Author

Topic: [ANN] SpreadCoin | True Decentralization (No Pools) | Testing New Masternodes - page 295. (Read 810099 times)

sr. member
Activity: 462
Merit: 250
Yes it favours the rich, because my DRK MNs can't be bought out from underneath me.

Yes, but only if you are the weakest link, which is your own responsibility NOT TO BE, if you want to run a secure MN place.

Also, it's not like you "lose your MN". You keep your SPR, you keep your server. It's just that your MN is temporarily excluded from the "club".

You can try again with +1 SPR sir, or you can monitor the DM Spread and reenter when the MARKET PRICE for a DM is more in your favour.

We haven't even scratched the surface here of what will be possible and how people will react.

With dynamic pricing my SPR MNs could be, repeatedly, by anyone with a few SPR more than me, so I may not even bother to begin with.

Your inaction (running an MN with an irresponsibly low amount of SPR) is met with the action / initiative of a newcomer who is willing to overbid you (he acts MORE responsible than you).
It is always good for the market and any distributed system when the ACTIVE people (who show initiative and responsibility) are REWARDED, and the INACTIVE people are PUNISHED.
It's as simple as that.

At least with DRK you can pool together with others and own a MN share. Nobody is going to go to the trouble though with SPR if it can be taken away by the next passing whale with deeper pockets than you and your partners.

You can "pool together" with everybody regardless what the underlying coin is. But is this a decentralized trustless action? No, in the contrary. Many things can go wrong, and the incentive for bad players to abuse any "pool" like agreement is here.

You will not be taken away by a whale. The amount of allowed SPR MNs will be very high, certainly in the thousands.
We will have something between 1000 and 10k Masternodes in Spreadcoin, that's for sure. Not less and probably not more.
A whale can't possibly own all the coins to kick out all the other MN owners.

Sure, he can probably kick out the MNs in the lower 50-100 ranks, but how is he going to kick out the MN owners in the middle or upper part of the spread?
(As an example let's assume a spread of SPR deposits between 500 SPR and 10k SPR per Masternode: yes the whale can kick the owner of a 500-600 SPR MN out, but not all the SPR in the world are going to kick the guy with the 10k SPR out of the club.
YES, he might kick the 10k SPR guy from rank 950 to rank 550, but he will still be safe! That's the point.)

Bingo bingo bingo. Agree 1000% here with George's
points.
 I would just add though that even if the 'weakest link' DM gets kicked out it's not like 'awe poor him' because theoretically if he can't afford to buy back in it's because price of SPR is going up (which he's still getting the benefit from by holding at least one SPR) due to others adding to their stash.
Again though, this board is trying to predict what happens in what will likely be a chaotic environment to start with, and IMO the only way of knowing if this is a better idea than DRK's static mn's is to try this out live.
JL
legendary
Activity: 1484
Merit: 1007
spreadcoin.info
If SPR is pool minable,the price wont surpass 10K sato.
@georgem,pool minable VS solo minable,which one will go better with MN (or DM)?

But SPR is NOT pool minable, and will do everything to stay this way.
legendary
Activity: 1484
Merit: 1007
spreadcoin.info

So why not call it a 500 SPR requirement and a 3000 MN cap and leave it at that? What advantage does dynamic pricing bring?

Because nobody can possibly know what a good requirement is, and what a reasonable amount of MN cap is.
We need a reliable mechanism that will help us find out the best price, because we are just humans. We are greedy and we are not infallible.

No human has the intellect to outwit the free market. Therefor we need to implement a free market mechanism to decide for us.

This is decentralization SQUARED!


Also, just so you are happy: if you want to run a secure SPR MN that nobody can challenge, then use this formula:

The amount of SPR deposit in your DM should be BIGGER THAN (All Available SPR) / (Max DM count) .

It is possible to run a secure SPR MN anytime, and the necessary amount will be easily predictable.
newbie
Activity: 45
Merit: 0
Yes it favours the rich, because my DRK MNs can't be bought out from underneath me.

Yes, but only if you are the weakest link, which is your own responsibility NOT TO BE, if you want to run a secure MN place.

Also, it's not like you "lose your MN". You keep your SPR, you keep your server. It's just that your MN is temporarily excluded from the "club".

