Author Topic: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)  (Read 154790 times)

Strumpet!

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
    • View Profile
Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« Reply #330 on: February 13, 2015, 08:15:47 pm »
You are getting exactly what you wanted, although the process is slower than anticipated. I told you, there are never going to be any 100 SPR MNs on mainnet. There are very quickly going to be 1440 @ at least 1000 SPR each.

Bullfrog.

I didn't want high amount MNs to be preferred by the system when it comes to the ability of giving and taking votes.
I don't even know why Mr. Spread decided to use a formula that treats them better than the rest.

WTF?

We are not going to have competition this way.

They are better than the rest. A high collateral makes it economically much harder to attack the network.

That's completely false and upside down!

The higher amount inside your MN doesn't make it "better". It just makes it saver from being kicked out of the list.
What makes your MN "better" should be based on the votes it receives.

LOL!

 8)

How come we planned to create a system that enables competition but ended up with a system that disables competition?

As I stated repeatedly on BCT, the only competition here is who has the most SPR. Which from the POV of economic security is just fine until it inevitably leads to all the MNs being in the hands of the richest few.

What else are MNs going to 'compete' on? It's impossible to reliably quantify a node's reliability/uptime/bandwidth/CPU or other resources, or the panache of it's operator in realtime or close enough to realtime to be useful.

georgem

  • Tech Admin
  • ******
  • Posts: 956
    • View Profile
Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« Reply #331 on: February 13, 2015, 08:19:48 pm »
As I stated repeatedly on BCT, the only competition here is who has the most SPR. Which from the POV of economic security is just fine until it inevitably leads to all the MNs being in the hands of the richest few.

What else are MNs going to 'compete' on? It's impossible to reliably quantify a node's reliability/uptime/bandwidth/CPU or other resources, or the panache of it's operator in realtime or close enough to realtime to be useful.

Then you completely misunderstood what spreadcoin has planned, and how the competitive MN race was supposed to work.

The competition isn't simply driving the prices up. (because people will want to secure their seat)
It also drives the prices down, because the more MNs you get to succesfully operate and elect, the more profit you are going to make.


Strumpet!

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
    • View Profile
Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« Reply #332 on: February 13, 2015, 08:23:41 pm »
As I stated repeatedly on BCT, the only competition here is who has the most SPR. Which from the POV of economic security is just fine until it inevitably leads to all the MNs being in the hands of the richest few.

What else are MNs going to 'compete' on? It's impossible to reliably quantify a node's reliability/uptime/bandwidth/CPU or other resources, or the panache of it's operator in realtime or close enough to realtime to be useful.

Then you completely misunderstood what spreadcoin has planned, and how the competitive MN race was supposed to work.

It is working exactly as planned. I just think it's a daft plan and testnet has proved my models right.

Having a fixed 1000 SPR collateral and no arbitrary and pointless 1440 MN limit makes more sense on all levels, and ensures someone richer than you can't come along and kick you out of your paycheck.

Free market competition is alive and well - those smart enough to acquire 1000 SPR will do so, and benefit.

georgem

  • Tech Admin
  • ******
  • Posts: 956
    • View Profile
Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« Reply #333 on: February 13, 2015, 08:28:06 pm »
As I stated repeatedly on BCT, the only competition here is who has the most SPR. Which from the POV of economic security is just fine until it inevitably leads to all the MNs being in the hands of the richest few.

What else are MNs going to 'compete' on? It's impossible to reliably quantify a node's reliability/uptime/bandwidth/CPU or other resources, or the panache of it's operator in realtime or close enough to realtime to be useful.

Then you completely misunderstood what spreadcoin has planned, and how the competitive MN race was supposed to work.

It is working exactly as planned. I just think it's a daft plan and testnet has proved my models right.

Having a fixed 1000 SPR collateral and no arbitrary and pointless 1440 MN limit makes more sense on all levels, and ensures someone richer than you can't come along and kick you out of your paycheck.

