Topic: [ANN] SpreadCoin | True Decentralization (No Pools) | Testing New Masternodes - page 13. (Read 810098 times)
April 28, 2015, 01:21:15 PM
Fine! Decide to stop answering questions just as I start to understand things
April 28, 2015, 01:20:13 PM
I really appreciate the explanations George, they're helping me a lot. Thanks.
Let the throw a scenario at you.
Person A is a whale and has 100,000SPR. What happens if they set up 1000 100SPR servicenodes in a fit for purpose environment for the services that they are providing? Do his/her nodes get rewarded (albeit on a diminishing basis) until 1000 people start servicenodes with more than 100SPR?
Let the throw a scenario at you.
Person A is a whale and has 100,000SPR. What happens if they set up 1000 100SPR servicenodes in a fit for purpose environment for the services that they are providing? Do his/her nodes get rewarded (albeit on a diminishing basis) until 1000 people start servicenodes with more than 100SPR?
Yes. 100% correct in every aspect.
If this guy manages to setup 1000 functioning servicenodes that are being accepted by the network
than we shouldn't look at this guy as somekind of menace but as a really generous person.
He helps the network gain strength, he adds value and every wallet owner directly benefits from this guys investment.
And you got that right, he will receive 1000 payments, but only for a very short time, since other people will want to take part in this profitable business.
so they will take away his seats very easily in a short time (if he lets them stay at 100 SPR each).
So our generous friend will need to slowly but surely increase the SPR in every servicenode he owns.
I like it in lots of ways but I don't like it in terms of how easy to manage this would be for the node owner whether he/she is a billy-big-bag or a Terri-2-nodes.
From my point of view, I want to put my SPR to best use to maximise the strength of the network but I'd also like to be able to do this with reasonable assurances that should I be called to give evidence at the Hague (just grabbing random scenarios) for a week and unable to constantly monitor the position of my nodes in the spread, that my nodes aren't going to be costing me FIAT but not earning me SPR. Its a two sided deal. Service nodes get paid SPR for providing a service and those nodes costs the owner FIAT to run.
I would like to think that I would be on the altruistic spectrum of servicenode operators but if I've got 100 vps buzzing away in the cloud I would like to think that the systemic design would consider ease of management for the servicenode operators to minimise the chances of me being out of pocket.
One thing I could do is create a "bot node" that would monitor the network spread and my own "hive" of service nodes and top up their balance if one gets kicked. Would this be considered gaming? Obviously the bot node would need to have a hopper full of SPR...
April 28, 2015, 01:14:49 PM
it's a pity we couldn't wait with this interesting discussion after the new ANN starts.
That would be exactly the best kind of discussion to start off the first few pages of the new ANN...
So I will refrain from the discussion for now, and work an extra shift to make the ANN happen sooner than later.
Stay tuned.
I urge you people to write any questions you have down for later, we are going to need interesting questions for the new ANN...
this Ann here is supposed to be abandoned soon... so what good is it anyway...
That would be exactly the best kind of discussion to start off the first few pages of the new ANN...
So I will refrain from the discussion for now, and work an extra shift to make the ANN happen sooner than later.
Stay tuned.
I urge you people to write any questions you have down for later, we are going to need interesting questions for the new ANN...
this Ann here is supposed to be abandoned soon... so what good is it anyway...
Everyone can just migrate their posts
April 28, 2015, 01:14:01 PM
Ok. My 10 ServiceNodes are ready to serve.
Any chance I can get some payments in advance?
Any chance I can get some payments in advance?
April 28, 2015, 01:12:58 PM
it's a pity we couldn't wait with this interesting discussion after the new ANN starts.
That would be exactly the best kind of discussion to start off the first few pages of the new ANN...
So I will refrain from the discussion for now, and work an extra shift to make the ANN happen sooner than later.
Stay tuned.
I urge you people to write any questions you have down for later, we are going to need interesting questions for the new ANN...
this Ann here is supposed to be abandoned soon... so what good is it anyway...
That would be exactly the best kind of discussion to start off the first few pages of the new ANN...
So I will refrain from the discussion for now, and work an extra shift to make the ANN happen sooner than later.
Stay tuned.
I urge you people to write any questions you have down for later, we are going to need interesting questions for the new ANN...
this Ann here is supposed to be abandoned soon... so what good is it anyway...
April 28, 2015, 01:03:34 PM
I really appreciate the explanations George, they're helping me a lot. Thanks.
Let the throw a scenario at you.
Person A is a whale and has 100,000SPR. What happens if they set up 1000 100SPR servicenodes in a fit for purpose environment for the services that they are providing? Do his/her nodes get rewarded (albeit on a diminishing basis) until 1000 people start servicenodes with more than 100SPR?
Let the throw a scenario at you.
Person A is a whale and has 100,000SPR. What happens if they set up 1000 100SPR servicenodes in a fit for purpose environment for the services that they are providing? Do his/her nodes get rewarded (albeit on a diminishing basis) until 1000 people start servicenodes with more than 100SPR?
Yes. 100% correct in every aspect.
If this guy manages to setup 1000 functioning servicenodes that are being accepted by the network
then we shouldn't look at this guy as somekind of menace but as a really generous person that loves spreadcoin.
He helps the network gain strength, he adds value and every wallet owner directly benefits from this guys investment.
And you got that right, he will receive 1000 payments, but only for a very short time, since other people will want to take part in this profitable business too. ALL THE TIME!
so they will take away his seats very easily in probably a short time (if he lets them stay at 100 SPR each).
So our generous friend will need to slowly but surely increase the SPR in every servicenode he owns.
But it depends on how fast you will find 1000 voluntary people that are willing to not only provide 101 SPR but also setup a working servicenode.
So it can very well be that the guy who manages to setup 1000 servicenodes in 1 day gets to profit immensely by doing this.
And he deserves this, setting up 1000 servicenodes should be looked at as a gift, much like we should thank the miners when soon spreadcoins hashrate will be 100 Ghs/s and more...
April 28, 2015, 12:42:53 PM
I really appreciate the explanations George, they're helping me a lot. Thanks.
Let the throw a scenario at you.
Person A is a whale and has 100,000SPR. What happens if they set up 1000 100SPR servicenodes in a fit for purpose environment for the services that they are providing? Do his/her nodes get rewarded (albeit on a diminishing basis) until 1000 people start servicenodes with more than 100SPR?
Let the throw a scenario at you.
Person A is a whale and has 100,000SPR. What happens if they set up 1000 100SPR servicenodes in a fit for purpose environment for the services that they are providing? Do his/her nodes get rewarded (albeit on a diminishing basis) until 1000 people start servicenodes with more than 100SPR?
April 28, 2015, 12:11:20 PM
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...
April 28, 2015, 12:07:31 PM
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...
April 28, 2015, 12:02:47 PM
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
I have a servicenode, but someone can jump in my place and kick me off the network?
I am looking, honest
April 28, 2015, 11:57:49 AM
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.
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
April 28, 2015, 11:49:56 AM
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 ...
April 28, 2015, 11:43:04 AM
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.
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.
April 28, 2015, 11:37:36 AM
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.
April 28, 2015, 11:35:07 AM
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.
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.
April 28, 2015, 11:28:35 AM
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.
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.
April 28, 2015, 11:19:32 AM
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).
April 28, 2015, 11:09:43 AM
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.
April 28, 2015, 11:00:34 AM
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)
April 28, 2015, 10:54:50 AM
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?
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
Jump to: