BTC's halvening in 2016 was in July and for this year it was in May, 2 months earlier.
Ah, so October 2020 is the new December 2017 ? That's when we dump everything to Kingdom Come and run for the hills ? (Only for the $USD to then crash & burn as that's also when hyper-inflation might be getting started). Things might get complicated.
I guess don't keep all your eggs in one basket. Depending on how things go, this cycle might be different and become a mega bull run (2022, 2023) if mass adoption of cryptos kicks in as people try to escape the fiat collapse. But don't unnecessarily count on it. Hedge your new wealth in other assets if and as you can.
I expect governments (as well as some international organizations) to begin issuing their own crypto currencies possibly followed by a renewed effort to ban non-government issued cryptos.
No one knows for sure if BTC and other cryptos can maintain their store of value over the long term or if they will merely be used as a vehicle to preserve/gain wealth before a new economic system is established.
There will likely be alts with 7-10x gains in a matter of days come January if not a bit earlier.
As I remember, most of the alts reached their peaks inside the BTC/USD bubble. OMG, PPT, BAY, even NxT. But they were spiking through out the year also - BTS went berserk around October I think. Dash was months before.
Yes, they did, but I specifically remember DASH, LTC and ETH doing their first 7x-10x pumps from Feb-Apr 2017.
Trusted services have a place I suppose, but many get into crypto to have more freedom with their money. Plus I imagine most trusted services essentially don't vote.
I think the benefits of trustless shared masternodes would outweigh the downside.
Possible solution:
In the DashPay wallet, it could be presented as a savings account where you have to lock up your DASH for a term based on the masternode payment schedule. You could lock it up for 1 or more payments and once those are complete you'd get your initial locked amount back.
All DASH locked in the savings account would be pooled together, allowing for individual terms to end at the same time as taking down the least amount of masternodes due to the reduction of pooled collateral. People who want to run masternodes but don't have the 1000 DASH, could subscribe to running one with a minimum of 200 DASH or so with the remaining 800 or so required counted from the savings pool of all locked DASH. Instead of getting the full ROI of a full masternode maybe you'd get a bit less based on the reality that there might be an excess amount of DASH (not divisible by 1000) in the pool or not enough people to run masternodes to cover the DASH in the pool. The people willing to host shared masternodes naturally should get a bigger reward than those who just lock their DASH in the savings account. Longer terms should get higher rewards too. On the voting side, anyone who locks their DASH during the entirety of a voting cycle, should be able to vote with their vote weighted based on the percentage out of 1000 DASH they've locked up.
I'm sure there are ways to improve this as I've done almost no brainstorming to come up with this. So, the nightmare you talk about shouldn't be so difficult to code.
A major upside to this set up would I think be decentralization, getting more people involved and invested. You might also get higher voter participation.
Now, what is the downside?
Good post, thanks.
The approach that you expose, do you do it from a technical perspective? Is it technically feasible / affordable? Because personally I do not agree with a fork to increase mining returns, imo, it is not important to improve the project (or not to the extent that Toknormal defends) ... but with expanding the universe of voters and beneficiaries, without a doubt.
That this right is currently executed by less than a million tokens on average in each vote of almost ten ... beyond being a shame and a robbery in the face of Common Funds, it is not representative of those who have been supporting DASH for years - and have been wiped off the map -.
If those who have raided the Common Treasury deny that right, exposed a thousand times in DASH starting with the founder himself, that advantage would deserve a fork.
I would appreciate an assessment on the viability of this change. Thank you.
I can't see why it wouldn't be technically feasible to implement something like I just laid out. The question is whether there's enough support for shared trustless masternodes from those that could do something about it.
I wouldn't be entirely surprised to see it as part of a future road map that DCG publishes after Dash Platform (DashPay) rolls out. I also wouldn't be surprised if it becomes something that gets proposed and debated for a later MNO vote.
I imagine there's as much support for trustless shared masternodes as there is opposition but I haven't seen any poll on it before.