Free market competition is alive and well - those smart enough to acquire 1000 SPR will do so, and benefit.

I suspected something like that.  8)
That some people are just here to see this project fail and say: see how daft all that is?  ::)

The only reason it looks daft now, is because the parameters and the implemention is wrong. Mr. Spread has said so himself. This is simply test round 2, and already it gives us so many suggestions how we can improve it and correct its flaws.

So don't worry, this can and will be fixed.

Strumpet!

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
    • View Profile
Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« Reply #334 on: February 13, 2015, 08:28:20 pm »
Also, to make my position clear on the 1440 MN limit: it is utterly stupid. Darkcoin works fine on 2000+ Masternodes - why, with cleaner code and less overhead, are we limiting ourselves to 1440 MNs?

It's ridiculous, it has no rational basis.

Wolf0

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« Reply #335 on: February 13, 2015, 08:28:55 pm »
As I stated repeatedly on BCT, the only competition here is who has the most SPR. Which from the POV of economic security is just fine until it inevitably leads to all the MNs being in the hands of the richest few.

What else are MNs going to 'compete' on? It's impossible to reliably quantify a node's reliability/uptime/bandwidth/CPU or other resources, or the panache of it's operator in realtime or close enough to realtime to be useful.

Then you completely misunderstood what spreadcoin has planned, and how the competitive MN race was supposed to work.

It is working exactly as planned. I just think it's a daft plan and testnet has proved my models right.

Having a fixed 1000 SPR collateral and no arbitrary and pointless 1440 MN limit makes more sense on all levels, and ensures someone richer than you can't come along and kick you out of your paycheck.

Free market competition is alive and well - those smart enough to acquire 1000 SPR will do so, and benefit.

He's talking sense.

georgem

  • Tech Admin
  • ******
  • Posts: 956
    • View Profile
Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« Reply #336 on: February 13, 2015, 08:31:52 pm »
Also, to make my position clear on the 1440 MN limit: it is utterly stupid. Darkcoin works fine on 2000+ Masternodes - why, with cleaner code and less overhead, are we limiting ourselves to 1440 MNs?

It's ridiculous, it has no rational basis.

This is also something that could be loosened up over time.

I have advocated since the beginning that I would love to see a dynamic increase of the max amount of MNs.

My formula is based on max amount of mns = (Available coins) / 1000

Strumpet!

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
    • View Profile
Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« Reply #337 on: February 13, 2015, 08:35:46 pm »
Also, to make my position clear on the 1440 MN limit: it is utterly stupid. Darkcoin works fine on 2000+ Masternodes - why, with cleaner code and less overhead, are we limiting ourselves to 1440 MNs?

It's ridiculous, it has no rational basis.

This is also something that could be loosened up over time.

I have advocated since the beginning that I would love to see a dynamic increase of the max amount of MNs.

My formula is based on max amount of mns = (Available coins) / 1000

Why impose an arbitrary limit at all? Any limit should be based on hard technical limitations. For someone who goes on about freedoms you sure seem to like pointless rules.

georgem

  • Tech Admin
  • ******
  • Posts: 956
    • View Profile
Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« Reply #338 on: February 13, 2015, 08:40:29 pm »
Also, to make my position clear on the 1440 MN limit: it is utterly stupid. Darkcoin works fine on 2000+ Masternodes - why, with cleaner code and less overhead, are we limiting ourselves to 1440 MNs?

It's ridiculous, it has no rational basis.

This is also something that could be loosened up over time.

I have advocated since the beginning that I would love to see a dynamic increase of the max amount of MNs.

My formula is based on max amount of mns = (Available coins) / 1000

Why impose an arbitrary limit at all? Any limit should be based on hard technical limitations. For someone who goes on about freedoms you sure seem to like pointless rules.

What you just said sounded like:
"Why does bitcoin have an arbitrary limit of 21 million coins, hm? Care to explain that?
For bitcoin that goes on and on about freedoms all the time, this seems like a pointless rule, right?"

