[ANN] SpreadCoin | True Decentralization (No Pools) | Testing New Masternodes - page 296.

LiteMine

sr. member

Activity: 380

Merit: 250

Quote from: thelonecrouton on January 08, 2015, 04:59:20 PM

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.

~~As long as each node pays the same regardless of coins in it, then someone putting up a 10,000-coin node is no better off than the minimum node. Doesn't this solve the centralization issue?~~

Edit: I think I get it now, someone could set up a bunch of cheap nodes to centralize the network. It does look like a minimum # of coins still has to be enforced to set one up.

By only setting the # of nodes high or low, it can be gamed by a nefarious actor.

thelonecrouton

legendary

Activity: 966

Merit: 1000

Quote from: georgem on January 08, 2015, 04:54:29 PM

The requirement to run a DM (decentralized Masternode) will start at 1 SPR if I understood Mr.Spread correctly.
Because it is not necessary to set a minimum deposit price, much like it is not necessary to set a maximum deposit price.
It will be decided by the free market, much like bitcoin's difficulty is decided by the free market.

ONLY a maximum number of DMs must be defined.

Now let me ask you, since you say only the richest SPR holders will be able to afford DMs:

Who makes it EASIER to run a DM/MN?

Spreadcoin with a dynamic Deposit Requirement starting at 1 SPR, (letting the free market decide)
or Darkcoin who has a FIX Deposit Requirement of 1000 DRK? (Cutting out 99% of all investors from the start!!!)

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

georgem

legendary

Activity: 1484

Merit: 1007

spreadcoin.info

Quote from: defunctec on January 08, 2015, 04:58:21 PM

Lets not forget that MrSpread could set the max MN amount to 4000, making it practically impossible to monopolise the network.

Thelone, i do agree about the vultr/amazon thing.

Yes, this is the big question. How to derive the most perfect max DM amount.

Once set it shouldn't be changed. Certainly not by a human. Maybe somehow monitor "the health" of the network and have the protocol adjust the max DM amount (IF it is necessary to adjust it over time. It probably isn't.)

thelonecrouton

legendary

Activity: 966

Merit: 1000

Quote from: defunctec on January 08, 2015, 04:47:20 PM

Quote from: thelonecrouton on January 08, 2015, 04:40:39 PM

Quote from: defunctec on January 08, 2015, 04:34:00 PM

Quote from: thelonecrouton on January 08, 2015, 04:18:43 PM

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.

defunctec

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: georgem on January 08, 2015, 04:54:29 PM

Quote from: thelonecrouton on January 08, 2015, 04:49:20 PM

Quote from: georgem on January 08, 2015, 04:28:34 PM

Quote from: thelonecrouton on January 08, 2015, 04:18:43 PM

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

Wrong.

Here's the explanation why:

With darkcoin, the biggest holders get to monopolize the MN market very easily. Nobody can challenge them. Who already has MN can very easily create MORE MNs. The earnings of his already existing MNs help him buy the next MNs, etc...

But with spreadcoin, new investors can simply look up how much SPR the weakest DM has, and simply invest 1 SPR more to shut the weakest one down, and become the new weakest link.
(but this new weakest link is now 1 SPR stronger!)

It is brilliant that such a thing is made possible with spreadcoin. Because what just happened:
The new guy increased the sum of all money in all DMs by 1 SPR. So this creates a constant tendency to increase the cost of deposit for a DM, which in turn makes the amount of DMs decrease but only temporarily, because newcomers are waiting at the door, ready to enter..., so there is is a constant TURNOVER (because not every DM owner will want to keep up with the constant deposit increase)

It is horrific that darkcoin does NOT allow newcomers to enter the market AND DRIVE THE DEPOSIT PRICE UP, because that's the only thing that truly DISCOURAGES THE HORDING of DM/MN. (in effect kicking lazy DM/MN owners out of the game)

This is so brilliant, I am going to create a few animations soon to show what will potentially happen, and what the different scenarios are.

You are drawing exactly the wrong conclusions from your own argument.

