Re: [ANN] SpreadCoin | True Decentralization (No Pools) | Testing New Masternodes
Great post (cross post from DASH)
There are definitely some things that Spreadcoin did better (or at least made much easier) in this regard. Starting a MN involved ticking a checkbox if you were happy running a hot MN, or ticking the checkbox and copy/pasting the generated key into your .conf file to run a cold MN. That was it.
Having said that, there are pros and cons either way. SPR doesn't need a static IP which makes for better MN decentralisation, but means more people are running MNs on shitty domestic connections. So far the DRK devs prefer the static IP approach which probably results in a more stable network, at the cost of more MN centralisation at Vultr/Amazon etc. This is greatly ameliorated by the necessity of compromising the vast majority of MNs to achieve any sort of successful attack however, and and MN centralisation risk pales in comparison to the continued awful mining centralisation.
Plus, there are ~2500 MNs out there, maybe only run by <500 individuals, but it really isn't that hard to do as it is. MNs get paid to provide a service, it isn't unreasonable to expect MN ops to actually have a clue what they are doing...
Is it possible for you guys (fabulous DASH devs) to create some automation in the creation/management/updating of masternodes? Make it so that you don't have to be a Linux savant to be a masternode owner? (I know that's an exaggeration but....)
It would be awesome if the majority of what we have to do as masternode owners could be done through the wallet.
It would be awesome if the majority of what we have to do as masternode owners could be done through the wallet.
There are definitely some things that Spreadcoin did better (or at least made much easier) in this regard. Starting a MN involved ticking a checkbox if you were happy running a hot MN, or ticking the checkbox and copy/pasting the generated key into your .conf file to run a cold MN. That was it.
Having said that, there are pros and cons either way. SPR doesn't need a static IP which makes for better MN decentralisation, but means more people are running MNs on shitty domestic connections. So far the DRK devs prefer the static IP approach which probably results in a more stable network, at the cost of more MN centralisation at Vultr/Amazon etc. This is greatly ameliorated by the necessity of compromising the vast majority of MNs to achieve any sort of successful attack however, and and MN centralisation risk pales in comparison to the continued awful mining centralisation.
Plus, there are ~2500 MNs out there, maybe only run by <500 individuals, but it really isn't that hard to do as it is. MNs get paid to provide a service, it isn't unreasonable to expect MN ops to actually have a clue what they are doing...