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

[Jamil.Kamil]

Wish very much spread hand to hand....

[georgem]

Profits are nice but unless there's a business behind the coin, they're nothing short of incomplete.

Most sensible thing I have read all day.

I still do not agree with the rationale for a node score to be partially based on how many coins are associated with a node though.

Me neither. In fact I had a lenghty disagreement with Mr.Spread about exactly this point. Shortly before he left us.  

I think the way servicenodes will work is with a 2-Step procedure:

1) is a servicenode even within the "spread" and allowed to run?
(This will be limited by the maximum amount of possible service nodes (Total coins / 2880 = Spread),
and if a servicenode is even willing to pay the minimum collateral necessary to secure a seat.
Minimum collateral is derived by a completely free market price discovery.)

2) After your servicenode secures a seat, does it provide the services it is supposed to provide with a reasonable quality (availability, throughput, not necessarily performance)?
If yes, good, if not, the system kicks the service node out.

Now, 1) is more important than 2), and regarding the competitive nature of the game 1) is necessary for 2) to even apply.

It is expected that people who run a servicenode will want to improve their server because it will then improve the quality of the services, which in turn attracts investors in the first place.
It is not necessary to let the protocol reward people who have access to the best server hardware (with the best performance) and hereby exclude other people who have only access to average server hardware.
(which doesn't have best performance, but still a reasonable amount of availability and data throughput)

No, it is only necessary to punish and exclude the free loaders. (people who deliberately try to game the system by installing servicenodes that get payed while providing nothing)
I think availability and throughput is more easily assessable than "performance".
What I mean with that, if a servicenode is highly available but rather slow, it should stay in the race and help contribute to the service network,
it can't be that only very fast low ping servers are allowed to play this game, because this game is not merely about speed.
There are other factors.

This really depends on the specific nature of a service.
Some need more speed, other more harddisk space, others more availability, etc...

So: no, there will never be a node score that is partially based on how many coins you have on your account.
There will be scores alright, but like some kind of policing mechanism the score is only here to strictly control if the service nodes are playing by the rules or not.
Scores are not here to reward those who offer a better service.

So to go back to the 2-Step procedure:

1) Competitive Pricing mechanism (how much are you willing to pay?) ---> Completely freely moving parameter.
2) Strict policing to exclude free loaders (are you playing by the rules or not?) ---> Strict boolean value of true or false

2) doesn't need to influence the competitive nature of 1)
2) is just a switch, while 1) is a spread.

And most importantly only 1) is tied to the amount of coins you have in your servicenode.
2) doesn't give a sh*t if you have 10000 SPR or only 100 SPR in your wallet.
It will judge you no matter what.


EDIT: An example:

Suppose we have a service application codenamed "Spread the Search" which acts as a decentralized search engine.

Now, to decide if a servicenode plays by the rule we could introduce a general rule like:
"is the servicenode crawling and indexing atleast 10000 websites a day?"

If no, the servicenode is kicked out.

If yes, the servicenode is not getting additional rewards if it crawls 20000 websites a day, because this is not necessary.
No, it will simply have passed the test, no need to reward the "overachievers", because it can be expected that people will want to improve their server hardware ANYWAY,
because it will improve the service overall and therefor attract more investors.

[coins101]

I logged in to my c-cex account this morning and saw to my big suprise that Spread is Marked for delisting!!!
What kinda nonsens is that?
Can that really be true?
Is there any exchange where this coin has any volume, or is everybody just bagholdning?

We started looking to go for Cryptsy, but it turns out we are on an exchange that has more overall volume.

So the idea was sort of dropped for now. There is plenty of volume on trex.

I did the small task requested and can confirm Bittrex is seeing bigger overall trading volumes compared to Cryptsy



https://www.cryptocoincharts.info/markets/info

The decision to go after a listing on cryptsy can wait as it doesn't seem that necessary, IMO

[chrysophylax]

I logged in to my c-cex account this morning and saw to my big suprise that Spread is Marked for delisting!!!
What kinda nonsens is that?
Can that really be true?
Is there any exchange where this coin has any volume, or is everybody just bagholdning?

We started looking to go for Cryptsy, but it turns out we are on an exchange that has more overall volume.

So the idea was sort of dropped for now. There is plenty of volume on trex.

I did the small task requested and can confirm Bittrex is seeing bigger overall trading volumes compared to Cryptsy



https://www.cryptocoincharts.info/markets/info

The decision to go after a listing on cryptsy can wait as it doesn't seem that necessary, IMO

maybe so - as far as volume is concerned - but cryptsy has one main thing that bittrex doesnt ...

and that is the autosell / autotrade ability ...

#crysx

[coins101]

autosell / autotrade?

[minerpage]

to strictly control if the service nodes are playing by the rules or not.

That's good!

Scores are not here to reward those who offer a better service.

