Welcome!

@quantumexplorer
This entire conversion process of the 37.5% Core Rewards reserved for 4K Platform Nodes seems overly complicated and can easily lead us down the road to murky coding or worse.
I mean, those 37.5% of Core Rewards in the Core chain, will obviously have to be credited to some hardcoded Trust Fund address which holds all the Dash necessary for covering the emission of the corresponding amount of Platform Credits.
I suppose the Platform Credits, when converted back to Dash, are being destroyed(burned) upon the release of the corresponding Dash?
This will obviously cause constant large-scaled emission of Platform Credits, and constant large-scaled burning of Platform Credits as well, right?

Would you mind to elaborate, who will be the individual holding the private-key and controlling this hardcoded Dash address?

From a decentralization point-of-view this can be a problematic, or at least a highly controversial approach.
And we will surely be attacked by our competition in the media, if we don´t implement it in a clean-cut way.
From a regulatory point-of-view it could be problematic as well, at least in some jurisdictions, because said individual having (temporary) access to those 37.5% Dash funds, could legally be deemed a "Money Manager for third-parties", with all the legal requirements demanded for it under law (licensing), because technically he/she is entrusted with the funds belonging to others.
Even if it is a bot (not an individual), question comes to mind, about the archiving and safekeeping of the private-key of such a hardcoded Dash address, to protect against eventual hardware failures.
If more than 1 developer or person has access to said private-key, the legal implications could affect them all.

Why not consider an entirely different implementation approach?

Allowing instead 4K Platform Nodes to earn 4 consecutive MN Rewards derived from 4 consecutive Blocks in the Core payment-queue would have multiple benefits and advantages:

1) It would eliminate this ridiculous and ponderous circle of constant back-and-forth conversion for the largest part
(except the Platform Credits earned for providing Platform services on the Platform chain)
2) It would eliminate the need of a hardcoded Trust Fund Dash address holding the 37.5% Core Rewards for covering the emission of the corresponding amount of Platform Credits
(question remains about the Dash covering the emission of Platform Credits paid for providing Platform services)
3) It would not shorten the length of the Core payment-queue and keep it completely unaffected
4) It would keep Tokenomics just as unaffected, because 4 MN Rewards would still correspond to 4 (different) Miners Rewards and 4 reserved 10% Budget portions, among such 4 consecutive Core chain Blocks
5) Its likely programmatically cleaner from a coding perspective
6) Ease of use: it would be much more convenient for 4K MNOs and potentially save them a lot of time and headache

In all fairness, the community of MNOs deserves the opportunity to have at least an open discussion about this implementation,
if not even a vote on it, no matter what has already been coded so far in preparation of release.

This is a excellent point! The simplest and easiest way to do it should win.
Dash also claims to be decentralized and all of that. This move is for sure not taking Dash into the right direction. Keep it simple. Pay 4x a regular MN or even 2x if we believe platform should compensate the nodes by fee. Make it simple and trustless.

We have a plan that will alleviate I believe most of your concerns.

Indeed in v19 before Platform activation we will have HPMNS will receive 4 consecutive MN rewards (just for v19) as a way to get everything ready for Platform. This will make it so we will be in very good shape over a multi month transition period. When Platform activates there won't be a rush to change to a HPMN, and the systems will just smoothly transition over. After the transition they will go back to getting 1 payment, and 3/4ths of their payments will come from Platform.

But are there any real benefits or real advantages versus keeping the 4 MN Rewards of 4 consecutive blocks beyond v19?
And can you confirm, the way it is planned, that the Platform Credits when converted back to Dash are being destroyed(burned)?
The amount of Platform Credits constantly being emitted and constantly being burned will be staggering, to say the least.
Over a couple of months or years this will amount to hundreds(if not thousands) of trillions of Platform Credits having been generated and burned shortly thereafter, if the fixed exchange rate really is 1,000 Credits per 1 Duff how it was laid out.
What is questionable is how much sense it really makes.

In order to reward MNOs for work on Platform they must be rewarded on Platform. Basically if they don't do their job on Platform they don't get anything.

Platform credits cease to exist when they are withdrawn back into Dash.

While a trillion platform credits might sound like a lot it is only 10 Dash :)

We have something called SUM trees that prevent inflationary bugs so the total ever put into platform will always be equal to the total in platform. Nothing can be created out of nothing :)

What we really need is the ability to read up on DIP0027 : Credit Asset Locks, as that seems to be the DIP that handles the Credits / DASH part.

''It's a mechanism to fluidly exchange between Dash and credits.''

I only found a pull request on Github about this : https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5026
The actual DIP0027 Credit Asset Locks i have not found yet, maybe it has not been published yet.

You could ask some questions about this DIP0027 on the next Dash Platform Development Update (during Q & A).

What i do know is that it seems planned for Dash Core v19

These are Dash current DIPS : https://github.com/dashpay/dips

Any news about the intended implementation of the Platform rewards?
If you don´t mind me asking, was it already decided whether it will be an abrupt decrease of Core rewards by 37.5%
or if its going to be a slower, smoothed-out transitioning by multiple steps or phases?
Will there be a polling among Platform and Core developers, in order to grasp their sentiment and how they feel about it,
or who is going to make the definitive decision about this topic, and by when?

I would also like to know if those Platform rewards (specifically the credits part) can be automatically converted to dash units after each epoch (18 days) and then send to a specific Dash address (software Dash address or hardware Dash address), or if that remains a manual proces for 4K HPM owners ?

And how will 4K HPM owners be supported ? Will the DashPay mobile wallet end up supporting 4K HPM owners ? Or the Dash Core wallet ? Or any other GUI based wallets ? And can Dash Central easily fetch Platform data for 4K HPM owners through DAPI ?

"I would also like to know if those Platform rewards (specifically the credits part) can be automatically converted to dash units after each epoch (18 days) and then send to a specific Dash address (software Dash address or hardware Dash address), or if that remains a manual process for 4K HPM owners ?"

We currently have it only as a manual process, but allowing it to be configurable as automatic is something that we will do either before release or soon after. We haven't yet estimated this work and feature creep is something to be reconned with.

As for where the GUI will live for it for the manual process... most likely DMT, or we will create a little tool for MNOs to withdraw balances.

Any news about the intended implementation of the Platform rewards?
If you don´t mind me asking, was it already decided whether it will be an abrupt decrease of Core rewards by 37.5%
or if its going to be a slower, smoothed-out transitioning by multiple steps or phases?
Will there be a polling among Platform and Core developers, in order to grasp their sentiment and how they feel about it,
or who is going to make the definitive decision about this topic, and by when?

Thank you for your reply.

I also think it is important that a line of communication is setup from DCG to rango (owner of Dash Central), so that 4K HPM owners will not face problems with voting through Dash Central, after Dash Platform is launched.

4k overwhelmingly has it! With it being 400+ votes over the second option (10k) the 4k HPMN solution wins outright.

4 is the magic number for this budget cycle.

It also happens to be the bad luck number in chinese.

It is ESSENTIAL to understand, all the numbers and stats provided for 4K / 10K HPMNs are based on MNOwatch blockchain analysis which attempts to identify individuals running multiple MNs. This means, of all the dash humpbacks identified so far, what are the probabilities for HPMNs to either halt the Platform chain or to steal funds from the Platform chain.

From the FAQ:

(a) “The main security concern for Platform is a single entity controlling more than a third of the nodes in a Tenderdash validator set (34+ out of 100).”

(b) “If the solution proposed could lead to a level of centralization such that there would be a chance that just two entities could steal funds locked up in the Platform chain by having more than two thirds of Platform nodes.”

It is also ESSENTIAL to consider this quote from quantumexplorer (source; EVO-DECISION-10K-HPMN):

(c) “We have also started building Trustless Masternode shares in DCG which should come out in v20 of core, or in the worst case in v21. Votes will then be trustless.”

Note: in the following, I will skip over custodian solutions as implied risks should be obvious and remain constant, both now and in the future.

--- Now, let us consider the current situation ---

Humpbacks have flexibility in their voting behavior. If, for example, someone has 4 MNs and they are not entirely sure which way to vote on a proposal, they may choose to cast 3 Yes votes and 1 No votes, or any combination thereof.

Single node MNOs can only achieve this through multisig / masternode shares as stated in point (c) above. In the absence of trustless masternode voting, I consider all MNs are voting black or white, Yes / No / Abstain. (again, discarding custodians)

--- In the new system ---

Will HPMNOs have four separate voting keys? - unknown. But regardless, we do know from point (c) above, masternode shares will give both MNOs and HPMNOs fractional / granular voting options. Assuming an easy interface, it is reasonable to assume, masternode shares will become the preferred choice for _all_ node operators. Not just for multiple parties but for individual whales and humpbacks alike.

***** This means a humpback creates 4 masternode shares for a HPMN and no one knows if it's one person behind it or four persons. *****

From here on, how can any independent blockchain analysis determine the number of whales and humpbacks in the system? - it will become practically impossible. Trustless masternode shares and trustless voting will allow humpbacks to become invisible, hiding in plain sight among the whales.

https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/should-platform-run-on-all-nodes-or-should-platform-run-only-on-high-performance-nodes.53374/page-26#post-233312

I believe that the correct vote/pray (for the branch of the Dash knowledge tree we are discussing in this thread) is:

1) Dashplatform should be launched initially by the discovered individualities of mnowatch.org , one node each. <--real decentralization, incentivizes the increase of the voters
2) Let the DashPlatform launch standalone in the free market, without asking any masternode rewards. <--NO to a Dashplatform fed by MN rewards, this is statism.
3) Offer Dashplatform shares to all the masternodes, allowing them to be paid in case the Dashplatform becomes profitable in the free market. <-- unify the dash community, in contrast to the "divide and conquer" method of DCG
4) Turn the Dashplatform profitable by creating an app that will support the creation of a Dash knowledge tree. This decision tree will be replicated everywhere in the platform and people will vote/pray on it, add or delete branches of it, and comment on it (by paying the relevant platform fee). <-- governance without amanda's chief
5) Make the tree an absolute commitment for all the developers of DCG, so that no DCG development is allowed in case there is not a relevant branch of the tree that allows it. <-- accountable developers

If its true, that running a platform node will require such vast hardware resources to cost $100/month,
then what you suggest is likely not economically sustainable, simply because nobody would want to run
such a platform node that makes him or her lose money.

If the DashPlatform cannot be proved economically viable, then why the Dash Network should support it?

1) Firstly give DashPlatform SHARES to all the masternodes, so that in case the platform become profitable the masternodes to get paid back for all their expences.
2) Secondly, let the Dashplatform PROVE its viability
3) If the Dashplatform becomes profitable, then the masternodes should discuss and decide whether they should incorporate it (or not) into the Dash network.

This is the correct path, all the rest are dangerous, divisive, and probably they will result for Dash to finance a pork barrel.

The way i see it, platform would be vulnerable to attack as only whales will have the numbers to run a hpmn, decreasing decentralization significantly. Also, with so few able to put together even 4k to run a hpmn, it seems unfair to split the reward 50/50. I doubt 1/10 of mnos with enough dash could spin up a hpmn on launch, and those that could will outsource to mn management services.
This will cause even more centralization. I really have a serious bad feeling about this. If Dash is barely decentralized or basically centralized, Dash is dead IMHO.

Just would like to point out that the reward is 62.5% to Core and 37.5% to Platform. This in turn gives 50% to HPMNs.

Also we ran the numbers. There are more than enough MNs that can do this switch. It doesn't actually cause more centralization since they already have that many nodes.

Our payment chain will become more decentralized in HPMN solutions as quorums there will be made from more individual owners.

You are, therefore, making HPMNs a response to the current situation (MNOs with multiple nodes) rather than making changes to the underlying problem of clusters growing.

What happens if you later find HPMNs are also forming clusters? Will you declare SUPER HPMNs as the solution? Eventually we just end up with a handful of clusters and you will say what exactly?

It's not like you never knew of this problem. Myself and others have been warning DCG of this for a very long time. What do you imagine was the motivation for building mnowatch in the first place? - it was meant to be a warning system, not an excuse to elevate their status and make super heroes out of them.

What changes and coding have you planned to reverse this situation? It seems the coding for HPMNs is relatively straight forward, can we expect more of an effort than a quick kludge? Before you turn this question back on me, keep in mind I have already offered several possible solutions, including work towards de-collateralization.

To multiple node MNOs, you are presenting a change that will make their life easier. Instead of managing multiple nodes - perhaps with different hosting providers - you are streamlining things for them.

To those not taking the HPMN path, it seems masternode shares is your only idea / offering. So I am clear, all masternode share options amount to L2 voting. This is to say, the rules for voting consensus are re-written (there are multiple ways for distributing votes). It also means limiting end user choice regarding hosting specs and location.

I therefore conclude, you are conveniently presenting only one "solution" with various parameters under the pretext of security (HPMNs). And, again, presenting only one "solution" to the non-HPMNOs as a compromised choice of host (masternode shares)

I dont understand the percentages, but will go back and read again. What do you mean that there are enough mns to do the switch? That there are enough individual owners? That is, individuals with at least 4 mns that will run platform independently? Do HPMN still join quorums for the main block chain? How important is redundancy for platform storage?

Does it matter if one company, like Crowdnode ends up running 90% of these?

Yes, there are more than enough individual owners that have 4k Dash.

HPMNs still join Core quorums and serve the payment network.

Yes, we do not want any entity running more than 20% of HPMNs. This is not a hard limit, but as we approach one entity having 33% things get scary. This model takes this into account and there is no entity that can get that close taking into account information gathered from MNOWatch.

Currently Crowdnode has 60-70 MNs, which would translate to 20-23 HPMNs, this is way away from the 90 HPMNs of 20% where things start becoming a problem.

Also standard MNs are still around and yield about the same amount. I think if you are MNO who doesn't have 4k there isn't much purpose to use crowdnode.

Garbage take. The CoD of the lowest decentralized HVMN solution is at maximum 180. This is roughly 90-180 times as decentralized as facebook, myspace, etc. Which means that concerns about centralization are completely overblown. We cannot stop developing because you 'have a bad feeling'. This is what platform requires. Saying things like 'barely decentralized' is absolute garbage. Its like you guys who shill for these bad opinions and ideas don't even look at the ecosystem before you make your terrible arguments. Most coins don't have anywhere near the decentralization that Dash possesses. Neither in either HVMN solution, nor currently. To call that 'barely decentralized' is so inaccurate as to qualify for the charge of lying. Careful.

What is the plan if this leading Dash Gummint prop doesn't pass the Superblock threshold? Runoff?

Sam does not acknowledge the 10% threshold with decision proposals and does not plan to adhere to it. See : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/should-platform-run-on-all-nodes-or-should-platform-run-only-on-high-performance-nodes.53374/page-22#post-232922

According FAQ :

''How will the vote take place?
We will be making the following proposals to the network in the December voting cycle:

Every node must run Platform.
The 4K High Performance Masternode Solution
The 10K High Performance Masternode Solution
We expect community proposals to also be made.


If there is no resounding winner (a resounding winner would have over two times the absolute votes of the runner-up), the top two proposals will then go to a runoff in the January cycle. However, if the 4K and 10K HPMN solutions are the two top-voted solutions, we will instead perform a secondary vote where we add proposals for 6K and 8K. The winner would then be the highest voted in the second round between 4K, 6K, 8K and 10K.

The winner of each multiple choice round is determined by the number of YES votes minus the number of NO.

For the second round if there are only two choices there might be only one proposal depending on the winners of the first round.''

So there is a possebility with both 4KHPM and 10K HPM emerging as those with most netto yes votes, that a new set of decision proposals will hit the network to vote on, consisting of 4K, 6K, 8K and 10K. Which means this could dragg-on on for some time. The decision proposals themselves do not refer to this, only the github FAQ.

No idea why the 6K and 8K HPM solutions have suddenly popped up in that FAQ, when those were never part of the discussion to begin with and there are not even any estimates on those.

I guess it is another fine example of indecisive CTO behavior and off loading all decisions to the network. At that point (voting on 4K, 6K, 8K, 10K) truly does become a sideshow with the purpose of finding out if a handfull of masternode whales prefer 4K, 6K or 8K solutions (it does not look there is much appetite for 10K right now among the handful of large masternode whales).

Question will be : will the 4K solution survive in the next round or will it vanish like the 1K optional solution and 1K Platform on all nodes solution.

If DCG decides to bypass the established governance mechanism, without puting a budget proposal asking what the correct new governance mechanism for dash should be, this will be a prove that both Dash crypto and its DCG are fraudsters.

Having said that, I certainly believe that Dash's governance mechanism should change and improve.

Dang, opened a can of worms there, sorry I asked. Don't kill me.

1337 f1337

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpdRV8dR6zE

Or maybe instead of 4K, 6K, 8K and 10K, only the 6K and 8K solution proposals will emerge in the following round, and its results at the end will be compared to 4K and 10K solutions ? (which in case of not passing 10% treshold, will most likely have disappeared from the network / Dash Central, including all the comments).

There are still several weeks of time to vote on this.
If this gets approved in the end, there is really no need for any other 6K or 8K proposals, as they will not pass anyway.
That being said, it would only result in another two months of time lost.

If you like this proposal, then you'll love the 10k version, it amplifies all of the advantages of this version, so why not flip your vote to that one?

It reduces the number of individuals who can run platform, which centralizes platform. Only logic. Is this OK? does centralization not matter for platform? If it doesn't, fine. But i think it does matter.

As I mentioned below it is possible to roughly quantify the amount of decentralization a given node architecture possesses. Using that metric, BOTH HVMN solutions presented are sufficiently more decentralized than any major service being offered currently and most cryptocurrencies. However, the 10K HVMN solution can cut it a bit close when assuming single-operator-multiple-node scenarios.

> does centralization not matter for platform?

This question is harder to answer. The answer is "yes but not as much as for main chain". Obviously because mainchain is our bread and butter, but also because data storage is different than payments. The value in redundancy of nodes for a blockchain is simply built into the fact that the more nodes you have the more copies of the blockchain, the more peers you can reference the easier to validate the chain and thus who owns what coins.

For data storage that's not necessarily the goal. For data storage we can again breakdown the decentralization equation into "operators" and "data". You want more operators than fewer so that you have duplication of effort in case one or many of them stop updating their nodes. But you also want duplication of actual nodes to store the data. So even if you have 1 guy running 10 nodes, its still better than 1 guy running 1 node because each of those 10 nodes is a decentralized source of the truth (for the data it stores).

Data chunks won't have to live on every node (as I understand it please correct me if I'm wrong), but would be duplicated to several other nodes across the network. This introduces costs that make platform untenable. So by incentivizing centralization we can decrease the number of nodes needed to run platform, access the data and store the state. But this centralization is only relative to 3800 masternodes. Compared to 1 node, it is still extremely decentralized so we're basically hopping out of the decentralized pan and into the decentralized fire here with BOTH solutions.

Agree, don't get the benefit of this over the 10K at all.

More decentralization the lower the cost to entry.

more nodes, means lower censorship risk?

"What are the key differences between the 4K HPMN and 10K HPMN solutions?

The 4K HPMN solution has a lower barrier to entry. Because of this lower barrier to entry we would more easily reach a market equilibrium between HPMNs and standard Masternodes with this solution.

The 10K HPMN solution would lead to the lowest cost of running Platform, less than half the cost of the 4K solution. With this solution fees could be set to multiples of the cost to the network while still remaining lower than competing blockchain networks. In essence this solution would lead to a much easier road to profitability for the network. If the network achieved high usage, fees from that usage would make both HPMN and standard Masternode ROI heavily increase. However one downside to the 10K HPMN solution is that there is an unlikely, but not knowable risk that not enough MNOs turn their nodes into HPMNs causing an imbalance in rewards."

The lower barrier to entry and having an easier time reaching market equilibrium is nice which is why I think many prefer this solution over 10K.

The only benefit is that DCG took a poll according to the faq and the support was overwhelmingly for 4K over 10K. Do you have a reason to doubt this recommendation?

In one of these arguments, grandmasterdash attacked Dash's Platform proposition by comparing it to SIAcoin and Storj, both ranked very lowly and closely at #166 and #168 respectively. Although I called his argument fud below in general, I wanted to respond to this more in depth in general for the benefit of the MNOs so that we can all come to a conclusion about platform and its potential to both have great ROI as well as cement Dash as the leading cryptocurrency. After all, if that doesn't happen, platform can be considered in some way to have failed.

So, what about SIAcoin and STORJ? How does our most closely related competition fare (I alluded to Google and Facebook being our competition, that's more wishful, long-term thinking)? Just like Dash surpassed BCH, monero, Decred and BTC in the payments realm, being the number one cryptocurrency for payments in several regions for years now (most heavily in Latin America), so too will Dash need to surpass our cryptocurrency competition in SIACoin and STORJ.

I had a look at the ecosystem of these two in response to this argument. Here is my summary investigative results. First, SIACoin.

Here is a comparison of the file storage coins in the cryptocurrency space:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/501433513677946880/1036812268018598008/unknown.png

FileCoin remains the biggest at 873 PBs of storage capacity with 24 PBs of actual storage used.

Siacoin is apparently near dead or in a zombie-state. There has been several major negative events with a slow and steady decline in official activity in that community. Something called 'Skynet' was apparently a large undertaking that failed, costing the leader of the community his position as well as a significant amount of enthusiasm and goodwill in the project towards the community (like if Platform somehow failed in Dash, that same kind of negative sentiment reigns).

There is still apparently some development by "the Foundation", but its slow going and more importantly SIACoin remains low in usage having the lowest capacity and 2nd lowest actual storage used of all 4 cryptocurrency file storage solutions.

STORJ, however, is another matter entirely. But first, second-runner up to fileCoin, scprime.

Here are some important characteristics about ScPrime (I read the white paper so you don't have to, but feel free: https://scpri.me/wp-content/uploads/SCP-WhitePaper-v1.0.pdf) a potential technological competitor to Platform. Sc has an (initial block) premine to incentivize various participants, a proof of work mineable cryptocurrency, infinite inflation, 20% developer fund, self-admitted low value of its high-velocity token (large supply at least 7.6 Billion units), collateral put up for service providers with financial penalty for 'cheating'.

So overall, dodgy tokenomics as we know from the payments realm. This lack of tokenomic value will come back to bite these coins when it comes time to compete with Dash, because Dash's limited and strong tokenomics incentivize holding and value growth over time. Which will give Dash an advantage in paying for and attracting investors that will host the storage on HVMNs. Open-source client. Open protocol, good for third-party developers.

This network also boasts content terms-of-service that provide clear regulations on hosting illegal content (nod to my discussion with Socrates about illegal content). However, it is a proof-of-work mineable coin, and it has slow blocks, with claims little value for faster than 10 minute blocks. Dash is again superior here in being a fast transactional coin that splits the data storage network from the payments blockchain so that each can be optimized separately from the other. Also, like Platform data contracts specify how long data lives and storage proofs guarantee providers store what they say they will, no more and no less, with valid proofs resulting in payment to the host and invalid ones resulting in the payment going to a burn address (different punishments and rewards than Dash).

It also boasts storage of data at cost. Very similar data capabilities to Platform. Data key-pairs. ScPrime has the second most capacity (66.2PBs) but lowest actual data stored amount of all 4 solutions (1.7 PB).

Now to Storj. Storj is doing actually quite well it would seem, though its slow growth rate leaves room for Dash to overtake it with a strong offering. Although SiaCoin has the look of crypto-death and stagnation, storj appears to be actively used in an MVP fashion. They have their product released to market and its being used. 3rd most storage capacity (36 PBs) but second-most actual data stored.

So Its a mixed bag. This post is a response to the argument that Platform won't necessarily be anything special or grow to anything because SiaCoin and Storj, as well as others ostensibly, are low value and in general low in adoption (despite their current usage rates). So why am I confident that Platform will succeed and not only overtake this cryptocurrency competition but also nip at the heels of the big tech companies like Google and Amazon?

Simply because I believe that these other coins are missing some fundamentals that Dash has. The first thing is, Dash isn't doing decentralized file storage. I'm sure something like that can and will be done, but that's not the goal. Platform's goal is decentralized DATA CONTRACTS. This means Platform will allow dapps that use these contracts and will attract attention, one of these apps could be storage but it won't be the only one. These other coins are, imo, too tightly coupled with the "storage" use case while platform is a more generally useful framework. So, it will start with decentralized usernames for payments and those usernames will become more and more useful as other apps are built on Platform.

For example, we already have plenty of customers for the most popular potential DAPP right out of the gate: usernames. The only thing wrong with cryptocurrencies is that they're hard to use for non-technical people. Adoption would be a lot easier if people could use their Dash just like their Venmo, paypal, email, etc. Login with a human-readable username and password, send money to another human-readable username. Bam. Decentralized Venmo.

Decentralized payments between human-readable usernames. That one little thing is what cryptocurrencies are missing that prevents mass adoption, and thus that one thing could spread easily. Its just like these other coins in providing decentralized data storage. But with a purpose and customer base pre-built, people who want to trade and use cryptocurrencies with usernames. Millions of people know about crypto, but most won't mess with it due to the difficulty. Imagine defi contracts being stored on platform. Decentralized trade.

In this sense, the competition that grandmasterdash mentioned are at a disadvantage relative to Dash because their coins don't have widespread adoption throughout the world as payment networks, and their architecture is pretty slow, as well as being more limited in scope and practical usefulness. I suspect its because they have many thousands of nodes which may place bandwidth and other limits on their networks. They also aren't very financially attractive. Running a siacoin node gets you like $3 a month or so. Storj is maybe 2 times better.

Platform is more general in its application than these services in my estimation because it is a second-layer network built on top of a successful payments chain, which means we have a ready user-base with a clear usecase that will give us an advantage over ourr payments competition as well as our storage competition: usernames in decentralized payments. These other storage solutions can't really offer that, so they can't go viral easily and thus seem fated to remain obscure. I don't believe that that fate will happen to Dash because payments is such a large usecase. By combining data storage and payments on two different chains, Dash is offering something unique.

Filecoin, sia and storj are solutions in search of a problem. decentralized filestorage is not very competitive yet. But decentralized usernames for payments? Yes, that's a hot usecase that can't be copied readily. So our competition, both the payments side as well as the data as a service side, are at a disadvantage compared to our network. That is my summary report on the state of the competition in the storage space and response to the criticism that Platform may not amount to much as seen in other decentralized data storage cryptocurrency platforms.

I won't downvote you because you did at least look into what they are doing.

I cited Sia and STORJ as they are just two examples of what happens when you try to compete on price alone. When you compete on price, the big boys come in and they undercut everyone for years until the competition just fails or walks away. As you point out, Dash Platform has a unique offering and not really comparable, though Sam has said he wants to allow binary blobs, which makes no sense to me at all.

When you have a unique offering, which Platform has, you no longer compete on price alone. What is the correct price for using Platform? - NOBODY KNOWS because it is unique. How long for Platform to find a killer app? Again, for the same reason, nobody knows. Price could be too high and no one finds value. Price could be too low and the network sells itself short, less money coming in, squeezing MNO / HPMNO profits.

I say all this because it was Sam that made the assumption that Platform must be cheap. All I'm saying is, at this point, people should not get so hung up on price. First, Dash Platform must find it's niche. You say usernames and DPNS are the killer apps, I disagree. You can't just produce usernames and a DNS alternative and assume success, it takes a lot more than that.

From a user perspective, dash usernames are quite interesting compared to others, though there are issues surrounding name squatting. I'm sure it will add value to dash but how much value? Will exchanges support it? - it's hard enough getting them to accept InstantSend or Chainlocks. Will Dashpay also include a bitcoin wallet and leverage dash usernames for bitcoin transactions? - I doubt it, because DCGs focus doesn't seem to be on payments. But hey DCG, very happy if you do it.

In 1999 Shazam launched the first application to fingerprint and identify music. Initially, it was available to everyone via a phone call and then later an app. It took 17 YEARS for them to turn a profit and the real money was not made from their initial target audience but through royalty collections. Dash Platform is in this same position, a unique product that has yet to find it's niche.

There is also the extra burden of censorship, which Sam wants to postpone to a later date, after HPMNs. This too comes at a cost, either financially to maintain censorship or the cost of implementing it and fine tuning. Censorship is a highly charged and complex topic. Don't even get me started on binary blobs. Without some level of censorship, Sam said he would resign. I think the subject of censorship should of been brought up way before HPMNs came about.

>I cited Sia and STORJ as they are just two examples of what happens when you try to compete on price alone.

I don't think that's accuarte. Siacoin and storj aren't low because they 'compete on price alone'. They are low because their usecase never went viral. They don't have a strong reason for people to use them over the competition. Apparently file storage isn't as in need of disruption as tradFI, at least not yet. Because of this, I believe your example in using them is flawed.

>How long for Platform to find a killer app?

As you know, I believe that Platform will START with a killer app and that DCG is correct in focusing on developing platform for payments. This is the killer app and why I believe that SIA and storj are not relevant here. They can't do this even though they do file storage (just okay, not really superior to a centralized service except on esoteric technical merits like decentralized etc.)

Dashpay on platform will be notably superior than our competition and will allow us to utilize our payments chain as a killer app which will incentivize users to utilize their username for whatever they can. I.e. viral apps should spring from the killer app of usernames with the payment chain.

>Price could be too high and no one finds value.

This possibility being the reason that I concur with DCG and Sam about being against anything but a 4K or 10K HVMN solution.

>Price could be too low and the network sells itself short, less money coming in, squeezing MNO / HPMNO profits.

This possibility is not a realistic reason to do anything. You are just like the monero community. The monero community naturally has NO CONFIDENCE in their coin or their project. So they don't believe that the fee market (i.e. user adoption) will be able to sustain their coin. So, using this lack of confidence as an excuse, they FORCE monero on the market instead by giving it infinite inflation.

So the market won't be able to say, 'We don't like that coin, it should die.' This is the genesis of the monero community's attack against the fee market. They are insecure and lack confidence, just like you here. Your justification for this position is that you don't believe that Platform will succeed so you want to charge as much as possible to recoup ROI.

But grandmasterdash, if you don't believe that Platform is a game-changing and special offering then why are you here? There's plenty of communities with various beliefs on how to scale (none of them accurate or viable, but they exist).

>I say all this because it was Sam that made the assumption that Platform must be cheap.

I don't think this is accurate. I think every architect of Platform wants it to be low fee so it reaches the greatest volume of users. Your offering must be fast, easy to use and CHEAP. Then people will flock to it. This is not a difficult assertion to prove or even think of so I don't understand why you're against it so vehemently. Its NATURAL to want to lower costs as much as possible to attract attention. You make it up on the mass volume (which you apparently don't believe is coming).

>people should not get so hung up on price.

Who's hung up? I think you're the only one who's hung up on it. Everyone else sees the obvious logic in keeping fees as low as possible as a general goal, so aren't you the only one who is 'hung up on price'?

>You say usernames and DPNS are the killer apps, I disagree. You can't just produce usernames and a DNS alternative and assume success, it takes a lot more than that.

I don't think you've thought it through. You do realize this isn't some random tech show, right? We already know we have customers. Dash is the most performant and used blockchain for actual payments. Dash is the blockchain with the largest adoption among retailers in a global atmosphere. We had over 150,000 ACTIVE android wallets in just Venezuela ALONE two years ago.

If you give those people the same speed, security and adoption that Dash already presents, plus the ease of use of transacting with usernames then I think you're wrong here. That IS THE KILLER APP. As we've seen with 'Defi' and other 'crypto web 3.0 solutions', payments really is the biggest use case. Even if its just speculative payments. All the other things that people justify blockchains for really aren't worth it. But usernames for payments is. If you don't believe that this is a killer app then again, why are you here?

> though there are issues surrounding name squatting.

These issues are an edge case and should affect google, facebook and other name services which are offered for free. Dash usernames have a small fixed cost which should limit username related issues, including squatting.

>Will exchanges support it?

Irrelevant. Exchanges haven't been relevant to Dash's story since 2018 when we exploded in Venezuela before really getting on exchanges down there. Exchanges are not a leading indicator for Dash. And the market is deliberately ignoring our superior technology in all but a few cases. Still, we perservere and are the most adopted and largest payment coin, even more than BTC which is a huge accomplishment.

>it's hard enough getting them to accept InstantSend or Chainlocks.

Is it? I rely on instantSend for my daily purchases. I use Dash at least 5 times a week and its always instant and I never have to think about blockchain issues like with other chains. Which shows that even if exchanges don't support it, the network is what matters, exchanges will follow when we're popular regardless of their ideological position. And anyway, this is no good reason to NOT release so the concern is really neither here nor there.

>Dash Platform is in this same position, a unique product that has yet to find it's niche.

Again I disagree and think you're wrong. Dash Platform IS LATE! We already have a use case and tens of thousands of people chomping at the bit to use it. Payments with usernames is a killer app, because payments is a killer app. You see all this *points to billions "invested" in cryptocurrency economy*? Yeah, that's from payments, at this level of ease of use. So if we introduce usernames to this payments equation, then we will be the best by a long shot.

Our UX will be so far superior to other coins that we will LEAVE THE REALM OF CRYPTOCURRENCY and enter the realm of TRUE PAYMENTS like Venmo, Paypal and banks. Most cryptocurrencies are still limited by their architectures (block size, block time, no usernames/ease of use). Dash has solved the first two and now seeks to solve the final barrier to entry, which once solved will open the flood gates.

Anybody can get a little following by taking a strong stand against the banks. You're not going to find much pushback there among the general populace. But can you do so WHILE PROVIDING A DRAMATICALLY SUPERIOR user experience than them and your competition? 24/7/365 decentralized and permissionless availability all over the world with usernames for ease of use is ABSOLUTELY A GAME-CHANGER and I believe you're underselling it massively for some reason.

>There is also the extra burden of censorship, which Sam wants to postpone to a later date, after HPMNs

As I understand it, there won't be any censorship. Giving HVMN the ability to respond to a DCMA request is NOT CENSORSHIP. Nobody considers youtube as 'censorship' for taking down pirated movies, because its not your free speech to upload a pirated movie. It seems you want the network to take a childish and naive position w.r.t. our legal requirements as a hosting service. Providing the ability to remove illegal content is wise and just, I don't understand how you can see it any other way.

>Without some level of censorship, Sam said he would resign.

You're calling it censorship. Sam said he would resign without a way to remove ILLEGAL CONTENT. That is NOT THE SAME THING AS CENSORSHIP. Words have meaning and you're being dishonest and disingenuous by twisting their definition in this way.

> I think the subject of censorship should of been brought up way before HPMNs came about.

Your dishonest usage of the word censorship aside, these are things that couldn'tve been decided on before the network topology became clear. This is a common problem in software design where you can't predict the future topology of a design and have to wait until you're closer to release to define some constraint or other. This is normal in software development.

I can't possibly explain to you here what is a very big subject, whether you call is "illegal content" or censorship.

There is no single authority for "illegal content" because that would depend where you live. Different jurisdictions have different laws, motives and priorities.

Nor do you seem to appreciate the difference between something being illegal and content subject to AI filters, imposing their code-is-law. YT goes way beyond US laws for pirated movies. Any content creator will tell you all the things they can or can't play, say or show. It's just not about law at all. In the same way exchanges over compensate with ridiculous rules because regulators are intentionally fuzzy or silent.

Self-regulation leads to over compensation. It is a slippery slope which goes from "if you can do X, then you can do Y".

As for the rest, we'll just have to agree to disagree. You know my position so we'll just wait and see.

>I can't possibly explain to you here what is a very big subject, whether you call is "illegal content" or censorship.

Its not big and doesn't require much explanation. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with stolen material, other peoples' property, files or data. So being able to remove that content (illegal, stolen material) upon legal request isn't censorship. Nobody calls youtube censorship for taking down stolen content (like movies). Respond to this argument or stop making yours!

>There is no single authority for "illegal content" because that would depend where you live.

Which is perfectly fine. The mechanism won't be reliant on jurisdiction. The HVMN will have the option to remove content when presented with a legal request, regardless of where it comes from (however, they will probably only respond to requests from countries that are actually hosting them, so even less of a hassle than you're making it out to be).

>Different jurisdictions have different laws, motives and priorities.

Irrelevant. The HVMNO will only have to deal with the jurisdiction they are in. One jurisdiction, one set of laws, motives, priorities. A HVMN outside of that jurisdiction won't have to comply with their regulations, which will force a global institution to represent the request, which also is fine.

>Nor do you seem to appreciate the difference between something being illegal and content subject to AI filters, imposing their code-is-law.

Nor do you seem to appreciate the difference between centralized offerings like youtube and decentralized ones like Platform. Again you show that you lack confidence in DCG and platform as a solution superior to current options. Because if you believed it, your 'criticisms' here wouldn't be enough to sway your opinion on the network or platform. You don't seem to realize it, but you have a lot of 'tells' that are giving away your motivations and incentives/hidden ties.

>Any content creator will tell you all the things they can or can't play, say or show.

And Youtube is not Platform. Platform will have the freedom to only comply as much as legally necessary, no further. Since there is no centralized institution telling HVMNOs what to do with their node, leaving it in their hands gives them the ultimate control. Something that other networks don't have. So again you ignore our superiority in order to push FUD.

>It's just not about law at all.

Its ALL ABOUT the law. It makes sense to provide a socially acceptable way to remove stolen content. You have not said anything that negates or even approaches a rebuttal to this point, your deflection by calling it 'censorship' (when you know its not) notwithstanding.

>In the same way exchanges over compensate...

Again this won't likely happen with platform because platform is decentralized and exchanges are not. You again show you are not appreciating the landscape for what it truly is, instead created FEAR UNCERTAINTY AND DOUBT from an unrealistic proposition. Platform is DECENTRALIZED, the CoD will be at least 100, which is 100 TIMES more or less more decentralized than current offerings. Have a little faith.

>Self-regulation leads to over compensation. It is a slippery slope which goes from "if you can do X, then you can do Y".

Okay everyone, pack it up! Grandmasterdash said that platform can't work so we have to just go on ahead and quit now!

>As for the rest, we'll just have to agree to disagree. You know my position so we'll just wait and see.

Your position is nonsensical and FUD.

There is no such thing as "illegal content" because we have no global laws.

Something that is legal in a place, it is illegal in another.

So you must say, "legal content in US", or "illegal content in North Corea" etc.

Just saying "illegal content" is nonscense.

>There is no such thing as "illegal content" because we have no global laws.

This is clearly not true. The lack of 'global laws' doesn't prohibit there being illegal content, this is an illogical conclusion to draw.

>Something that is legal in a place, it is illegal in another.

This is not relevant.

>So you must say, "legal content in US", or "illegal content in North Corea" etc.

No, you don't. You don't have a right to police my speech.

>Just saying "illegal content" is nonscense.

No, its not. Speaking in general is accurate and perfectly fine here.

A HPMN should not comply to censorship laws, it should just migrate to places where no legal censorship occurs.

>A HPMN should not comply to censorship laws

Removing stolen content by legal request is NOT CENSORSHIP.

Well , my argument is that HPMN should not respond to local jurisdictions.

They should just migrate to other places where censorship (or whatever you call it) does not exist.

>Well , my argument is that HPMN should not respond to local jurisdictions.

That argument is tone-deaf and braindead. Having the option to do so is wise, leaving it up to the HVMN themself. If you don't want to comply then don't. Giving options for personal choice is better than forcing one side or the other.

>They should just migrate to other places.

That's just your opinion. You have no right to force that on the rest of us.

>You have no right to force that on the rest of us.

And you, you have no right to enforce censorship (or whatever you call it).

>And you have no right to enforce censorship (or whatever you call it).

Strawman. I'm not the one trying to enforce illegal content removal (which is different from censorship, failing to recognize this indicates you are being dishonest). Since governments DO have the right to request takedowns, having an option to comply with them is wise. You have not responded to this argument.

I am considering voting yes on this. Anyone concerned about the censorship risk please outline the concern below,

Maybe a thread on the dash forum would be a better place for this (if it doesn't already exist).

I feel this censorship thing is way more complicated than most people think. For me, I think there are certain people at DCG that would pursue their version of censorship while ignoring others. And I see this danger as not just now - DCG in it's current state - but an ongoing issue with ever-changing leadership and policies. That for me - ever changing policies - is the real problem to be solved. Unless there is a way to prevent future changes, I am never going to be comfortable with it.

It really doesn't help that DCG want to add binary blobs to Platform. Written language alone is a tough enough nut to crack, let alone binary blobs.

My guess is, there are so many issues regarding censorship, content storage and delivery, that it will be a full-time distractions that prevents any serious work returning to dash the payment network.

My response to the "censorship" concern:

It hasn't been brought up much here but I think moreso on the forum. Correct me if I'm wrong. However, it seems to me the gist of the concern is with the MN of the HVMN being able to remove illegal content.

I want to make something very clear: removing illegal content is NOT censorship. Censorship is a free-speech issue. I.e. you should be able to hold an opinion and voice that opinion without fear of political reprisals. In the context of MNs, this means that your apps can't be censored, you can't be added to "username blacklists" etc.

But hosting files that a particular society has deemed to be criminal is a completely different matter. This is no longer about censorship or free-speech. Illegal content usually refers to stolen data (like personal data, company secrets, proprietary information etc.) or other behavior that society has deemed criminal to possess.

In this case, giving the HVMNs the choice to remove such content IF AND ONLY IF under legal duress to do so is prudent and doesn't fall under censorship. Banning people from yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is none is not censorship. You're not expressing an idea that you have or support for a position you wish to see made more popular in society. You are LYING to others, TROLLING THEM (by making them think they're in danger when they're not), and thus actually endangering them in real life (as the crowd stampedes for the exits).

Society has wisely deemed this to be criminal action. Even if there were some far-fetched hypothetical where yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater when there was none were a good idea with benefit to society, you *still* couldn't argue that the law preventing it was censorship. Its just not in society's best interests to allow bad behavior like that. The MNs and Dash are not a referendum on the legal strictures of the world and their apparatuses.

It is a referendum on the financial institutions of the world that fraudulently inflate the value of the currency that EVERYONE USES while skimming the top to enrich themselves and their friends before the effects of the inflation they cause and benefit from hits the market. This allows them to buy up assets at previous fiat valuations with inflated moneys giving them a dramatic advantage in purchasing power over time over everyone else. Society is not served by this, nor by the censorship these banks engage in to make it happen.

But there's no scenario where you can beat that with "illegal content" as currently defined legally. So there's no reason to be up in arms about a *well-designed* mechansim to remove such content from the network. If anything, it makes us much less of a target while allowing us to leapfrog present solutions (because we're decentralized and price competitive). Platform will be very profitable.

Bottom line, we want Netflix to use and pay for Platform. We don't want to support illegal torrenting of copyrighted IP. Thus, the HVMNs need a way to remove such content when presented with a legal request to do so. This keeps us in regulatory compliance and gives the network a level of social maturity that these kinds of projects rarely attain. It is a rather romantic moment if I must say so myself...

your response is both stupid and irrelevant.

My question is around technical considerations that would prevent censorship in how platform is launched.

You clearly have no idea why decentralized data storage is interesting or valuable.

you also propose a "legal" solution that would put a massive target on the backs of "non-compliant" masternode operators.

I don't propose a "legal solution" so much as an OPTION to respond to the legal solution that already exists. DCMA takedown requests are the legal solution that governments in the West especially have adopted to handle piracy. Do you really want to be on record as going against that? Do you really want to paint a target on the masternode network by encouraging hosting of said materials?

And as long as the target shifts from the network as a whole to individual masternode owners I'm fine with it. If you want to take a stance and support illegal content (not "illegal opinions" I mean things like stolen data, identity theft, illegal obscene materials and the like) then you should have the right to make that stance without jeopoardizing the rest of the network. Do you disagree?

yes i want to be on record against that. DCMA take down requests go to applications not networks. Same will be done in this space. You don't ask network operators to play moderator. It is not their responsibility. It creates an enormous attack vector and a great moral hazard. There should be no option to censor content via voting or any other mechanism aside from an individual operator manually going into a platform-masternode and removing content, which would be meaningless and ineffective.

>DCMA take down requests go to applications not networks.

Normally, but Dash's decentralized platform network will enable decentralized applications, which means the masternodes that host those applications will need to be able to facilitate a DCMA request, just like Youtube and Google do. This is not censorship. It is illegal to steal stuff, including intellectual property. How do you propose the network deals with this without such a function?

>You don't ask network operators to play moderator.

They ask reddit moderators, Youtube moderators and facebook moderators to do that all the time this assertion is incorrect.

>It is not their responsibility.

Who's responsibility should it be?

>It creates an enormous attack vector and a great moral hazard.

How so? The data doesn't have an immutability requirement like blockchains for payments do, so you can delete data if you wish. Having this be a reason why you would delete data stored ON YOUR MASTERNODE is no better or worse than hosting it. Its not a moral hazard, you only take stuff down that you get a legal request to do. If you don't have a request and target material for any other reason that's okay, because the other nodes won't do that and the customer still gets served. I don't see the problem, please expound.

>There should be no option to censor content

Again, this is NOT censoring. Censoring refers to the act of SILENCING FREE SPEECH. It has nothing to do with enabling liars, thieves and other criminal actors. Please respect the difference and reformat your argument.

>mechanism aside from an individual operator manually going into a platform-masternode and removing content, which would be meaningless and ineffective.

Wait, I thought that's what we were talking about.

reddit and youtube are web applications. They don't go after comcast or an internet infrastructure provider to police what happens on reddit

Reddit and youtube are the analogs of DAPPs on platform. They are the tip of the spear but they do go after ISPs for IP's and history when tracking crimes so you're wrong there too. They go through the whole chain, but whatever's easiest. The point is by providing masternode owners with the option to comply with DCMA you limit the sting of law enforcement. They no longer have a *legal justification* to have a hate-boner for your decentralized network. The same thing that protects coinjoin vs what happened to the TornadoCash developer.

>your response is both stupid and irrelevant.

I can take that criticism as long as you flesh it out more. Why is my response irrelevant? How is it stupid?

>My question is around technical considerations

I'm sorry, I thought I was addressing a prevelant complaint with regard to platfom. If you had other issues in mind, perhaps you should've been more specific in your opening post?

>You clearly have no idea why decentralized data storage is interesting or valuable.

I don't think that's accurate given my wholehearted support of platform, DCG and their vision, and my fight against infiltrators trying to stop us from achieving that vision. Nothing I said is against decentralized data storage and I challenge you to source this assertion and prove that I "have no idea" why decentralized data storage is interesting or valuable, considering my evident and staunch support for the same.

if content can be effectively removed from platform, what does it do that is in any way better than a centralized solution? The answer, obviously, is nothing.
The platform will need to function regardless of the legal regimes in which it will exist. Otherwise there is no utility.
DEXs, DAOs, DAPs that build on dash platform will only do so if there is a believe that the content will not get censored (for any reason).
Will there be disagreeable content, certainly. Should legal and policing action be taken in those circumstances? Yes, but legal action against the application users/developers that are pushing and retrieving immoral content from platform. This was once known as normal police investigative work. The police and powers that be no longer being able to manipulate the network to their will is exactly the value prop for crypto generally.

I think DCG plans to allow censorship in the Platform upon votes among the involved HPMN masternodes.

So if you dont like censorship, you have better vote for a proposal that allows as many masternodes as possible to participate in the censorship mechanism.

>if content can be effectively removed from platform

Technically, as I understand it, the content wouldn't necessarily be removed from platform, but from that masternode. Someone else could host it, which is a key difference. Its not like there's a centralized "remove from platform" option being proposed. Its up to each individual masternode owner. This is all theoretical right now as I understand it it hasn't been affected yet.

>what does it do that is in any way better than a centralized solution? The answer, obviously, is nothing.

Wrong. This would only be for legally compelled cases, i.e. a legitimate case of theft of property. Everything else will be permissible. Which means its superior to centralized solutions where ACTUAL censorship (silencing of unpopular opinions like on r/dashpay ((where I've been banned for years despite being Dash's biggest fan)) and the Dash Discords ((owned by mico-dictator Joel Valenzuela))). So this statement by you is wrong.

>The platform will need to function regardless of the legal regimes in which it will exist. Otherwise there is no utility.

Which it will. But being able to accomdate them as well is wise. Just like transparency is possible with cryptos thanks to the openness of the blockchain, but also privacy with coinjoin. So you have the OPTION. This is better than solutions that force you to choose one or the other like Monero (everything supposedly hidden--despite the privacy research showing breaks) or Nano (everything is open and tied to your account with no possibility for privacy).

>DEXs, DAOs, DAPs that build on dash platform will only do so if there is a believe that the content will not get censored (for any reason).

Remember, this only applies to legal categories of illegal content. Like stolen movies, stolen identity documents, stolen software licenses, etc. NONE OF THAT is useful or necessary for DEXs, DAOs or DAPPs that will build on Dash platform. You don't need someone's stolen credit card info to run a business on Platform. Not any business that we would want to run on platform at least.

>Will there be disagreeable content, certainly.

Disagreeable content is one thing, sure. I'm not suggesting a swear-filter.

>Yes, but legal action against the application users/developers that are pushing and retrieving immoral content from platform.

Well now you're just passing the buck from the host to the uploader. Legal solutions usually don't work that way from my experience. They'll go after the host because its easier. So making it easier for hosts to comply would be prudent in that situation. Remember, Dash platform isn't designed to be a "dark net market" where "anything goes". Its designed to be a RESPECTABLE platform for social good. Which means it has to present a certain image. This is important in branding, so being a haven for "stolen content" and other illegal material will not do us any favors at all.

>The police and powers that be no longer being able to manipulate the network to their will is exactly the value prop for crypto generally.

I'm not advocating any sort of backdoor for police or legal authorities to dox MNOs, shut down masternodes or anything like that. I'm only suggesting if there is a way to allow them to easily comply with legal takedown requests I think its wise. These requests which are btw, at least currently, not based on censorship but property rights and ownership...if this changes then the MN network can revisit the topic and see how the new landscape aligns with Dash' vision.

Hi everyone - i'm just gonna keep this short and sweet

I support Quantum 100% in his drive to implement HPMNs and in this 4K proposal both on the technical and business level.

The value proposition of Evo is clear for long time - Crypto that's Apple level of usability but also decentralized. Which translates mainly to Browser and mobile apps - that's what Platform dapps are for ultimately, and to make that work HPMNs is needed so i'm all for it.

Thanks
Andy Freer

HPMNs requiring 4000 Dash will be quite centralized.
It's also not very usability friendly if it makes the Dash system so overcomplicated no one will want to develop anything for it.

All this risk for currently only planned apps of DNS and user name labels... we need to slow WAY down.

You keep repeating this Fud. The 4000 HVMN solution has as CoD (Coefficient of Decentralization) of up to 460, which is 460 times a single server, single operator system. IT IS A LIE that it is not decentralized. 460 is roughly 4x as many nodes as Nano has and there are no ugly idiots claiming that "they should shut down" (even though they SHOULD SHUT DOWN). That alone shows how dishonest and disingenuous your stupid argument is.

Two could be decentralized and distributed. The only lie would be to deny law enforcement could not take down 460 nodes when I have shown you irrefutable evidence to the contrary. You called it "FUD and irrelevant" so I'll just let others decide:

https://www.interpol.int/en/News-and-Events/News/2022/Hundreds-arrested-and-millions-seized-in-global-INTERPOL-operation-against-social-engineering-scams

- 1,770 locations raided worldwide
- Some 3,000 suspects identified
- Some 2,000 operators, fraudsters and money launderers arrested
- Some 4,000 bank accounts frozen
- Some USD 50 million worth of illicit funds intercepted

Ok that's not the same scenario as what we're talking about at all. Operating against "social engineering scams" is not the same thing as taking down down 460 servers spread across the world. And even if it were, if they really could take down 460 servers as easily as you say, what's to stop them from taking down 4600?

So basically your argument isn't with me nor is it with platform, you should be arguing that BTC and all cryptocurrencies are insecure because "they could take down all the nodes". But the horse has already left the barn on that one, so you're stuck trying to make this fud specifically about platform.

Your argument is FUD and irrelevant. It has nothing to do with anything. What are you even suggesting? That the masternodes are going to war with governments and HVMN are going to be taken down as a result (because "460 nodes is weak"), but the regular masternodes and mining networks are going to remain up? Or going to get taken down as well? If those two remain up that's a actually a strong endorsement of platform as it performs at high speed and allows for the network's other central functioning to remain active after "a takedown".

If they DON'T REMAIN UP then your argument is still pointless and irrelevant because then we have bigger problems than "460 nodes is weak" because our 3800 nodes couldn't survive your FUD attack either. Either way your argument is inappropriate for this stage of our development thus making it FUD and irrelevant. You haven't disproven that characterization at all.

> And even if it were, if they really could take down 460 servers as easily as you say, what's to stop them from taking down 4600?

Now you finally get it. Because out of those 460 nodes (or 4600), not all of them will be individuals. Going after one person likely knocks out several in one go. This is why DCG used mnowatch as a reference, to try and calculate with KNOWN data, what it would take to avoid humpback quorum / voting abuse. Not to mention all the dash humpbacks that have not been identified yet. This is why I call for de-collateralization and not the creation of an elite group where upper bounds are capped.

Which chains are resistant to these takedowns? Not many, I guess.

>Now you finally get it.

That is not "getting it", your conclusions is off.

> Because out of those 460 nodes (or 4600), not all of them will be individuals.

This is irrelevant. To take down 460 nodes you have to actually take down 460 individual nodes. You can't just take down the one guy who owns them. And you're not actually addressing the argument.

My point is that your argument is irrelevant, if you think they can take down 460 nodes why don't you think they can take down 4600 nodes? That means your quarrel is NOT with platform but with BTC and cryptocurrency nodes not protecting you from "takedowns".

>Going after one person likely knocks out several in one go.

Not at all. This is an assumption by you. Your node still runs even after you've been arrested. And there is no personal identifying information tying a masternode to an owner, another assumption you're just unfairly giving yourself and assuming to be true. If you have to cheat to win an argument that means you don't actually have an argument, just FYI.

>This is why I call for de-collateralization and not the creation of an elite group where upper bounds are capped.

Your calls are fud. Node architecture has not shown to be weak to this attack and you have presented no modality by which it would be. Random takedowns of criminal organizations, which are not run as DAOs, is not relevant and is a strawman argument.

>Which chains are resistant to these takedowns? Not many, I guess.

You guess that because you're likely paid to FUD us into taking our eye off the ball to make us more susceptible to various takeover and takedown attempts. That's why you salivate over a possibility that can't happen.

I can't help you if you ignore the evidence of mnowatch and the facts directly from Interpol.

So instead you repeat your stupid claims and pad it out with garbage.

At this point you are also ignoring why DCG based their calculations on data from mnowatch.

> Your node still runs even after you've been arrested.

Am pretty sure you mean "charged". And no, the hosting facilities would be hit with warrants, which is completely normal. I'm not ready to believe your apparent ignorance on this matter.

>I can't help you if you ignore the evidence of mnowatch and the facts directly from Interpol.

Its not evidence. You're twisting it to make it look like evidence using a strawman. IT IS NOT A CRIME TO RUN A NODE. Which means your argument is based on a theoretical 'what if' scenario. THAT MAKES IT FUD!

>So instead you repeat your stupid claims and pad it out with garbage.

Oh my are you talking to yourself? Well, I guess that's the only way someone as thickheaded as you can hear any criticism isn't it?

>At this point you are also ignoring why DCG based their calculations on data from mnowatch.

I'm still waiting for you to make this point relevant. You keep repeating it like you've got a gotcha but you don't.

>Am pretty sure you mean "charged".

No, I meant what I said. Charged, arrested, jailed if your node is well maintained it will still run until it needs to be updated, which should be a lot less frequently after platform deploys (even now we go months without a major release). So don't put words in my mouth.

> And no, the hosting facilities would be hit with warrants, which is completely normal.

This is why you don't make hypothetical, weird arguments. You're basically saying that cryptocurrency nodes are subject to capture (while you repeat your point above to try and win you deliberately COMPLETELY IGNORE this argument, again) which means you SHOULDN'T BE HERE if you really believe that.

You should be arguing that cryptocurrencies are insecure and don't protect from government attack. You shouldn't be arguing about platform if you TRULY believe what you're writing. You don't and you're just using it as a deflection shield to give you cover to spew FUD and statist propaganda so you can manipulate the narrative. KNOCK IT OFF ALREADY!!!

> IT IS NOT A CRIME TO RUN A NODE

You're about to find out otherwise.

You say, the actions of Interpol is a strawman, yet here you are falsely implying that nodes are not illegal. So let's see if this is true:

1. If you are talking about Platform nodes - which I assume you are because this whole proposal and discussion is about Dash Platform - then how do you know this to be true when Platform and the data it stores is not public yet? Nor do we know the content filters that will be added later, as stated by Sam. Where is this crystal ball of yours?

2. If you are talking about cryptocurrency full nodes then probably you do not live in one of these countries...

- Algeria
- Bolivia
- Bangladesh
- Dominican Republic
- Ghana
- Nepal
- The Republic of Macedonia
- Quatar
- Vanuatu

Source: https://cryptonews.com/guides/countries-in-which-bitcoin-is-banned-or-legal.htm

You will need to ask Sam what his definition is of "illegal content" and what he considers "immoral". Living in the beautiful province of Chaing Mai, I assume he means as governed by the laws of Thailand.

You must also consider, a bitcoin full node does, in fact, contain CP. Please cite the laws AND countries that explicitly exclude possession of this material? Some countries have exclusions if the entity is regulated and licensed, such as telcos and the postal service, others do not. Your average user running a full bitcoin node will not have protection if, say, they are subject to a raid or a takedown. In such events, law enforcement may look at ALL illegal possession in order to make mud stick.

None of this considers other laws, such as Sharia Law, where the outcome, once again, is dependent on the country of the node AND the country of the offender.

TL;DR: Stop talking about "illegal content" as though it is a universal standard when clearly it is not.

Perhaps you should refer to my earlier comment where I said this subject is too big to discuss here. I have shown, without a doubt, you are incompetent and unqualified to talk about such matters. As such, I will no longer discuss this here, but am happy to do so on the dash forums.

>You're about to find out otherwise.

No, I'm not.

>yet here you are falsely implying that nodes are not illegal.

Its not false. It is not generally illegal to run a cryptocurrency node.

>then how do you know this to be true when Platform and the data it stores is not public yet?

Because its not illegal to store data on nodes. You sound like an idiot.

>Where is this crystal ball of yours?

If it were illegal you could point to the law that states as such. You don't because you can't which means its not. Shut up already you are acting like an idiot in order to push a foolish and selfish agenda because you're a bad actor. When you're exposed you're supposed to stop doing what you've been exposed as doing...

>If you are talking about cryptocurrency full nodes then probably you do not live in one of these countries...

No, I don't and none of those countries are relevant at all to the cryptocurrency discussion, including node ownership, so this is, like I said, a strawman. Thank you for your proving that for me.

>Source: https://cryptonews.com/guides/countries-in-which-bitcoin-is-banned-or-legal.htm

That source doesn't prove AT ALL that its illegal to run cryptocurrency nodes. It only proves that its illegal to run cryptocurrency nodes in certain countries which are NOT RELEVANT to the discussion as they were never significant sources of node or crypto ownership to begin with. Your argument is completely nonsensical and irrational.

>You will need to ask Sam what his definition is of "illegal content" and what he considers "immoral".

"Illegal content" is already well-defined and can be looked up by anyone in their current jurisdiction.

>TL;DR: Stop talking about "illegal content" as though it is a universal standard when clearly it is not.

Hey, IDIOT read my actual argument. Illegal content does NOT have to be "a universal standard" to exist as a legal definition! Legal jurisdictions operate BY COUNTRY YOU BLITHERING RETARD. It not being universal is a STRAWMAN that just proves MY POINT and DISPROVES YOURS.

If its not universally defined as such, then that means that nodes can operate in countries where its not WHICH DESTROYS YOUR WHOLE FUCKING POINT YOU IDIOT SHUT UP ALREADY!

>Perhaps you should refer to my earlier comment where I said this subject is too big to discuss here.

Its only being made bigger to discuss than it is because YOU'RE A STUPID RETARD. You're trying to make this molehill into a mountain because you're likely paid to disrupt our discussions using FUD and illogical premises to get us to make bad decisions. There have been others like you and you ARE NOT HIDING HERE WE KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING SO STOP IT!

>you are incompetent and unqualified to talk about such matters.

Well isn't that the pot calling the kettle black.

>s. As such, I will no longer discuss this here, but am happy to do so on the dash forums.

Good, GET LOST AND SHUT THE HELL UP ALREADY YOU SOUND LIKE AN IDIOT.

I'm glad that the MNOs are ignoring your last-minute FUD attempts to throw the network off. You are a despicable human being and your presence here sullies and dirties this establishment. You should leave and never come back.

Resorting to personal attacks because your claims were shown to be factually incorrect. This is your MO, to make claims and then choose to simply ignore the response.

Let the world to see, when you called out agnewpickens for not proving to own a masternode or voting right. In the proposal "GOVERNANCE-EQUAL-OPERATIONS-PROPOSAL":

You said, "Any valid and widely accepted proof is fine with me."

agnewpickens replied, "I'll sign a message from a voting key, give me a Dash address to send the message to."

You said... nothing.

You think you can just gloss over this and continue with your incessant attacks on others, utterly regardless of the facts directly in front of you.

No one, and especially me, owes you anything.

Go ahead, have the last say, I understand you can not help yourself.

>Resorting to personal attacks because your claims were shown to be factually incorrect.

You have never shown that, and my personal attacks are based on your verifiable behavior, so if you have any complaints either bring up specifics and counter them OR SHUT UP!

>This is your MO, to make claims and then choose to simply ignore the response.

You're clearly lying, as even now I'm using my standard 'MO' of replying to every argument you make meticulously. You're deliberately ignoring this feature of my posting style in order to LIE and pretend like you're not losing.

This ironically makes you guilty of what you're accusing me of (you always ignore my responses when I corner you and defeat you, as is evident in all these threads and the threads a year ago when I told you to SHUT UP AND YOU DID).

You are a pathetic person and you are not really a man. You lie you cheat and you pretend like a little child because you have NO OTHER WAY to justify your selfish agenda a fud tactics, which makes you a SCAMMER. I dare you to show ONE ARGUMENT that I didn't reply to.

>You said... nothing.

So?? I never said I would facilitate the process. Its not my job to verify all MNOs and participants actually belong here. That is Rango's job and the job of all participants themselves. You continue to expose how DESPERATE and PATHETIC you are by using these NON-ARGUMENTS.

>You think you can just gloss over this and continue with your incessant attacks on others, utterly regardless of the facts directly in front of you.

Wait a minute, wait a minute, what are you talking about? YOU LITERALLY just ignored ALL OF MY ARGUMENTS IN THE POST ABOVE YOU, you hypocrite!! You have NO RIGHT to use my argument with SOMEONE ELSE as proof that YOU'RE RIGHT. That makes no sense. But it does indicate that you two are working together, so thanks for showing evidence of that little collusion and that I was right about infiltrators. See, A normal, mentally healthy MNO WOULD NEVER argue the way you are. That's how I figured you out in the first place.

It is AGNEWPICKENS JOB TO PROVE HE BELONGS HERE, including the signing of any keys or whatever, and agnewpickens admitted in the past that he doesn't belong here but refused to stop commenting. So actually the burden of proof stopped there. YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN.

>No one, and especially me, owes you anything.

I never said anyone owed ME anything, so that's again another strawman from you. YOU OWE THE DAO SOMETHING THOUGH. You didn't reply to ANY OF MY ARGUMENTS ABOVE you hypocrite!

>Go ahead, have the last say, I understand you can not help yourself.

You're trying to do that thing from 8 mile (as well as putting a new comment at the top and one here so I won't see this one, nice try but attempted trickery PROVES that you're a bad actor, so thanks for that).

I get the last word BECAUSE YOU'RE WRONG AND YOU KNOW IT AND YOU CANNOT DENY IT. Not for any other reason. You trying to manipulate the narrative this way is ALSO indicative that you are being dishonest, deceptive and shouldn't be here any more. You ADMITTED to trolling me a year ago in this forum which is COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE. You have literally LOST EVERY ARGUMENT WE'VE EVER HAD! EVERY ARGUMENT! I've gotten the last word because YOU COULDN'T SAY ANYTHING. And not for lack of trying and trolling. YOU STILL LOST EVEN THOUGH YOU WERE USING DISHONEST DEBATING TACTICS. How pathetic do you have to to STILL LOSE while cheating?? ALL THE TIME??

Bottom line is that your argument is irrelevant because unlike this operation there is no linking data between a masternode owner and the masternode. These people when they got raided their scams ended because they were taken in. In an attack against HVMNs the node goes down and you just have to start it up somewhere else. IT IS NOT THE SAME THING AT ALL AND YOUR ARGUMENT IS STUPID!

There was me thinking you might of known a thing or two about police raids and takedowns...

Right back at you. Its not illegal to run a node. Which means your argument using criminals being raided is a red-herring.

We can stop here. You have either, a) never experienced such a thing, or b) you are just playing dumb and trolling.

>We can stop here.

We could've stopped the first time you were wrong 20+ posts ago. Apparently your agenda pays you well enough to keep spewing lies and bullshit long after you been outted. You're like a zombie and you are smelling up these comments just like a dead person would so yes please, SHUT UP ALREADY.

>a) never experienced such a thing

Right I have never been arrested for running a cryptocurrency node (I don't think anyone else has either)

>you are just playing dumb and trolling.

You are CLEARLY projecting. Your argument is STUPID! You are using criminal action as a justification when ITS NOT A CRIME to do what we're doing. That means your argument is a red-herring and you're wasting everyone's time. KNOCK IT OFF!!!

If you want to slow down, please use BTC.

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS:

1. What apps are made on platform or planned for it? For what purpose are we potentially complicating the network or risking a split?

2. Why do your calculations assume platform will not pay for use? Other than being unfair that is begging for a denial of service attack!

3. Will platform pay the same per byte as transactions? I believe this should be an absolute requirement to even have a discussion about platform... unless you care more about this pet project than financially freeing the world? Will Dash crypto be a second class citizen on the Dash network?

4. Do platform apps like usernames, torrent data (for Dash videos), "memo.dash" or similar require more complexity than something like "OP_RETURN"?
What more complicated things are planned? What operations are you missing?

5. Why not build all the apps mentioned above that can be built with an OP_RETURN level of complexity FIRST and THEN risk fucking up Dash with Bitcoin Core segwit levels of complexity? Have ANY of these even been done yet? I assume memo.cash is open source and could be copied easily?

1. There will be two Dapps on release from DCG's side:
*Dashpay: which gives a much better payment experience with pay to contact instead of pay to address. This will be supported on all mobile clients.
*DPNS: Dash Platform Name Service which gives identity resolution by names.

There are many more Dapps currently being developed by Incubator. And I'm sure DCG will eventually make some too after release.

2. Our calculations do assume platform will pay for use. But there is a chicken and egg problem. Satoshi introduced the block reward to solve this problem. As we don't want to change the supply, and we want people owning Dash to benefit from Platform instead of creating a new token then we need to reward the Platform chain.

I do not see your point with a DoS attack.

3. Platform has a very different fee structure as it a state based integrated side chain. The chain is only there to prove changes to the state. This means you can create contracts that allow for both modification of data, or immutability of data, with the contract itself choosing. Because data can be removed from the state the fee system is different.

The payment chain is tightly coupled with the platform chain. It does payments way better than the platform chain. They are made for different things. The payment chain for example can confirm a transaction in about a second. The platform chain could only really do this in about 5-7 seconds if that feature was ever built out. The platform chain can be queried for information much faster than the payment chain. It has query proofs, range proofs and non existence proofs allowing for a wealth of functionality to dapp developers. These are just a few examples of how they are different.

4. Adding stuff to an OP_RETURN is a terrible way to distribute information. All systems that do that rely on centralized servers in order to actually be able to query information. A light client can not get a proof of non existence either allowing systems to lie to their users. Just some of the issues, there are more.

5. What we are doing has nothing to do with segwit. If you want your users to query a centralized system, where data is processed not on a state level but just with a centralized server claiming to be blockchain, then a chain should indeed user OP_RETURNs.

