I wish there was a way to limit each user with 1 masternode, that would be perfect.

Their not paid more because that's in the code. There paid more because they're more consistent, handle more transactions and respond 100% of the time.

Also the larger your servicenode balance is, the larger transactions your node can handle. And we need the ability to handle large transactions so we need large wallets.

Am i right in saying Dash nodes can only handle 1000 dash at a time?

Edit: If everyone put a small amount of SPR into their SN wallets, the network would be kicking and re installing new nodes allllll the time.
If we have large wallets that dont get kicked, we always have a solid node to rely on.

I'm struggling to even understand myself, so don't think its you

Ok, so in this hypothesis the people with the bigger SPR wallets with VPS hosted masternodes would receive more payments than somebody with one masternode hosted on their macbook.  Doesn't seem right somehow.  Anyway...new ANN today.  Plenty of time to thrash out semantics and test various hypotheses!

Did you guys miss where I said that a smartnode can handle more spr than it holds? (same for dash's masternodes)

this seems to me like the existing banking situation ( yes - i called it a situation ) ...

the more you have the higher the score the better the chance of gaining more ...

the rich get richer - the poor still struggle ... but why wouldnt you reward those that put the effort AND spr in? ...

touch one that ...

#crysx

There, fixed it for you.

Now you're on the same page as everyone else  

That's a creditable starting point. Before we kick off ...

---

I dunno if everyone's cued in to the fact that the discussion is actually about the management of an overlay network “An overlay network is a computer network, which is built on the top of another network” The idea's been around since forever, there's a literature corpus to be mined for algorithmic insights and a broad appreciation of a range of issues, e.g. Stanford's work on RON (Resilient Overlay Networks), now 15 years old. For a more recent overview of the domain, see “Overlay Networks: Overview, Applications and Challenges” by Galán-Jiménez and Gazo-Cervero  in IJCSNS International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, VOL.10 No.12, December 2010, full paper (PDF): http://paper.ijcsns.org/07_book/201012/20101206.pdf

Another pertinent domain is MANET (Mobile Ad-hoc NETworks) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_ad_hoc_network for which threshold cryptography is also a key component.

Lastly, looking into the near future (at least 6 months) there's the exotica that may become mundanely relevant as the overlay network application space expands, e.g. Raftopoulou, Petrakis and Tryfonopoulos’ “Rewiring Strategies for Semantic Overlay Networks”:
http://users.uop.gr/~praftop/papers/pdf/dapd09-RPT.pdf <- DAPD = “Distributed and Parallel Databases”

---

Back to “fair” - inverting, to negate the negation and make explicit the assumption, “the same task”:

the same task, the same income,  the same amount of work, the same expense == fair

Have to rule out “the same expense” because it's incalculable in the large: it varies according local energy market conditions.

Have to rule out “the same amount of work” because it too is incalculable in the large because it varies with machine cost/performance.

So we're left with the only thing we can actually calculate: “the same task”, “the same amount of income” == fair.

That's quite egalitarian in principle and, to a degree, viable precisely because it acknowledges that variations in local conditions prevent real costs being compared, so in practice the coin is reduced to necessarily adopting a policy of simplification of modelling the cost of membership of the overlay network.

But I think that's where Mr Spread's approach has the edge. By presenting it as an auction, it enables participants' bids to reflect the locally-dependent calculations we cannot make in the large. According to our necessarily narrow definition, it cannot actually be described as less fair/egalitarian but it will certainly be more sustainable in the long term because it better reflects the actual cost of maintaining the overlay network.

Just to muddy the waters further, atm I don't see why there should always be one and only one logical overlay network. I can foresee different logical overlay networks supporting different applications offering different cost/benefit tradeoffs and levels of income, so I'd like to see the overlay network membership cost eventually pushed into the specific overlay application rather than resting on a relatively coarse and insensitive assumption that it's a single amount applicable to all overlays irrespective of differences in the complexity/magnitude of the service provided.

IIRC (I did read it very quickly) there's some reference to characterisations of differences in node capability connectivity in the overview ref (above) which will be grist to practical discussions of these overlay network parameters.

My sense (as essentially, an outsider) is that Spreadcoin can't afford to be perceived as endorsing/enabling the kind of cynical insider profiteering that Crave seems to have attracted:


That's really going to impress business clients seeking to make use of Spreadcoin's overlay network applications.

Cheers

Graham

graham ... eloquence is obviously and evidently your strong point ...

pity it was never mine ...

#crysx

No.

Nor did we miss your point about hackers facing the risk that they could have their stolen coins taken back by the legitimate owners. Which is a great insight.