That part:
If the pool doesn't pay the correct amount to the correct node, we'll know and we'll shame them. We'll get miners to move to honest pools.
...won't work. We couldn't even get the miners of coinmine to switch when they were >51% because they were getting consistency and low variance (compared to the official which was DOS'ed).
The days of 2-3 pools also seem to be over:
http://drk.poolhash.org/poolhash.htmlThe pie chart is revealing.
Just use hard fork and another system of election/payment that doesn't affect network stability. "Honest pools" won't work.
Guaranteed. I think it's a good start. Doing masternode payments via soft fork will allow them to get paid like promised, we can at least get the larger pools to pay the fees. Later on, we can hard for and enforce them.
Sorry to bring this back up, but even in the short term I fear the chaos this will cause.
If you look at the thread since DRK started to rise last month, there have been trolls galore (some of who have admitted to being paid), some poor guy got his masternode hacked and his coins stolen (bad job of hardening, I know), as well as many other instances of hate directed towards DRK. There are A LOT of people who want you to fail... for DRK to fail -- and I really think that this method of paying masternodes makes their job easier.
I trust that the current major pools will cooperate, but what I worry about is a newly created malicious pool cheating (which you admitted was possible) and modifying the wallet software so that the block reward received from the network (say 5 coins) is not split 4/1, but lets say, is split 1 DRK for themselves and 4 for the miners. Or, as another example, they pay all 5 coins to the miners (and advertise that their pool has bigger payouts causing them to gain even more miners). Shaming them won't help. In fact it might make things worse as it will bring attention to a pool where miners get bigger payouts. It has been proven time and again that miners care much more about the profit than the coin (51%+ hashrate on coinmine in the early days, etc.)
Right. Shaming them might actually achieve the reverse effect and make the pool bigger.
If it's only hurting others indirectly, aka the MN users, then as a miner, I would go where the largest block reward is.
I just think that there will be a lot of chaos that will hurt DRK. If DRK is going to say publicly that masternodes get 20% of the reward then they need to get that 20% every block or people will be very quick to call the coin a scam.
The beauty of all cryptocurrency is the aspect of trustlessness, but by using this method the masternode owner needs to
trust that the node which found the block is using unmodified software so that they get their reward. Even if it is for a short time, I just don't think going down a path requiring trust is good for the coin or investor loyalty. If possible, I ask that you consider other options or just go back to the hardfork plan after very extensive testing of the new code on testnet.
bolding in the quotes done by meYou observations are correct. However the plan as I understood by reading Evans posts is to soft fork the payments of the masternodes and later on, well prepared, hard fork it in. In this case it is a short term and long term win. Short term the masternodes get what they deserve (with no pools cheating that is), later on it is guaranteed for all because it is then hard forked in.
-edit I forgot to mention that the good thing is darksend works. So we really have the first anonymous coin. That fact alone will skyrocket the price of DRK. which is good for those that have coin stashed in Masternodes and those that hold.