Was thinking long term, it might not be possible to maintain that position when the going gets rough.

By that I mean higher transaction volume but also security threats. We've seen the damage that can be done verbally, SPR never had to defend it's network against attacks of all kinds. If that ever happens (and I hope not, but let's be realistic), I would expect the ServiceNodes to be first in the line of fire. My concern is that at some time in the future, it might be necessary to harden the network on all possible levels, starting with the Service Nodes. Who's to say that there could be vulnerabilities with Instant Transactions (high value transactions being approved without enough coverage by the lower nodes and no reversal possible in case of fraudulent transactions) and the system gets exploited through the weakest links?

Food for though but as I said, these are longer term concerns, I'd like to see how it plays out in the immediate future after Service Node launch.

 

[stonehedge]

got interested in the coin a while ago, stopped following,.... sorry to barge in here, but any insight would be appreciated.


can anyone give me a summary as to why a masternode system was started?

Also, is this coin still pool resistant? There was rumor a while back that someone found a way around it.

Also, if the masternode thing is true, and its imported from dash, is there anything in place to prevent masternode stake pooling?

Hi,

You're not barging in at all.

I wasn't closely involved with SPR but I think I can answer one of your questions.

At least one SPR pool exists however there is the major caveat that these pools require full trust between all of the miners.  The way the SpreadX11 algorithm works means that the private key has to be shared with all members of the pool which means that any miner could steal the entire pool's coins at any time.  So yes, a workaround was found but it is not considered to be a viable option beyond a group of close friends.

Please note that a new ANN thread is planned for SPR.  We're hoping this to happen today but no deadlines are set

I hope this helps.

Dan

[chrysophylax]

got interested in the coin a while ago, stopped following,.... sorry to barge in here, but any insight would be appreciated.


can anyone give me a summary as to why a masternode system was started?

Also, is this coin still pool resistant? There was rumor a while back that someone found a way around it.

Also, if the masternode thing is true, and its imported from dash, is there anything in place to prevent masternode stake pooling?

Hi,

You're not barging in at all.

I wasn't closely involved with SPR but I think I can answer one of your questions.

At least one SPR pool exists however there is the major caveat that these pools require full trust between all of the miners.  The way the SpreadX11 algorithm works means that the private key has to be shared with all members of the pool which means that any miner could steal the entire pool's coins at any time.  So yes, a workaround was found but it is not considered to be a viable option beyond a group of close friends.

Please note that a new ANN thread is planned for SPR.  We're hoping this to happen today but no deadlines are set

I hope this helps.

Dan

you are absolutely correct ...

we mine there occasionally when spr is short ( or donating as is the case at the moment ) ...

private pool for complete trust with miners ...

and a damn good pool i must add also ...

#crysx

[georgem]

to strictly control if the service nodes are playing by the rules or not.

That's good!

Scores are not here to reward those who offer a better service.

Was thinking long term, it might not be possible to maintain that position when the going gets rough.

By that I mean higher transaction volume but also security threats. We've seen the damage that can be done verbally, SPR never had to defend it's network against attacks of all kinds. If that ever happens (and I hope not, but let's be realistic), I would expect the ServiceNodes to be first in the line of fire. My concern is that at some time in the future, it might be necessary to harden the network on all possible levels, starting with the Service Nodes. Who's to say that there could be vulnerabilities with Instant Transactions (high value transactions being approved without enough coverage by the lower nodes and no reversal possible in case of fraudulent transactions) and the system gets exploited through the weakest links?

Food for though but as I said, these are longer term concerns, I'd like to see how it plays out in the immediate future after Service Node launch.

 

If people expect a reward before they start securing and improving their servicenodes then they are completely misguided.
They get payed their fair share ANYWAY (30%), and if this isn't incentive enough for them to simply want to improve the service quality... then they should not run a servicenode (or any server for that matter)

[stonehedge]

to strictly control if the service nodes are playing by the rules or not.

That's good!

Scores are not here to reward those who offer a better service.

Was thinking long term, it might not be possible to maintain that position when the going gets rough.

By that I mean higher transaction volume but also security threats. We've seen the damage that can be done verbally, SPR never had to defend it's network against attacks of all kinds. If that ever happens (and I hope not, but let's be realistic), I would expect the ServiceNodes to be first in the line of fire. My concern is that at some time in the future, it might be necessary to harden the network on all possible levels, starting with the Service Nodes. Who's to say that there could be vulnerabilities with Instant Transactions (high value transactions being approved without enough coverage by the lower nodes and no reversal possible in case of fraudulent transactions) and the system gets exploited through the weakest links?

Food for though but as I said, these are longer term concerns, I'd like to see how it plays out in the immediate future after Service Node launch.

