Topic: [ANN][PIVX] - PRIVATE INSTANT VERIFIED TRANSACTION - PROOF OF STAKE - ZEROCOIN - page 529. (Read 782375 times)

Yes.

At first I also disliked the theme but it grew on me. An in-wallet option for more themes would be nice though.

Do I put these addnodes in ~/Darknet/darknet.conf ?

Edit: Nevermind, found the config file under 'tools->Open configuration file'

read the OP, there are 20+ addnodes at the top. we are setting up a dnsseed, so at some point in the future, they will not be necessary

Maybe make the traditional the default for now. Also, I don't have any connections to the network here...

There is a White theme and also the classic theme. I will build more themes shortly.. 

+1, i had to switch to classic theme 

Just a suggestion, don't mean to offend, but the red in the wallet is really overpowering. I don't think it looks very good.
Maybe hire a designer to make a better version.

Agreed - this is one of the best, most intelligent
discussions I have seem on a coin in a long time.

It seems the block explorer got stuck.

Nice discussion going on here.

It looks like your website http://darknet-crypto.com/ needs some updating.

I'm interested to know what you have for future plans for Darknet ?

Thanks for your responses to my suggestion-- I get that people want Masternodes to natively provide a greater rate of return. I think maybe I didn't put enough stress on the voting dynamic, and why it's such a worthwhile advantage over and above an equivalent rate of return on any locked-away balances, whether or not they're in masternodes.

My disregard for the human capital input to setting up a MN, and the currently negligible tx fees play into this.

Probably one of the first DIPs (Darknet Improvement Protocols) would be to establish clear future protocols for voting on DIPs: length of time until vote, how old MNs must be before they receive voting rights, where the DIPs must be posted publicly, etc. Once those parameters are set, I'm pretty sure the very first order of discussion will be a DIP on how much to increase the masternode reward above its current level of equivalency with the staking reward while maintaining balance. A well-established framework on the rights to set your own salary should be enough of an attractor to encourage new people to run MNs even if, until that DIP is resolved, the reward is no different. This increased reward could even be subject to regular review and re-voting within the MN voting network, similar to Heavycoin's periodic block reward voting. The key improvement would be the rights-holding class has a vested interest in actively voting to balance capital preservation with the health of the network.

If voting on all issues were periodic we could add tx fees to the items for regular review. They don't have to be negligible if the DNET network becomes a valuable way to transact anonymously.

I suppose my main thrust is that a dynamic, actively-voted network may hold more value than the early parameters we're currently trying to set in stone for the forseeable future. A PoW-less, secure, binary (MN-PoS) network isn't completely revolutionary, but if we build the system around accepting a changing dynamic between the two sets of DNET holders, the network has a really good shot at responding well to the demands made on it. This is in stark contrast to Bitcoin as it is now.

Aside: I really like the quality of this discussion. Thanks, people!

Wow. This has got to be the most serious and intellectual page I have seen on this forum in a long time, completely devoid of the mindless drivel commonly found around here, it is refreshing. I had to read the page several times before posting a response, and I still may miss some things I meant to touch on.


This is the fundamental issue at hand. Where is the line to be drawn? I think it may be best to consider the ideal ratio over time, keeping an eye on the number of coins locked up in Masternodes, evaluating the performance of that part of the network. Right now, with little hard data to go off of, my gut tells me they should be close to even, with slightly more coins staking. I reserve the right to change my opinion on that. That is actually one of the easier parts to code and calculate, and could be put off until closer to crunch time.


While it is the most fair way of doing the initial distribution, I think it is off the table as the long term method of securing the blockchain. Both s3v3nh4cks and myself are believers in the idea of PoS, and the energy efficient blockchain security it provides.


