Proposal “EVO-DECISION-1K-HPMN“ (Closed)Back

Title:[Evolution Decision]: 1K Dash Collateral High Performance Masternode Solution
Owner:rion
One-time payment: 1 DASH (39 USD)
Completed payments: no payments occurred yet (1 month remaining)
Payment start/end: 2022-12-11 / 2023-01-09 (added on 2022-11-29)
Final voting deadline: in passed
Votes: 82 Yes / 550 No / 55 Abstain

Proposal description

This proposal is an alternative to the following proposals:

Following the shorthand naming conventions above, this proposal can be thought of the 1k, voluntary option.

1.  What is this decision proposal?

This decision proposal is a poll to help Dash Core Group (DCG) understand the preferences of the masternode owner/operator (MNO) network regarding the launch of Dash Platform.

2.  Why is this "1k, voluntary" option being proposed?

For at least 5 years MNOs have been expecting to run Dash Evolution / Dash Platform with 1,000 DASH-collateralized nodes.  Now, as the development of Dash Platform nears completion, DCG has informed us that there are concerns with this long-standing plan.  DCG has grouped these concerns into five main categories (I have modified their original list slightly):

  1. Operational choice - Should upgrading to support platform be mandatory or voluntary?
  2. System performance - How well will the system respond to peer-to-peer and user requests?
  3. System safety - How likely could it be for the system to halt or have funds at risk?
  4. Masternode yield - What yield can both normal and platform masternode owners expect?
  5. User cost - How much will it cost to use platform, particularly storing data contracts and documents?

Many masternode owners (myself included) share these concerns.  Ideally there would be a solution that respects the original plan as much as possible.  The main goals of this proposal are to:

  1. Address the concerns above with an option for a voluntary platform upgrade that maintains the 1k collateral (DCG has not proposed such a 1k, voluntary option, so this has fallen to the community).  
  2. Give MNOs more information about the assumptions and calculations behind the proposed options (DCG's proposals and this proposal) to be able to make an informed decision about this very important decision.

3.  What is this proposal recommending?

There is no full implementation or final design for this proposal.  Instead, there is a model that shows key assumptions (e.g. Dash price, hosting costs, total platform collateral, platform subsidy allocations, etc) and corresponding calculations (masternode counts, chance of platform quorum failure, masternode yield, user pricing, etc).  I created a video that explains the model in more detail.  MNOs can watch this to better understand and assess the tradeoffs with all the options

.

As stated in question 2, my primary objectives are to give MNOs another option to vote for, and educate as much as possible so we can make an informed decision.  Every MNO has different values and priorities.  Currently, I consider this 1k, voluntary option to be the most attractive, considering my values, priorities, and understanding of platform. 
Over the next few days I will expound on the 5 issues above and add more detail to this proposal.  That said, here is the general design criteria / plan (so far):

  1. Require 1,000 DASH collateral for operating a platform node.
  2. Allow masternodes to run platform on a voluntary basis.
  3. Add a timelock requirement to register as and/or remain a valid platform masternode.
  4. Launch platform fully on testnet and refine platform parameters (such as those below) based on performance testing.
  5. Increase platform quorum size (e.g. 150 nodes instead of 100 nodes).
  6. Decrease quorum creation frequency/quantity (e.g. 12 formations/day instead of 24 formations/day).
  7. Beta launch platform on mainnet with treasury-funded incentives before changing actual masternode subsidy allocations.
  8. Continue observing mainnet for stability and finalize platform parameters.
  9. Introduce a minimal block subsidy allocation as necessary to incentivize a secure number of platform masternodes (e.g. 20% of current MNO allocation).
  10. Possibly limit the block subsidy allocation to a certain time period (e.g. 2 years) and/or only for time-locked platform nodes.
I am not recommending specific values for all of the above, at least not at this phase of the proposal.  I am recommending a specific collateral requirement (1k) and a process to arrive at the optimal values for the rest. 

4.  Why is this proposal titled "1K Dash High Performance Masternode Solution"?

The title is, in part, some light-hearted trolling, but mostly it's to keep a naming convention consistent with what DCG has, unfortunately, insisted on.  As we'll see "high performance" is an accurate description for platform nodes if you stretch the meaning of the term enough. 

Those who have followed the pre-proposal discussion will know that I've been against the term "high performance" to describe the proposed 4k and 10k high collateral options.  As mentioned in my forum post, I see no reason why high collateral nodes would be more “performant” than 1,000 DASH collateralized nodes.  We should expect nodes to be only as performant as needed in order to get paid; this is in general what will likely happen, regardless of collateral.

DCG clarified what was meant by "high performance" in question 18 of their frequently asked questions (FAQ) document, which states:

The higher collateral requirement does not enforce higher performance. Rather, Masternodes have an economic incentive to follow the specs recommended by DCG: if a node wasn’t performing sufficiently, it would start lagging behind the rest of the network, fail to produce blocks, and miss out on rewards. Thus a HPMN will be required to be stronger than the current average standard masternode in order to receive rewards. 

Since "high performance" is referring to required or desired performance rather than enforced or ensured performance it equally applies to this 1k, voluntary option.  As far as I'm concerned it should also apply to the 1k, mandatory option as well.  I described this naming convention as "unfortunate" (actually an understatement) above because the 1k, mandatory option is being implicitly disparaged by not sharing the same prestigious descriptor.

The FAQ answer continues:

A second point is that higher collateral shows a higher stake in the project which should push HPMN owners to have a higher incentive to have more performant hardware servicing Dash Platform.

It is reasonable that higher collateral could imply a higher stake in the project's success, but this logic would also raise the question about what shows more stake in the network, a 4,000 DASH stake that can be bought and/or sold at a moment's notice, or a 1,000 DASH stake that has committed to hold over some (even small) time period?

5.  How should I vote on these proposals?

The model I've created shows that it's possible to construct a 1k, voluntary platform system that has lower fees, higher yields, and and arguably better security than the 1k, mandatory option.  Whether this is more attractive than the 4k, voluntary and/or 10k, voluntary options depends largely on your subjective assessment of risks:

  • Increasing the collateral requirement for platform masternodes carries social, economic, and censorship risks.
  • Keeping the collateral 1k and allowing for voluntary participation carries some technical risk due to risky quorum formations (which I will explain more later).  
  • MNOs should try to understand the modeling at least enough to understand the platform quorum formation risks.  This is required in order to weigh that against the social, economic, and censorship risks of the high collateral alternatives.
Ultimately it's up to each individual MNO to judge the trade-offs associated with each option.  Here is a summary of the options I modeled.

https://i.redd.it/av3gim77te3a1.png
Figure 1 - Platform node options

Note that there are many assumptions that make up these calculations.  Alternate outcomes are possible by changing variables (either by choice, or by forces outside of direct control, like the Dash price).  The 1k, timelock option in the screenshot and video above is just a specific variant of the 1k, voluntary option that uses assumptions and inputs shown in section/question 3 above.  This proposal targets timelocks, and thus the 1k, timelock column variables.  As mentioned, this proposal recommends a process, not necessarily specific variable values.  If, through the process, it was determined that more platform nodes would be needed to meet security targets, they could be facilitated by increasing the allocation from 20% to, say, 25%.  This would increase security, but decrease yield.  These fine tunings are allowed with this proposal.

6.  How will this proposal proceed and evolve?

DCG has suggested a multi-round proposal process.  In this first round all four (or more) proposals compete for votes.  They have suggested that the two proposals receiving the highest net vote counts (yes votes minus no votes) go on to the next round (next month) where there will potentially be further refinements.  They have stated that if the two high collateral proposals (4k and 10k) are the highest in this round that there will be proposals for 6k and 8k in addition to the 4k and 10k options in the next round. 