To sum up: The reason we aren't using OP_RETURNs? We aren't hacks.

You are blatantly lying about blockchain data meaning things are centralized. Bitcoin Cash is not centralized and has built a whole twitter alternative on their chain using only OP_RETURN.

You are starting to sound like Blockstream with their anti-blockchain data stance.

Bitcoin cash is not centralized on the way in, but it's centralized from the querying of data perspective. This is the big lie in most crypto projects that evolution is trying to solve.

If you disagree then please explain to me how OP_RETURNs are queryable from the blockchain.

I'll give you a thought experiment. Let's imagine a car dealership as an example. A car dealership has cars in inventory. Cars have colors.
So to reiterate, I put some data in an OP_RETURN, let's say that I add a blue car to the inventory. Then 10 blocks later I add a red car in another transaction. Then 100 blocks later I add another blue car.

I want to know how many blue cars there are. Tell me how this is done without a centralized system parsing data. The answer is that it is not possible. What's going on is that you add your data in a decentralized way, but there are services that collect that data and index it for you. Then when you query the data you don't get a proof but you need to trust the service you queried.

It is decentralized because anyone can have their own copy of the blockchain and assuming they have the correct software they can read the data about those cars.

Even a light client could be very safe by querying multiple servers to check no data is being left out. And of course all the data it got back could be provably linked via the merkle tree to the main chain.

The fact that commercial LAPTOPS still have the memory to store the entire Bitcoin Cash or Dash blockchains only solidifies my point.

3d1409ae, quantumexplorer is right on this.

There is an inovative technology in the DashPlatform. The Dashplatform may be something similar to the OP_return, but Dashplatform has an important property that OP_return does not.

The Dashplatform is a blockchain, like bitcoin or dash is, but it is an extremely searchable blockchain (in contrast to bitcoin or dash). The DashPlatform makes the blockchain searching public, available to anyone and most importantly offers A PUBLIC SEARCH THAT IT IS IRREFUTABLE AND UNCENSORABLE.

Searching in OP_RETURN page is not irrefutable, because someone may claim that not all OP_RETURN content resides in the centralized query service, and that some content have been excluded from the search.

This property of irrefutable uncensorable public search that Dashplatform offers, gives an advantage over any other search engine (google search engine included)

>It is decentralized because anyone can have their own copy of the blockchain and assuming they have the correct software they can read the data about those cars.

Yeah but you're ignoring what he's saying. Anyone can have their own copy of the blockchain but in practice that's not going to happen. Satoshi even said this much. So querying the data is going to be centralized to the servers that people explicitly set up to index it. Which means that its a chokepoint.

To use my CoD below, BCH's op-code system has a CoD of 2 (since the servers are centralized and they usually only have a single server/operator pair, this forms a centralizing point) versus platform which will have a CoD of between 180-460 (depending on which solution we choose). So platform is clearly superior just by that metric alone. Platform is more decentralized than BCH op_codes are.

>Even a light client could be very safe by querying multiple servers to check no data is being left out. And of course all the data it got back could be provably linked via the merkle tree to the main chain.

You're still pushing trust to the client and, at the end of the day, unpaid volunteers running the servers you trust. With platform these servers are paid fully-fledged members of the network with requirements to meet (or be PoSe banned).

>The fact that commercial LAPTOPS still have the memory to store the entire Bitcoin Cash or Dash blockchains only solidifies my point.

How so? Isn't this completely unrelated? The question isn't how to build a system that's possible to be queried by anyone. We already have that with blockchains. A commercial laptop is just a single node, there's no way to trustlessly rely on it for data. What Platform is, and correct me if I'm wrong, is a SYSTEM to TRUSTLESSLY offload data storage and retrieval to servers with a high level of permissionlessness and decentralization. So no censorship (with the exception for illegal content removed by masternodes, but you can still serve it somewhere else), no exorbitant costs, no centralization.

This is not an easy task and BCH has nothing comparable. No other coin really does.

1. What do you mean with unpaid servers? Masternodes are paid. Very disingenuous of you.
2. It's a strawman to require "everyone" to host the blockchain and that won't happen with Dash platform either... so strange of you to mention that.
3. 'no exorbitant costs' - You're literally demanding half the treasury to subsidize platform for some reason.

I wouldn't fight this one on technical grounds, no offense but you're out of your league on this one.

There is technical merit to what Dash Platform is trying to achieve. However, I believe you are correct to say that Dash Platform should be paying for itself without loans, pegs or theft.

Nor should DCG have privilege over consensus. More so that they are the current owner of protocol, which is a clear conflict of interest. It is no different to a bank deciding it's own regulations.

If you're going to quote me in your replies, could please actually quote me so I know what you're referring to? Its hard to follow when you pick one or two words and remove their context in your bullet points.

>1. What do you mean with unpaid servers?

I thought you were referring to a light client on multiple servers on the BCH network querying the data. We are talking about Dash vs BCH and you were trying to argue why BCH is similarly capable as what we're trying to achieve with platform. There was no intent to be disingenuous. Not on my part at least.

>1. It's a strawman to require "everyone"

This is a good example of what I meant before. You have quotation marks around "everyone", but I don't say that word in the post you're replying to. So what are you referring to here then?

> 'no exorbitant costs' - You're literally demanding half the treasury to subsidize platform for some reason.

You mean half the MN reward? How does the treasury subsidize platform under this plan?

Couldn't figure out how to launch Platform independently and safely - "the chicken and egg problem" - but "we aren't hacks" LMFAO. Made my day!

Are you a MNO? I see no badge.

Would you like me to be an MNO?

If you're not a MNO you should not be posting here. Its a simple question, please answer it.

Thank you for responding to this FUD. Its my experience that people who genuinely care about the network go about airing their concerns in a completely different manner than GMD and this user you are responding to.

This is further evidence that I was correct and our competition bought up masternodes in order to be able to sit silently as a sleeper cell and attack us by manipulating our narratives and discussions at key moments. The emotionally charged manner these posters post in is heavily indicative of that. At least to me.

Why not 2K HPMN? Wouldn't it significantly reduce the centralisation concerns, while at the same time carry most of the advantages of HPMN?

The 2K HPMN option has a few downsides.

*Most importantly there would be enough nodes that if something catastrophic happened to Platform, then Core quorums would have a high chance of experience issues/not working. Chain locks could even have issues.

*The user fees would be double what they are in the 4K solution.

*Network ROI would go down as the cost to run Platform on so many nodes would be quite high.

In terms of centralization concerns, well the overall share of biggest whales in all 4K, 10K and 2K is roughly the same. The main benefit of 2K over 4K isn't so much centralization, but participation.

Centralization in PoW and PoS chains are completely different concepts. In PoW you can have centralization around miners and node centralization. Miner centralization can censor transactions and even rewrite the chain (or do some trickery) if too centralized. Dash solves the later with chain locks. Node centralization in PoW is bad in the sense that more decentralized nodes kind of keep miners in check. A chain with miners on it but with no users is useless.

Now onto centralization in PoS (platform is a PoS integrated side chain).

Let’s imagine you have two systems. The first one has a million Masternodes owned by 500k users, but with 1 user disproportionally owning 300k nodes.
The second system has 20 nodes instead with each user only holding 1 node.
In terms of decentralization safety the second system is much more safe even though it only has 20 nodes and 20 users instead of a millions nodes and 500k users.
But this is only one aspect of PoS safety. The second is that 20 nodes are too easily targetable. Better to have in the hundreds.

So even if the 4k system has less operators than a potential 2k system the percentage of the network that the whales have is about the same. So centralization safety remains the same. The only downside is that there are less nodes, but the 450+ that 4k gives us is really more than enough for Platform on first release. We don’t need a sharded system that can run all world systems on day 1. Lets progressively get there.

I could see us one day going to 2k and lowering a normal MN to 500 Dash, but only when we can no longer scale without sharding. At that point platform fees would be consequential offsetting the additional hardware costs.

@quantumexplorer
I can only hope you understand your math.
Because if you are hardcoding a MN block reward allocation of 50% for 1K Core Nodes and 50% for the Platform Pool to subsidize the 3,000 Dash excess collateral per each 4K Platform Node, then this will cause equilibrium to be eventually found at exactly half as many 4K Platform Nodes than 1K Core Nodes, at least according to my math, and just in case my numbers are wrong, then i´d invite you to correct them. So here is my calculation:

Assuming a current MN payment queue length of 3822 masternodes, representing 3,822,000 Dash in total collateral.
Of which you are going to re-allocate 1911 MN Rewards worth of Dash (50%) to subsidize the 3,000 excess collateral per each 4K Platform Node, and keeping the other 1911 MN Rewards worth of Dash (50%) for Core Reward payments to which both categories 4K and 1K are both entitled.

Then equilibrium would be found at:
637 4K Platform Nodes (with a collateral of 2,548,000 Dash)
and
1274 1K Core Nodes (with a collateral of 1,274,000 Dash)
The sum of both collateral totals is again: 3,822,000 Dash

After equilibrium would be reached, the total Nodes who are entitled for Core Reward payments are 637+1274 = 1911.
While the other 1911 MN Rewards worth of Dash, within a payment cycle, would go to the Platform Pool to subsidize the 637 4K Platform Nodes each with 3 Rewards worth of Dash for the 3,000 Dash excess collateral.

Now, there is a potential issue arising from this proposed constellation:
What if equilibrium set at such a high number for 4K Platform Nodes (637) can in fact never be reached,
because too many MNOs are below the 4,000 Dash collateral threshold?
Then obviously the 4K Platform Nodes would get overpaid, perhaps significantly overpaid, to the damage of all the remaining 1K Core Nodes.

And what about the voting rights of the 4K Platform Nodes?
Will each 4K Platform Node be able to cast 4 votes (given the 4,000 Dash collateral) when voting on proposals and governance decisions?

I will postpone my votes until there is further clarification from the PO.
And in the light of such doubtful numbers, i urge all the voters to reconsider their votes and move them to abstain, until the PO clarifies and gives a detailed explanation.

Consider supporting my proposal here and telling people about it: https://www.dashcentral.org/p/GOVERNANCE-EQUAL-OPERATIONS-PROPOSAL

This is a clusterfuck of an overcomplication for something that could be done basically with OP_RETURN and by copying memo.cash source code in a day.

We have long surpassed BCH and the small amount of functionality that OP_CODEs and the like can achieve.

The only planned official Dash apps are DNS and ... user labels according to DCG official quantumexplorer.

Our chain is less than a fifth the size of Bitcoin Cash and our nodes get paid.

That's like saying, 'Only the foundations of the World Trade Center have been laid down. My 2 storey house is still taller.' That's just a completely brain-dead take.

DNS and User labels, you know, the thing that cryptos are missing which make them so hard for regular people to use, and thus limit adoption in their abscence, those are two REALLY BIG THINGS.

Its not like they're just demo apps. Blockchains with decentralized, permissionless usernames are an effing game changer!

>Our chain is less than a fifth the size of Bitcoin Cash and our nodes get paid.

Marketcap is not a real metric, its fake. Its just current supply times last price. It doesn't indicate a coin's 'true size'. For that you have to look at actual adoption and investment. Marketcap is a superficial guesstimate at investment but it is not very accurate. Dash has over $210 million dollars widely invested and spread in its community (masternodes + treasury proposals emitted).

Because of that investment, Dash has many times more users for payments daily than BCH has ever seen. Dash had 150,000 active android wallets in Venezuela before DashWatch stopped functioning (likely leaned on to hide our impressive metrics and let infiltrators such as yourself and GMD make these specious arguments).

Dash was accepted at 20,000 stores in Venezuela years ago, while BCH could barely get 2,000 stores to accept it globally back when they were copying our efforts. The best they can do is "Townsville Australia" and a couple Carribbean islands clearly being paid off by Roger.

BCH, like monero, is a paper tiger. Their size is fake. Like FTX. Like Celsius and all these other centralized offerings. BCH can't compete with Dash because BCH didn't do the work necessary to lay the foundations that would support a large global community.

We're about to pay our Core team $400,000 USD over the next 3 months to develop our chain. We've been paying that and more for years while BCH has relied on spotty volunteer efforts. There's no way they could close the development and testing gap that that level of funding creates.

BCH has less functionality, is less technically developed and sound and in general is years behind Dash in terms of research and development. And if you don't believe that (from seeing and reading the evidence even as I just provided it to you), then why are you here?

Byte size, not marketcap.

I won't respond to the rest because you are being dishonest and trolling.

>Byte size, not marketcap.

Once again, quoting me without actually quoting me makes it difficult to respond to you. Please don't do that. Otherwise it is you who is being dishonest and trolling.

>I won't respond to the rest because you are being dishonest and trolling.

This is not a valid response. I made several accurate claims about the difference between BCH and Dash and you have a responsbility to answer these claims or you foreit the discussion. As it stands, you appear to be much more ideologically invested in the success of BCH than you are in Dash, which means you shouldn't be here.

lol, sometimes you make me laugh!

Alternative DNS systems have existed since the Internet itself. Anything that is remotely comparable is dealing with extreme competition. There is more chance of eth names becoming the defacto even though it's awful.

As for usernames. I accept Dash Usernames are better than many but in 7+ years, DCG could of built a basic username system and automatically merged / updated as they went along, finally arriving at Platform. But no, what could of possibly made them decide that doing NOTHING and waiting for Platform would be the better option? This is the MO of a perfectionist whom finally feels guilty and compelled to issue a kludge just to get to MVP.

In both instances, DCG yet again fails to learn what an opportunity cost is. By not doing stuff they allowed competitors to outpace them.

With all that money going to DCG, you might of thought they would of done more.

Again, it is DISHONEST and DISRESPECTFUL for you to respond to me without acknowledging that you were defeated before. This is not your living room, when we engage in debates on here its to ensure that the best decision for the network is taken. We can't do that if the people engaging in those debates act dishonestly.

You did not answer quantumexplorer's question above about having a masternode either. It seems you're really trying to force our hand by testing how much trolling and dishonest behavior you can get away with. KNOCK IT OFF ALREADY.

>lol, sometimes you make me laugh!

Probably because I accurately expose and reveal truths about you that you thought deep and well-hidden. Laughter is a common human defense mechanism to such a thing.

>Alternative DNS systems have existed since the Internet itself.

Not in a decentralized, paid and robust manner like platform.

>Anything that is remotely comparable is dealing with extreme competition.

Huh? Dash DNS isn't competing with traditional DNS on the internet.

>There is more chance of eth names becoming the defacto even though it's awful.

So glad that you ad 3d1409ae are so lacking in confidence that you just assume other, less-well developed and technically sound solutions will succeed and we will fail. It looks like you're the one who's "insecure", not me.

>As for usernames. I accept Dash Usernames are better than many but in 7+ years, DCG could of built a basic username system

If its so easy why don't you do it? You're complaining and spreading fud and using that as a justification to get on your soapbox and attack Dash core, but you have no evidence that what you're saying is true. Usernames on blockchains is REALLY HARD to do right and BCH and Eth show what NOT TO DO so you're full of crap, as usual.

>updated as they went along, finally arriving at Platform

That's what they did. Every change to the protocol since 2017 has had what we have today as a final goal. InstantSend was "broken" relative to what needed to be done and had to be fixed up and sured up, for example. So you're not only fudding, you're using what actually happened as some sort of ideal what if. It is amusing watching you go down the list of dishonest debating tactics in order to try and win a point.

>. But no, what could of possibly made them decide that doing NOTHING and waiting for Platform would be the better option?

What the hell are you talking about? Doing nothing? Why are you so obviously full of shit??? That's a real question.

>This is the MO of a perfectionist whom finally feels guilty and compelled to issue a kludge just to get to MVP.

Your post is the MO of a LOSER and A LIAR who sold their community out and now comes back to try and manipulate us into self-destructive behavior so you can get another paycheck. GET LOST ASSHOLE! You keep threatening to sell in your theater with XKCD on the Dash forums, SO SELL AND SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY!

>In both instances, DCG yet again fails to learn what an opportunity cost is. By not doing stuff they allowed competitors to outpace them.

This is what I mean by abject LIES. NOBODY has outpaced us. Eth doesn't have it, Decred doesn't have it, DGB doesn't have it, BCH doesn't have it. You're just showing your sour grapes because you KNOW that the coin that you're truly supporting by spreading lies and fud here CANNOT COMPETE with Dash now, let alone when platform releases.

>With all that money going to DCG, you might of thought they would of done more.

With all the money you're being paid to shill and lie here, you might HAVE thought you would HAVE accomplished more.

So you actually don't have anything to say about DNS and usernames on Platform, just go off on a tangent talking shit about me and others. Your insecurity is showing again :D

I made several comments about DNS (which I don't think does what you think it does) as well as usernames on platform, which means that your comment is completely inaccurate. Projection is a widely recognized sign of insecurity, whch means that YOUR INSECURITY is what's showing here.

Good questions. I, like the rest of the network, am leaning the favor of supporting this proposal. Even without the clarification you requested, this proposal makes the most sense and is the professional recommendation of our Core team.

I do not arbitrarily appeal to authority here, the technical professionals whom we pay to know about these things are recommending this option on technical, architectural and economic bases. There would need to be something extraordinary to counterveil and outweigh that, imo. At least if we're being smart.

