You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Dash vs Bitcoin

in #bitcoin8 years ago

Just because the type of user who will run a node in the future may not be the same as those who run full nodes today does not mean that will cause centralization. Satoshi makes this point very clear. It will always be possible for the small user to verify the blockchain for themselves - it just might much more economical to use a SPV wallet or light client. You still verify all the hashes.

The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms. The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.
-Satoshi Nakamoto - Bitcoin's creator


Whereas Dash deliberately diverts resources in order to subsidize, at least economically, all nodes, in order to maintain the democracy. So people can rent out a cheap space and run a node, knowing that they will get paid for that, so technically anyone can do that.

There are also a lot of issues with the masternode setup with respect to Sybil attacks. This is exasperated by DASH node centralization.

I am not familiar with that.

Most of these "benefits" you mention with regard to these incentivized master nodes are actually part of the problem. Just because you see Dash advertise all these 4.4k masternodes, don't think there is 4.4k diferent people each voicing their opinions behind those. This is the Sybil attack vector against Dash. In conjunction with the rocky start of Dash, this amounts to an extremely large problem.

Bitcoin has none of these issues.

Sort:  

As if in Bitcoin all nodes were real. Just a few months ago you basically had somebody set up 500 Amazon hosting BTC nodes, that were shut down a few weeks later since the free trial expired.

But at least DASH does subsidize people to run free nodes, so people could run them if they wanted to, and they have the financial support to do so.

Sybil is an attack vector against any crypto not just Dash, and I think Bitcoin will be the first target, because miners are already doing nefarious activities, like the backdoor meetings in Hong Kong or whatever.

I would not trust them the least, and they have the resources to mount a Sybil attack.

Sybil is an attack vector against any crypto not just Dash, and I think Bitcoin will be the first target, because miners are already doing nefarious activities, like the backdoor meetings in Hong Kong or whatever.

I would not trust them the least, and they have the resources to mount a Sybil attack.

Yeah sure it is, but your missing the point completely with dash. A Sybil attacker in Bitcoin does not have much power at all - they still would need hashrate to do anything.

With dash, there is the economic fee of locking 1k dash for becoming a node representing quasi-stake. This fee is so trivial, especially to actors who were able to acquire a large amount of these tokens for "free". The low expenditure of value required coupled with the power of masternodes is absolutely ripe for masternode collusion and centralization​.