This proposal takes a similar approach; if this 1k, voluntary option is one of the top two round-one winners we will refine the 1k options in round two.  We will not refine it to become mandatory since we have an option for that in this round.  We would, however, refine time-locking and allocation options, for example.  Similar to this round, anyone would be able to propose 1k, voluntary options to select from, including DCG or anyone from the community.

This proposal is not yet complete.  I will be adding more questions/answers over the next few days, specifically expounding on the five items in question 2 above.

Final thoughts

I'm glad that DCG recognized the security and cost issues that have prompted these proposals.  I'm glad that they are taking MNO feedback into account on this very important decision.  The platform launch will be the biggest change we've seen in many years.  We need to get this right, even if it pushes the mainnet platform release a little further into next year (mainnet release won't be this year regardless of which option we decide).  It may even be better to launch a little later when the market has recovered and more people are looking at cryptocurrency again.

Thank you, MNOs, for considering this option.  Please take the time to really understand the tradeoffs here.  I am more than happy to answer questions.  In fact, that will help me as I fill out this proposal text more over the next few days.

Respectfully,

- Rion

Show full description ...

Discussion: Should we fund this proposal?

Submit comment
 
-3 points,1 year ago
In one of these arguments, grandmasterdash attacked Dash's Platform proposition by comparing it to SIAcoin and Storj, both ranked very lowly and closely at #166 and #168 respectively. Although I called his argument fud below in general, I wanted to respond to this more in depth in general for the benefit of the MNOs so that we can all come to a conclusion about platform and its potential to both have great ROI as well as cement Dash as the leading cryptocurrency. After all, if that doesn't happen, platform can be considered in some way to have failed.

So, what about SIAcoin and STORJ? How does our most closely related competition fare (I alluded to Google and Facebook being our competition, that's more wishful, long-term thinking)? Just like Dash surpassed BCH, monero, Decred and BTC in the payments realm, being the number one cryptocurrency for payments in several regions for years now (most heavily in Latin America), so too will Dash need to surpass our cryptocurrency competition in SIACoin and STORJ.

I had a look at the ecosystem of these two in response to this argument. Here is my summary investigative results. First, SIACoin.

Here is a comparison of the file storage coins in the cryptocurrency space:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/501433513677946880/1036812268018598008/unknown.png

FileCoin remains the biggest at 873 PBs of storage capacity with 24 PBs of actual storage used.

Siacoin is apparently near dead or in a zombie-state. There has been several major negative events with a slow and steady decline in official activity in that community. Something called 'Skynet' was apparently a large undertaking that failed, costing the leader of the community his position as well as a significant amount of enthusiasm and goodwill in the project towards the community (like if Platform somehow failed in Dash, that same kind of negative sentiment reigns).

There is still apparently some development by "the Foundation", but its slow going and more importantly SIACoin remains low in usage having the lowest capacity and 2nd lowest actual storage used of all 4 cryptocurrency file storage solutions.

STORJ, however, is another matter entirely. But first, second-runner up to fileCoin, scprime.

Here are some important characteristics about ScPrime (I read the white paper so you don't have to, but feel free: https://scpri.me/wp-content/uploads/SCP-WhitePaper-v1.0.pdf) a potential technological competitor to Platform. Sc has an (initial block) premine to incentivize various participants, a proof of work mineable cryptocurrency, infinite inflation, 20% developer fund, self-admitted low value of its high-velocity token (large supply at least 7.6 Billion units), collateral put up for service providers with financial penalty for 'cheating'.

So overall, dodgy tokenomics as we know from the payments realm. This lack of tokenomic value will come back to bite these coins when it comes time to compete with Dash, because Dash's limited and strong tokenomics incentivize holding and value growth over time. Which will give Dash an advantage in paying for and attracting investors that will host the storage on HVMNs. Open-source client. Open protocol, good for third-party developers.

This network also boasts content terms-of-service that provide clear regulations on hosting illegal content (nod to my discussion with Socrates about illegal content). However, it is a proof-of-work mineable coin, and it has slow blocks, with claims little value for faster than 10 minute blocks. Dash is again superior here in being a fast transactional coin that splits the data storage network from the payments blockchain so that each can be optimized separately from the other. Also, like Platform data contracts specify how long data lives and storage proofs guarantee providers store what they say they will, no more and no less, with valid proofs resulting in payment to the host and invalid ones resulting in the payment going to a burn address (different punishments and rewards than Dash).

It also boasts storage of data at cost. Very similar data capabilities to Platform. Data key-pairs. ScPrime has the second most capacity (66.2PBs) but lowest actual data stored amount of all 4 solutions (1.7 PB).

Now to Storj. Storj is doing actually quite well it would seem, though its slow growth rate leaves room for Dash to overtake it with a strong offering. Although SiaCoin has the look of crypto-death and stagnation, storj appears to be actively used in an MVP fashion. They have their product released to market and its being used. 3rd most storage capacity (36 PBs) but second-most actual data stored.

So Its a mixed bag. This post is a response to the argument that Platform won't necessarily be anything special or grow to anything because SiaCoin and Storj, as well as others ostensibly, are low value and in general low in adoption (despite their current usage rates). So why am I confident that Platform will succeed and not only overtake this cryptocurrency competition but also nip at the heels of the big tech companies like Google and Amazon?

Simply because I believe that these other coins are missing some fundamentals that Dash has. The first thing is, Dash isn't doing decentralized file storage. I'm sure something like that can and will be done, but that's not the goal. Platform's goal is decentralized DATA CONTRACTS. This means Platform will allow dapps that use these contracts and will attract attention, one of these apps could be storage but it won't be the only one. These other coins are, imo, too tightly coupled with the "storage" use case while platform is a more generally useful framework. So, it will start with decentralized usernames for payments and those usernames will become more and more useful as other apps are built on Platform.

For example, we already have plenty of customers for the most popular potential DAPP right out of the gate: usernames. The only thing wrong with cryptocurrencies is that they're hard to use for non-technical people. Adoption would be a lot easier if people could use their Dash just like their Venmo, paypal, email, etc. Login with a human-readable username and password, send money to another human-readable username. Bam. Decentralized Venmo.

Decentralized payments between human-readable usernames. That one little thing is what cryptocurrencies are missing that prevents mass adoption, and thus that one thing could spread easily. Its just like these other coins in providing decentralized data storage. But with a purpose and customer base pre-built, people who want to trade and use cryptocurrencies with usernames. Millions of people know about crypto, but most won't mess with it due to the difficulty. Imagine defi contracts being stored on platform. Decentralized trade.

In this sense, the competition that grandmasterdash mentioned are at a disadvantage relative to Dash because their coins don't have widespread adoption throughout the world as payment networks, and their architecture is pretty slow, as well as being more limited in scope and practical usefulness. I suspect its because they have many thousands of nodes which may place bandwidth and other limits on their networks. They also aren't very financially attractive. Running a siacoin node gets you like $3 a month or so. Storj is maybe 2 times better.

Platform is more general in its application than these services in my estimation because it is a second-layer network built on top of a successful payments chain, which means we have a ready user-base with a clear usecase that will give us an advantage over ourr payments competition as well as our storage competition: usernames in decentralized payments. These other storage solutions can't really offer that, so they can't go viral easily and thus seem fated to remain obscure. I don't believe that that fate will happen to Dash because payments is such a large usecase. By combining data storage and payments on two different chains, Dash is offering something unique.

Filecoin, sia and storj are solutions in search of a problem. decentralized filestorage is not very competitive yet. But decentralized usernames for payments? Yes, that's a hot usecase that can't be copied readily. So our competition, both the payments side as well as the data as a service side, are at a disadvantage compared to our network. That is my summary report on the state of the competition in the storage space and response to the criticism that Platform may not amount to much as seen in other decentralized data storage cryptocurrency platforms.
Reply
2 points,1 year ago
I won't downvote you because you did at least look into what they are doing.

