• Forum has been upgraded, all links, images, etc are as they were. Please see Official Announcements for more information

Dash scalability

Comodore

Comodore

Active member
Hello,
I want to ask about scalability in future and strategy to solve it.
Bitcoin is very strong and can provide storage for about 200K ts/day.
Yet, it can't scale over, because there are centralization fears.

How could dash store more transactions? Are there gona be third tier BIG BLOCK NODES with incentives?

I want to know how could this be solved in future and whether dash can beat SWIFT and other systems and how?
 
Scalability imo needs to be a number one priority. How would DASH behave if its block height and volume equaled that of Bitcoin? What if it were to take on hundreds or thousands of tx per second? Yes, full nodes are incentivized and 0-conf txs are a thing, but does this truly resolve the core issue that is bringing Bitcoin down, especially with the added bloat introduced by coin mixing? I would be interested in some real research into this
 
With Dash Evolution the network will be able to handle more tx per second than Visa. This is possible because the masternode network will provide terabytes of storage. It's always worth to have a look into the new whitepapers: https://www.dash.org/binaries/evo/DashPaper-v13-v1.pdf

Dash%20Evolution.png
 
So is the theory that the marginal incentive for operating masternodes will indefinitely be ahead of the cost required to support the network? The relationship between the number of masternodes, the cost of running a masternode, and the DASH price is very important. And, are we going to bet everything on the masternode incentives, or are there other ways to reduce costs? Are we going to attempt to disincentivize blockchain spam?
 
buster said:
And if we need more masternodes, we got this:
uujgdj1.png
Click to expand...

I believe the network would benefit a lot from making Masternodes more accessible to people, help get more of them in more hands. Atm someone needs over $4000 to purchase 1000 Dash to run a masternode. That's an amount most people who live paycheck to paycheck can't afford.
 
InTheWoods said:
I believe the network would benefit a lot from making Masternodes more accessible to people, help get more of them in more hands. Atm someone needs over $4000 to purchase 1000 Dash to run a masternode. That's an amount most people who live paycheck to paycheck can't afford.
Click to expand...

You are right...1k Dash is a high barrier to entry. But the problem with lowering the collateral requirement is that the cost of running MNs will then go up. Right now one MN pays $46.80 per month, but costs $5 to host (using Vultr). Halve the collateral requirement and TWO MNs will now pay $46.80 per month but cost twice as much ($10).

These are relatively heady days. Only a month ago, with Dash at $2.25, we were looking at a monthly income of only $26.32 per masternode. The hosting costs (still $5 per month), so 19% of your income was eaten up in hosting costs. Halving the collateral requirement so more people can set up MNs means *doubling* the hosting costs, meaning that 38% of a person's masternode income is eaten up by hosting costs.

I think that until there is significant appreciation of the currency, the idea is a nonstarter.
 
I think, it makes no sense. There is realy enough of MN to do what is necessary. They are good to be incentivized well because they will have harder requirements when Evo will be online.
 
David Comodore

Not saying that's not the case. Certainly renting bandwidth, storage doesn`t come cheap and costs will go up after Evolution.

The chart mentions node requirement will be lowered to 500 once DASH price hits $100. I think, though, there's some room there to bring threshold down sooner, before price reaches 100, maybe bring threshold down gradually as price goes up instead of suddenly halving it.

Also, those numbers in the chart are probably based on today's hosting prices but these prices tend to come down a lot in time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The more masternodes, the more inefficient the network is from an economical standpoint. We need many masternodes in order to have decentralization, but too many masternodes is redundant. As it is now there are already way more masternodes than the network really needs, I don't see a need to increase it.
But with the extremely ambitious project that is Evolution, masternodes will need to have more processing power, higher bandwidth, and more storage than they do now. I think even with masternode incentives, we should be careful to have foresight that the currency doesn't collapse under its own weight as will inevitably be the case for others.
 
TroyDASH said:
The more masternodes, the more inefficient the network is from an economical standpoint. We need many masternodes in order to have decentralization, but too many masternodes is redundant. As it is now there are already way more masternodes than the network really needs, I don't see a need to increase it.
But with the extremely ambitious project that is Evolution, masternodes will need to have more processing power, higher bandwidth, and more storage than they do now. I think even with masternode incentives, we should be careful to have foresight that the currency doesn't collapse under its own weight as will inevitably be the case for others.
Click to expand...

Yeah. There should be no strict folowing of plans. Rather react in consideration of market needs.
 
I hear the arguments and while these are sound arguments I'd like to hear a convincing case addressing my prior comment . Also, I get that we're talking profitability here and many of you are probably masternode owners who don't want profits lowered, which is understandable but sometimes it makes sense to take a long term view, sacrificing short term profit.

