Anybody else raise a bit of an eyebrow at the "no forks" part of Evan's post? If that can be done, then why did we try to hard fork in the first place? Was the original method really thought through and the best option to pay masternodes selected? Or is there some compromise in implementing forkless payments that is now being ignored becuase of the chaos over the last few days? And then there is the obvious increasing of the masternode incentive (20%, multiple tickets) which I guess is fine... but is also a convenient price lifeboat.
My wallet has remained closed during this mishap and I have no plans to dump any part of my modest stash, but I have a lot of questions right now. Anybody that has any insight (Evan himself is best, but that is hoping for too much) that could answer some of these questions would be appreciated.
Or maybe I am being too skeptical and nobody else sees anything odd here...
My wallet has remained closed during this mishap and I have no plans to dump any part of my modest stash, but I have a lot of questions right now. Anybody that has any insight (Evan himself is best, but that is hoping for too much) that could answer some of these questions would be appreciated.
Or maybe I am being too skeptical and nobody else sees anything odd here...
There were originally two strategies for masternode payments. One requires a hardfork and one doesn't. I originally decided to do the one that does, because you can't cheat as a pool operator. But, that comes with a price. The code must reject cheating blocks and that's what caused the forking issue.
The other way is to setup the client to pay nodes in a provably fair way. If the pool doesn't pay the correct amount to the correct node, we'll know and we'll shame them. We'll get miners to move to honest pools.
Like others have suggested, all of the groundwork has been laid. I have implemented the masternodes, the election system for payments and it's compatible with this soft fork.
So why 20% fees for masternode payments? This essentially will create twice as many nodes and create a much higher cost to spy on the network. It also creates a larger feedback loop for the price (because as darkcoin is taken out of the supply, it drives the price up), which is good for all of the investors and security of DarkSend. Miners will get less coin, but it's been proven time and time again that when you decrease the coins generated the price will just go up to meet the cost of mining.
My goal with Darkcoin has always been to take the #2 spot from Litecoin. I believe we have the best chance we've ever had now and these changes will actually help realize that goal.
As for my communication? Lately I've just had my nose to the grindstone, coding all of the time. I intend to be much more involved with the community in the future. This will include getting a team of software developers and managing the vision of the project. I think my time might be better spent in the future doing interviews, speaking at conferences and being Darkcoin's figurehead.
?