Re: [ANN][DRK] DarkCoin | First Anonymous Coin | First X11 | First DGW | DarkSend+ Is Live!
Web 3.0 is the Master Nodes.
They are not the same thing. The Master Nodes are an infrastructure service that has to be paid for. Bandwidth is not for the currency to sort out. That's an issue over, err, bandwidth. Its not linked to mining. Its not linked to block chain bloat. Its hardware and routing speeds. If you pay enough, you get the bandwidth.
They are not the same thing. The Master Nodes are an infrastructure service that has to be paid for. Bandwidth is not for the currency to sort out. That's an issue over, err, bandwidth. Its not linked to mining. Its not linked to block chain bloat. Its hardware and routing speeds. If you pay enough, you get the bandwidth.
I think I'd be less worried about this if I was convinced that it wouldn't corrupt Evan's original equilibrium principle between masternode supply and demand so that the majority of the coin supply was kept in circulation.
That's partly what I meant by "highly controlled" in my little rant above.
Right now, this works because the PE ratio of a masternode is calculated (and fixed) purely in terms of DRK (at 20% of the mined supply). What that means in fiat depends on the value of DRK's role as a currency.
On the other hand, with the new service model, the PE ratio will be calculated in terms of FIAT and will have a fixed revenue in fiat (in $ per hour of service). This turns the whole thing on its head because 1 Darkcoin now becomes no more than a share unit in a fiat revenue model. The price equilibrium will now revolve around the fiat ROI on a masternode and all DRKs will go out of circulation at that price point.
That's where I see the huge banana skin in this whole idea.
Evan obviously meant to say 0.05DRK. My MNs will perform services for DRK, you can take your filthy dollars somewhere else.
Mine too. Maybe it's possible to implement some sort of flexible pricing mechanism (in DRK of course) based on bids by the Masternode owners, or even by the users themselves, although that proabably wouldn't end well. I have no idea how it could work but I think the idea of a fixed price is not ideal, mainly because of volatility and to a lesser extent - at the moment - inflation. If there is a workable solution it could be applied to miners fees and anonymisation fees too, because it now costs about twice as much as it did yesterday, in fiat terms, to anonymise funds.