You can try again with +1 SPR sir, or you can monitor the DM Spread and reenter when the MARKET PRICE for a DM is more in your favour.

We haven't even scratched the surface here of what will be possible and how people will react.

With dynamic pricing my SPR MNs could be, repeatedly, by anyone with a few SPR more than me, so I may not even bother to begin with.

Your inaction (running an MN with an irresponsibly low amount of SPR) is met with the action / initiative of a newcomer who is willing to overbid you (he acts MORE responsible than you).
It is always good for the market and any distributed system when the ACTIVE people (who show initiative and responsibility) are REWARDED, and the INACTIVE people are PUNISHED.
It's as simple as that.

At least with DRK you can pool together with others and own a MN share. Nobody is going to go to the trouble though with SPR if it can be taken away by the next passing whale with deeper pockets than you and your partners.

You can "pool together" with everybody regardless what the underlying coin is. But is this a decentralized trustless action? No, in the contrary. Many things can go wrong, and the incentive for bad players to abuse any "pool" like agreement is here.

You will not be taken away by a whale. The amount of allowed SPR MNs will be very high, certainly in the thousands.
We will have something between 1000 and 10k Masternodes in Spreadcoin, that's for sure. Not less and probably not more.
A whale can't possibly own all the coins to kick out all the other MN owners.

Sure, he can probably kick out the MNs in the lower 50-100 ranks, but how is he going to kick out the MN owners in the middle or upper part of the spread?
(Let's assume a spread of SPR deposits between 500 SPR and 10k SPR per Masternode: yes the whale can kick the owner of a 500-600 SPR MN out, but not all the SPR in the world are going to kick the guy with the 10k SPR out of the club.
YES, he might kick the 10k SPR guy from rank 950 to rank 550, but he will still be safe! That's the point.)
If SPR is pool minable,the price wont surpass 10K sato.
@georgem,pool minable VS solo minable,which one will go better with MN (or DM)?
legendary
Activity: 1484
Merit: 1007
spreadcoin.info
Yes it favours the rich, because my DRK MNs can't be bought out from underneath me.

Yes, but only if you are the weakest link, which is your own responsibility NOT TO BE, if you want to run a secure MN place.

Also, it's not like you "lose your MN". You keep your SPR, you keep your server. It's just that your MN is temporarily excluded from the "club".

You can try again with +1 SPR sir, or you can monitor the DM Spread and reenter when the MARKET PRICE for a DM is more in your favour.

We haven't even scratched the surface here of what will be possible and how people will react.

With dynamic pricing my SPR MNs could be, repeatedly, by anyone with a few SPR more than me, so I may not even bother to begin with.

Your inaction (running an MN with an irresponsibly low amount of SPR) is met with the action / initiative of a newcomer who is willing to overbid you (he acts MORE responsible than you).
It is always good for the market and any distributed system when the ACTIVE people (who show initiative and responsibility) are REWARDED, and the INACTIVE people are PUNISHED.
It's as simple as that.

At least with DRK you can pool together with others and own a MN share. Nobody is going to go to the trouble though with SPR if it can be taken away by the next passing whale with deeper pockets than you and your partners.

You can "pool together" with everybody regardless what the underlying coin is. But is this a decentralized trustless action? No, in the contrary. Many things can go wrong, and the incentive for bad players to abuse any "pool" like agreement is here.

You will not be taken away by a whale. The amount of allowed SPR MNs will be very high, certainly in the thousands.
We will have something between 1000 and 10k Masternodes in Spreadcoin, that's for sure. Not less and probably not more.
A whale can't possibly own all the coins to kick out all the other MN owners.

Sure, he can probably kick out the MNs in the lower 50-100 ranks, but how is he going to kick out the MN owners in the middle or upper part of the spread?
(As an example let's assume a spread of SPR deposits between 500 SPR and 10k SPR per Masternode: yes the whale can kick the owner of a 500-600 SPR MN out, but not all the SPR in the world are going to kick the guy with the 10k SPR out of the club.
YES, he might kick the 10k SPR guy from rank 950 to rank 550, but he will still be safe! That's the point.)
legendary
Activity: 966
Merit: 1000
Wait wait, your saying dynamic is for the rich but static is not?

Imagine this

Darkcoins MarketCap = $9,000,000,000. The cost of a DRk MN at this marketcap? around $340,000... Hey, poor people see you can just set a DRK MN up with your $340,000.