 

If people expect a reward before they start securing and improving their servicenodes then this is exactly the wrong way.
They get payed their fair share ANYWAY (30%), and if it isn't incentive enough for them to simply want to improve the service quality... then they should not run a servicenode (or any server for that matter)

Could somebody explain this to me like I am a 7 year old?  What is the problem with pre-determining that a person needs a set number of SPR to run a service node?  Lets look at it another way, given that Dash has had a 1 yr head start in effect, has their 1000DRK requirement taught us anything that we need to learn from?

On another note, I can't wait for testing to begin again.  

[georgem]

Could somebody explain this to me like I am a 7 year old?  What is the problem with pre-determining that a person needs a set number of SPR to run a service node?

The problem is it excludes new comers from entering the game.

If you have price fixation as with DASH (1000 DASH) then this might be interesting for early adopters who payed maybe 20$ for their 1000 DASH,
but what if the price for 1 DASH moves to 20$?

How can a masternode price of 20000$ (1000 x 20$) be considered "friendly to newcomers"?

In the contrary it only serves the people who already have more money than the rest of us.

What if DASH goes to 100$? It gets even more insane.
Even more centralization of masternodes in the hands of early adopters or people with a fiat money powered agenda (banks, governments)

SPR will solve this problem by not setting a fix requirement (except maybe for an absolute necessary minimum of 100 SPR or even lower).

[coins101]

The 1000DASH requirement was to prevent people setting up farms of nodes and compromising the network.

It is a good deterrent, in that regard.

Perhaps there should be a relative value, but that gets complicated.

The 1000DASH also gives price stability. People hoard coins to create masternodes, which means you don't get coins dumped on the markets everyday.

Cutting the rewards to miners also reduces the mine-to-sell emissions. Miners are rewarded because the coins they do get have higher values. The ecosystem works well with miners relying on servicenodes to provide a good service, so the miners grumble but they need nodes to keep the price high.

If you are going to lower the entry price, I would think about the above. I would also think about making nodes difficult to manage so that it would become a matter of practicality to manage more than 100, 200, or 600 hundred.  But take into account that there are people now who provide node management services.

I'm not asserting a position, just looking for points for discussion.

[georgem]

The 1000DASH requirement was to prevent people setting up farms of nodes and compromising the network.

It is a good deterrent, in that regard.

Perhaps there should be a relative value, but that gets complicated.

The 1000DASH also gives price stability. People hoard coins to create masternodes, which means you don't get coins dumped on the markets everyday.

Cutting the rewards to miners also reduces the mine-to-sell emissions. Miners are rewarded because the coins they do get have higher values. The ecosystem works well with miners relying on servicenodes to provide a good service, so the miners grumble but they need nodes to keep the price high.

If you are going to lower the entry price, I would think about the above. I would also think about making nodes difficult to manage so that it would become a matter of practicality to manage more than 100, 200, or 600 hundred.  But take into account that there are people now who provide node management services.

I'm not asserting a position, just looking for points for discussion.

A very low entry price coupled with a fix (but slowly growing) amount of maximum allowed service nodes will guarantee
that about every other day or so there will be a new open seat for someone who wants to enter the servicenode business.
That's what I call "staying friendly towards newcomers".

Please keep in mind that this friendliness is limited and does not apply to all possible servicenode seats.
The lower your price is, the easier someone else can just pay 1 SPR more and kick you out (make you the weakest link),
and the higher your price is, the more you can relax because you are outside of the "meat grinding" that happens near the lower end of the spread.

Gosh I need to create an animation to demonstrate this, it will be highly amousing to see that visualized.

[stonehedge]

Could somebody explain this to me like I am a 7 year old?  What is the problem with pre-determining that a person needs a set number of SPR to run a service node?

The problem is it excludes new comers from entering the game.

If you have price fixation as with DASH (1000 DASH) then this might be interesting for early adopters who payed maybe 20$ for their 1000 DASH,
but what if DASH price moves to 20$?

How can a masternode price o 20000$ (1000 x 20$) be considered "friendly to newcomers"?

In the contrary it only serves the people who already have more money than the rest of us.

What if DASH goes to 100$? It gets even more insane.

SPR will solve this problem by not setting a fix requirement (expect maybe for an absolute minimum of 100 SPR or even lower).

Thanks, much appreciated.  

I need to think about this some more.   I don't understand how having a variable "entry requirement" prevents those with more money than us from buying more SPR thus reducing available supply and driving up price.  Either approach seems to lead down the same road.  

I'm not suggesting that is a bad thing, its just that I'm trying to figure out in my mind how to draw up a table showing the pros and cons of both methods.  Servicenodes/masternodes both take coins out of circulation and both reduce supply to a certain extent.

BINGO.  I get it.  I really am thick sometimes.  I'd delete the above but I thought I might as well show my (lack of) thought process.

I was about to ask what if SPR rose to $20?  In essence it wouldn't matter by using the SPR approach.