Only the richest SPR holders will be able to afford Masternodes. Everyone else will be priced out with an ever-diminishing hope of ever owning one as the price rises. This is a terrible idea.

The requirement to run a DM (decentralized Masternode) will start at 1 SPR if I understood Mr.Spread correctly.
It is not necessary to set a minimum deposit price, much like it is not necessary to set a maximum deposit price.

ONLY a maximum number of DMs must be defined.

Now let me ask you, since you say only the richest SPR holders will be able to afford DMs:

Who makes it EASIER to run a DM/MN?

Spreadcoin with a dynamic Deposit Requirement starting at 1 SPR, (letting the free market decide)
or Darkcoin who has a FIX Deposit Requirement of 1000 DRK? (Cutting out 99% of all investors from the very beginning!!!)

Lets not forget that MrSpread could set the max MN amount to 4000, making it practically impossible to monopolise the network.

Thelone, i do agree about the vultr/amazon thing.

georgem

legendary

Activity: 1484

Merit: 1007

spreadcoin.info

Quote from: thelonecrouton on January 08, 2015, 04:49:20 PM

Quote from: georgem on January 08, 2015, 04:28:34 PM

Quote from: thelonecrouton on January 08, 2015, 04:18:43 PM

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

Wrong.

Here's the explanation why:

With darkcoin, the biggest holders get to monopolize the MN market very easily. Nobody can challenge them. Who already has MN can very easily create MORE MNs. The earnings of his already existing MNs help him buy the next MNs, etc...

But with spreadcoin, new investors can simply look up how much SPR the weakest DM has, and simply invest 1 SPR more to shut the weakest one down, and become the new weakest link.
(but this new weakest link is now 1 SPR stronger!)

It is brilliant that such a thing is made possible with spreadcoin. Because what just happened:
The new guy increased the sum of all money in all DMs by 1 SPR. So this creates a constant tendency to increase the cost of deposit for a DM, which in turn makes the amount of DMs decrease but only temporarily, because newcomers are waiting at the door, ready to enter..., so there is is a constant TURNOVER (because not every DM owner will want to keep up with the constant deposit increase)

It is horrific that darkcoin does NOT allow newcomers to enter the market AND DRIVE THE DEPOSIT PRICE UP, because that's the only thing that truly DISCOURAGES THE HORDING of DM/MN. (in effect kicking lazy DM/MN owners out of the game)

This is so brilliant, I am going to create a few animations soon to show what will potentially happen, and what the different scenarios are.

You are drawing exactly the wrong conclusions from your own argument.

Only the richest SPR holders will be able to afford Masternodes. Everyone else will be priced out with an ever-diminishing hope of ever owning one as the price rises. This is a terrible idea.

The requirement to run a DM (decentralized Masternode) will start at 1 SPR if I understood Mr.Spread correctly.
Because it is not necessary to set a minimum deposit price, much like it is not necessary to set a maximum deposit price.
It will be decided by the free market, much like bitcoin's difficulty is decided by the free market.

ONLY a maximum number of DMs must be defined.

Now let me ask you, since you say only the richest SPR holders will be able to afford DMs:

Who makes it EASIER to run a DM/MN?

Spreadcoin with a dynamic Deposit Requirement starting at 1 SPR, (letting the free market decide)
or Darkcoin who has a FIX Deposit Requirement of 1000 DRK? (Cutting out 99% of all investors from the start!!!)

MyFarm

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 1000

Quote from: MyFarm on January 08, 2015, 04:35:15 PM

For masternodes, instead of a simple, "You need X SPR to be on the list" and if someone beats you by 1, you're kicked off... what is there was a ranking algorithm. Variables:

1. How much SPR you have in the masternode.
2. If your masternode is in a country with less than X% of masternodes, +Y
3. If your masternode is at an ISP with less than A% of masternodes, +Z
4. Other variables that help secure the network.

Those are obviously simplified.

Your masternode is then scored based upon these variables and you can see where you are on the list. If you're on the bottom of the score list, better change something! Or if you want a new masternode but have less SPR than a lot of people, simply get hosting in a country at an ISP nobody else has.

