Topic: [ANN] SpreadCoin | Decentralize Everything (decentralized blockexplorer coming) - page 234. (Read 790416 times)

That's where the maximum coinsupply comes in. Mr. Spread and I have explained that countless times.

If you wanted to take over all the already established Servicenodes you would need multiple times the whole coinsupply.

If you want your Servicenode to be secure even against a JPMorgan Takeover, just put more SPR in it than the average joe.

If your SPR is well positioned, JPMorgan needs to take away ....

1) ... all the seats below you,
2) ... lift their position higher than you by putting MORE SPR (than you have in yours) in EACH ONE of those servicenodes...

... and only then will they be able to kick you out.

The math is on our side, not on JPMorgans.

Also, I repeat, as I currently look at it, kicking out merely means "not getting payed anymore".
Since the goal is to cryptographically secure the decentralized services, it is not unthinkable that we will let basically everyone join our network as "free servicenodes", as long as they follow our protocol, why not?
That's an interesting thought, isn't it?  

I am not sure yet, testnet will tell.

devils advocate.

So, we are all happily creating service nodes. Then one day, a great service goes live. Big businesses like the idea of the service and decide to dip into their deep pockets and hoover up cheap service nodes and then only big businesses will be able to operate a node.

The little man in the housing projects will never be able to outspend JP Morgan.

What are we going to do about them apples?

You can't. Everyone has tried. The only thing that works, let's say at the moment, is cold hard digital cash. If an attacker has to spend money, you reduce those that are motivated to attack. If you don't require collateral of some sorts, people will just spend their lives on their computers trying to find ways to break in.

BTW, when I say "a servicenode is being kicked" I merely mean that they stop receiving any payments, until they add more funds to their collateral to get back on the payroll.

The operation of the servicenode itself (all the decentralized services) will not be stopped or anything like that.

You simply don't get payed for helping the network until you "balance your account" (so to speak).

Since free price discovery means that the price can also drop, it is possible that your collateral has more SPR in it than are necessary, and you can then move those excess SPR away.
(But that would be unwise...)

No, it isn't really. Well, not in the same way that a collateral supposedly secures the Dash network from sybil attacks.

The collateral serves a different purpose in spreadcoin/servicenodes.

The most interesting thing about letting the servicenode collateral be decided by the free market (spreadcoin protocol)
is that every person will be allowed to run a servicenode with the least amount of collateral the market let's you get away with.

As long as there are empty seats in the amount of allowed Servicenodes and no one is willing to bet more than you (to kick you out of your "cheap seat"),
you can run a servicenode basically for free.
At least for a while, because running a cheap servicenode will be risky.

You understand that this will also be the reason why we will get many interested persons to run servicenodes intitially, by basically allowing everybody to run one.
(contrast that with DASH where early investors pretty much control the masternode network)

Only after all seats are filled (which are dynamically increased pretty much every other day so as to ALWAYS welcome newcomers) will the weakest servicenode operators (and only they) see their servers being kicked, which hopefully will ignite a slow and steady price discovery to find the most "efficient" collateral.

Yes, this also means that our overlay network must have true cryptographic protection against sybil attacks and other unwanted activities, making it more complex to realize.

Why not find cryptographic ways of preventing sybil attacks, instead of artificially limiting the access to the overlay network by making it dependend on how much money you got?

So this is all for discussion, anyway. Not going to throw my toys out of the pram over it.

A few points to consider, when reviewing my proposal:

1. Dash has a limit on the number of MNs. Coin supply/1,000. Sure, the collateral could be reduced, but it would have to be a managed reduction to avoid dumping.

2. The collateral was intended to avoid sybil attacks in the future. Well, if we limit the cap now and that dictates the price of servicenodes, we still get protection from sybil attackers. A sybil attacker would have to ask the market to purchase servicenode seats.

3. Dash has reached a limit of ~3,000 MN. Sure that can go up or down from here, but that, while very healthy given the volume of trade the network does and the number of SPV users, is something of a price induced plateau at this stage.

4. Servicenodes are intended to be business units - servers. The collateral is just a protection mechanism. So the question is not one related to price, but how many servers you need now or in mid-term? Bitcoin operates very well off 6,000 nodes. So one must assume that 10,000 service nodes would do the job for the next 5-10 years. Why not just say, 10,000 service nodes when we launch service nodes?  If you want to buy a servicenode, you have to buy a spot from someone else who wants to sell. That's a price dynamic I like. I might be prepared to sell 1 service node for $10k 

Georgem what do you think about this ^

Think of it this way... even if we had no limit on the amount of servicenodes.... how many do you think we are going to have with a maximum coinsupply of 20 million, anyway?

With my proposal we are going to see maybe 7000 Servicenodes over the years...
Now if we imagine for a minute that we have no limit, and that 50% of all coinsupply is locked in servicenodes that cost on average 1000 SPR, then this would lead to about 10000 Servicenodes...