I cited Sia and STORJ as they are just two examples of what happens when you try to compete on price alone. When you compete on price, the big boys come in and they undercut everyone for years until the competition just fails or walks away. As you point out, Dash Platform has a unique offering and not really comparable, though Sam has said he wants to allow binary blobs, which makes no sense to me at all.

When you have a unique offering, which Platform has, you no longer compete on price alone. What is the correct price for using Platform? - NOBODY KNOWS because it is unique. How long for Platform to find a killer app? Again, for the same reason, nobody knows. Price could be too high and no one finds value. Price could be too low and the network sells itself short, less money coming in, squeezing MNO / HPMNO profits.

I say all this because it was Sam that made the assumption that Platform must be cheap. All I'm saying is, at this point, people should not get so hung up on price. First, Dash Platform must find it's niche. You say usernames and DPNS are the killer apps, I disagree. You can't just produce usernames and a DNS alternative and assume success, it takes a lot more than that.

From a user perspective, dash usernames are quite interesting compared to others, though there are issues surrounding name squatting. I'm sure it will add value to dash but how much value? Will exchanges support it? - it's hard enough getting them to accept InstantSend or Chainlocks. Will Dashpay also include a bitcoin wallet and leverage dash usernames for bitcoin transactions? - I doubt it, because DCGs focus doesn't seem to be on payments. But hey DCG, very happy if you do it.

In 1999 Shazam launched the first application to fingerprint and identify music. Initially, it was available to everyone via a phone call and then later an app. It took 17 YEARS for them to turn a profit and the real money was not made from their initial target audience but through royalty collections. Dash Platform is in this same position, a unique product that has yet to find it's niche.

There is also the extra burden of censorship, which Sam wants to postpone to a later date, after HPMNs. This too comes at a cost, either financially to maintain censorship or the cost of implementing it and fine tuning. Censorship is a highly charged and complex topic. Don't even get me started on binary blobs. Without some level of censorship, Sam said he would resign. I think the subject of censorship should of been brought up way before HPMNs came about.
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
>I cited Sia and STORJ as they are just two examples of what happens when you try to compete on price alone.

I don't think that's accuarte. Siacoin and storj aren't low because they 'compete on price alone'. They are low because their usecase never went viral. They don't have a strong reason for people to use them over the competition. Apparently file storage isn't as in need of disruption as tradFI, at least not yet. Because of this, I believe your example in using them is flawed.

>How long for Platform to find a killer app?

As you know, I believe that Platform will START with a killer app and that DCG is correct in focusing on developing platform for payments. This is the killer app and why I believe that SIA and storj are not relevant here. They can't do this even though they do file storage (just okay, not really superior to a centralized service except on esoteric technical merits like decentralized etc.)

Dashpay on platform will be notably superior than our competition and will allow us to utilize our payments chain as a killer app which will incentivize users to utilize their username for whatever they can. I.e. viral apps should spring from the killer app of usernames with the payment chain.

>Price could be too high and no one finds value.

This possibility being the reason that I concur with DCG and Sam about being against anything but a 4K or 10K HVMN solution.

>Price could be too low and the network sells itself short, less money coming in, squeezing MNO / HPMNO profits.

This possibility is not a realistic reason to do anything. You are just like the monero community. The monero community naturally has NO CONFIDENCE in their coin or their project. So they don't believe that the fee market (i.e. user adoption) will be able to sustain their coin. So, using this lack of confidence as an excuse, they FORCE monero on the market instead by giving it infinite inflation.

So the market won't be able to say, 'We don't like that coin, it should die.' This is the genesis of the monero community's attack against the fee market. They are insecure and lack confidence, just like you here. Your justification for this position is that you don't believe that Platform will succeed so you want to charge as much as possible to recoup ROI.

But grandmasterdash, if you don't believe that Platform is a game-changing and special offering then why are you here? There's plenty of communities with various beliefs on how to scale (none of them accurate or viable, but they exist).

>I say all this because it was Sam that made the assumption that Platform must be cheap.

I don't think this is accurate. I think every architect of Platform wants it to be low fee so it reaches the greatest volume of users. Your offering must be fast, easy to use and CHEAP. Then people will flock to it. This is not a difficult assertion to prove or even think of so I don't understand why you're against it so vehemently. Its NATURAL to want to lower costs as much as possible to attract attention. You make it up on the mass volume (which you apparently don't believe is coming).

>people should not get so hung up on price.

Who's hung up? I think you're the only one who's hung up on it. Everyone else sees the obvious logic in keeping fees as low as possible as a general goal, so aren't you the only one who is 'hung up on price'?

>You say usernames and DPNS are the killer apps, I disagree. You can't just produce usernames and a DNS alternative and assume success, it takes a lot more than that.

I don't think you've thought it through. You do realize this isn't some random tech show, right? We already know we have customers. Dash is the most performant and used blockchain for actual payments. Dash is the blockchain with the largest adoption among retailers in a global atmosphere. We had over 150,000 ACTIVE android wallets in just Venezuela ALONE two years ago.

If you give those people the same speed, security and adoption that Dash already presents, plus the ease of use of transacting with usernames then I think you're wrong here. That IS THE KILLER APP. As we've seen with 'Defi' and other 'crypto web 3.0 solutions', payments really is the biggest use case. Even if its just speculative payments. All the other things that people justify blockchains for really aren't worth it. But usernames for payments is. If you don't believe that this is a killer app then again, why are you here?

> though there are issues surrounding name squatting.

These issues are an edge case and should affect google, facebook and other name services which are offered for free. Dash usernames have a small fixed cost which should limit username related issues, including squatting.

>Will exchanges support it?

Irrelevant. Exchanges haven't been relevant to Dash's story since 2018 when we exploded in Venezuela before really getting on exchanges down there. Exchanges are not a leading indicator for Dash. And the market is deliberately ignoring our superior technology in all but a few cases. Still, we perservere and are the most adopted and largest payment coin, even more than BTC which is a huge accomplishment.

>it's hard enough getting them to accept InstantSend or Chainlocks.

Is it? I rely on instantSend for my daily purchases. I use Dash at least 5 times a week and its always instant and I never have to think about blockchain issues like with other chains. Which shows that even if exchanges don't support it, the network is what matters, exchanges will follow when we're popular regardless of their ideological position. And anyway, this is no good reason to NOT release so the concern is really neither here nor there.

>Dash Platform is in this same position, a unique product that has yet to find it's niche.

Again I disagree and think you're wrong. Dash Platform IS LATE! We already have a use case and tens of thousands of people chomping at the bit to use it. Payments with usernames is a killer app, because payments is a killer app. You see all this *points to billions "invested" in cryptocurrency economy*? Yeah, that's from payments, at this level of ease of use. So if we introduce usernames to this payments equation, then we will be the best by a long shot.

Our UX will be so far superior to other coins that we will LEAVE THE REALM OF CRYPTOCURRENCY and enter the realm of TRUE PAYMENTS like Venmo, Paypal and banks. Most cryptocurrencies are still limited by their architectures (block size, block time, no usernames/ease of use). Dash has solved the first two and now seeks to solve the final barrier to entry, which once solved will open the flood gates.

Anybody can get a little following by taking a strong stand against the banks. You're not going to find much pushback there among the general populace. But can you do so WHILE PROVIDING A DRAMATICALLY SUPERIOR user experience than them and your competition? 24/7/365 decentralized and permissionless availability all over the world with usernames for ease of use is ABSOLUTELY A GAME-CHANGER and I believe you're underselling it massively for some reason.

