Quote from: Kyune on May 19, 2014, 04:19:57 PM

Quote from: AlexGR on May 19, 2014, 02:04:09 PM

Quote from: eduffield on May 19, 2014, 01:58:55 PM

Quote from: Minotaur26 on May 19, 2014, 01:52:14 PM

Quote from: Kai Proctor on May 19, 2014, 01:39:13 PM

Quote from: Scriptiee on May 19, 2014, 01:25:10 PM

Quote from: eduffield on May 19, 2014, 01:09:28 PM

Quote from: Scriptiee on May 19, 2014, 12:51:21 PM

Quote from: child_harold on May 19, 2014, 09:55:44 AM

When DRK hits $100 a masternode will be worth 100,000 bucks
Who will risk running such a server besides security geniuses?

Could this become an issue. will future masternodes require less DRK?

Evan said he is not considering lowering the DRK requirement for masternode. 1000DRK is reasonable enough and will make the 51% attack harder in the end

What we need next is someone with some programming talent to make a site like a pool, but you buy shares of a masternode. So when masternodes are much more expensive, they could still be divided down to a reasonable level. This would also allow someone who was not computer savvy to invest in masternodes, which is optimal.

I suggest the software not be based on anything existing, so it could become a darkcoin advantage over the competition. It seems pretty simple though, you buy shares for 1DRK, then it has some screens for stats and it pays out dividends much like MPOS.

Would that not in a way centralise the masternodes?

I don't think so, you share only one masternode in a server not all of them.

Plus, remember the people that have 1000 drk plus will set up their masternodes regardless without the use of such a service. So the idea will only add to the total number of masternodes. Ergo, decentralization will be as good as it was without this multipool type masternode service maybe a little better.

I think we'll always have 70-80% of the masternodes operatored by individuals even after they're really expensive to run. But when they get that expensive, it would be nice to have some kind of alternative for investors/supporters. It also increases the overall capitalization of the masternode network, which is really good for the coin. Otherwise this is going to become something just for large investors really quick, so I think it's a good compromise.

It will also have the side effect of people not parking -even their small amounts- to exchanges, but rather have it in small "masternode pools". This will reduce fractional practices (as exchanges can operate with more DRKs than they have), creating more (actual) coin demand. It will also allow Darkcoin to be less gox-able when massive exchanges go down and take half a million coins. If people have incentive NOT to park their money in exchanges, a serious issue is solved.

I agree it would reduce fractional practices.

It might not reduce gox-ing risk. There would still be considerable counterparty risk, as investors submitting DRK into these 'pooled' masternodes would need to trust that their DRK were not stolen/mishandled/lost. Hard to predict how centralized such masternode 'services' would be...there might only be a few, especially if the underlying code is not open-sourced.

I suspect that someone could come up with a p2p system for funding a masternode pool.