All security is inherited from the mining network, which basically is deterministically setting up the quorum system, in a way that is provable. For example when you use DAPI, it will do something like create a transaction from Xaddr1 to Xaddr2 for 10 DASH. You then get back your command, a result status and all of the signatures from the quorum participants. You as the end user will know what quorum is activated for that node already, so you can tell if they're lying.

In terms of scalability, if we have 3300 masternodes and a quorum size of 10, that means we can handle 330 requests at once. If the average time per request is about 100 ms, that means we can do 3300 requests per second. The estimate is based on the fact that the network is also doing maintenance at all times (propagating blocks, shard updates, syncing clients, etc), so I'm guessing ~50% of a fully utilized network will go to other activities. Therefore we end up with 1650 requests per second.

Also we're going to aim for your average every day user, so we're talking just a few requests per month. So how many users can we support if they use 15 requests per month? 86400*1650*30/15 = 285,120,000. Ok, 285 million, that's pretty good.

What about reducing the collateral to 500 DASH? Now we have 6600 masternodes and can handle 570 million users. Isn't the masternode count going up anyway? Yep. That number should hit about 700M about when we launch. This is why it says 500-1500 tx per second, I guess that should say "requests per second" because it's not really accurate. Also the 700M should be a range also, that's the high end, the low end is 285M for current Dash requirements.

I've done a lot of guesswork to figure out these numbers, we'll see how close I am when we start seeing some serious adoption. Either way the system is built to scale with adoption in a way nothing else can, it should be pretty cool. I figure if we start to see a good deal of adoption and usage, we'll always either ask for more storage, processing power or reduce the collateral to split the network before it becomes an issue . They'll be good problems to have and we'll have lots of solutions available.

I'm not sure that works. But perhaps I'm missing something.

If you half the collateral, it doesn't follow that you double the masternodes.

First, the block reward hasn't changed, so the revenue to run nodes remains the same overall.

Second, going from one MN to two would potentially double the cost to run them - you have to ignore any speculation on price increases, although it would (speculating) potentially go up with real world adoption.

So, one server goes to two servers, but the reward remains the same.

If you introduce a micro fee, that would enable the network to scale with a reduction in collateral requirement.

if one server became two servers i would pay 10 USD per month renting costs instead of 5 USD but also the increase in masternodes (from 3300 to 6600) will automatically
force lower MN rewards for everyone, will it not ? 

I must say, I've never even contemplated bitcoin not being "the one", but for the first time Im starting to entertain the idea.

Its high marketcap has ironically lead to an atrophying maintenance paradigm combined with an impoverished solutions pool for tackling future challenges.

The central problem is that there's been a consensus emerging that bitcoin should "not be touched". Scaling, functional diversity, governance and privacy must all be dealt with through external 'boilerplating' because everyone's sh*t scared to adversely impact its marketcap.

But maybe its marketcap is about to be compromised anyway. That consensus could be wrong.

The roadmap that Dash has just unveiled raises the opportunity cost of that consenus by an order of magnitude because we are talking here about very fundamental protocol level inhibitors to adoption which are endemic to Bitcoin, now being addressed in Dash. The reason that's significant is that Dash is a compatible clone which can plug straight into the Bitcoin commercial ecosystem. I wrote a bit a while back about the sociological need for money to be seen to function effectively as cash before it can form a sustainable basis for credit. (In bitcoin, for 'credit' read every type of off-blockchain secondary manifestation from sidechains to ETF's to the Lightning network).

Well the Evolution roadmap puts all those requirements squarely in its sights. It represents an unambigious prescription for cash - not for credit, nor a settlement layer, nor any boiler-plated hybrid. Maximum openness, maximum fungibility (giving rise to maximum anonymity), instant transfer and universal accessibility at the base monetary layer are what characterise the medium known to the general public as 'cash'.



If it reaches a successful implementation, you can forget about trolls because the value won't be speculative anymore. It will be driven by a completely different type of market that's more far more interested in immediate commercial priorities than any squabble-threaded exchange on bitcointalk.

IMO, last night's roadmap staked out a territory that's concerned with commercial adoption, not popularity contests. It also drove a fleet of tanks straight onto the lawn that bitcoin's devs vacated in fear - protocol level specialisation.

Say what you like about the risks, but there comes a point in the risk-reward seesaw when the latter end of it just gets too big to ignore. If Dash pulls off what was on that slide, it will have turned the see-saw into a catapault.