>There is also the extra burden of censorship, which Sam wants to postpone to a later date, after HPMNs

As I understand it, there won't be any censorship. Giving HVMN the ability to respond to a DCMA request is NOT CENSORSHIP. Nobody considers youtube as 'censorship' for taking down pirated movies, because its not your free speech to upload a pirated movie. It seems you want the network to take a childish and naive position w.r.t. our legal requirements as a hosting service. Providing the ability to remove illegal content is wise and just, I don't understand how you can see it any other way.

>Without some level of censorship, Sam said he would resign.

You're calling it censorship. Sam said he would resign without a way to remove ILLEGAL CONTENT. That is NOT THE SAME THING AS CENSORSHIP. Words have meaning and you're being dishonest and disingenuous by twisting their definition in this way.

> I think the subject of censorship should of been brought up way before HPMNs came about.

Your dishonest usage of the word censorship aside, these are things that couldn'tve been decided on before the network topology became clear. This is a common problem in software design where you can't predict the future topology of a design and have to wait until you're closer to release to define some constraint or other. This is normal in software development.
Reply
2 points,1 year ago
I can't possibly explain to you here what is a very big subject, whether you call is "illegal content" or censorship.

There is no single authority for "illegal content" because that would depend where you live. Different jurisdictions have different laws, motives and priorities.

Nor do you seem to appreciate the difference between something being illegal and content subject to AI filters, imposing their code-is-law. YT goes way beyond US laws for pirated movies. Any content creator will tell you all the things they can or can't play, say or show. It's just not about law at all. In the same way exchanges over compensate with ridiculous rules because regulators are intentionally fuzzy or silent.

Self-regulation leads to over compensation. It is a slippery slope which goes from "if you can do X, then you can do Y".

As for the rest, we'll just have to agree to disagree. You know my position so we'll just wait and see.
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
>I can't possibly explain to you here what is a very big subject, whether you call is "illegal content" or censorship.

Its not big and doesn't require much explanation. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with stolen material, other peoples' property, files or data. So being able to remove that content (illegal, stolen material) upon legal request isn't censorship. Nobody calls youtube censorship for taking down stolen content (like movies). Respond to this argument or stop making yours!

>There is no single authority for "illegal content" because that would depend where you live.

Which is perfectly fine. The mechanism won't be reliant on jurisdiction. The HVMN will have the option to remove content when presented with a legal request, regardless of where it comes from (however, they will probably only respond to requests from countries that are actually hosting them, so even less of a hassle than you're making it out to be).

>Different jurisdictions have different laws, motives and priorities.

Irrelevant. The HVMNO will only have to deal with the jurisdiction they are in. One jurisdiction, one set of laws, motives, priorities. A HVMN outside of that jurisdiction won't have to comply with their regulations, which will force a global institution to represent the request, which also is fine.

>Nor do you seem to appreciate the difference between something being illegal and content subject to AI filters, imposing their code-is-law.

Nor do you seem to appreciate the difference between centralized offerings like youtube and decentralized ones like Platform. Again you show that you lack confidence in DCG and platform as a solution superior to current options. Because if you believed it, your 'criticisms' here wouldn't be enough to sway your opinion on the network or platform. You don't seem to realize it, but you have a lot of 'tells' that are giving away your motivations and incentives/hidden ties.

>Any content creator will tell you all the things they can or can't play, say or show.

And Youtube is not Platform. Platform will have the freedom to only comply as much as legally necessary, no further. Since there is no centralized institution telling HVMNOs what to do with their node, leaving it in their hands gives them the ultimate control. Something that other networks don't have. So again you ignore our superiority in order to push FUD.

>It's just not about law at all.

Its ALL ABOUT the law. It makes sense to provide a socially acceptable way to remove stolen content. You have not said anything that negates or even approaches a rebuttal to this point, your deflection by calling it 'censorship' (when you know its not) notwithstanding.

>In the same way exchanges over compensate...

Again this won't likely happen with platform because platform is decentralized and exchanges are not. You again show you are not appreciating the landscape for what it truly is, instead created FEAR UNCERTAINTY AND DOUBT from an unrealistic proposition. Platform is DECENTRALIZED, the CoD will be at least 100, which is 100 TIMES more or less more decentralized than current offerings. Have a little faith.

>Self-regulation leads to over compensation. It is a slippery slope which goes from "if you can do X, then you can do Y".

Okay everyone, pack it up! Grandmasterdash said that platform can't work so we have to just go on ahead and quit now!

>As for the rest, we'll just have to agree to disagree. You know my position so we'll just wait and see.

Your position is nonsensical and FUD.
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
There is no such thing as "illegal content" because we have no global laws.

Something that is legal in a place, it is illegal in another.

So you must say, "legal content in US", or "illegal content in North Corea" etc.

Just saying "illegal content" is nonscense.
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
>There is no such thing as "illegal content" because we have no global laws.

Preposterous. There are indeed global governing bodies that have a certain level of regulatory authority. And besides, being prepared in case those authorities are strengthened by world govts is wise.

>Something that is legal in a place, it is illegal in another.

Which contradicts your statement above. It would be 'illegal content' in that jurisdiction. If your HVMN is running in that jursdiction, you would be subject to a takedown request. Having the option to comply is therefore prudent.

>So you must say, "legal content in US", or "illegal content in North Corea" etc.

Not when you're speaking in general. Otherwise every English sentence would be overloaded with antecedents and other specifiers. Speaking in general allows us to say 'illegal content in the US' by just referring to 'illegal content'. So you're wrong and speaking a nonscense.
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
>If your HVMN is running in that jursdiction, you would be subject to a takedown request. Having the option to comply is therefore prudent.

A HPMN should not compy to censorship laws, it should just migrate to places where no legal censorship occurs.
Reply
-1 point,1 year ago
>A HPMN should not compy to censorship laws,

Its not censorship. Censorship is limiting freespeech, not removing stolen content.

>A HPMN should not compy to censorship laws, it should just migrate to places where no legal censorship occurs.

Irrelevant.
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
>Censorship is limiting freespeech, not removing stolen content.

Some people are calling it theft, some others are calling it redistribution of wealth.

I am calling it neither theft nor redistribution of wealth, I am just calling it censorship.

And I am pragmatic, the only way to remove stolen content is to apply a global law. And a global law is not applicable yet.
Reply
-1 point,1 year ago
>Some people are calling it theft, some others are calling it redistribution of wealth.

Why is that relevant?

>I am calling it neither theft nor redistribution of wealth, I am just calling it censorship.

Okay well you don't have the right to just 'call things what you want'. Words have definitions for a reason. Censorship is when you attack free speech. Someone stealing your bank credentials and having that removed by legal request is NOT CENSORSHIP.

>And I am pragmatic, the only way to remove stolen content is to apply a global law.

That's clearly not true. Youtube and other internet services remove stolen content all the time. They are globally available services that respond to local jurisdictions without 'global laws' being necessary so that makes your argument even weaker.
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
Well , my argument is that the HPMN should not respond to local jurisdictions.

They should just migrate to other places where censorship (or whatever you call it) does not exist.
Reply
-1 point,1 year ago
>Well , my argument is that HPMN should not respond to local jurisdictions.

That argument is tone-deaf and braindead. Having the option to do so is wise, leaving it up to the HVMN themself. If you don't want to comply then don't. Giving options for personal choice is better than forcing one side or the other.

>They should just migrate to other places.

That's just your opinion. You have no right to force that on the rest of us.
Reply
2 points,1 year ago
And you have no right to enforce censorship (or whatever you call it).
Reply
-2 points,1 year ago
>And you have no right to enforce censorship (or whatever you call it).

