the biggest holders will monoplise the MN 'allowance' and lock everyone else out.

Wrong.

Here's the explanation why:

With darkcoin, the biggest holders get to monopolize the MN market very easily. Nobody can challenge them. Who already has MN can very easily create MORE MNs. The earnings of his already existing MNs help him buy the next MNs, etc...

But with spreadcoin, new investors can simply look up how much SPR the weakest DM has, and simply invest 1 SPR more to shut the weakest one down, and become the new weakest link.
(but this new weakest link is now 1 SPR stronger!)

It is brilliant that such a thing is made possible with spreadcoin. Because what just happened:
The new guy increased the sum of all money in all DMs by 1 SPR. So this creates a constant tendency to increase the cost of deposit for a DM, which in turn makes the amount of DMs decrease but only temporarily, because newcomers are waiting at the door, ready to enter..., so there is is a constant TURNOVER (because not every DM owner will want to keep up with the constant deposit increase)

It is horrific that darkcoin does NOT allow newcomers to enter the market AND DRIVE THE DEPOSIT PRICE UP, because that's the only thing that truly DISCOURAGES THE HORDING of DM/MN. (in effect kicking lazy DM/MN owners out of the game)

This is so brilliant, I am going to create a few animations soon to show what will potentially happen, and what the different scenarios are.

You are drawing exactly the wrong conclusions from your own argument.

Only the richest SPR holders will be able to afford Masternodes. Everyone else will be priced out with an ever-diminishing hope of ever owning one as the price rises. This is a terrible idea.

I doubt the richest Spreadcoin holders could even be bothered setting up 100 vps's let alone 1000+ anyway.