So just about 30% more than my approach.... so what's the big deal? I don't think Dash will EVER see more than 10k Masternodes, it's just an economical impossibility.

Are you envisioning a network that has 100k Servicenodes? Or a million of them? Of course you aren't. The mere coinsupply limit doesn't allow for such a thing.

That's why I say... with the ca 7000 Servicenodes my approach allows over time we will safely be able to be provide high quality decentralized services of many kinds.

I don't think youtube has that many servers.

Decentralize everything!

How is creating a fixed price collateral "leaving it to the market to decide" ?

That's like saying: sure you can drive a taxi in new york, you just have to buy this 250k$ license. That's not a free market.

Remember, with spreadcoin we are going the decentralized way, so the market will even have to dictate the price of the collateral, not you or I or any special group of people.

In a nutshell, any cap on servicenode count whether it be static or dynamic (your proposal or Mr Spread's) is an immediate turn off for me because if the servicenode network is to be providing decentralized services, then surely the more servicenodes the better?  Anything kind of cap theoretically could compromise quality of service.

This is the reason why I have always preferred the Dash approach...no limit, leave it to the market to decide.

what is the metric that determines how many initial servicenodes an individual can own?   Is this based on the dynamic approach outlined by georgem initially and once a cap is met those servicenodes are yours forever as long as you're compliant?

Also, what do you mean by buy?  Would this be an in wallet escrow where you would trade an allowance to run a node for an agreed upon amount of spr? 

I certainly don't have as much weight as the more frequent posters, but my initial reaction is not favorable.  I think the dynamic model allows for organic growth and incentives newcomers as well as early investors.  Spr is currently ~.00003600 and has been exceptionally cheap and easy for users to amass tens if not hundred of thousands for next to nothing.  If all goes as planned, the value will likely increase by at least a factor of 10, though I suspect much much more.  And has a potential to provide users a constant revenue stream.  I think that's enough incentive for early investors and those currently contemplating buying.

Q. Should there be a limit on the number of servicenodes, with a queue system to replace service nodes that do not perform to standard and more importantly do not improve after seeing delisting notices which would be generated by the network.

So, the point is this: with some notice period, we can have a cutoff period and those with service nodes ready to go by xyz date would have a right to form a service node automatically. This rewards those who have been paying attention and supporting SPR during this incubation and development period.

Anyone who wants to run a servicenode after the cutoff date would have to buy a spot from existing service node holders - an auction system similar to how people buy and sell businesses. And that is partly the point. We are building for profit services and service nodes are intended to be decentralised business units.

Profiteering for early holders? Well, no shit batman. Yes. The project has been live now for long enough not to be a secret.

What should the ideal number of servicenodes be? 1,000; 3,000; 5,000; 10,000?

Well, how about head of population per region on xyz date? Its a bit complicated, but a regional allocation lends itself to regional pricing of servicenodes and also franchising of nodes per jurisdiction. Oh, yes. I forgot to say, there is no reason why the network's holders at xyz date can't issue franchises after the cutoff date has passed.

So this solves the issue on how many SPR per servicenode. That would be determined when the cutoff date is reached and the community makes a decision on how many service nodes should be in the network.

This makes more sense to me than the Dash approach and the original approach by Mr. Spread; and I commend the idea to the community for discussion.

I need someone to second the idea, please.

Windows 10 looks pretty good. But the Edge browser is crap, and I hate the new search box that searches locally and on the internet at the same time. It would be ok, if it was linked to google search and not Bing.

Bing just needs to be put out of its misery.

Anyway, I'm now updated on a crap test machine, so I'm going to risk running the new wallet. Fingers crossed.

Thanks for the explanation.

I will try and recreate it myself.

Something tells me this behaviour will disappear once we have upgraded to CORE.

Trying to make the video I have more info about the "issue". The minning is not interrupted in any way when transferring smaller amounts of SPR. Sending 10 or 100 SPR proceeds smoothly. I get the ballon(wallet notification) in the windows taskbar immediately after pressing send.
Sending 1000SPR shows small interruption(few seconds) in the gpuz graph. Also the taskbar balloon shows many seconds after pressing send button.
I cannot test it further because I don't have any more SPR in the wallet. 

My usual transfer is 5000SPR and there You can see a noticeable interruption. The time before the taskbar balloon shows after pressing send button is much longer. The cpuZ shows no gpu utilization in the meantime and the miner shows something like: Cannot connect...retrying after 30s
Probably it is not a bug...it just takes some time to process a bigger transfer because it is accumulated from big number of blocks.

Anyway I'm unable to reproduce it now for some weeks

Cheers. But I'm not about to swap my AMDs for Nvidia, well maybe if the right offer came along. Anyway, just in case, I followed the link, so thank you!

looking forward to it.

I can make a video, probably tomorrow.

Ok everybody,

official website now has a news/blog section:

spreadcoin.info



.
.
.



.
.
.



.
.
.

Stay tuned