But you say SPR's method "favers the rich".

Edit: By the way, I'm pulling the dollar figures out my backside, but are not far off.
Yes it favours the rich, because my DRK MNs can't be bought out from underneath me.

With dynamic pricing my SPR MNs could be, repeatedly, by anyone with a few SPR more than me, so I may not even bother to begin with.

At least with DRK you can pool together with others and own a MN share. Nobody is going to go to the trouble though with SPR if it can be taken away by the next passing whale with deeper pockets than you and your partners.

Again i understand that you can be "taken out", but this will only happen to the opportunist's who seek as many MN's as they can with there current holdings.

So at the start someone will be able to make a masternode with 1spr, but someone can knock him off by having 2spr. Is that bad, no.

What about someone with 500spr in a MN? Well to be kicked from the network (at 3000 total slots in the list) there would need to be around 1.5million spr alocated to MN's.

To have 51% of the MN's you would need around 750,000 spr. Say 7 people had 51% of the coin supply between them (100,000spr each) and created MN's with those coins, its still not a monopoly.

7 heavily financially invested individuals, yes please.

So why not call it a 500 SPR requirement and a 3000 MN cap and leave it at that? What advantage does dynamic pricing bring?
legendary
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1000
Wait wait, your saying dynamic is for the rich but static is not?

Imagine this

Darkcoins MarketCap = $9,000,000,000. The cost of a DRk MN at this marketcap? around $340,000... Hey, poor people see you can just set a DRK MN up with your $340,000.

But you say SPR's method "favers the rich".

Edit: By the way, I'm pulling the dollar figures out my backside, but are not far off.
Yes it favours the rich, because my DRK MNs can't be bought out from underneath me.

With dynamic pricing my SPR MNs could be, repeatedly, by anyone with a few SPR more than me, so I may not even bother to begin with.

At least with DRK you can pool together with others and own a MN share. Nobody is going to go to the trouble though with SPR if it can be taken away by the next passing whale with deeper pockets than you and your partners.

Again i understand that you can be "taken out", but this will only happen to the opportunist's who seek as many MN's as they can with there current holdings.

So at the start someone will be able to make a masternode with 1spr, but someone can knock him off by having 2spr. Is that bad, no.

What about someone with 500spr in a MN? Well to be kicked from the network (at 3000 total slots in the list) there would need to be around 1.5million spr alocated to MN's.

To have 51% of the MN's you would need around 750,000 spr. Say 7 people had 51% of the coin supply between them (100,000spr each) and created MN's with those coins, its still not a monopoly.

Edit: Reason being the group that owns 51% of the currency can only fund 3000 wallets with 501spr. I my self could knock a few of those off and im small fry.

7 heavily financially invested individuals, yes please.
legendary
Activity: 966
Merit: 1000
Wait wait, your saying dynamic is for the rich but static is not?

Imagine this

Darkcoins MarketCap = $9,000,000,000. The cost of a DRk MN at this marketcap? around $340,000... Hey, poor people see you can just set a DRK MN up with your $340,000.

But you say SPR's method "favers the rich".

Edit: By the way, I'm pulling the dollar figures out my backside, but are not far off.
Yes it favours the rich, because my DRK MNs can't be bought out from underneath me.

With dynamic pricing my SPR MNs could be, repeatedly, by anyone with a few SPR more than me, so I may not even bother to begin with.

At least with DRK you can pool together with others and own a MN share. Nobody is going to go to the trouble though with SPR if it can be taken away by the next passing whale (or government agency) with deeper pockets than you and your partners.

legendary
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1000
How can you centralize 3000 MN's?
Because a comparatively few people will end up running all of them. You'll have a situation as bad as a handful of people controlling other PoW coins' hashrate via their centralised pools.

For a few people to control this network we are talking hundred's of thousands of spr(with current supply), and in years to come million's.
Utoh on darkcoin thread has over 100 MN's 100,000 DRK! And he still is only 1/16th of the entire DRK MN network.

It's unrealistic for a small group to have enough coins between them to build a monopoly, as shown above.
It all comes down to how many MN's MrSpread set's as the maximum.