You are exactly right, that is the whole point of the "seesaw". When there is a higher than desirable ratio of coins staking the reward split between the stakers and the Masternodes would swing in favor of the Masternodes, increasing the percentage of the block rewards sent to the Masternodes. this would make Masternodes have a higher than normal desirability, increasing their numbers and bringing the ratio back into balance. The opposite would be true when the number of Masternodes grows beyond the decided ratio. The stakers would get a higher percentage of the block rewards, which would have the effect of pulling coins out of Masternodes to stake, once again bringing the system in check.


You have highlighted 2 of the primary reasons Masternodes should earn more than staking your coins. But, you have left out another, maybe more important, reason. That would be the higher initial investment. Right now, 10k DNET may only require an investment of $8-$15 dollars, depending on the cost to mine or purchase them, but that will change as the coin matures, and gains value as we are working to make happen. It may come to pass that the investment required to own a Masternode would become substantial. The additional profits given to Masternodes, I feel, should reflect the disparity in the required investment. As SockPuppetAccount pointed out, I am not sure that the transaction fees and voting rights alone would be able to justify the added initial investment.


I get your hesitance to attempt to establish a ratio, but, I don't think the ratio needs to be "pulled out of our asses". That will be one of the most important pieces of the puzzle, but I think, with a bit of careful observation and research, an ideal ratio can be deduced without the need to resort to guessing. Without a built in mechanism controlling the ratio of Masternodes to stakers, over time, any additional incentive to Masternodes would tend to push all available coins into Masternodes.

 
While yes, it would be possible, I don't think it would be a good idea. First, it would introduce an added level of complexity into coding the rewards structure. Second, it would be taking an increased amount away from the stakers, but only when a "Supermasternode" was the winning Masternode, making the income from staking much more unpredictable. Third, it would lead to the desire for bigger and bigger Masternodes, earning a higher and higher percentage of the block rewards, which could quickly become a runaway train. Finally, it would create more of a cast system, a kind of haves and have nots scenario, where the "Supermasternodes" are getting paid more and pull away from everyone else as far as the number of coins they control, which I don't think anyone wants.

Let's keep this dialog going, I really appreciate the input of everyone. Let me know if you think I am wrong about anything, and if you think I am right about anything. As we come to consensus on some issues we can hone in on other aspects where there may still be some disagreement or confusion. Be sure to let it known if you didn't understand anything I said, or would like clarification of any points, or if you think I skipped over something important. Based on the level of conversation I have seen in here, I feel as a group we can come up with something that could only be dreamed about when working on an individual basis.

Suggestion: is it possible to have masternodes of higher amounts get rewarded more? ex. putting aside 10,000 DNET gives you 1.25 - 1.5x, setting aside 20,000 gives you 1.35 - 1.65.
This might might things slightly more complicated but it would reward those who are willing to hold more DNET while also securing the network.

notsofast, on a purely theoretical level I mostly agree with you, but I think there is nuance to this discussion that you are not factoring in nor are you considering realities of the current alt-coin scene.


What about human capital?  Do you consider your time, effort, and knowledge to be worthless?  Reality is that people simply will not bother setting up masternodes, and they will shut down any masternodes they were running throughout PoW, if they don't get a decent bonus for running them.


Besides maybe taking a few extra security precautions, nothing about running a masternode is fundamentally different if DNET has a 50 dollar market cap or a 5 million dollar market.  The costs are not going to scale with the size of the network. 

You are also forgetting about risk, which will scale with the network and time, only it will scale inversely.  Very few alt-coins survive and thrive long.  Risk of holding DNET will only decrease as it becomes more established.

Also, going back to my previous point about how people will not bother running masternodes if they aren't rewarded for it, DNET is going to have a hell of a time growing to significance if it cannot convince people to participate and invest.  There are so many coins out there and public interest in alt-coins is relatively low.  This isn't like BTC where it was something new and Satoshi could take his sweet time developing it and spreading the word.  You gotta have a hook to draw people in and grow the community early.  If you don't, people will just move along to another coin.