You misinterpreted something (or found an error in some explanation - if so please point it to me).

The split between Core and Platform based Masternode rewards isn't 50/50. What is 50/50 is the split in rewards between standard Masternodes and HP Masternodes. HP Masternodes get rewards both from Platform and from Core.

This is partially explained in the FAQ under question 31.

"How do HPMNs get their rewards?

The Masternode part of the block reward would be split into two parts, one allocated for Platform services and one for Core services. Each is then split equally among all HPMNs and standard Masternodes. HPMNs would get rewards both from the Platform chain and from the Core payment chain. All Masternodes, standard and high performance, would be equivalent from Core’s perspective. Hence we can consider that the first 1K of collateral would be logically associated with Core while the remainder is associated with Platform. Therefore a 4K HPMN would get 75% (¾) of its rewards from the Platform chain and 25% (¼) of its rewards from the Core payment chain. A 10K HPMN would get 90% (9/10) of its rewards from the Platform chain and 10% (1/10) from the Core payment chain."

Hence the Platform portion of the rewards in the 4k proposal is 37.5% and the Core portion of the rewards is 62.5%. As such a 4k HPMN would get 75% of its rewards from Platform from that 37.5% and 25% of its rewards from the 62.5%.

Hope this clears things up.

Then allow me to adjust my equilibrium calculation to your numbers:

Assuming a payment queue length of 3824 masternodes (in order to avoid decimal points),
representing 3,824,000 Dash total collateral.

Equilibrium according your numbers (37.5%-62.5%) would then be reached at:

478 Platform Nodes (4K) with a collateral of 1,912,000 Dash)
1912 Core Nodes (1K) with a collateral of 1,912,000 Dash)
Then sum of both collateral totals is again: 3,824,000 Dash

Total Nodes running Core Services would be: 478+1912 = 2390 Nodes.
Can you confirm those equilibrium figures?

You do realize however, that in a case of every 4K Platform Node going offline, in-tilt or crashing in your proposed scenario, for whatever software conflict or other reason (it could be a memory leak/stack overflow or a vulnerable attack vector or something else), our Payment Chain (Core) would be in an endangered state because below the safe number of masternodes required for stable quorum formations.
Or can you guarantee that 1912 Core Nodes (1K) will in any case suffice for stable quorum formations, if for whatever reason the network can temporarily not rely on the Core services provided by 4K Platform Nodes?
And this is an eventuality that should not get easily discarded, because there is a real chance it could happen.

Furthermore, if this is implemented the way you plan it, this constitutes a huge economic push for all MNOs who own at least 4,000 Dash collateral, towards setting up 4K Platform Nodes and doing so fast, you are putting them under extreme economic pressure, because as long as equilibrium is not reached, they would otherwise lose a significant portion of their income to the initially few owners of 4K Platform Nodes who are the ones getting overpaid (as long as equilibrium is not reached).

What i found baffling and irritating however, is your total silence about the Voting Rights of 4K Platform Nodes.
Will you allow 4K Platform Nodes to cast 4 votes (given their 4,000 Dash collateral size) when they vote on proposals and governance decisions?
Or will the 4K Platform Nodes be reduced to one single vote?

I still urge the voting MNOs to be very prudent with their votes, as long as the PO is not confirming and/or clarifying till all aspects of this 4K solution are known and fully understood by the voting MNOs.

I believe that the DashPlatform should launch separately, without asking a portion from the masternodes' rewards. Or, if some 4k/10k masternodes really want the platform to launch, then let them pay by themselves the reward of the platform, without asking money from the rest (1k/4k/10k) masternodes who dont like the platform.

The DashPlatform devoured from the budget a huge amount of dash for its development. Now they want also to steal from the masternode rewards!!!!

Well, thats enough DashPlatform proponents!!!! You are an endless pit, a blind pork barrel!!!

The DashPlatform proponents should grow up, should try to live in the free market by their own value, and not be based on the value of others.

Not only the DashPlatform should launch standalone without asking a portion from the masternodes rewards, but also the DashPlatform should offer SHARES to the masternodes, so that in case the Dashplatform becomes profitable it will pay back the huge amount of money the masternodes gave for the development of the platform.

Most of these answers can be found in the FAQ here : https://www.dash.org/hpmn-faq/

For the first one, we have the equilibrium at around 460 nodes instead of 478 (See question: How many nodes are expected to be supporting Platform for each set of values?). This is because of the extra cost to run a HPMN compared to a normal MN.

But yes 478 and 460 are very close, so yes this is about what we expect so I can confirm that we are both in agreement approximately with the same numbers.

So with the 4k solution even if the risk is very little, there would still be a slightly more elevated risk of degraded performance compared to the 10k solution, as some IS quorums might not be able to function or form if ALL Platform nodes stop servicing the core chain. I personally think this would be a very far fetched event and the outcome would only be that some IS locks might fail for a few hours until the system auto-repairs itself.

Core having issues because of Platform crashing is highly dependent on the setup of the node. If we want to be very conservative we could say that 75% of platform running nodes.

So the math is that on core's side we have 478*0.75 = 356 nodes out of 2390 going down. It would be very unlikely this would cause any visible issue to the network. We would only start to see small issues with IS locks start above 478 nodes coming down at once.

Chain locks are safe till about 900 nodes come down.

Economic push to 4k response: For the starting push the goal here is not to hurt standard Masternode operators but to provide a system where all benefit. We are currently debating ramping up platform rewards over a small period instead of a direct change, but we are still undecided as we believe that on the system would stabilize within about 2 weeks without this and so the benefit is only marginal. If we did a ramp up Platform would only be safe when we get to about 300-400 nodes (at 4k collateral).

For Voting rights the answer is also in the FAQ:

"What would the governance voting power of a HPMN be compared to a regular Masternode?

HPMNs would have an increase in governance voting power proportional to the increase in the amount of collateral. For example, a HPMN requiring a 4000 DASH collateral would have 4 votes while a standard Masternode would still have 1."

Thank you for replying.
Not sure how the 460 figure came about, but the numbers you are using (37.5%-62.5%) are forcing equilibrium to be reached always at a quarter (or one fourth) as many 4K Platform Nodes than 1K Core Nodes, that should make sense.
(when not considering any other possible distortions, like hosting fees differentials...)

My apologies regarding the Voting Rights section in your FAQ.
I must have somehow overlooked that paragraph where it is mentioned.

However i still believe the economic push and the amount of economic pressure you plan to put unto MNOs to shutdown their 1K Nodes (not just fast, but practically immediately, lest they possibly incurr huge economic losses) and setup 4K Nodes (if they have enough collateral to do so) to be extreme, to say the least, i think the term brutality would describe it better.
You do realize, that if MN Core Rewards are being decreased by 37.5% all at once, if not enough 1K Core Nodes are vanishing fast enough to decrease the length of the payment queue (i.e. increasing payment frequency) by the same amount, many MNOs could lose a lot of income in case equilibrium takes (much) longer to be established, than it was anticipated.
While at the same time the few owners of the first 4K Platform Nodes would make a killing in undeserved surplus rewards, perhaps for an extended period of time or even continuously, as long as equilibrium is not reached for whatever reason.
Wouldn´t it be more sensible and responsible, to transition to the aimed-for equilibrium in multiple slow steps, for example: 5 steps of 7.5% each = 37.5%
Step1: Platform Rewards at 7.5% and Core Rewards at 92.5% (aiming for ~ 95 or 96 Platform Nodes)
And only after this objective has been reached, proceeding to:
Step2: Platform Rewards at 15% and Core Rewards at 85% (aiming for ~ 191 Platform Nodes)
And only after this objective has been reached, proceeding to:
Step3: Platform Rewards at 22.5% and Core Rewards at 77.5% (aiming for ~ 287 Platform Nodes)
And only after this objective has been reached, proceeding to:
Step4: Platform Rewards at 30% and Core Rewards at 70% (aiming for ~ 382 or 383 Platform Nodes)
And only after this objective has been reached, proceeding to:
Step5: Platform Rewards at 37.5% and Core Rewards at 62.5% (aiming for ~ 478 Platform Nodes)
This would at least assure all the MNOs that at no point in time, even if they decide just for the beginning (or are forced by lack of sufficient collateral<4,000) to keep their masternodes as 1K Core Nodes, they could never lose more than ~ 3.75% (half of 7.5%) of their income.
Keep in mind, that some MNOs who have enough collateral to start several 4K Platform Nodes,
could simply have not the time to setup new 4K Platform Nodes in the week(s) you plan this to happen. Some other MNOs who have enough collateral for 4K Platform Node(s), could simply still lack the technical ability and knowhow of how to setting-up 4K Platform Nodes correctly.
Others could lack a proper hosting solution, for which they need more time to find it.
I believe there are multiple reasons, why transitioning to equilibrium in slower steps could prevent a mess from happening.

The equilibrium is slightly lower than 478 because in our model running a HPMN costs 100$/month while we have running a standard MN at 25$/month and this affects the equilibrium a little.

Quorums for Platform would only start getting rewarded when at least 90 nodes had been set up.

During this initial period there are a few things to consider. Moving your collateral to a HPMN and running Platform is definitely more risky than just running Core. It's new, and new stuff has a higher chance of breaking. So I'm not so sure if you are right when you are saying they would make a killing in undeserved surplus rewards, there definitely is some risk-reward consideration to think about.

Also I'm not sure it would be a killing as you say.
I can only make educated guesses, but my experience would lead me to believe for the first two weeks HPMNs would be making 9% ROI, and standard Masternodes 5%. Let's think about what that's worth right now. 45000*0.02/24 = 37$ less for each standard Masternode, but Platform might be released probably a few days to a week sooner.

I am not against the slow ramp up solution at all though, it had already been brought up in DCG meetings and we are considering it. The reason we didn't come to a conclusion on this finer point yet is just an issue with work capacity - too many tasks/decisions on our hands, so we just put this one off till we were less busy.

There is another point that you didn't bring up, the fact that too many Masternodes might go down at once without the gradual ramp up, which could harm Instant Send Quorums. This is actually my biggest worry.

I will bring this up this week in a scheduled meeting and will respond in this thread with any updates.

Thank you for your positive participation as well. It is also very much appreciated that you ran some numbers for us already.

Your faqing estimations are based on my faqing work here:

https://mnowatch.org/Types/index.html?1=

But you didnt say a faqing word about mnowatch.org in your faqing faq, did you?

So faq you!

Chill out friend, and calm down!
I´m not happy with a couple of things either, but no reason to lose your mind over this proposal ;)

I am am a political animal, but by no means I am politicaly correct.

It's true, we used mnowatch for insight into MN whales. Your service to the network is amazing and I apologize for not giving it the proper attribution it deserves. How would you like this attribution be made?

He wants you to pay royalties by passing 1% of all HPMN rewards. Somehow I think you will not approve of this theft...

In that case, I accept your apology and I apologize for being rude. Rudness is part of my nature, from wich I cannot escape easily.

I don't care how you will mention mnowatch.org, just mention it in a tiny corner.

Also, if you dont mind, and in whatever tiny corner you decide to mention mnowatch.org, please mention the people behind it, xkcd and demo, at this order.

Gotcha.

Done

Thanks

Will do.

So you admit that if this proposal passes ,then A 50% ROBBERY WILL OCCUR AGAINST ALL THE MASTERNODES THAT HOLD LESS THAN 4k.

Democracy is not 3 wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for supper. If 3 wolves decide to eat the sheep, the sheep can at least negotiate for the wolves to eat three legs, and not all the four legs of the sheep.

The only solution in order to escape from the corrupted voting procedure DCG proposes, is to vote the numbers.

We can vote the numbers, quick and dirty, by using the 3base voting system. I hope a coalision of all the masternodes that own less than 4k will be formed, and demand to vote about the percentage of the robbery.

Consider supporting my proposal here and telling people about it: https://www.dashcentral.org/p/GOVERNANCE-EQUAL-OPERATIONS-PROPOSAL

It would be nice if you read the FAQ or the proposal text above instead of making bombastic statements.

"Would the 4k or 10k HPMN solutions lower standard Masternode rewards?

Standard Masternode rewards are expected to stay roughly the same: the rewards will be smaller each time, but will occur more often."

This is simple to understand, from Core's perspective in the 4k solution there will be 62.5% of the previous Masternode reward to pay out to only 62.5% of the previous amount of Masternodes. 0.625/0.625 = 1. Hence each standard Masternode will get about the same reward as they are getting right now after market equilibrium is reached.

In this proposal, the DashPlatform apparently plans to steal 50% of the masternode rewards. Nobody can deny that.

Even if you claim that the ROI for the 1k nodes is EXPECTED (but not guaranteed) to remain the same, even in that case this means that the Dash community will become richer due to the Platform, but the 1k masternodes will not benefit from this richness.

This is again against the interests of the 1k clan I belong to.

DCG should expect from the 1k clan not only empty words, but also actions. Actions that will affect you not only superficially, but also deeper than your skin is.

I honestly think you didn't read any of the proposal nor the FAQ.

An equilibrium exists between HPMNs and standard Masternodes, hence if HPMNs become very profitable because of platform this will increase the ROI of HPMNs, causing a higher pull towards HPMNs, which in turn causes standard Masternode ROI to go up.

This is a market based approach.

I believe that the DashPlatform should launch separately, without asking any portion from the masternodes' rewards. Or, if some 4k/10k masternodes really want the platform to launch, then let them pay by themselves the cost of the platform, without asking money from the rest (1k/4k/10k) masternodes who dont like the platform.

The DashPlatform devoured from the budget a huge amount of dash for its development. Now they want also to steal from the masternode rewards!!!!

Well, thats enough DashPlatform proponents!!!! You are an endless pit, a blind pork barrel!!!

The DashPlatform proponents should grow up, should try to live in the free market by their own value, and not be based on the value of others.

Not only the DashPlatform should launch standalone without asking a portion from the masternodes rewards, but also the DashPlatform should offer SHARES to the masternodes, so that in case the Dashplatform becomes profitable it will pay back the huge amount of money the masternodes gave for the development of the platform.

Indeed, theft is theft and I hope the SEC become aware of it one day as this creates an investment expectation, a security.

That DCG is the creator of such code and contract, and introducing hard forks to forcibly remove unwanted investors, and encourage new investors and having reasonable control of sporks to enable or disable features. So yes, DCGs role carries significant investor responsibility and should be very careful with the SEC.

You don't have a masternode right? You're just a delegate voter? I think you should be far more quiet than you have been. If you don't have 1000 Dash PERSONALLY held and invested as a masternode, you really don't deserve to have a voice amongst the rest of us. We who bought 1000 Dash and stuck with it through the various bear markets and bull markets because we believe in governance and paying the full nodes of the network. This is a place for us to congregate and mull the decisions of the network. Its not the place for someone without a masternode.

I am here and I talk in order to protect the interests of my delegator.

As a delegate, I belong to the 1K clan, so I will do everything I can to protect my clan from the awfull robery that is planned by DCG.

Talking is the minimum I can do, more actions will follow.

So you're a delegate for a 1K MNO? My apologies, I rescind my comments in regards to your right to participate. Please continue your contributions and disregard my previous warnings.

I am not a delegate. I am a delegator. I hold only 1 vote, and only 6 dash.

I wish I had more votes, even if this meant spending all my money.

I am a politcal animal, and a vote hunter.

Typo....I am a delegate, not a delegator.

But as a delegate, you represent the will of someone who holds 1000 Dash, correct?

No...I represent my will. The delegator gave me a white vote, so I can vote whatever I like, I can even vote against the will of my delegator.

"To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white vote, and on the vote a new name written, which no man knoweth save he that receiveth it."

That's really irrelevant to the question. The question is do you belong here. The answer appears to be yes, despite your bombastic and emotionally charged language.

One of the points that infamous infiltrator and bad-idea-suggestor GrandMasterDash responded with below is the idea that BTC has "(13?) 17,000 nodes with any treasury reward or masternode reward" thus the implication is that BTC is better than Dash. Aside from that not being a strong criticism (BTC is the first and oldest cryptocurrency, so its first-mover advantage alone should position it as superior to Dash. This is not a failing or mark against Dash), its actually not factually correct. Neither from GrandMasterDash's own analysis, nor from relevant factual analysis which I will present shortly below.

But first, GMD's comparison is flawed, because BTC has 13,000, 17,000, or whatever figure you want to use, nodes and Dash only has 3800 masternodes, but Dash's masternodes have a collateral requirement while BTC's nodes don't. They're free to create (though they still have costs to operate). Which means you can't compare the two. If BTC's nodes had a collateralization requirement like Dash's nodes do, then and only THEN could you compare the two. But in fact, BTC's nodes don't DO ANYTHING. In POW 1.0 coins, if your node isn't a mining node IT DOESN'T BENEFIT THE NETWORK AT ALL!

If you're just running a node to connect to the network, or connect your personal wallet, sorry but you're not doing anything for the network. You are only serving yourself (which in itself is fine, blockchains were created to serve this data). But Dash's nodes are completely different. Not only do they have a collateralization requirement, proving that investors WANT to run these nodes, instead of hobbyists and volunteers, but they also PROVIDE services that are impossible to provide otherwise. NO OTHER COIN has decentralized coinjoin on a bespoke network with redundancy of 3800 servers. BCH is STRUGGLING to get more than a single Cashfusion server (indeed they warn AGAINST multiple servers as it has costs that they don't want to/are unable to pay, which shows the fully paid node route is superior).