  ::)

LOL.

Scarcity enables competition.

I love freedom, but I am not a socialist (socialists have a problem with scarcity, they want everything to be free, without realizing the cost it has on society. I know that there is no free lunch.)
I understand that scarcity enables competition.

We will make it work.

I suspect you don't know anything about free markets, competition and how decentralization works.
But that's ok, because you can have darkcoin.

georgem

  • Tech Admin
  • ******
  • Posts: 956
    • View Profile
Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« Reply #339 on: February 13, 2015, 08:46:47 pm »
Also, to make my position clear on the 1440 MN limit: it is utterly stupid. Darkcoin works fine on 2000+ Masternodes - why, with cleaner code and less overhead, are we limiting ourselves to 1440 MNs?

It's ridiculous, it has no rational basis.

This is also something that could be loosened up over time.

I have advocated since the beginning that I would love to see a dynamic increase of the max amount of MNs.

My formula is based on max amount of mns = (Available coins) / 1000

We need artificial scarcity.
But we don't know if 1440 is the best number.

I think it would be best, if we let this number slowly increase over the years.
But it will still be limited. If it is based on (Total coins)/1000 then it will never be higher than 21k max nodes, and it will take us 100 years to get there.

Sounds reasonable...

georgem

  • Tech Admin
  • ******
  • Posts: 956
    • View Profile
Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« Reply #340 on: February 13, 2015, 09:01:32 pm »
It is working exactly as planned. I just think it's a daft plan and testnet has proved my models right.

Only if your plan was to see spreadcoin fail!

At any rate, I think this test round 2 has been extremely revealing so far.

Not only what concerns the inner workings of spreadcoin (and how it can be improved), but also the inner workings of our community.

MyFarm

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 259
    • View Profile
Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« Reply #341 on: February 13, 2015, 09:11:58 pm »
It is working exactly as planned. I just think it's a daft plan and testnet has proved my models right.

Only if your plan was to see spreadcoin fail!

At any rate, I think this test round 2 has been extremely revealing so far.

Not only what concerns the inner workings of spreadcoin (and how it can be improved), but also the inner workings of our community.

Strumpet has been a huge supporter of SPR for a long time.  His plan is not to see it fail.

georgem

  • Tech Admin
  • ******
  • Posts: 956
    • View Profile
Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« Reply #342 on: February 13, 2015, 09:13:02 pm »
It is working exactly as planned. I just think it's a daft plan and testnet has proved my models right.

Only if your plan was to see spreadcoin fail!

At any rate, I think this test round 2 has been extremely revealing so far.

Not only what concerns the inner workings of spreadcoin (and how it can be improved), but also the inner workings of our community.

Strumpet has been a huge supporter of SPR for a long time.  His plan is not to see it fail.

I think he can speak for himself?

Wolf0

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« Reply #343 on: February 13, 2015, 09:19:59 pm »
It is working exactly as planned. I just think it's a daft plan and testnet has proved my models right.

Only if your plan was to see spreadcoin fail!

At any rate, I think this test round 2 has been extremely revealing so far.

Not only what concerns the inner workings of spreadcoin (and how it can be improved), but also the inner workings of our community.

Strumpet has been a huge supporter of SPR for a long time.  His plan is not to see it fail.

I think he can speak for himself?

I think you're getting way too aggressive.

georgem

  • Tech Admin
  • ******
  • Posts: 956
    • View Profile
Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« Reply #344 on: February 13, 2015, 09:22:48 pm »
It is working exactly as planned. I just think it's a daft plan and testnet has proved my models right.

Only if your plan was to see spreadcoin fail!

At any rate, I think this test round 2 has been extremely revealing so far.

Not only what concerns the inner workings of spreadcoin (and how it can be improved), but also the inner workings of our community.

Strumpet has been a huge supporter of SPR for a long time.  His plan is not to see it fail.

I think he can speak for himself?

I think you're getting way too aggressive.

You are reading that wrong.