Relating to my previous point, transaction fees are unlikely to be significant for a long, long time, if ever.  I just don't see transaction fees and voting rights as a significant enough of a bonus to entice people to run masternodes.

I also don't see trying to establish a set ratio of rewards for masternodes and stakers as comparable to what economists do.  Maybe in a way, but it's nothing different than any other crypto.  Someone needs to set a reward schedule to determine method of distribution, inflation rate, total supply, etc.  Baking a bonus for masternodes into the protocol is nothing but an extension of that.  It isn't analogous to Keynesian economists attempting to regulate and control a free market.

Apparently you can as long as they have different internal IPs. But I haven't set any up yet, still moving up that learning curve.

I agree with pretty much everything.

I'm not sure about the significance of transaction fees though and while I'm biased as I don't particularily like staking and have a few masternodes myself, I think masternodes should be rewarded noticeably more than stakers. Unless of course you can set up as many masternodes on one computer as you please (which is not a good idea).

OK, I'm reading the discussion here about how to balance the rewards between masternodes and staking, and I think I might be able to help by taking a step back and injecting some game theory into the equation.

Parking coins in a masternode or in a staking wallet is essentially exactly the same cost. With the exception of MN setup, you are "paying" the right to move/spend coins in order for a reward. So from an economic perspective, if a holder of DNET is going to pay the same procedural cost and get a larger reward from one method or the other, the network will move quickly towards being overweight on that method.

In formulating a balanced proposal, then, we need to remove this as a factor: because the *direct* cost of parking coins is exactly the same, staking should (in the long run) yield exactly the same reward as running a masternode.

This is only half of the equation though. Masternodes do deserve additional rewards over staking, but this can't come from an overt greater percentage; it has to come commensurate with the additional costs a MN incurs:

- MNs have to park coins with 10k DNET while stakers can earn stake on any amount of granularity
- MNs (not technically, but practically) have higher hosting and setup costs for the sake of security

Those costs are negligible now when the DNET network is young. As/if it grows, they will increase. So rewards/benefits for these additional costs should be criteria that are negligible now, but would grow to significance along with the network, as opposed to a static staking reward whose attractiveness is wholly dependent on the external marketplace value of DNET. This makes it so that there's an in-built, long-term incentive on the horizon.

With all this, I suggest the following additional benefits for DNET masternodes, over simple staking nodes:

- the receipt of all transaction fees (tx fees appearing in a staked block could simply be burned)
- voting rights, including proposals on increasing tx fee assessment at regular long-term intervals (every 100k blocks depending on network growth?)

The important part of this solution is that it puts to rest the attempt to predictively pull a ratio out of our asses that balance masternodes and staking. Economists try to do this all the time and fail hard. So cut it out of the equation.

I'll figure out how to formulate a formal network proposal from this depending on feedback in this thread.

Ahhhh, I see now.  The intent of the 3:1 ratio thing was totally lost in communication.  When I had questioned s3v3nh4cks about the original PoS reward schedule, he said that masternodes would always be more profitable than staking.  The only way to guarantee that is to implement PoS 2.0 with a flat reward and tightly control the distribution of coins between masternodes and stakers, so I immediately assumed this was what he meant when he revealed the latest proposal.

You are correct though in that I would have never thought of my idea if it wasn't for this miscommunication.  I think that if someone sat me down and asked me to come up with a reward scheme for a PoS coin with masternodes where it was guaranteed that masternodes would be more profitable than staking, I would have come up with pretty much the same idea IF I had thought of the "seesaw" reward scheme.  You guys came up with that, I just came up with a way to implement it simply and efficiently.  Combine the two and you end up with a very elegant solution to the problem of controlling distribution of new coins in a PoS coin with masternodes, something that has never been done before.