Strawman. I'm not the one trying to enforce illegal content removal (which is different from censorship, failing to recognize this indicates you are being dishonest). Since governments DO have the right to request takedowns, having an option to comply with them is wise. You have not responded to this argument.
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
Can you not copy pasta large text across multiple governance threads, bruh?
Reply
-1 point,1 year ago
I refuse. This comment is relevant to all decision proposals. I'm also not the only one who's done it, so unless you ask all of us you're being hypocritical.
Reply
4 points,1 year ago
Why not 2K HPMN? Wouldn't it significantly reduce the centralisation concerns, while at the same time carry most of the advantages of HPMN?
Reply
-2 points,1 year ago
One of the points that infamous infiltrator and bad-idea-suggestor GrandMasterDash responded with below is the idea that BTC has "(13?) 17,000 nodes with any treasury reward or masternode reward" thus the implication is that BTC is better than Dash. Aside from that not being a strong criticism (BTC is the first and oldest cryptocurrency, so its first-mover advantage alone should position it as superior to Dash. This is not a failing or mark against Dash), its actually not factually correct. Neither from GrandMasterDash's own analysis, nor from relevant factual analysis which I will present shortly below.

But first, GMD's comparison is flawed, because BTC has 13,000, 17,000, or whatever figure you want to use, nodes and Dash only has 3800 masternodes, but Dash's masternodes have a collateral requirement while BTC's nodes don't. They're free to create (though they still have costs to operate). Which means you can't compare the two. If BTC's nodes had a collateralization requirement like Dash's nodes do, then and only THEN could you compare the two. But in fact, BTC's nodes don't DO ANYTHING. In POW 1.0 coins, if your node isn't a mining node IT DOESN'T BENEFIT THE NETWORK AT ALL!

If you're just running a node to connect to the network, or connect your personal wallet, sorry but you're not doing anything for the network. You are only serving yourself (which in itself is fine, blockchains were created to serve this data). But Dash's nodes are completely different. Not only do they have a collateralization requirement, proving that investors WANT to run these nodes, instead of hobbyists and volunteers, but they also PROVIDE services that are impossible to provide otherwise. NO OTHER COIN has decentralized coinjoin on a bespoke network with redundancy of 3800 servers. BCH is STRUGGLING to get more than a single Cashfusion server (indeed they warn AGAINST multiple servers as it has costs that they don't want to/are unable to pay, which shows the fully paid node route is superior).

No other coin has monthly governance, instant transaction locking, decentralized but fully paid core and dev team, separate fully paid incubator teams etc. Why not? Because THEY CAN'T TRUST THEIR NODES TO DO ANY OF THESE THINGS! Because its trivial to spin up thousands of nodes, that 17,000 node figure for BTC is nothing but a PAPER TIGER.

Secondly and what's more, the real data that BTC's node count is inferior to Dash's and thus GMD's argument is PURE BULLSHIT, POPPYCOCK AND UNADULTERATED RUBBISH is some information that was recently released. It turns out that YOU CAN almost directly compare Dash nodes with BTC holders.

https://crypto.news/bitcoin-whales-going-extinct-addresses-with-at-least-1000-btc-at-3-year-low/

This article provides a chart with the historical and current number of addresses holding '1000 or more BTC". In other words, you can compare directly between the people who believe in BTC so much that they're willing to hold 1000 of them vs the number of people willing to do that for Dash, and guess what? The number of holders of 1000 Dash is GREATER than the number of holders of 1000 BTC! And it always has been (since masternodes were a thing). We used to have almost 5,000 masternodes, but over the path to platform we've whittled that number down to ~3800. How many people are holding 1000 BTC? **ONLY 2063!!** So, despite BTC's massive price advantage and first mover advantage, Dash holders are STILL MORE CONFIDENT (or incentivized) to hold MORE Dash than BTC, the largest cryptocurrency, holders are.

Which means that not only is GMD's fake argument based on bullshit numbers and bad comparisons, BUT THAT HE'S ACTUALLY COMPLETELY WRONG AND ADVOCATED THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF THE TRUTH. I've warned the network to watch out for people who argue the complete opposite of the truth several times before. Why? Because the complete opposite of the truth is THE STRONGEST ATTACK YOU CAN MAKE BY LYING. Which means that GMD's posts are not likely to be 'simple misunderstandings' or, 'simple mistaken but fervently-held beliefs'. They are likely to be deliberately constructed as an ATTACK WEAPON against our network to do the maximum damage possible by LYING. Which means that GMD is most likely an enemy, infiltrator and bad actor and nothing he says should be taken seriously at all.
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
In this comment I will not go over all these other distractions being made, but let's just quickly dispel these comparisons.

The source being pointed to is talking about ADDRESSES and not wallets / holders. Nor does it say the actual amounts above 1000 bitcoin in said addresses (only that it is 1000 or more). So, in the following you will see and verify the largest single address has approx. 250597 bitcoin. That alone is worth approx. 4.3 BILLION USD. Do tell us, how many masternodes would that buy? - wait, I'll use the calculator... 91871 masternodes.

https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html

https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/34xp4vRoCGJym3xR7yCVPFHoCNxv4Twseo

To be fair, the largest addresses are probably cold custodian wallets which were probably excluded by Glassnode. So let's just look at some of the others. Go to page 21 and look at the 2074th richest ADDRESS which holds exactly 1000 bitcoin valued at 17.3M USD. How many masternodes would that buy? - 366 masternodes. In fact, these stats just go on and on, take a look for yourself.

https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses-21.html

https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/3Jfy1UwUegtq1vXV9BphfhJuLw1NnpMJNy

So yes, you are being asked to believe...

"Dash holders are STILL MORE CONFIDENT (or incentivized) to hold MORE Dash than BTC, the largest cryptocurrency, holders are."

Disingenuous or outright fake news?

My question is, what tiny percentage of this wealth has bought dash masternodes, being they're incentivized and all that?

Side note. Some of these richest addresses also have unclaimed money from bitcoin forks such BCH and BSV.
Reply
-2 points,1 year ago
>In this comment I will not go over all these other distractions being made

A common troll refrain used as a deflection when explaining why they won't answer the charges against them. Doing so is an implicit admission of retreat however so I welcome your cowardice here.

>The source being pointed to is talking about ADDRESSES and not wallets / holders

Straw man. Holding 1000 Dash takes place in an address and is not about "wallets and holders".


>. Nor does it say the actual amounts above 1000 bitcoin in said addresses (only that it is 1000 or more

It doesn't need to. The point is to give a baseline comparison. And besides what you say about BTC is true about Dash too. It's not like you're limited to only 1 1000 Dash address per holder or something so this too is a non response.

>So, in the following you will see and verify the largest single address has approx. 250597 bitcoin. That alone is worth approx. 4.3 BILLION

Again this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You are not limited in the amount of Dash you can hold. But this figure does show that the number of different addresses with 1000 Dash is higher than the number of addresses with 1000 BTC which indicates investor confidence in Dash over BTC. None of your response is a rebuttal to this fact.

>Do tell us, how many masternodes would that buy? - wait, I'll use the calculator... 91871 masternodes

No it wouldn't Einstein. Have you forgotten that Dash has a fixed supply?? With a floating supply of 12 million there can be AT MOST 12000 masternodes, and the price of Dash (and thus the value you're using in your dumb rebuttal) will skyrocket on the attempt as you're literally cornering the market.

That you couldn't see this in your hastily written reply indicates that you definitely are a troll. That my comparison triggered you so also indicates you have emotional ties to another community than Dash and should be kicked out of here.

> In fact, these stats just go on and on, take a look for yourself

None of what you're saying is a rebuttal to the point that there are more addresses with 1000 Dash than those with 1000 BTC and there has never been as many 1000 BTC holding addresses as Dash's ATH. Which means you lose.

>Disingenuous or outright fake news?

Your question you mean? I'd guess both knowing you.

>My question is, what tiny percentage of this wealth has bought dash masternodes, being they're incentivized and all that?

I don't know what this question is supposed to be asking.