Darkcoin has a shitload of VPS masternodes at just a few ISPs in just a few countries. Not good for the network.

With this, the amount of SPR in the masternode could be weighted much less in the algorithm compared to having a unique country/ISP since those are such important variables for network security. So the people that want variable pricing are happy though it won't affect the score as much and the people who want a decentralized, secure network are happy.

e1ghtSpace

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1001

Crypto since 2014

Quote from: thelonecrouton on January 08, 2015, 04:49:20 PM

Quote from: georgem on January 08, 2015, 04:28:34 PM

Quote from: thelonecrouton on January 08, 2015, 04:18:43 PM

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

Wrong.

Here's the explanation why:

With darkcoin, the biggest holders get to monopolize the MN market very easily. Nobody can challenge them. Who already has MN can very easily create MORE MNs. The earnings of his already existing MNs help him buy the next MNs, etc...

But with spreadcoin, new investors can simply look up how much SPR the weakest DM has, and simply invest 1 SPR more to shut the weakest one down, and become the new weakest link.
(but this new weakest link is now 1 SPR stronger!)

It is brilliant that such a thing is made possible with spreadcoin. Because what just happened:
The new guy increased the sum of all money in all DMs by 1 SPR. So this creates a constant tendency to increase the cost of deposit for a DM, which in turn makes the amount of DMs decrease but only temporarily, because newcomers are waiting at the door, ready to enter..., so there is is a constant TURNOVER (because not every DM owner will want to keep up with the constant deposit increase)

It is horrific that darkcoin does NOT allow newcomers to enter the market AND DRIVE THE DEPOSIT PRICE UP, because that's the only thing that truly DISCOURAGES THE HORDING of DM/MN. (in effect kicking lazy DM/MN owners out of the game)

This is so brilliant, I am going to create a few animations soon to show what will potentially happen, and what the different scenarios are.

You are drawing exactly the wrong conclusions from your own argument.

Only the richest SPR holders will be able to afford Masternodes. Everyone else will be priced out with an ever-diminishing hope of ever owning one as the price rises. This is a terrible idea.

I doubt the richest Spreadcoin holders could even be bothered setting up 100 vps's let alone 1000+ anyway.

e1ghtSpace

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1001

Crypto since 2014

Quote from: defunctec on January 08, 2015, 04:47:20 PM

Quote from: thelonecrouton on January 08, 2015, 04:40:39 PM

Quote from: defunctec on January 08, 2015, 04:34:00 PM

Quote from: thelonecrouton on January 08, 2015, 04:18:43 PM

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?

Who would be stupid enough to do that anyway? If one person controls the majority of the masternodes then the market price would go down significantly. I don't see anyone here wanting to sacrifice their investment. Do you?

thelonecrouton

legendary

Activity: 966

Merit: 1000

Quote from: georgem on January 08, 2015, 04:28:34 PM

Quote from: thelonecrouton on January 08, 2015, 04:18:43 PM

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

Wrong.

Here's the explanation why:

With darkcoin, the biggest holders get to monopolize the MN market very easily. Nobody can challenge them. Who already has MN can very easily create MORE MNs. The earnings of his already existing MNs help him buy the next MNs, etc...

But with spreadcoin, new investors can simply look up how much SPR the weakest DM has, and simply invest 1 SPR more to shut the weakest one down, and become the new weakest link.
(but this new weakest link is now 1 SPR stronger!)

It is brilliant that such a thing is made possible with spreadcoin. Because what just happened:
The new guy increased the sum of all money in all DMs by 1 SPR. So this creates a constant tendency to increase the cost of deposit for a DM, which in turn makes the amount of DMs decrease but only temporarily, because newcomers are waiting at the door, ready to enter..., so there is is a constant TURNOVER (because not every DM owner will want to keep up with the constant deposit increase)

It is horrific that darkcoin does NOT allow newcomers to enter the market AND DRIVE THE DEPOSIT PRICE UP, because that's the only thing that truly DISCOURAGES THE HORDING of DM/MN. (in effect kicking lazy DM/MN owners out of the game)

This is so brilliant, I am going to create a few animations soon to show what will potentially happen, and what the different scenarios are.

