Quote from: noobtrader on May 08, 2016, 02:41:24 PM

Quote from: generalizethis on May 08, 2016, 01:57:17 PM

Quote from: noobtrader on May 08, 2016, 01:34:18 PM

Quote from: owm123 on May 08, 2016, 12:01:46 PM

Quote from: owlcatz on May 07, 2016, 11:25:02 PM

Flatlining at 0.00192215 atm. Interesting to see where this will go. Cheesy

My guess, it will go down.

it alwasys saddening to see investor being skinned by whale...

EDIT : IMHO monero should think about implementing masternode btw, so that price have better stability

Does IMHO mean In My Horrible Opinion? Incentivizing nodes creates more problems than it fixes. Even if you did it in a way that doesn't encourage centralization (IE the Evan way) you still add a layer of complexity that will have many unintended results. Isn't creating a coin with fungibility as near as cash as possible and having it work within the most private network available enough for the Devs to contend with? Or do you also suggest that Monero moves away from the built-the-way-it-was-supposed-to-be-built-plan to promises-then-lowered-expectsations-followed-by-bigger-promises-then-lowered-expectations-followed-by-OH-SHIT-IT"S-BROKE-that-was-not-the-plan?

cryptocurrency is not paper money, it need node by design, the same way it need miner. so as by design which miner was incentivized, so node too should be rewarded.

yes it will add complexity, but that give bigger reward to the coin holder. why afraid of complexity Huh

is that why monero still using command line wallet Huh

because gui wallet add complexity to developer Huh

Complexity + unintended consequences = bad design

I get why nodes are important, but until someone figures out a way to reward them without introducing centralization, I doubt you'll find the concept in any serious cryptocurrency.

Do you have a plan to implement them that doesn't incur more centralization? If you do, I'd like to hear it.

BTW, here's why masternodes are a terrible idea as implemented:

Quote from: generalizethis on April 20, 2016, 04:19:33 AM

Dash's failure at trustless decentralization is the test case that formed my understanding of why trustless decentralization is necessary for any cryptocurrency to succeed at being disruptive. Dash's failure is that it built a centralizing flaw that aggregates coins to those who run nodes and layering power functions (votes, fees, privacy, etc...) onto these nodes.

Dash's nodes have two major weaknesses in design: first, they are pay based, or paynodes, which means that they can be bought and sold. The second flaw in design is that they collect fees, which means node holders collect money that in turn can be used to buy more nodes that in turn can collect more fees, and so on and so forth. Where this especially becomes troubling is that dash's launch produced 2 million coins in 2 days and this initial distribution cannot be verified to be fairly distributed, which means the resources to buy 2000 nodes (more than half of current existing at this writing) were made available to a few lucky guys who happened to be mining at that right moment--considering this is 30% of current distribution and given that they could have bought 2000 or more masternodes since that scheme was introduced, the number of masternodes these initial miners could have may be considerably more than 30%, and considering that this control can aggregate over time, it illustrates why these systems need to be trustlessly verified.

I apologize for all the numbers just thrown at you, but lets make it simpler, since the masternode system collects the revenue that determines its degree of centralization, and that centralization can't be verified to any statistical certainty, we should assume that it is increasingly trending towards a traditional oligarchy or monarchy, where one or a few have undue power over the entire system--how it behaves, the distribution and security of its benefits.

We can assume this model fails at decentralization if we follow the principle that a cryptosystem should be trustlessly verified--it is imperative that if you want to break away from the shackles of a central power and from the enablers of these systems, you can not get there following the same old trusted rules, mathematics have given us the tools to undermine and outperform these old world systems, but we will never get there by using systems that forgo the technology and embrace the old world trust model in a vain attempt to disrupt those standards by embracing them.