No other coin has monthly governance, instant transaction locking, decentralized but fully paid core and dev team, separate fully paid incubator teams etc. Why not? Because THEY CAN'T TRUST THEIR NODES TO DO ANY OF THESE THINGS! Because its trivial to spin up thousands of nodes, that 17,000 node figure for BTC is nothing but a PAPER TIGER.

Secondly and what's more, the real data that BTC's node count is inferior to Dash's and thus GMD's argument is PURE BULLSHIT, POPPYCOCK AND UNADULTERATED RUBBISH is some information that was recently released. It turns out that YOU CAN almost directly compare Dash nodes with BTC holders.

https://crypto.news/bitcoin-whales-going-extinct-addresses-with-at-least-1000-btc-at-3-year-low/

This article provides a chart with the historical and current number of addresses holding '1000 or more BTC". In other words, you can compare directly between the people who believe in BTC so much that they're willing to hold 1000 of them vs the number of people willing to do that for Dash, and guess what? The number of holders of 1000 Dash is GREATER than the number of holders of 1000 BTC! And it always has been (since masternodes were a thing). We used to have almost 5,000 masternodes, but over the path to platform we've whittled that number down to ~3800. How many people are holding 1000 BTC? **ONLY 2063!!** So, despite BTC's massive price advantage and first mover advantage, Dash holders are STILL MORE CONFIDENT (or incentivized) to hold MORE Dash than BTC, the largest cryptocurrency, holders are.

Which means that not only is GMD's fake argument based on bullshit numbers and bad comparisons, BUT THAT HE'S ACTUALLY COMPLETELY WRONG AND ADVOCATED THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF THE TRUTH. I've warned the network to watch out for people who argue the complete opposite of the truth several times before. Why? Because the complete opposite of the truth is THE STRONGEST ATTACK YOU CAN MAKE BY LYING. Which means that GMD's posts are not likely to be 'simple misunderstandings' or, 'simple mistaken but fervently-held beliefs'. They are likely to be deliberately constructed as an ATTACK WEAPON against our network to do the maximum damage possible by LYING. Which means that GMD is most likely an enemy, infiltrator and bad actor and nothing he says should be taken seriously at all.

In this comment I will not go over all these other distractions being made, but let's just quickly dispel these comparisons.

The source being pointed to is talking about ADDRESSES and not wallets / holders. Nor does it say the actual amounts above 1000 bitcoin in said addresses (only that it is 1000 or more). So, in the following you will see and verify the largest single address has approx. 250597 bitcoin. That alone is worth approx. 4.3 BILLION USD. Do tell us, how many masternodes would that buy? - wait, I'll use the calculator... 91871 masternodes.

https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html

https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/34xp4vRoCGJym3xR7yCVPFHoCNxv4Twseo

To be fair, the largest addresses are probably cold custodian wallets which were probably excluded by Glassnode. So let's just look at some of the others. Go to page 21 and look at the 2074th richest ADDRESS which holds exactly 1000 bitcoin valued at 17.3M USD. How many masternodes would that buy? - 366 masternodes. In fact, these stats just go on and on, take a look for yourself.

https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses-21.html

https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/3Jfy1UwUegtq1vXV9BphfhJuLw1NnpMJNy

So yes, you are being asked to believe...

"Dash holders are STILL MORE CONFIDENT (or incentivized) to hold MORE Dash than BTC, the largest cryptocurrency, holders are."

Disingenuous or outright fake news?

My question is, what tiny percentage of this wealth has bought dash masternodes, being they're incentivized and all that?

Side note. Some of these richest addresses also have unclaimed money from bitcoin forks such BCH and BSV.

>In this comment I will not go over all these other distractions being made

A common troll refrain used as a deflection when explaining why they won't answer the charges against them. Doing so is an implicit admission of retreat however so I welcome your cowardice here.

>The source being pointed to is talking about ADDRESSES and not wallets / holders

Straw man. Holding 1000 Dash takes place in an address and is not about "wallets and holders".


>. Nor does it say the actual amounts above 1000 bitcoin in said addresses (only that it is 1000 or more

It doesn't need to. The point is to give a baseline comparison. And besides what you say about BTC is true about Dash too. It's not like you're limited to only 1 1000 Dash address per holder or something so this too is a non response.

>So, in the following you will see and verify the largest single address has approx. 250597 bitcoin. That alone is worth approx. 4.3 BILLION

Again this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You are not limited in the amount of Dash you can hold. But this figure does show that the number of different addresses with 1000 Dash is higher than the number of addresses with 1000 BTC which indicates investor confidence in Dash over BTC. None of your response is a rebuttal to this fact.

>Do tell us, how many masternodes would that buy? - wait, I'll use the calculator... 91871 masternodes

No it wouldn't Einstein. Have you forgotten that Dash has a fixed supply?? With a floating supply of 12 million there can be AT MOST 12000 masternodes, and the price of Dash (and thus the value you're using in your dumb rebuttal) will skyrocket on the attempt as you're literally cornering the market.

That you couldn't see this in your hastily written reply indicates that you definitely are a troll. That my comparison triggered you so also indicates you have emotional ties to another community than Dash and should be kicked out of here.

> In fact, these stats just go on and on, take a look for yourself

None of what you're saying is a rebuttal to the point that there are more addresses with 1000 Dash than those with 1000 BTC and there has never been as many 1000 BTC holding addresses as Dash's ATH. Which means you lose.

>Disingenuous or outright fake news?

Your question you mean? I'd guess both knowing you.

>My question is, what tiny percentage of this wealth has bought dash masternodes, being they're incentivized and all that?

I don't know what this question is supposed to be asking.

The point is you are wrong and your fake node count for BTC is a garbage argument. You behave like a troll and an infiltrator and your hasty and inaccurate reply here indicates that my factual analysis triggered you, which shouldn't happen if you're on the side of the Dash community.

As you can see in Rion's superb video https://youtu.be/wqFdR5C15ns , if this proposal passes it will result the reduction of masternodes from 5000 to 2500.

What can an ordinary masternode do in order to prevent this catastrophic senario? The only way to stop the reduction of the number of the masternodes (if this proposal passes) is to change the hardcoded number of the 50% rewards that are allocated to the platform (a reward stolen from the masternodes's reward). But how can we change that number?

As always, the way to strike the stupid and the agents is to vote the numbers. And how can we vote the number in the current budget system?

Simple, you have to use the TERNARY or ΤRINARY or BASE3 NUMERAL system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_numeral_system

If you make the assumption that ABSTAIN VOTE=0, NO VOTE=1 and YES VOTE=2 , the you can vote from numbers 0-2.
if you cast TWO proposals (at the cost of 2 dash proposal fee) under the TERNARY system, you can vote numbers from 0-8
if you cast THREE proposals (at the cost of 3 dash proposal fee) under the TERNARY system, you can vote from 0-26.

So if you want to vote from 0% to 100%, you can divide 100/26=3.84 and thus if the average of the voting result of the budget vote is 1 then 3.84% is voted, if the average result of the budget vote is 10 then 38.4 is voted, if the average result of budget vote is 15 then 57.6% is voted e.t.c.

I have no incentives to propose such a system, because I am poor delegate voter holding 1 masternode vote, and also I hold only 6 dash in my wallet.

But if I were a masternode I would definitely ask a governance decision in order for this voting the numbers system to become legitimate.
Then I would cast a vote about the percentage of the masternode rewards that the platform system is planning to steal from the masternodes reward.

Of course by adding a fourth proposal (at the cost of 4 dash proposal fee) you can vote from 0-80 (base3 2222), by adding a fifth proposal (at the cost of 5 dash proposal fee) you can vote from 0-242 (base3 22222).

So you can increase your chunks and improve the granularity of your numerical vote.

Finally, you can also vote the numbers by using the BASE4 NUMERAL SYSTEM, if you make the assumption that the people who voted in at least one numeral proposal, declare a 0 vote to all the rest proposals that are associated to it. In that case with just two proposals (at the cost of 2 dash proposal fee), you can have 15-1=14 chunks (because the 00 vote is not a valid vote in that case).

People who vote YES for the 4K proposal.

https://mnowatch.org/latestlink_DashdUniqueHashVotes.html?3=EVO-DECISION-4K-HPMN

Approximately 32 people are proponents of the 4k solution, among them approximately 18 people own less than 3K. These 18 people that own less than 4k are voting for the reduction of their masternodes rewards!!!!

They are either stupid, or agents.

"Two things are infinite: The universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." -- Eisntein.

Furthermore, the decline of dash's price is proportional to the individuals that hold 1k masternodes. Have a look at mnowatch.org.

Back in 2018, when Dash was among the 10 greatest cryptos, the 1k masternodes were 158. https://mnowatch.org/distr_21-30-46-29-10-2018.txt

Now Dash is the 74th coin, and the 1k masternodes are only 36.
https://mnowatch.org/distr_2022-12-03-00-52-47.txt

The 4k and 10k masternodes should examine this statistic very seriously, before deciding to steal 50% of the rewards of the 1k masternodes. DCG claims that the ROI for the 1k nodes is calculated to remain the same, but even in that case this means that the Dash community will become richer due to the Platform, but the 1k masternodes will not benefit from this richness.

So, I am speaking to the 4k and 10k now.
Beware of what you vote, beware when you become harsh to the 1k masternodes, because this will turn into a boomerang against you.

Again you appear to not have a masternode and are only a delegate voter. As such, your commentary is really not welcome here. This is not a place for you. You would be better served posting on r/dashpay or the forum. This place is for MNOs to discuss the business of the network we're responsible for. Being a delegate voter means you have not made the same investment as us and thus your word shouldn't be given equal weight. This is how the network is designed to function, and attempting to get around that is inappropriate behavior.

I rescind this comment and apologize to itsdemo, I misunderstood what he meant when he referred to himself as a delegate voter. He is here representing a MNO with 1K Dash, as such my comment above is inappropriate and I repudiate, reject and deny it.

Yes, an MNO gave me his voting rights, and I am trying to protect his interests.

If the MNO thinks I am not protecting his right in a proper manner, he will remove my voting rights, and then I will stop talking here.

That's perfectly fine, that's how its supposed to work. Keep up the good service and thank you for your participation.

I want to say thank you to the Dash Core team for showing the network how a proper decision proposal is made. I say this because the MNOs are not really supposed to vote on parameters, technical specifications nor other network particulars. The 2MB vote was more a political stunt (with real-world benefits, though we still have not needed the extra blockspace, perhaps with platform we'll start to approach that region of transactionality).

Voting to "remove privatesend" for example is DEFINITELY not something that the masternodes were meant to undertake discussing. Decision proposals are serious matters only to be raised when the path forward is unclear to our paid research and technical experts (DCG and staff).

Then, they come to the investors of the network, the Masternode owners, to decide where the stakeholders with the most to lose wish to go after clearly, calmly and dispassionately laying out the options on the table. This is how it works in the real world, professionally and I'm thrilled to see this replicated here.

That said, I wanted to reinforce one thing mentioned in the proposal:

>It is also worth noting that even though this is the most decentralized solution that the HPMN solutions are at a level of decentralization that we believe to be very satisfactory, and at a much higher level of decentralization than almost all other blockchain projects.


The thing about decentralization is, the question becomes "How decentralized are we?" To answer that question we have to know what it means to be decentralized. What is decentralization? Split the word up:

de+ central+ized.

De = "Un, Not, Negative".
Central = "single and important, hub, nexus, core".
Ized = "past participle (adjective form) suffix that verbalizes nouns or adjectives with a meaning of "to make more (adjective, noun)"

So decentralization is the act of removing concept of having a CENTER from something. That means, the further away you get from this concept of "having a core, having a center", the more decentralized you become. You could even quantify this, a coefficient of decentralization if you will. If you have, e.g., a single person running a single node, you can say you have a coefficient of decentralization of 1.

This conception allows us to answer the question of "How decentralized are we?" So that we may be able to solve the question of "Are we centralized by relying on x number of nodes for platform?" The only way to answer that is to know what decentralization is and "how decentralized are we?" The coefficient of decentralization gives us our answer.

For example, if you have 1 person running 1 node, the coefficient of decentralization (CoD henceforth) is 1. Because you have a single server and a single person in charge of running that server between you and your network failing. As we MNOs know, if you don't update your server you get booted from the network, so both the server and the operator serve as a single point of failure, a CENTRALIZING POINT. However, if you have 2 people each running their own servers. Then you would have a CoD of 2. 2 potential points of failure, either the servers or their owners (for a total *decentralization* of 2 (nodes/operators) * 2 (CoD) = 4, where as with 1 server, 1 operator you have 1 (node) * 1 (operator) = decentralization of 1).

Utilizing this, we can derive a simple, crude yet effective comparator between various node architectures. Right now, we have ~3800 active nodes. This gives us a maximum CoD of 3800, assuming 1 operator, 1 node. We know this isn't the case, however, so this is a best case. For example, if you have 1 operator with 100 nodes, then you have a CoD of 2. Because that operator is responsible for all 100 of those nodes, so its possible they all go down if he fails in some way. Which makes him a central point of failure, despite having 100 nodes. But 100 operators with 100 nodes would have a CoD of 100, which is 50 times greater than 2. But 2 is 2 times bigger than 1, so having 1 guy with 100 nodes is better than 1 guy with 1 node (but not much).

Ok all that to say, as long as the HVMN solutions produce a CoD of 100 or greater, they should be perfectly decentralized. Now you can answer the question, "How decentralized is that?" Its 100 times as decentralized as a single node, single operator system. Which is basically what *ALL THE ARCHITECTURES IN THE WORLD currently rely on!* Facebook, Amazon, etc are basically systems with CoD as low as 2-5 and barely any that're higher than 10. So having this crude metric allows us to put the various solutions into perspective as it relates to how decentralized are they. It could even help us choose between the 10k and 4k solutions (though it seems like the network has already fixated on the 4k).

However, answering this question IS IMPORTANT as its quite possible that Dash whales could centralize their ownership over HVMN and thus lower the CoD of the platform chain, which would obviously be bad for the network as a whole.

I decided to vote no on this decision proposal due to worries about Platform network centralization and Platform censorship.

can you elaborate on the censorship threat as you see it? I am having trouble estimating the risk.

The whole analysis for this proposal is based on the individualities that have been discovered in https://mnowatch.org/Types/index.html?1=

Do you trust mnowatch reasearch? If you do trust it, then the simpliest solution will be to allow every discovered individuality of mnowatch to maintain only ONE DashPlatform database.

That way the databases' replication is reduced, and the transaction fee is also reduced. This will result for Dash platform to have approximately 133 DashPlatform databases, a similar number to the 100 databases that the "High performance masternode solution" is planning to have.

But the 100 databases of the "High performance masternode solution" are not similarly decentralized as the 133 databases of the mnowatch individualities . Because if we allow each individuality of mnowatch to maintain one platform node, the decentralization is achieved due the separate individuals that are holding these databases. Decentralization based on proved individuals is a real decentralization, in contrast to the fake decentralization based on collateral masternode addresses.

ALL THE CURRENT EVO PROPOSALS ASSUME THAT THE BIGGEST WHALE IS A 270 WHALE DISCOVERED BY MNOWATCH. AND WHAT IF THERE IS A BIGGER WHALE THAT WE (THE MNOWATCH ADMINS) DIDNT YET SUCCEED TO DISCOVER? We have not yet discover the BIG whale that may or may not exist. But we did discovered the small individualities. So we have better be based on what we have already discovered, rather on what he have not discovered yet.

When I say "High performance masternode solution" above, I mean the 10k solution.

It's true, you've been saying this for a long time.

DCG should of been working on alternatives to InstantSend, CoinJoin and voting in order to de-collateralize the entire network. Solutions for these already exist. Now, according to Sam, dash is in a pathetic position of pushing for higher collateral in the name of "security" and "decentralization". Truly pathetic and I will not be taking part in it.

I will not apply upgrades that enable this shit and I will no longer refer to dash in "we" terms because in the entire 7+ years I have been with dash, this is the shittiest outcome I could think of. If our users wanted Solana, they would of bought Solana.

If anyone wants to fork dash with a view to de-collateralization then I am listening. DCG should be the one's forking, creating their own brand and starting from scratch building a customer base. But no, they lied by omission (or complete incompetence) and spread fear of security and centralization. They will steal the dash brand and all it's users, and they will make "digital cash" a secondary thought.

Disappointed does not fully express how I feel about this.

There is still hope to avoid the catastroph, if this proposal passes. Voting the numbers by using the trinary system. Read my comment above.

To the people who are voting yes to this but not the 10K proposal, could you explain to me why you chose this? Personally the economic estimations as well as the fee structure of the 10K proposal seem most advantageous to all parties.

Creating a contact costing more than a cent is , to me, a problem. What advantage does 4k have over 10k?

I agree, the 10k version will provide the best decentralisation since no one entity will ever be able to control a quorum and the ROI for the 1k nodes will increase due to the much shorter payment cycles.

Voting is free. Someone can vote whatever he/she wants, without any concequences.