You are drawing exactly the wrong conclusions from your own argument.

Only the richest SPR holders will be able to afford Masternodes. Everyone else will be priced out with an ever-diminishing hope of ever owning one as the price rises. This is a terrible idea.

defunctec

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: thelonecrouton on January 08, 2015, 04:40:39 PM

Quote from: defunctec on January 08, 2015, 04:34:00 PM

Quote from: thelonecrouton on January 08, 2015, 04:18:43 PM

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?

thelonecrouton

legendary

Activity: 966

Merit: 1000

Quote from: defunctec on January 08, 2015, 04:34:00 PM

Quote from: thelonecrouton on January 08, 2015, 04:18:43 PM

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. And your maths is broken. Tongue

MyFarm

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 1000

For masternodes, instead of a simple, "You need X SPR to be on the list" and if someone beats you by 1, you're kicked off... what is there was a ranking algorithm. Variables:

1. How much SPR you have in the masternode.
2. If your masternode is in a country with less than X% of masternodes, +Y
3. If your masternode is at an ISP with less than A% of masternodes, +Z
4. Other variables that help secure the network.

Those are obviously simplified.

Your masternode is then scored based upon these variables and you can see where you are on the list. If you're on the bottom of the score list, better change something! Or if you want a new masternode but have less SPR than a lot of people, simply get hosting in a country at an ISP nobody else has.

Darkcoin has a shitload of VPS masternodes at just a few ISPs in just a few countries. Not good for the network.

defunctec

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: thelonecrouton on January 08, 2015, 04:18:43 PM

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.

MyFarm

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 1000

Quote from: georgem on January 08, 2015, 04:28:34 PM

This is so brilliant, I am going to create a few animations soon to show what will potentially happen, and what the different scenarios are.

If the numbers are correct and logical, I'll tip you for that.

georgem

legendary

Activity: 1484

Merit: 1007

spreadcoin.info

Quote from: thelonecrouton on January 08, 2015, 04:18:43 PM

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

Wrong.

Here's the explanation why:

With darkcoin, the biggest holders get to monopolize the MN market very easily. Nobody can challenge them. Who already has MN can very easily create MORE MNs. The earnings of their already existing MNs help them buy the next MNs, etc...

But with spreadcoin, new investors can simply look up how much SPR the weakest DM has, and simply invest 1 SPR more to shut the weakest one down, and become the new weakest link.
(but this new weakest link is now 1 SPR stronger!)

It is brilliant that such a thing is made possible with spreadcoin. Because what just happened:
The new guy increased the sum of all money in all DMs by 1 SPR. So this creates a constant tendency to increase the cost of deposit for a DM, which in turn makes the amount of DMs decrease but only temporarily, because newcomers are waiting at the door, ready to enter..., so there is is a constant TURNOVER (because not every DM owner will want to keep up with the constant deposit increase)

It is horrific that darkcoin does NOT allow newcomers to enter the market AND DRIVE THE DEPOSIT PRICE UP, because that's the only thing that truly DISCOURAGES THE HORDING of DM/MN. (in effect kicking lazy DM/MN owners out of the game)

This is so brilliant, I am going to create a few animations soon to show what will potentially happen, and what the different scenarios are.

antonio8

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1000

Quote from: jpouza on January 08, 2015, 03:25:51 PM

Quote from: jpouza on January 08, 2015, 03:19:38 PM

Sorry for the noobie question, cannot solo mine this coin, getting 500 Internal Server error on tsiv nvidia miner...

Any ideas?

spreadcoin.conf used:

rpcuser=jpouza
rpcpassword=cash
rpcallowip=127.0.0.1
rpcallowip=192.168.1.*
rpcport=41677
port=41678
gen=0
server=1

Miner:

spreadminer -o http://127.0.0.1:41677 -u jpouza -p cash

Never solo mined before, my network internal IP range is 192.168.1.x, Wallet full syncronized and open... Embarrassed

Fixed! The only way to unlock the wallet is mining with the CPU?