The point is you are wrong and your fake node count for BTC is a garbage argument. You behave like a troll and an infiltrator and your hasty and inaccurate reply here indicates that my factual analysis triggered you, which shouldn't happen if you're on the side of the Dash community.
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
The purchasing power to buy 91871 dash is just to show how ridiculous you are being. But happy you admit that there are upper limits to node count. Everyone here, including yourself, knows exactly which direction the node count has been going.

Funny to watch your desperate claims.
Reply
-2 points,1 year ago
>The purchasing power to buy 91871 dash is just to show how ridiculous you are being

No you're being dishonest. You can't buy that many masternodes and that is irrelevant to the original comparison in the first place which means it's a bad argument.

>But happy you admit that there are upper limits to node count

Only an idiot would be happy about something like that.

>Everyone here, including yourself, knows exactly which direction the node count has been going

Node count going up AND down is part of the natural cycle of long lived autonomous organisations so you're once again not saying anything of importance or relevance. You're just typing just so you can have a reply. Why don't you just shut up instead?

>Funny to watch your desperate claims.

Funny to watch your desperate pretense as you pretend to not be exposed for the charlatan that you are.
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
Voting No.

>The title is, in part, some light-hearted trolling,

Please avoid doing this, this is a serious forum for discussions, there is no room for any manner of trolling or destructive behavior like this. Think of this like you would bringing a proposal to your boss. Would you put hearts and smilely faces and "little jokes" on it? Or would you do your best to make sure its bulletproof and as free from frivolity as possible. Same judgment here.

>a 4,000 DASH stake that can be bought and/or sold at a moment's notice, or a 1,000 DASH stake that has committed to hold over some (even small) time period?

This is not a bad thing. Attracting investors that are capable of making a 4,000 Dash purchase is one of the goals of the network. Making that attractive is definitely not a bad thing at all. All node owners are incentivized to keep holding (by the rewards, even at this low price point, the rewards add up over time to signficant gains while offering the possibility of ROI via price appreciation.

That's one more venue to profit than most other crypto investors have). So 1000 Dash longtime holders are not any better than shorttime 4000 Dash holders. They both service the network, and with the 4-10k plans platform will be serviced as well, offering a truly 2nd layer experience at very cheap cost (necessary to compete around the world and not leave those in poorer nations behind). The 1k solutions all have performance and fee issues. Making nodes 1k platform voluntary is bad because then there's little incentive to run platform. This is literally the worst possible outcome and we should avoid it. Also, see my comment about the coefficient of decentralization for node networks (CoD).
Reply
-1 point,1 year ago
I want to say thank you to the Dash Core team for showing the network how a proper decision proposal is made. I say this because the MNOs are not really supposed to vote on parameters, technical specifications nor other network particulars. The 2MB vote was more a political stunt (with real-world benefits, though we still have not needed the extra blockspace, perhaps with platform we'll start to approach that region of transactionality).

Voting to "remove privatesend" for example is DEFINITELY not something that the masternodes were meant to undertake discussing. Decision proposals are serious matters only to be raised when the path forward is unclear to our paid research and technical experts (DCG and staff).

Then, they come to the investors of the network, the Masternode owners, to decide where the stakeholders with the most to lose wish to go after clearly, calmly and dispassionately laying out the options on the table. This is how it works in the real world, professionally and I'm thrilled to see this replicated here.

That said, I wanted to reinforce one thing mentioned in the proposal:

>It is also worth noting that even though this is the most decentralized solution that the HPMN solutions are at a level of decentralization that we believe to be very satisfactory, and at a much higher level of decentralization than almost all other blockchain projects.


The thing about decentralization is, the question becomes "How decentralized are we?" To answer that question we have to know what it means to be decentralized. What is decentralization? Split the word up:

de+ central+ized.

De = "Un, Not, Negative".
Central = "single and important, hub, nexus, core".
Ized = "past participle (adjective form) suffix that verbalizes nouns or adjectives with a meaning of "to make more (adjective, noun)"

So decentralization is the act of removing concept of having a CENTER from something. That means, the further away you get from this concept of "having a core, having a center", the more decentralized you become. You could even quantify this, a coefficient of decentralization if you will. If you have, e.g., a single person running a single node, you can say you have a coefficient of decentralization of 1.

This conception allows us to answer the question of "How decentralized are we?" So that we may be able to solve the question of "Are we centralized by relying on x number of nodes for platform?" The only way to answer that is to know what decentralization is and "how decentralized are we?" The coefficient of decentralization gives us our answer.

For example, if you have 1 person running 1 node, the coefficient of decentralization (CoD henceforth) is 1. Because you have a single server and a single person in charge of running that server between you and your network failing. As we MNOs know, if you don't update your server you get booted from the network, so both the server and the operator serve as a single point of failure, a CENTRALIZING POINT. However, if you have 2 people each running their own servers. Then you would have a CoD of 2. 2 potential points of failure, either the servers or their owners (for a total *decentralization* of 2 (nodes/operators) * 2 (CoD) = 4, where as with 1 server, 1 operator you have 1 (node) * 1 (operator) = decentralization of 1).

Utilizing this, we can derive a simple, crude yet effective comparator between various node architectures. Right now, we have ~3800 active nodes. This gives us a maximum CoD of 3800, assuming 1 operator, 1 node. We know this isn't the case, however, so this is a best case. For example, if you have 1 operator with 100 nodes, then you have a CoD of 2. Because that operator is responsible for all 100 of those nodes, so its possible they all go down if he fails in some way. Which makes him a central point of failure, despite having 100 nodes. But 100 operators with 100 nodes would have a CoD of 100, which is 50 times greater than 2. But 2 is 2 times bigger than 1, so having 1 guy with 100 nodes is better than 1 guy with 1 node (but not much).

Ok all that to say, as long as the HVMN solutions produce a CoD of 100 or greater, they should be perfectly decentralized. Now you can answer the question, "How decentralized is that?" Its 100 times as decentralized as a single node, single operator system. Which is basically what *ALL THE ARCHITECTURES IN THE WORLD currently rely on!*

Facebook, Amazon, etc are basically systems with CoD as low as 2-5 and barely any that're higher than 10. So having this crude metric allows us to put the various solutions into perspective as it relates to how decentralized are they. It could even help us choose between the 10k and 4k solutions (though it seems like the network has already fixated on the 4k).

However, answering this question IS IMPORTANT as its quite possible that Dash whales could centralize their ownership over HVMN and thus lower the CoD of the platform chain, which would obviously be bad for the network as a whole.
Reply
2 points,1 year ago
The whole analysis for this proposal is based on the individualities that have been discovered in https://mnowatch.org/Types/index.html?1=

Do you trust mnowatch reasearch? If you do trust it, then the simpliest solution will be to allow every discovered individuality of mnowatch to maintain only ONE DashPlatform database.

That way the databases' replication is reduced, and the transaction fee is also reduced. This will result for Dash platform to have approximately 133 DashPlatform databases, a similar number to the 100 databases that the "High performance masternode solution" is planning to have.

But the 100 databases of the "High performance masternode solution" are not similarly decentralized as the 133 databases of the mnowatch individualities . Because if we allow each individuality of mnowatch to maintain one platform node, the decentralization is achieved due the separate individuals that are holding these databases. Decentralization based on proved individuals is a real decentralization, in contrast to the fake decentralization based on collateral masternode addresses.

ALL THE CURRENT EVO PROPOSALS ASSUME THAT THE BIGGEST WHALE IS A 270 WHALE DISCOVERED BY MNOWATCH. AND WHAT IF THERE IS A BIGGER WHALE THAT WE (THE MNOWATCH ADMINS) DIDNT YET SUCCEED TO DISCOVER? We have not yet discover the BIG whale that may or may not exist. But we did discovered the small individualities. So we have better be based on what we have already discovered, rather on what he have not discovered yet.
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
It's true, you've been saying this for a long time.