It's a shame we have such a cool distributed voting system and only a limited number of community members can get to use it. I think it would be a great showcase of decentralized voting if we could somehow get more people to participate in the project by voting on where to take the project.

Perhaps create another tier of nodes to handle different tasks with lower requirements?
 
InTheWoods said:
I hear the arguments and while these are sound arguments I'd like to hear a convincing case addressing my prior comment . Also, I get that we're talking profitability here and many of you are probably masternode owners who don't want profits lowered, which is understandable but sometimes it makes sense to take a long term view, sacrificing short term profit.

It's a shame we have such a cool distributed voting system and only a limited number of community members can get to use it. I think it would be a great showcase of decentralized voting if we could somehow get more people to participate in the project by voting on where to take the project.

Perhaps create another tier of nodes to handle different tasks with lower requirements?
Click to expand...

I believe some people have shared pools where you can partially contribute toward the stake of a masternode in exchange for a share of the interest. In order to do this though you need to trust the actual masternode operator and you probably wouldn't get any voting power because you can't get a partial share of 1 vote. It's a point worth talking about though. An extra tier of voting-only (no masternode interest) stake?
 
Another thing that I think will have to happen, because not everyone will want to always keep their masternodes, is that we're going to have to come up with a way where people can make contracts to put up a portion of the collateral, then can't withdraw until the term ends, then the combined accounts, with the contract, can act as collateral and be turned into a MN. This collateral can't be taken out by anyone, and when the term ends, the rewards are split. The management of the node could go to a low fee service provider, or the contract could name a member who would be in control of the actual server, but can't run off with the money.

In this way, thousands of people could get together to purchase a portion of a Masternode, and it will require no trust (other than that the person organizing it will keep it running properly) So almost anyone can participate, almost anyone can start a group and do the management, earning a little more, etc.... Very flexible and even so one person would be in control, there would be no reason many different people can't start one of these services.

So I can see a day will come where the cost of a single masternode causes no exclusion of participants, and the size of the network could be dictated by need, not ability to buy. And the managers would still be a good, probably better, variety of people, making the network even more diverse.

Of course, voting could also be part of the contract, with the winning vote being treated like an electoral vote (but you don't have to trust the delegation - it can all be hard coded into the contract)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TroyDASH said:
I believe some people have shared pools where you can partially contribute toward the stake of a masternode in exchange for a share of the interest. In order to do this though you need to trust the actual masternode operator and you probably wouldn't get any voting power because you can't get a partial share of 1 vote. It's a point worth talking about though. An extra tier of voting-only (no masternode interest) stake?
Click to expand...
Regarding pooling a masternode, my last two days experience shows that people are worried to phisicly send their coins to the pool operator as the price grows.
I have solved the votes of the shareholders based on how much shares of the shareholders together go over the whole masternode. If I have 5 people who want to vote over the same proposal and it is lets say 1080 shares in total then I cast one vote to this proposal. All is on my spreadsheet I provide to them.
 
splawik21 said:
Regarding pooling a masternode, my last two days experience shows that people are worried to phisicly send their coins to the pool operator as the price grows.
I have solved the votes of the shareholders based on how much shares of the shareholders together go over the whole masternode. If I have 5 people who want to vote over the same proposal and it is lets say 1080 shares in total then I cast one vote to this proposal. All is on my spreadsheet I provide to them.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I didn't even think about this but it makes sense pooling money to run joint masternodes is becoming more of a trust issue as price goes up. Extra reason to look into how to improve things.
 
Too many shared masternode votes brings political danger. For example, one masternode casts a 51/49 yes/no vote. A second masternode casts a 48/52 vote. That's one vote each way yet the people vote count is 99/101.. a no vote.
 
GrandMasterDash said:
Too many shared masternode votes brings political danger. For example, one masternode casts a 51/49 yes/no vote. A second masternode casts a 48/52 vote. That's one vote each way yet the people vote count is 99/101.. a no vote.
Click to expand...

Couldn't the votes be cast as decimals instead of a binary 1 or 0? Something like, the amount of vote you can put towards a budget is 1/1000 of your staked DASH regardless of whether you are a Masternode or not.
 
TroyDASH said:
Couldn't the votes be cast as decimals instead of a binary 1 or 0? Something like, the amount of vote you can put towards a budget is 1/1000 of your staked DASH regardless of whether you are a Masternode or not.
Click to expand...

Yes, that was my thought, a decimal vote. I do think, however, that only those providing collateral / verified and essential services should vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top