Just pointed 1 core to the cpu mining and GPU miner is now allowed.

Cheers

I am not a Pro but try this.

First if you using the same computer to solo mine with and you have the latest wallet you do not need a cinfig file. Everything is in the Wallet.

You can not gpu mine if the wallet is locked. It must be unlocked. It can still be encrypted but it must be unlocked.

In your config file you have 2 rpcallowip. I don't believe you need that second one. Delete it. Restart the wallet then unlock if encrypted let it resync and restart bat for miner.

By the way what type of card are you using?

defunctec

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: eahmadov on January 08, 2015, 03:25:21 PM

Quote from: MyFarm on January 08, 2015, 03:20:56 PM

Quote from: Jesse Livermore on January 08, 2015, 02:59:50 PM

Quote from: MyFarm on January 08, 2015, 02:18:56 PM

Some Darkcoiners were kind enough to engage me in a debate about the dynamic market pricing of Spread Masternodes. While I was initially sold on the idea, they did bring up some good points and now I'm not quite so sold. I tried to play devils advocate and counter their arguments, but I did actually agree with some of them. Mr. Spread, you may want to read the debate starting here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.78200 before making your final decision.

I saw nothing there to persuade me that static master nodes are better than dynamic matter nodes. I think we will just have to see for ourselves how well this works out in a live environment and stop all this hypothetical 'if-then' stuff.
JL

I'm certainly not against it, just not 100% for it anymore. I just wanted Mr. Spread to take the other insight into account before he makes his decision. Whatever decision he goes with, I'll support at that point.

I hope dynamic masternodes will not require more technical knowledge or time to operate than the static ones. People who are busy with their daily work/responsibilities will not like the idea of constantly checking to see if their SPR masternodes are in the list or not. That might greatly discourage investment.

I doubt it will discourage investment, infact it will create a whole new market. Opportunist will crunch the numbers to find what the lowest amount they can have in a MN, without being kicked from the list.

Also, people who don't have the time to deal with all that can just stack a reasonable amount of SPR in a MN and check it once a week.

NoobKidOnTheBlock

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 500

FLY DONATION ADDRESS IN SIGNATURE

Quote from: georgem on January 08, 2015, 04:15:28 PM

There is another consequence which shows the brilliance of DM (decentralized masternodes):

Since DMs with different amounts of SPR deposited STILL earn the same amount of SPR, a very competition encouraging effect emerges:

Suppose I own 10k SPR.
I now have two options:

1) Either I create 1 DM only and put all my 10k SPR in it, making it a STRONG DM, a practically indestructible DM. Nobody can challenge it. Not even in the year 2106.

2) or I can create 10 DMs with only 1000 SPR each, making them WEAK DMs, but since every DM earns the same amount of SPR I will be possibly earning 10 Times the amount of SPR compared to the strong DM I could have installed instead.

BUT HERE'S THE CATCH:
Those WEAK DMs run the constant risk of being shut down by someone else who is happy to invest just 1 SPR more than you.

HAHA, this is sooo brilliant.

Everybody:

YES, WEAK DMs (backed by little SPR) can be shut down any moment, but you have the incentive of running MANY OF THEM, because you can potentially earn MORE SPR than a strong DM, and be it only temporarily.

This is brilliance in the making. Shocked

OMG OMG!!! This is truly brilliance in the making

But you are just blowing my Noobish mind right now with all this man

I need a moment to breathe here and accept that this is a one of a kind opportunity being built here and I'm just so glad to be a part of it right now

SPREADERS UNITE!

driedgrape

newbie

Activity: 45

Merit: 0

Quote from: thelonecrouton on January 08, 2015, 01:33:51 PM

Spread Simple Wallet v1:

http://s4.postimg.org/u9yf5fuhp/spr4.png

refreshing UI,I just love it! Grin

Topic: [ANN] SpreadCoin | True Decentralization (No Pools) | Testing New Masternodes - page 296. (Read 810099 times)