Yes, this is the big question mark.  I have seen both of you around the forum before and I get the sense you are both serious about this project and in it for the long haul.  When you think about it, has there ever been a "serious" PoS coin with masternodes?  No.  They have all been shit-coins and scam-coins.  This is because when you think about it, a pure PoS coin does not play well with masternodes.  It works fine in DASH because PoW is securing the blockchain so in theory 100% of the coins could be locked up in masternodes and it would not compromise network security.  With a pure PoS coin though?  Well, the same resource (coins) is securing the blockchain and the masternode network.  Too many coins locked up in masternodes compromises the blockchain.  Too many coins staking leads to a weak masternode network.  If the goal is to find the ideal balance between both while ensuring that masternodes will always be more profitable than staking, we are in uncharted territory.

Not ending PoW and making the coin mixed PoW/PoS for the long run is something to consider.  Minor point to keep in mind with mixed PoW/PoS though is that a masternode will be getting rewarded every block, while miners and stakers will be splitting the blocks 50/50.  So if the goal is guaranteeing that masternodes will always pay 1.25-1.5x as much as staking, the "seesaw" reward algorithm with need to account for this so that stakers aren't cheated out of half their reward and the masternode bonus becomes effectively 2.5-3x.

If PoW is off the table though?  It will be all about finding just the right balance and it maybe wise to seesaw the rewards back towards PoS at a certain point.  Rather than designing the seesaw rewards to always pay 1.25-1.5x the reward to masternodes, maybe only guarantee the masternode bonus up until a certain percentage of total coins are locked up in masternodes.  Then tilt the rewards back in the other direction to discourage new masternode creation and encourage some masternode owners to stake instead.  Admittedly, I am not knowledgeable enough with this stuff to say for sure at what point too many masternodes begins to seriously threaten the security of the blockchain.

Doesn't seem to work anymore, it returns nothing.

OK, the original idea behind submitting this proposal was really more intended to serve as an introduction to the decentralized blockchain voting part of DarkNet for the uninitiated, gauging support for the idea being fleshed out for rewards in the PoS phase was intended to be secondary. We never expected such an in depth analysis of the proposed reward determination mechanism. That just shows that there is genuine interest in this project, and comes as a welcome surprise. We have been tossing around different ideas regarding how exactly the "seesaw" mechanism would function, and have come to no firm conclusions.

SockPuppetAccount has proposed an incredibly simple and clever way to gauge the number of coins staking vs. locked up in Masternodes. By utilizing PoS 2.0, which does away with the concept of coin age, we can get an accurate estimate of the total number of coins that are staking by simply looking at the overall network stake weight. That can then be compared to the number of Masternodes and the ratio of coins that are staking to coins in Masternodes can easily be calculated. Barring a better idea, I feel that method best answers the questions that the "seesaw" concept poses. It really is a Eureka type idea.

The initial 3:1 ratio that was announced has been slightly misinterpreted to mean that the intent was for Masternodes to have 3X the profitability of staking. That was not the intent, we felt that having roughly the same number of coins in both general circulation and staking as locked up in Masternodes was probably a good ratio. The 3:1 came about from attempting to determine how that distribution might look, while not entirely arbitrary, that ratio was based on a lot of guessing, and probably shouldn't have been included in the proposal. In hindsight, it is probably good that it was, without SockPuppetAccount seeing, thinking about, and questioning it he may have never come up with the idea he did, I would like to think that we would have, but that could be wishful thinking, and I don't want to take anything away from him.

So, with all of that out of the way, we are still working to determine the ideal ratio of coins in general circulation and staking vs. coins in Masternodes, there is a delicate balance to achieve here. The profitability of Masternodes vs. staking is also not entirely determined yet. The consensus is that Masternodes should be more profitable compared with staking your coins, but how much more is open for debate. I, personally, think that when the ratio of Masternode coins to all other coins is at the determined ideal ratio Masternodes should be 1.25 to 1.5 times as profitable. Enough to encourage accumulation to build Masternodes, which will help the price, but not so much as to take away from the number of coins staking, which would reduce the security of the network. Input, opinions, and discussion in those regards are both welcome and encouraged.