Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 3719. (Read 9723748 times)

Still you are not addressing the issue im trying to point out to you guys .. This is not a issue of convenience, it is a security issue.

How can you trust a network that is run mostly by a small number of people ? .. we need allot of small ops

Did anyone ask Atlas what he thought of this ?
or any security expert ... you guys must see this

The new feature only facilitates the starting up process, so is easier to start multiple masternodes. They still have to run with separate IPs so it actually helps decentralization because it allows people to set up more nodes easily.  Everybody is free to own as many masternodes as they want you just need to buy the 1000DRK required so in reality it is a very fair system as the same rules apply for everybody. The network needs as many nodes as possible the more the better.

Then wait till it is even more profitable to run one. See what happens regardless of this feature.

Setting up a masternode isn't technically difficult. There are easy to follow, line by line guides that will get you to the finish line without too much hassle. If you can use the internet, you can setup a masternode.

ok I have voiced my concerns and im not going to spend my night arguing this point.
The reason the top 100 wallets have not setup their nodes is exactly because it is work and technical abilities are required.

Which I think is a good thing because that detorres people from becoming a Mega Mn operator ..

I see that as a good thing for the decentralisation aspect of the coin.

I thought that one person having 50 nodes was bad enough as it is..

Hi all, forgive my absence I have been spending a lot of time on DCT lately... just wanted to share a great read on Darkcoin ONYX from Coins Source:

http://www.coinssource.com/darkcoins-onyx-updates-and-upgrades-the-network/

Cheers Darkcoiners, and see you soon!

So would you be ok with it if someone could still set up 100 masternodes but it would involve a bit more unproductive work?

So again I ask, even if this feature didn't exist, your logic is flawed thinking that this excludes the largest holders from setting up masternodes. I guarantee you if it becomes hella profitable to set up masternodes, even the largest holders will start allocating 1000 coin chunks to them.

This update is going to be a blessing for anyone running more than 1 masternode. Period.

I know that Im pissing up to the wind here, trying to reason with top wallets. But try to be objective.

I know that this is your christmas present and im sorry to take a dump on it..

I just dont think that it is worth it .. natural growth is much better than this.

We need allot of small operators ,, not a handful of Mega MN operators.

Why don't the whiners get this?  

(rhetorical question, I know the answer...)

If the largest holders own 60% of the masternodes, they'll be entitled to 60% of the available reward. It's not rocket science. To think that just because you own a fraction of that percentage means you are going to be screwed on payments means you didn't bother to look at the reference node idea and how it evenly distributes payments. I don't care what has happened before in terms of payouts, it will be different when enforcement rolls.

Quit trying to make an issue out of something that isn't new. There was always the possibility that large coin holders could set up masternodes... they didn't magically appear over night. The reason a lot of them hold so many coins is because rumdumb traders keep selling their coins because they don't have their eyes on the big picture. Large holders are the ones that do believe in the coin, if they are going to continue to stockpile coins, that's their belief that it's a solid investment. Nothing says you can't be buying up cheap coins either...

The entire bitcoin hashrate is handled over 51% by less than 4 people. Sometimes only 2! Mining pool flaw. Initially, solo minig was all there was and there was no concern for 51%... Pools are a band-aid that have never been fixed and massively consolidate a huge distributed resource into only a handful of nodes with all the power.

http://blockchain.info/pools

All it would take to break BTC is for ghash.io, discus, and btc guild to get paid off/threatened/taken over by guv to sabotage the value...

If only 3 pools conspired, over 51%. And this is on a good day. Often it only takes 2 and it's way more than 51%... I've seen that table showing only 2 parties holding 60% and more... ghash.io threatened 51% all by itself at one point. All that distributed hashpower being funnelled into the most centralized concept ever... Mining pools are the ultimate tool for defeating the whole damn point of mining/hashpower in the first place!

That is never going to change, so...

DRK has 2 metrics, and both are much, much more distributed than bitcoin is. You'd have to break them both at the same time.

DRK's Masternodes could become a mining cloud facilitating a return to solo mining in a manner still distributed by the code/coin itself. MNs could become the mining pool. We all go back to solo mining, but we still share the block reward proportional to our hashpower input. Even if one guy has 75%, wouldn't matter. Pools could still be formed that mine into that cloud with the express intent of defeating it. Oh, wait, that's what pools are now... and with no reason to pay a mining pool fee, who would mine in a pool anyway? We could finally expose mining pools as the weapon against crypto that they are. Major, huge fucking flaw...

This.

Evan wants more MNs. Smart people want more MNs.

Your 1 MN is going to become a smaller piece of the pie no matter what.

Mining pools, hashrate, diff... Same old story...

More MNs == diff increase. CPU miners cry that GPU miners get moar.

The network is better off with more MNs same way it is better off with more hashrate. The money hosers cry when the MN count goes up same as they cry when the hashrate goes up...

Big stacks don't want to risk a simple typo blowing the stack. This makes that much less likely, nearly impossible to fuck up. Fat stacks will now jump in and make the MNs we ALL want and ALL benefit from.

Dont mean to be a negative nancy, Im just genualy concerned.  

How will the trolls spin this, Darkoins network run by just a handful of people ?

And how will this affect the small investor that only runs one node but with great enthusiasm and updates within the first hours ?
The whales will swallow up the Mn payments and the small guy will see a payment every other week

Was there any discussion before this was implemented ?

The way I see it, is that fiddling around with multiple 1k wallets in your local computer doesn't help the network at all. It's just an annoyance. It's the actual running (remote) masternode instances/computers in the internet that do. It's important that the barrier for strengthening the network is made as low as possible. That's what's gonna benefit us all in the long run.

Did you all just become trolls and forget how masternodes work?

Still gotta be a server for every one... Still gotta... Oh jez, I'm not going to outline this all to people pretending to not know in order to drum up some BS troll exploit drama...

It only simplifies the wallet-side and prevents clerical errors from losing 1000DRK at a time. That's all... Get over it. Quit pretending it causes problems that it can't possibly cause.

You guys are just mad, like miners, that the MN count is about to go up, and your money hose won't be so big anymore. Cry me a river, same old bullshit.

Go solo CPU mine some BTC and tell the world how unfair it is that you haven't found a block in 2 days...

This will benefit very few people at the expense of the many.. The top 100+ wallets have not fired up nodes but im shure they will now ... but all those new nodes will come from so few people ... this is a security issue in my eyes ... I will benefit because I run quite a few Mn´s but I think this is playing with fire.

We've only been begging for a way to make MNs easier to handle since the first time you ever mentioned them... I refused to even bother with them because it was too much redundant fiddling about. Burying the multi-entry idea was a good move, we need more nodes, not just fatter nodes getting more votes. But there still needed to be some way to lighten the busywork load. I've got shit to do. I'm usually stressed out and distracted. Anything that reduces my opportunities for human error, I'll take it!

Iw as thinking it couldn't really have much impact on function or cause any problems since it doesn't effect any of the coin handling... It's just a new way to count/define DRK bricks for MNs...

It's been shocking how popular this feature turned out to be. I just pushed up a draft of the code to github to basically save it, so I didn't lose it. It's not perfect and not nearly done, although, there's really no risk to using it. From what I've seen it works pretty well.

Could have mentioned testnet...