You are right about my calculations but solidify's my argument. With 5 million spr you can only fund 3000 MN's with 1666 SPR, making your monopoly even weaker than i thought.
I still have no idea what your point is here, sorry. Smiley  And Mr Spread was talking about a hard limit on the max number anyway.

I will keep trying.

MrSpread sets the maximum amount of MN's to 3000.

So there are 3000 available slots on the MN network.

Me and 5 other people own 40% of the current supply 600,000SPR.

We try to gain 50% of the MN network with our 600,000SPR and find out we can only fund 1500 MN's with 400SPR.

I understand your points, but you must understand that to gain a monopoly over this system is to own over 50% of the currency, which is ridicules.

Would love to hear MrSpread's opinions on this matter.

That was clearer, thank you, but I still think a dynamic requirement is a bad idea and offers no advantages over a fixed requirement, only disadvantages.

There are 5 people that I know for certain have over 100 Darkcoin Masternodes each. That's a minor issue though because of the n-of-m subsetting that Masternodes operate on.

The real problem with dymanic pricing is that a richer party can always drive out a poorer party. However unlikely you think this might be it shouldn't be a possibility at all as it will inevitably lead to centralisation in the hands of a few. The whole of human history shows us that this is what always happens.

With fixed MN price I will always have my MNs. Nobody can buy them out from under me. With dynamic pricing I could lose them at any time to someone with more resources, and I would have to be constantly spending time and money to recover my position.

I can set up a Masternode as quickly as anyone on Earth, I have it all scripted, it's easy, but it takes time. After a while, after having been repeatedly outbid, I'm just not going to bother any more, I'm going to say fuck it and lose interest, while the richer folk proceed to monopolise the whole show.

Dynamic pricing favours the rich few at the expense of everyone else and consequently diminishes decentralisation.

Wait wait, your saying dynamic is for the rich but static is not?

Imagine this

Darkcoins MarketCap = $9,000,000,000. The cost of a DRk MN at this marketcap? around $340,000... Hey, poor people see you can just set a DRK MN up with your $340,000.

But you say SPR's method "favers the rich".

Edit: By the way, I'm pulling the dollar figures out my backside, but are not far off.
legendary
Activity: 966
Merit: 1000
How can you centralize 3000 MN's?
Because a comparatively few people will end up running all of them. You'll have a situation as bad as a handful of people controlling other PoW coins' hashrate via their centralised pools.

For a few people to control this network we are talking hundred's of thousands of spr(with current supply), and in years to come million's.
Utoh on darkcoin thread has over 100 MN's 100,000 DRK! And he still is only 1/16th of the entire DRK MN network.

It's unrealistic for a small group to have enough coins between them to build a monopoly, as shown above.
It all comes down to how many MN's MrSpread set's as the maximum.

You are right about my calculations but solidify's my argument. With 5 million spr you can only fund 3000 MN's with 1666 SPR, making your monopoly even weaker than i thought.
I still have no idea what your point is here, sorry. Smiley  And Mr Spread was talking about a hard limit on the max number anyway.

I will keep trying.

MrSpread sets the maximum amount of MN's to 3000.

So there are 3000 available slots on the MN network.

Me and 5 other people own 40% of the current supply 600,000SPR.

We try to gain 50% of the MN network with our 600,000SPR and find out we can only fund 1500 MN's with 400SPR.

I understand your points, but you must understand that to gain a monopoly over this system is to own over 50% of the currency, which is ridicules.

Would love to hear MrSpread's opinions on this matter.

That was clearer, thank you, but I still think a dynamic requirement is a bad idea and offers no advantages over a fixed requirement, only disadvantages.

There are 5 people that I know for certain have over 100 Darkcoin Masternodes each. That's a minor issue though because of the n-of-m subsetting that Masternodes operate on.

The real problem with dymanic pricing is that a richer party can always drive out a poorer party. However unlikely you think this might be it shouldn't be a possibility at all as it will inevitably lead to centralisation in the hands of a few. The whole of human history shows us that this is what always happens.

With fixed MN price I will always have my MNs. Nobody can buy them out from under me. With dynamic pricing I could lose them at any time to someone with more resources, and I would have to be constantly spending time and money to recover my position.

I can set up a Masternode as quickly as anyone on Earth, I have it all scripted, it's easy, but it takes time. After a while, after having been repeatedly outbid, I'm just not going to bother any more, I'm going to say fuck it and lose interest, while the richer folk proceed to monopolise the whole show.

