If we have the limit at 250DRK, the person with 1000DRK will just have four "tickets" instead of 1. So the outcome is the same really, with the same security too.
The only difference between 250DRK and 1000DRK is that we'll end up with lower end master nodes. I think we need only people that really understand security, ddos protection and how to run a service with 99.9999% uptime. These nodes are going to be the life blood of the whole network, so those things are highly valuable.
I agree in principle, I'm just not sure I understand how a higher cost of entry ensures those things.
A higher cost of investment and a lot of money as risk will ensure the person at least understands what he's doing.
Later on I envision we'll have master node pools where you can buy shares and receive a percentage of the payout. This will offer smaller investors the same investment, with someone else managing the node that can protect it.
I have more than 1k DRK I don't have time or interest to learn the technical stuff. I would just like to earn interest of supporting the coin as an early adopter, and I would like to do it safely.
I really don't think it would be the best solution to force the master nodes people to have to get techincal ( correct me if I missunderstood ).
Should there then be 3d parties involved offering security for your node with fee ( but that wouldn't work because of trust issues ).
Thoughts?
There's nothing forcing or requiring you to have any level of technical knowledge to run a master node. However if your node isn't secure you run the risk of losing your coins or having your node taken over by an attacker without your knowledge.
Speaking of which: if this idea goes ahead, a fair amount of thought should go into hardening these nodes because they will be an obvious target, especially if most are using the same VM image.
