It looks like they're going to have the number of coins required for a masternode be determined by market forces....Is this a good or bad idea?
I know it sounds a bit tribal and predictable to criticise that approach in the DRK thread - diversity is always interesting - but I can think of a few problems with it.
For a start, it doesn't make for a very attractive investment proposition if your ROI is completely undeterminable like that. Think about it - you sit and do the calculations of whether it's worth it to invest in a masternode at current prices and you decide that you'll be in 'profit' in say 6 months, so you go and purchase $1500 worth of coin or whatever it is.
But then just a week after setting up your masternode, learning Linux, pissing about with permissions, node hardening, hosting services etc, your masternode gets kicked offline because somebody came along with more money than you.
How would you feel about that ?
If wanted to design a 'cryptocoin-mechanism' for generating ill will amongst masternode holders, anxiety, mean-spiritidness and competitive rather than co-operative spirit, you couldn't do much better than with this approach. No-one would want to help each other with technical stuff because there'd such a strong financial incentive to inhibit any new masternode holders.
On the other hand, look at how the Darkcoin network has evolved - there is a huge amount of co-operation and mutual support. There is predictable ROI - you pay your money and your node's secure for as long as you've got your 1000 DRK parked. The devs tweak the network parameters, not some bunch of baying wolf, tongues dangling on the floor investors who haven't a clue how to decide what number of masternodes is healthy for the network.
I think I've just convinced myself that it's a...
bad idea