Only when a bad vote (can proved bad in the future by judging the results of a decision) will cost the reduction of the voting power, people will start voting seriously.

Someone may argue that it would be nicer to reward the good voters rather than punish the bad voters. This is a wrong decision, because the bad decisions are countless, while the good decisions are limited. So if you incentivize the good voters and not punish the bad ones then the bad voters, having no immediate cost when deciding unlimited bad decisions, they will sank the ship.

'Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.' -- Einstein

Will this version of dash platform be censorship resistant?

For those wondering : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/dash-nor-any-of-its-subcomponents-can-allow-censorship-of-any-kind.53410/#post-232866

This certainly comes across as a form of censorship for Dash Platform, which can be easily applied by a handfull of whales (5 / 7) in a 10K HPM or 4K HPM solution.

Why does the poll option for the 1k masternodes say that they MUST run the platform, while the 4k/10k HPMN poll option doesn't imply a mandatory action? Where is the MUST for the 4k/10k?

How can we compare something obligatory to something that it is opt-in? Can we compare apples to apricots?

There is an extensive FAQ that explains why optional 1K solutions all have issues. Since they all had major issues DCG could not propose them.

**Why are collaterals higher than 1K necessary?**

Increasing the collateral for Platform nodes is necessary so that an equilibrium between Platform and Core node yields can be achieved while also creating market incentives for a lower number of Platform nodes without setting a hard cap. It also makes it more difficult for individual entities to gain control of enough nodes to cause harm to the network or significantly centralize block validation.

As Masternodes seeking to run Platform must also provide Core services it makes the most sense to keep rewarding them for doing so. See next questions for more information on why 1k collaterals are not DCG-proposed solutions.

**Would it be possible to reward Platform nodes for Core services and keep collateral at 1K Dash while maintaining ROI parity between Core Masternodes and Platform+Core Masternodes?**

No, it’s not possible to do this while also maintaining parity. Let’s imagine 50% of rewards are sent to Platform in this scenario. In this case, a node running Platform+Core would receive on average twice that of what a node just running Core would.

**Would it be possible to reward Platform nodes for Core services and keep collateral at 1K Dash without maintaining ROI parity between Core Masternodes and Platform+Core Masternodes?**

There have been solutions proposed that give only 20% of rewards to Platform, however this solution is plagued by the same issue where a Masternode running Core would just receive 20% less than a Masternode running Platform + Core. In such a scenario we would be left with an insecure system in the case if few masternodes chose to run Platform. The market equilibrium in this solution happens when close to all nodes run Platform, as they would always receive more revenue by doing so. If we assume this to be the case this solution would require really high user fees to offset high network hardware costs, coupled with a reduction of ROI for Masternode Owners.

**Would it be possible to not reward Platform nodes for Core services and keep collateral at 1K Dash for running Platform?**

Yes, this is possible. However, there are a few major downsides. First, to reach the same level of security on Platform as the 4K HPMN solution against participants shutting down the service, there would need to be approximately 2100 Platform nodes with 1K collateral. Second, there would be significantly fewer nodes participating in Core-servicing quorums. InstantSend performance is optimal when the node count is over 1920; in this scenario, we would only have around 1700.

**Would it be possible to reward Platform nodes for Core services but not directly through Core Masternode payments and keep collateral at 1K Dash for running Platform?**

Yes, this is possible and is most likely the best solution that can keep a 1K collateral. DCG however does not recommend it as there are still major downsides and it would introduce a delay for release of Platform.

The first is that work being done on the Core payment chain would not be rewarded on that Chain. DCG would need to develop a more complicated mechanism in order to prove on the Platform chain that Masternodes are properly servicing the Core chain. Then we would need to implement a different proposer selection mechanism that ignores specific nodes not servicing the Core chain. A quick estimate would be that this extra effort would take 1-2 months.

The second downside is that this system only becomes secure with about 2100 Platform nodes. This would significantly lower the ROI for the network (including for normal MNs). At the same time user fees would be significantly higher than the HPMN solutions.

**Why not just put a ‘hard’ maximum on the number of nodes and leave the collateral at 1k?**

Setting a hard cap on the number of Masternodes running Platform would disallow some MNOs to run a Platform node even if they wanted to. Furthermore such a solution would likely threaten the stability of Platform by introducing a point of unsafe centralization.

Currently, the biggest whale is estimated to own about 270 masternodes. Say we set the hard cap to 1000 total Platform nodes. There would be a 6.35% chance that this owner alone could shut down a validator set each time a new set is chosen by taking their participating nodes offline, therefore halting the chain. There would be a 79.29% chance of them having the opportunity to do so each day with 24 quorums a day.

We would need to set the hard cap to at least 2100 in order to achieve a similar level of security in this regard as the 4k HPMN solution.

"""***Would it be possible to reward Platform nodes for Core services but not directly through Core Masternode payments and keep collateral at 1K Dash for running Platform?***"""
"""Yes, this is possible and is most likely the best solution that can keep a 1K collateral. DCG however does not recommend it as there are still major downsides and it would introduce a delay for release of Platform."""
"""The first is that work being done on the Core payment chain would not be rewarded on that Chain. DCG would need to develop a more complicated mechanism in order to prove on the Platform chain that Masternodes are properly servicing the Core chain. Then we would need to implement a different proposer selection mechanism that ignores specific nodes not servicing the Core chain. A quick estimate would be that this extra effort would take 1-2 months."""

MY ANSWER:-->The platform delayed 7 years. So 1-2 months more delay is not a big deal!!!!!

"""The second downside is that this system only becomes secure with about 2100 Platform nodes. This would significantly lower the ROI for the network (including for normal MNs). At the same time user fees would be significantly higher than the HPMN solutions."""

MY ANSWER:-->If platform is something worthy , 2100 nodes or even more will be found. If it is something useless, nobody will care installing a node. You dont seem to like the free market competition, and you want to rely on already established structures, dont you? Your core idea is similar to the idea of organizations that cannot stand by themselves in the free market but they require to be feeded by a state.

My point is that the masternodes network should hold shares from a (tottaly separated) platform network, and get share benefits in case the platform network becomes profitable. But the core masternode network should not be exposed to any danger that is inherited by the platform, either this danger being a network stability danger or a censorship danger.
Platform should launch alone, in a free market enviroment, while the masternodes should hold some shares from every platform node.

To be fair, aside from yield, all the Platform node options have issues, ignoring the social aspect of creating a separate (more highly collateralized) class of nodes is something that DCG chose to ignore.

You do not have a masternode and as such should not be commenting here. It is completely inappropriate and disrespectful to the DAO for you to comment here among MNOs who risked their 1000 Dash investment to be here.

Public pre-discussion of this polling proposal mostly took place here :

https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/should-platform-run-on-all-nodes-or-should-platform-run-only-on-high-performance-nodes.53374/#post-232053

The things that bother me the most with this group of Platform developers / CTO of DCG :

* Considerable U-turn on DCG's own Dash Platform Vision, which was communicated to the Dash Community as recently as Feb 2022 (see : https://imgur.com/2QfvXAN)
(at this point i wonder if most Platform developers actually read DCG's own Dash Platform Vision)
* Disregard by most Platform developers for keeping Dash Platform decentralized
* Abandonment of the 10% treshold / 10% supermajority in Dash Governance and the constant denying of the CTO of DCG that the 10% treshold was ever applied in Governance proposals, even after getting confronted with proof on dash.org/forum that decision proposals in the past did adhere to the 10% treshold.

See : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/should-platform-run-on-all-nodes-or-should-platform-run-only-on-high-performance-nodes.53374/page-22#post-232922

* Disregard for keeping the Platform network free from censorship. The posts from Sam on dash.org/forum on how they plan to deal with Platform content storage in the future, were really revealing with regards to censorship
* Complete dismissal for a independent third party security audit of Dash Platform, because CTO of DCG basically don't want to waste time and money (its about 120K USD, which DCG could have been requested in a multi-month budget proposal ages ago)

Consider supporting my proposal here and telling people about it: https://www.dashcentral.org/p/GOVERNANCE-EQUAL-OPERATIONS-PROPOSAL

Thank you, I'm starting to see this as an attack attempt similar to the blocksize cap/segwit attack done to BTC.

The things that bother me the most with the 4K HPM and 10K HPM decision proposals :

* There is just so much incentive for masternode owners with 4.000 dash or 10.000 dash to vote yes on DCG HPM's decision proposals. An incentive not directly aligned to the best interest of the network itself.

Benefits for current Masternode Whales :

* They can now concentrate their masternodes in a few setups over a few servers
* Less maintenance and upkeep required
* Elite status among masternodes, basically they become super masternodes with possible future Platform voting power
* Receiving of Platform rewards, when voting for the DCG HPM decision proposal (attractive incentive for those masternode whales)
* Less hosting fee for their rented VPS servers, depending on either the 4k HPM or 8K HPM (each has their own hardware requirements and therefore each has their own impact on the hosting fees)

Risks to the network

* Much more centralization of the Dash network & Dash Platform
* Less security either through the code itself compromising on security or through getting more vulnerable to possible DDoS attacks, because the masternodes get split in two groups (with the HPM's group being significantly smaller and far more easy to DDoS attack)
* Possible increased sell pressure from masternode owners, that do not want Dash to get so centralized
* Some really vague game theory that somehow would drive normal masternodes to run as Platform nodes (without getting Platform rewards !!) not working at all and causing the exact opposite effect (keeping the HPM group small)
* Direct undermining of our future Dash marketing efforts, where every Dash marketing move could simply be counter moved, by pointing to Dash centralization. Dash already had some centralization accussations in the past with regards to its masternode network, a centralized Dash Platform with just 100-300 Platform nodes will increase those accussations significantly
* Further delay of development and impacting the speed of future releases, due to more changes / coding required than orginally foreseen

Personally i would have no problem setting up a Platform node and actually receive those Platform rewards (at least with the 4K solution), but it would totally violate everything i believe in with regards to decentralization and i also think it will bring a high level of unrest to the Dash community.

> Much more centralization of the Dash network & Dash Platform

I don't think this is accurate. See my comment above about the CoD (coefficient of decentralization). There, I use it to quantify the level of decentralization necessary to preserve the goals of Satoshi in not having centralized entities issuing the currency everyone uses.

According to the FAQ provided by DCG, the 4k HVMN solution would result in a max CoD of around 460, which is 460x the amount of decentralization present in a single entity, single node scenario, and quite well decentralized. Even with the 10k solution, the CoD would be 180 which is well more than most cryptocurrencies can say, especially at that investment price point (most crypto networks run volunteer nodes with no reward, so no reason for investment and no capital in their node infrastructure, unlike Dash). So you're wrong, neither of the HVMN solutions are projected to significantly centralize platform (as the effect of a CoD of 1000 is not much better than one of 400, or 180. All three are extremely difficult to successfully attack, especially for centralized entities).

> Less security either through the code itself compromising on security or through getting more vulnerable to possible DDoS attacks, because the masternodes get split in two groups (with the HPM's group being significantly smaller and far more easy to DDoS attack)

Preposterous/FUD. The security will be much higher. The greater cost allows for much better and more securable hardware to be run on the network. That means our security and resilience to DDOS will go up, not down. Its the same with MNs versus regular volunteer nodes. Much easier to DDOS and take down someone's home laptop than a dedicated VPS, its the same concept here.

>Possible increased sell pressure from masternode owners, that do not want Dash to get so centralized

As I just pointed out this is fud. Even in the most centralized case, the CoD will still be as high as 180, which is extremely high and very decentralized. Something that's centralized has a CoD of *1!* The 10K HVMN solution is 180 TIMES more decentralized than that. A CoD of one is like a single company running a single game server. Something 180 times as decentralized as that is very decentralized and hard to attack so your supposition must be wrong/fud here.

>... by pointing to Dash centralization.

Its not centralized so this couldn't happen. You are wrong in your assumptions about centralization. The CoD of the 10K HVMN solution is still 180 at max and thus far more decentralized than most cryptocurrency networks to date, which are the pinnacle of decentralized systems. You're wrong.

>a centralized Dash Platform with just 100-300 Platform nodes will increase those accussations significantly

Not for people who know what they're talking about, which we should be. 300 nodes is sufficiently decentralized. The 4K HVMN solution has 460 nodes or a max CoD of 460, which is more than 2x as decentralized as the 10K HVMN solution.

>Further delay of development and impacting the speed of future releases, due to more changes / coding required than orginally foreseen

This is provably FUD as DCG has officially estimated that no more than a few hours of coding is required to implement either HVMN solution. FUD.

>but it would totally violate everything i believe in with regards to decentralization

Only because you're ignorant about what decentralization is, how its defined and how it should be measured. Which causes you to draw incorrect and irrational conclusions based on speculation and lack of data.

>and i also think it will bring a high level of unrest to the Dash community.

Further disagreed. The MNOs appear to be coalescing around a 4K HVMN solution, which means this consensus change will likely pass smoothly and without event. Like all the other consensus changes in our network.

Please note, the Proposal Owner is declaring these three proposals a "poll". As such, none of these carry weight and they do not in any way represent consent to make substantial changes to the network topology, consensus and tokenomics without first acquiring super majority. You are, therefore, directed to vote No on all three proposals until the Proposal Owner submits a valid proposal.

As written in the FAQ:

The network has clear rules written into code both for funding decisions and protocol upgrades. This is a protocol upgrade hence it follows the rules for protocol upgrades. The +10% supermajority that you might think is the required threshold is only required for funding decisions.

For protocol upgrades at the beginning of Dash we used BIP9 consensus mechanisms, now Dash uses the https://github.com/dashpay/dips/blob/master/dip-0023.md mechanism giving more power to Masternode owners. This is the consensus mechanism we currently use on the network.

DCG will write software that has the best chance of being activated by the network as directed by this poll. We must do this because we need to make a decision. Not making a decision means that we stall the project.

To MNO's : previous major decission proposal from DCG was about extending Dash budget from 10% to 20% (Nov 2020) and was constructed in two phases :

Phase 1 : polling phase of the two polling proposals (MNO-Plan and DCG-Plan) to see which one got the most yes votes
Phase 2 : decision phase of the proposal with most yes votes, with explicit condition that it needed to pass the 10% treshold.

Both decision proposals were put on the network by the Dash Trust Protectors, who submitted these two decision proposals on behalf of DCG (DCG plan) and a group of masternode owners (MNO plan), DTP acted as a neutral third party here.

Phase 1 :

https://www.dashcentral.org/p/decision-vote-improve-proposal-system-dc
https://www.dashcentral.org/p/decision-vote-improve-proposal-system-mn

Phase 2 :

www.dashninja.pl/proposaldetails.html?proposalhash=d41000486d6da24dd1e339e8340b24d52131ea6212f09de81e97f00c4d582318

''In Phase 1 (this phase, this month) you are asked to vote for which option you prefer. Regardless of degree, the option with the most net (yes minus no) votes will proceed to the next phase (next month). DCG will implement the Phase 2 upgrade option if it exceeds the normal 10% net vote criterion in Phase 2. In the unlikely event the higher ranked proposal exceeds the 10% net yes votes during Phase 1, Phase 2 would not be necessary.''

So there is a history of DCG abiding by the 10% supermajority, in order to achieve broad consensus on important topics for MNO's to vote on.

It is strange to see DCG now suddenly abandoning the 10% supermajority, due to this CTO of DCG having a different opinion on how Dash Governance should or should not work.

I think with DCG abandoning the 10% supermajority, it is a signal that these three decision proposals are in fact very poor solutions on how to start Dash Platform. And the fact we only get these three decision proposals from DCG, tells me that Platform developers did not think through on how to start Dash Platform at all. Instead they ignored to deal with the start solutions, to the very last moment.

It is a sad day when MNO's can only vote on DCG decision proposals that either severly centralize and most likely censorship the Dash Platform network or vote on a decision proposal where Platform developers never addressed its safety issues, never disclosed those safety issues to the Dash community, never mentioned them in any previous presentation.

Why should MNO's even care about safety issues, when Platform developers ignored those safety issues for so long ?

That previous proposal was made by a different leadership. None of the current leadership of DCG was a part of it.

The code has rules for protocol upgrades. They went with a different threshold than the rules the code requires. That was their prerogative. I am going to guess that this was because they were less technical than the current leadership or maybe they just wanted a higher bar.

This proposal is going with the rules written in the code. This is not a reinterpretation as you say.

Sounds like a hostile takeover to me.

So each time DCG has different leadership, MNO's can expect a different view from DCG on how Dash Governance works ? Well, that is just great.

Perhaps you just aren't "technical" enough to understand it? /S

False. You have submitted a proposal seeking 1 dash funding. To receive funding and commence with the work you propose, you MUST acquire super majority. All successfully funded proposals have met this standard, you do not get special treatment.

There is no Dash gained. If this proposal were to pass, the 1 Dash would just offset the cost of making the proposal.

This proposal clearly states you are requesting one dash. What you choose to do with it is up to you. Proposals are not free. There is no code or entitlement to receive a refund.

If you win by super majority, the DAO will automatically issue the funding you seek for the work you propose.

Sorry, but I do not read hardly any of the comments here or on the forum because it's all TLDR and I don't like to read.

Please come join the "Afterparty" discussion (every Friday afternoon) to talk about the HPMN proposals and more. Talking is a lot more efficient than writing and reading.