DCG should of been working on alternatives to InstantSend, CoinJoin and voting in order to de-collateralize the entire network. Solutions for these already exist. Now, according to Sam, dash is in a pathetic position of pushing for higher collateral in the name of "security" and "decentralization". Truly pathetic and I will not be taking part in it.

I will not apply upgrades that enable this shit and I will no longer refer to dash in "we" terms because in the entire 7+ years I have been with dash, this is the shittiest outcome I could think of. If our users wanted Solana, they would of bought Solana.

If anyone wants to fork dash with a view to de-collateralization then I am listening. DCG should be the one's forking, creating their own brand and starting from scratch building a customer base. But no, they lied by omission (or complete incompetence) and spread fear of security and centralization. They will steal the dash brand and all it's users, and they will make "digital cash" a secondary thought.

Disappointed does not fully express how I feel about this.
Reply
2 points,1 year ago
As you can see in Rion's superb video https://youtu.be/wqFdR5C15ns , if this proposal passes it will result the reduction of masternodes from 5000 to 2500.

What can an ordinary masternode do in order to prevent this catastrophic senario? The only way to stop the reduction of the number of the masternodes (if this proposal passes) is to change the hardcoded number of the 50% rewards that are allocated to the platform (a reward stolen from the masternodes's reward). But how can we change that number?

As always, the way to strike the stupid and the agents is to vote the numbers. And how can we vote the number in the current budget system?

Simple, you have to use the TERNARY or ΤRINARY or BASE3 NUMERAL system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_numeral_system

If you make the assumption that ABSTAIN VOTE=0, NO VOTE=1 and YES VOTE=2 , the you can vote from numbers 0-2.
if you cast TWO proposals (at the cost of 2 dash proposal fee) under the TERNARY system, you can vote numbers from 0-8
if you cast THREE proposals (at the cost of 3 dash proposal fee) under the TERNARY system, you can vote from 0-26.

So if you want to vote from 0% to 100%, you can divide 100/26=3.84 and thus if the average of the voting result of the budget vote is 1 then 3.84% is voted, if the average result of the budget vote is 10 then 38.4 is voted, if the average result of budget vote is 15 then 57.6% is voted e.t.c.

I have no incentives to propose such a system, because I am poor delegate voter holding 1 masternode vote, and also I hold only 6 dash in my wallet.

But if I were a masternode I would definitely ask a governance decision in order for this voting the numbers system to become legitimate.
Then I would cast a vote about the percentage of the masternode rewards that the platform system is planning to steal from the masternodes reward.
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
Typo in my first phrase.
I mean "if the 4k (or 10k) proposals pass it will result the reduction of masternodes from 5000 to 2500(2180)."
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
Finally, you can also vote the numbers by using the BASE4 NUMERAL SYSTEM, if you make the assumption that the people who voted in at least one numeral proposal, declare a 0 vote to all the rest proposals that are associated to it. In that case with just two proposals (at the cost of 2 dash proposal fee), you can have 15-1=14 chunks (because the 00 vote is not a valid vote in that case).
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
When I say "High performance masternode solution" above, I mean the 10k solution.
Reply
4 points,1 year ago
Proposal text now includes a link to a video explanation:

https://youtu.be/wqFdR5C15ns

Sorry it’s long. I didn’t have time to make it shorter.

I’ll reply to comments over the weekend
Reply
3 points,1 year ago
Very interesting model you created that handles all solutions currently on the network to vote on. Impressive. Thank you.
Reply
2 points,1 year ago
You have my support for this 1K, voluntary solution.

4K HPM solution will most likely win as a large masternode whale just put his support behind it, but i would like to just have either this proposal win or have this proposal make it to the two proposals with most yes votes, to avoid a second round of 6K or 8K decision proposals by DCG hitting the network.
Reply
2 points,1 year ago
Which would happen if 4K HPM solution and 10K HPM solution end up with most yes votes.
Reply
4 points,1 year ago
for people voting no, is there a specific reason why this plan isn't viable?
Reply
4 points,1 year ago
It is most likely from MNO's that already voted yes on the 4K HPM solution and are just blindly downvoting other solutions, without taking the time to await the video presentation and to await the updated proposal text of this decision proposal.

Some 40 no votes were casted, when this proposal did not even have a proposal text or title.
Reply
3 points,1 year ago
FYI

People who vote YES
https://mnowatch.org/latestlink_DashdUniqueHashVotes.html?3=EVO-DECISION-1K-HPMN

People who vote NO
https://mnowatch.org/latestlink_DashdUniqueHashVotes.html?4=EVO-DECISION-1K-HPMN

People who vote ABSTAIN
https://mnowatch.org/latestlink_DashdUniqueHashVotes.html?5=EVO-DECISION-1K-HPMN
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
One reason why it is not viable is that based on his model an actor could control 1/3rd of platform. Or there could be two actors that control 2/3rds.

At 20% of the MNO allocation as Rion stated there would be about 650 HPMNs in this model at equilibrium (from Rion's spreadsheet).

There are two known whales that have more than 200 Masternodes. If either one joined platform they would have about 1/3rd of the total nodes on Platform. This is an unacceptable risk to me which is why I voted no.

In his model he has the max bad actor collateral at 135k Dash. See cell G11 here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WO-CXf-QvG8-kA6OJDstbsWJI2vm2lzaDmC8c7Mujqg/edit#gid=64105733

In the model DCG presented for 4k we have it at 378k Dash. See cell N4 here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1i0NDJYkDDpwjCjOW7gyr8CL2zSJwSmcic0NzIw8X-74/edit#gid=144661082

He says his model is basically safe against an actor with 135k Dash. I am saying the 4k model proposed is safe against an actor with 378k Dash.
Reply
3 points,1 year ago
That risk is literally the creation of DCG and you personally as it was brought to your attention, many times, the risk to treasury voting due to humpback dash holders. Doing nothing when you are fully aware of the situation makes you complicit. If you had prioritized the risks of humpbacks, we would of not been in this situation and your own proposed "solutions" would of also carried less risk.

As it stands, rion has clearly listened to all sides and presented a more cautious and pragmatic approach, describing how Platform will be gradually introduced, fine tuned and managed. I do not say it is perfect but his approach is far more palatable.
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
Even if what you were saying were true, now its water under the bridge. That is not a logical reason to support this proposal. I believe it is best to leave this up to DCG instead of quarterbacking from the sidelines.
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
I am not trying to give a logical reason to support this proposal.
Reply
-1 point,1 year ago
Yes that much is clear. You seek to cause as much confusion and destruction as possible, as such a logical reason will be far from your musings. Thank you for admitting this.
Reply
4 points,1 year ago
Those two whales would not setup all their current masternodes as Platform nodes because of the timelock (6 months?).

I even doubt Binance (270 masternodes) would lock any of their masternodes for 6 month. And weejohnny (229) would most likely keep some of his masternodes as normal masternodes to have liquidity, same for other masternode whales.
Reply
2 points,1 year ago
At least rion is doing something about some of the safety issues with regards to Platform on all nodes.

All we see from you are publicly expressed concerns about safety issues, without any action taken on any of those safety issues.

Talking about Platform on all nodes, can you please explain why you first estimate 6.11% annual yield and then in your actual DCG decision proposal come up with 4.70% ?

See : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/should-platform-run-on-all-nodes-or-should-platform-run-only-on-high-performance-nodes.53374/page-25

Looks a bit fishy.
Reply
2 points,1 year ago
Pls respond here : https://www.dashcentral.org/p/EVO-DECISION-EVERY-NODE-RUNS-PLATFORM
Reply
2 points,1 year ago
I replied there.
Reply
2 points,1 year ago
Thanks
Reply
-1 point,1 year ago
I mean... those are pretty strong assumptions.

What you are saying is that this security model is basically: let's hope they don't do something that they can do.