Dynamic pricing favours the rich few at the expense of everyone else and consequently diminishes decentralisation.

Add in the fact that with dynamic pricing there is going to be hard limit on the allowed number of MNs and it's going to rapidly result in a centralised monopoly.
sr. member
Activity: 268
Merit: 250
>> create an economy that uses SPR for everyday business

Exactly... create a thriving marketplace...
legendary
Activity: 1484
Merit: 1007
spreadcoin.info
I understand your points, but you must understand that to gain a monopoly over this system is to own over 50% of the currency, which is ridicules.

Good point.

That's why Spreadcoin must enable instantX first, so that we can start experimenting with our fast and lean DMs.
(Let the anonymization/darksend stay outside for the moment.)

With even faster transactions (already we have 1 min) we could create an economy that uses SPR for everyday business.... so the DMs owners trying to setup a monopoly will have it EVEN HARDER to get to those coins for cheap, since most of the coins should not be in DMs ANYWAY, but in the hands of normal trading people. (buying/selling things, offering services, etc.)

So over the next years, it really depends how many coins will even be available for DM owners.

Also I so wonder how big the spread will be between the DM with the fewest SPR and the DM with the highest SPR... this will be so interesting to watch.

This is another characteristic of this coin that perfectly fits its own NAME, can you believe it.  Huh
legendary
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1000
How can you centralize 3000 MN's?
Because a comparatively few people will end up running all of them. You'll have a situation as bad as a handful of people controlling other PoW coins' hashrate via their centralised pools.

For a few people to control this network we are talking hundred's of thousands of spr(with current supply), and in years to come million's.
Utoh on darkcoin thread has over 100 MN's 100,000 DRK! And he still is only 1/16th of the entire DRK MN network.

It's unrealistic for a small group to have enough coins between them to build a monopoly, as shown above.
It all comes down to how many MN's MrSpread set's as the maximum.

You are right about my calculations but solidify's my argument. With 5 million spr you can only fund 3000 MN's with 1666 SPR, making your monopoly even weaker than i thought.
I still have no idea what your point is here, sorry. Smiley  And Mr Spread was talking about a hard limit on the max number anyway.

I will keep trying.

MrSpread sets the maximum amount of MN's to 3000.

So there are 3000 available slots on the MN network.

Me and 5 other people own 40% of the current supply 600,000SPR.

We try to gain 50% of the MN network with our 600,000SPR and find out we can only fund 1500 MN's with 400SPR.

I understand your points, but you must understand that to gain a monopoly over this system is to own over 50% of the currency, which is ridicules.

EDIT: 50% would not be enough to have a monopoly btw.

Would love to hear MrSpread's opinions on this matter.





legendary
Activity: 1484
Merit: 1007
spreadcoin.info
I'm working on decentralized (no reference nodes) masternodes and instant transactions. I hope that by the end of this month or sooner we will have public testnet with working masternodes and instant transactions, all code will be open sourced by that moment. DarkSend is much more complicated subject, don't expect it soon.

Amount for running masternode hasn't been set yet. It depends on how many masternodes we want which is not yet clear. The more is better for decentralization, on the other hand we need not to bloat the network with masternode related messages. Instead of setting the required amount it may be better to set the maximum number of masternodes and minimum required amount. Once the number of masternodes will reach the maximum only masternodes with maximum deposits will remain and others will be automatically delisted.

So the next questions to ask are:

1) What is the perfect amount of max DM (Decentralized Masternode)?
2) Do we even need a minimum required amount of SPR to run a DM (Decentralized Masternode)?


My noob answers:

1) I have no idea. I understand that data bloat is a problem, but I suppose if we implement something like Darksend then the bloat will obviously be very high. But what if we forget about DarkSend for the moment, and concentrate on InstantX?
So the sole purpose of decentralized masternodes will first only be to serve as instantx facilitators? So those Decentralized Masternodes will earn SPR for enabling instant transcations, right?
That's enough incentive for many investors to buy SPR and setup masternodes (DM), I am sure about that.

2) I don't think so, once people start outbidding each other to catch a valuable DM, you don't need a minimum price. It's like when in ebay you see valuable things with a starting price of 1$. The seller is not stupid, it's not like he will lose out here. In the contrary, the cheap price encourages MANY MANY bidders to bid, MORE than what an initial HIGH price (like 1000 DRK) would ever be able to attract.