I'm finding it hard to stop thinking like a one time darkcoin baby-whale.  If somebody told me that my lets say 50 masternodes could be happily providing a good service but then the threshold to be selected for payment changed so that my masternodes would need 1007DRK I would be freaked.

I apologise for taking ages to get my head around this.  I am a disciple of the DRKside.

[stonehedge]

That said, it's clear the servicenode eco-system needs a lot of thought, discussion and planning. In addition to design, development, testing and release management

I'm not sold on it but then again there won't be a point where everybody is.

The next few months are going to be fun.  

[georgem]

Servicenodes/masternodes both take coins out of circulation and both reduce supply to a certain extent.

Exactly, only that Servicenodes are more flexible.

1) You are allowed to even take 20000 SPR out of circulation with SPR, not just 1000 (as with DASH).
(but the more people do that, the less SPR are left, so the remaining people can run a servicenode with much fewer SPR than they could before.)

2) On the other side of the spectrum you will always see people who will succesfully run a servicenode with just 100 SPR...

That's why we call this coin SPREADcoin ...  

[coins101]

The 1000DASH requirement was to prevent people setting up farms of nodes and compromising the network.

It is a good deterrent, in that regard.

Perhaps there should be a relative value, but that gets complicated.

The 1000DASH also gives price stability. People hoard coins to create masternodes, which means you don't get coins dumped on the markets everyday.

Cutting the rewards to miners also reduces the mine-to-sell emissions. Miners are rewarded because the coins they do get have higher values. The ecosystem works well with miners relying on servicenodes to provide a good service, so the miners grumble but they need nodes to keep the price high.

If you are going to lower the entry price, I would think about the above. I would also think about making nodes difficult to manage so that it would become a matter of practicality to manage more than 100, 200, or 600 hundred.  But take into account that there are people now who provide node management services.

I'm not asserting a position, just looking for points for discussion.

A very low entry price coupled with a fix (but slowly growing) amount of maximum allowed service nodes will guarantee
that about every other day or so there will be a new open seat for someone who wants to enter the servicenode business.
That's what I call "staying friendly towards newcomers".

Please keep in mind that this friendliness is limited and does not apply to all possible servicenode seats.
The lower your price is, the easier someone else can just pay 1 SPR more and kick you out (make you the weakest link),
and the higher your price is, the more you can relax because you are outside of the "meat grinding" that happens near the lower end of the spread.

Gosh I need to create an animation to demonstrate this, it will be highly amousing to see that visualized.

I don't think the DASH masternode system is perfect, but its relatively simple from the nodes point of view.

You set-up a node and you know how much it is and roughly what your reward is. You can do ROI calculations, because nodes have hosting costs.

The main issue with DASH is that you can't ROI if don't get enough rewards to cover costs. This is similar to mining. More miners, less to go around, but you still have costs. The return needs to be there to pay for costs and provide a profit.

The other issue is what happens when the rewards emissions reach maxcoins. No rewards, means no incentive to host a MN. So services will become essential to cover the share of the block rewards when they diminish, if the price hasn't kept up. SPR is starting with that from the word go - something I've always wanted to see 

[coins101]

I'm trying to get my head around this auction to get a servicenode concept, or more specifically, how it will work in practice.  

I have a servicenode, but someone can jump in my place and kick me off the network?


I am looking, honest

[georgem]

You set-up a node and you know how much it is and roughly what your reward is. You can do ROI calculations, because nodes have hosting costs.

An investor can "simulate" this predictability by just investing enough SPR so that he is in the upper half of the spread of the collateral price.
There is always a certain amount of SPR after which you do not fear at all that someone else can kick your servicenode out, because there are many other people below you who will be kicked first.
Ergo we can have predictability of ROI too with SPR, it's just a matter of assessing what all the other servicenodes are doing.

The other issue is what happens when the rewards emissions reach maxcoins. No rewards, means no incentive to host a MN. So services will become essential to cover the share of the block rewards when they diminish, if the price hasn't kept up. SPR is starting with that from the word go - something I've always wanted to see 

When we reach maxcoins the network is basically only powered by all kinds of tx fees (and maybe service app fees), so miners and servicenodes need to cut this 70/30% too I guess...

[georgem]

I have a servicenode, but someone can jump in my place and kick me off the network?

Only if you are the weakest link. And this can only ever be 1 specific servicenode at any give time, no matter if we have 500 or 5000 servicenodes active.

Depending on how we implement service nodes, there might only be a kicking happening every block time, so every minute, if ever.
A kicking always requires a newcomer, yes.
If there are no newcomers trying to "register" a servicenode, there will be no kicking.

And your Node can easily be reactivated (maybe with a certain time penalty, depends again how we implement this)
if you are just willing to add enough SPR to your wallet so that you are again "well within the spread"...

"well within the spread"... I like the sound of that...