That doesn't really cut it for me and that's why I voted no. I don't want to base the security of the system on hopes and wishful thinking.
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
Every Platform start solution is currently based on mere assumptions and estimates. Because you did not want to take the time (1 additional month according to yourself), to come up with concrete numbers.
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
And when you do provide estimates, they seem to conflict with your later estimates.
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
I just explained to you how an entity could stop platform in the 1k solution proposed above. Can you explain to me how an entity can stop platform in the 4k or 10k solutions?
Reply
2 points,1 year ago
You explained to me how two entities, each having more then 200 masternodes (and one of those entities apparantly being Binance), could stop Platform in case they setup all their masternodes as Platform nodes, while having a mandatory timelock of 6 months or longer on all those Platform nodes. And having zero liquidity. Sounds pretty unrealistic to me.

With regards to 4K or 10K : during large software upgrades (which will drastically lower number of active Platform nodes, just like it drastically lowers number of active masternodes) --> certain Platform entities during this time get DDoS attacked --> centralized Platform node goes down (either due to having no DDoS protection in their VPS setup or due to running below Platform required hardware) --> Platform quorum fails --> Platform down.
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
No, you should reread what I said. 1/3rd is enough to stop platform. So just 1 actor in this model, not 2.

I think you don't understand that at any one time there are only 100 active validators (150 in the system proposed above). So in all solutions there are just 100-150 active nodes. More nodes = more cpu needed. DDoSing 1/3rd is enough to bring down the system but in all systems this is the same. I don't see how this is a 4k or 10k issue.

However you are wrong as there will be protections against this type of attack as validators in the validator set should not respond to non validators, making them practically impossible to DDoS. I was just trying to illustrate to you that there would be no benefit in a 1k solution. And there would even be downside, because Rion's calculations are based on a 60$ nodes, whereas the 4k and 10k solutions are based on stronger 100$/month nodes.
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
I think i will just wait for rion's video presentation and rion's updated proposal text before making any decision.
Reply
4 points,1 year ago
I will await the referenced video presentation and the mentioned update to this proposal text that comes along with it.

Thank you for this proposal and paying for the proposal fee out of your own pocket, in order for MNO's to have an alternative solution to vote on.
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
1337 f1337, somebody do the math, Platform node collateral 1337 Dash, voting rights equal to Core nodes. Get 'r' done. Nobody left out of running a Platform node on account of collateral while Core Governance is not sacrificed to Platform nodes.
Reply
-1 point,1 year ago
You don't have a masternode nor a proposal, thus its inappropriate for you to comment here.
Reply
2 points,1 year ago
Is this proposal related to Rion's pre-proposal in dashtalk?

https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/should-platform-run-on-all-nodes-or-should-platform-run-only-on-high-performance-nodes.53374/page-12#post-232537
Reply
3 points,1 year ago
Yes, he will be adding details later, and a presentation video for his plan.
Reply
-2 points,1 year ago
You don't have a masternode nor a proposal, thus its inappropriate for you to comment here.
Reply
2 points,1 year ago
I think it is, as Dash Central shows rion as owner of this decision proposal. But i also think he may have made some changes between the time of his dash.org/forum post and this decision proposal.

So best to await the final decision proposal text, before voting on it.
Reply
-1 point,1 year ago
Good discussion going on. I will again put out the friendly reminder that this is literally cutting edge stuff we are tackling right now. It's ALL theory. EVERYBODY is making educated guesses. A thing like Evolution-Platform has _never_ been done before. It is a virtual certainty that we will have to make some adjustments and tweaks once it's live in the real world. To the best of my knowledge, nobody is opposed to that, including or especially QE. His overarching goal is that it work well for customers (which is a fantastic goal in my view) and that it is secure (also a great goal) and that it be really inexpensive transactions so we don't just discard 2 billion poor people like Bitcoin did. (another great goal). That is the primary cause for Bitcoin to abandon the use case of honest money for world. Evolution-Platform is more like Web3 for world, but the same argument applies.

Take home message number 1: Regardless of which option we pick, I predict there will be some growing pains. At that point, it would be an easy jab to say, "SEE??!!?? I told you option 7 would never work right!!!! We should have gone with option 12!!!!"

We should resolve ahead of time that whatever solution the community goes with, we should support that and work with that and _MAKE IT_ work.

Take home message number 2, it is a virtual certainty that if we go with 4k or 10k nodes, there will be a trustless Evolution-Platform share option in the near future. I think it is a bad assumption that some or most "little" 1k Masternodes are going to get locked out from the additional income/power/glory that the Evolution-Platform HP Masternodes are going to get.

I personally have not made a decision yet, and I also am eager to see Rion's explainer video. But once I recognized the (in my view) inevitability of shared HP Evo-Platform nodes, my primary objection to the 10k solution evaporated and it is now a serious contender _for me._ It _is_ more profitable, which is fine by me.

just solarguy
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
Platform is not an end user product, thus, 2 billion poor people would not be excluded as all application operation fees are likely handed off to the business side of things.

Sam's idea that fees must be cheap is not consistent with his view that Platform is cutting edge, unique and, thus, incomparable to anything else out there. For, if that was so, we could demand higher prices for the benefit of the network. Certainly at startup, there is absolutely no urgency for low fees and no data to back it up because we all agree Platform is in a league of it's own, right?
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
To GrandMasterDash, The expenses to run Evo-Platform must be paid for. And regardless of the business model, that money ultimately has to come from the end users. If we do not make plans to be very competitive with regards to the costs to end users, we will not end up with low fees by accident. So, although there is no urgency for low fees _today_, it would be foolish to not make those plans from the beginning. There is also no data to support your supposition. There is no data as of yet.

Yes, it's in a league of its own. And because of that, we could make a train load of money servicing the pent up demand from those 2 billion poor people (assuming being very profitable is your primary concern.) Low fees x very mery high volume is still a big number. And if we can make the business model work for the lower income market, everything else is easy.

just solarguy
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
I think you mis-undertood me.

Platform is not designed for your average end user to build on and interactive with directly, it's backend stuff. So, say I build an app utilizing Platform, how I charge end users, or not, is my business model e.g. perhaps I am funding through advertising, referrals, VCs and so on. That's what I meant by "the business side of things".

With higher fees comes higher incentives for people to buy dash and run MNs / HPMNs, which in turn gives more dollars to Proposal Owners.

I am certainly not against lower fees! I am just saying, when you have cornered the market (no competition) and your product has the utility being claimed (as it is), you get to set the price. Why would anyone sell themselves short? Look at how crazy Ethereum fees were, yet it just kept on going.

The litmus test is real world usage (very unknown). If you have no competition and no one is using your product, then price is not the issue, it's because your product does not have the killer utility you thought it had.

Make no mistake, it could take YEARS for dash Platform to find the killer app, so no need to put the cart before the horse.
Reply
2 points,1 year ago
100% true that everyone is working with theory and assumptions. That's all we have at the moment. In the mile high view I go back to the idea that any of these solutions have the potential to work, and I will support whatever decision the community makes and get on with it.

I would also point out that the process we are going through, despite whatever flaws it may have, is incredibly rare in the crypto space. When is the last time Bitcoin, or Litecoin or Ethereum had a public referendum with real voting power and a broad swath of stakeholders to discuss and choose the best way forward?

just solarguy
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
Understood, but this is not choice, it is one idea, one solution with different parameters. Whether it is Sam or rion, the outcome is still HPMNs. It is just a few entities pushing through these votes. IMO it is probably too late for dash to undo the damage.
Reply
-3 points,1 year ago
Sorry, but I do not read hardly any of the comments here or on the forum because it's all TLDR and I don't like to read.

Please come join the "Afterparty" discussion (every Friday afternoon) to talk about the HPMN proposals and more. Talking is a lot more efficient than writing and reading.
Reply