So that's the other difference between SPR and DRK, if we leave the min price out, we will attract so many investors it will blow us out of our socks!
legendary
Activity: 1484
Merit: 1007
spreadcoin.info
Good luck with your 1000 1-SPR Masternodes costing you $5000/month and earning you nothing because everyone else is going to be bidding the requirement up to the max.  Cheesy

But... Yes exactly! lol

Price Discovery will kick in immediately and drive the price of a DM (Decentralized Masternode) to whatever value makes sense for ALL the market participants.
The people will decide what the price should be.

Also, you can't bid the requirement up to the max, since THERE IS NO MAX!

Also, if the price of a DM gets too high, say it gets to 100k SPR, then you could only create 200 DMs with the whole coin supply, so this doesn't even make sense.

All this tells me that we will have a price discovery that will lead to a perfectly balanced price per DM.

Should the price get too high, then those DMs will all take so many SPR out of the coin supply, that the remaining allowed DMs can be setup cheaper!

So, why should a DM owner put too much SPR into his DM? He will not want to put to many SPR in a DM because this will reduce his profitability.
Because, remember, a DM with 100 SPR earns the same amount like a DM with 100k SPR. But the first one has a lifespan of probably 10 seconds.  Grin


newbie
Activity: 45
Merit: 0
It's time to contact cryptsy and bter to add SPR .
Has anybody contacted them recently?
legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1000
I'm not seeing any advantage to having a dynamic MN collateral requirement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any help?

There are only 1.5 million SPR right now. (And 3000 * 2500 = 7500000, but that's beside the point.)

A dynamic collateral requirement just limits the number of people who can potentially run a MN. With a fixed requirement, those who wish to earn more can do so by setting up another MN, without limiting the ability of anyone else to do so.

This will lead to awful centralisation, I guarantee it.

How can you centralize 3000 MN's? You are right about my calculations but solidify's my argument. With 5 million spr you can only fund 3000 MN's with 1666 SPR, making your monopoly even weaker than i thought.

If the coin become's centralized it will lose value and become less profitable for the "monopoly" rendering it financially nonviable.

You have to think with a bad actor (with lots of $) that want (for whatever reason) destroy the coin, or make it unusable...
Interesting discution by the way.
legendary
Activity: 966
Merit: 1000
How can you centralize 3000 MN's?
Because a comparatively few people will end up running all of them. You'll have a situation as bad as a handful of people controlling other PoW coins' hashrate via their centralised pools.

You are right about my calculations but solidify's my argument. With 5 million spr you can only fund 3000 MN's with 1666 SPR, making your monopoly even weaker than i thought.
I still have no idea what your point is here, sorry. Smiley  And Mr Spread was talking about a hard limit on the max number anyway.

If the coin become's centralized it will lose value and become less profitable for the "monopoly" rendering it financially nonviable.
Uh huh, miners who mine via pools render the whole value proposition of a 'decentralised' cryptocurrency worthless, but it doesn't stop them doing it.
newbie
Activity: 45
Merit: 0

06:06:27

getmininginfo


06:06:27

{
"blocks" : 214682,
"currentblocksize" : 0,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"difficulty" : 53.75955703,
"errors" : "",
"generate" : false,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"hashespersec" : 0,
"networkhashps" : 3634614791,
"pooledtx" : 0,
"testnet" : false
}
wow,crazy ~ both diff and net hashrate have created new high ,perfect Wink
legendary
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1000
I'm not seeing any advantage to having a dynamic MN collateral requirement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any help?

There are only 1.5 million SPR right now. (And 3000 * 2500 = 7500000, but that's beside the point.)

A dynamic collateral requirement just limits the number of people who can potentially run a MN. With a fixed requirement, those who wish to earn more can do so by setting up another MN, without limiting the ability of anyone else to do so.

This will lead to awful centralisation, I guarantee it.

How can you centralize 3000 MN's? You are right about my calculations but solidify's my argument. With 5 million spr you can only fund 3000 MN's with 1666 SPR, making your monopoly even weaker than i thought.

If the coin become's centralized it will lose value and become less profitable for the "monopoly" rendering it financially nonviable.
Jump to: