I don't fully understand why PoI is sustainable

Technical Discussion
#21

umm… I think I do understand. Honestly, I don’t understand how you come up with this idea. Would you explain me why you thought I don’t? (My guess is because I said like this [quote=“joemphilips, post:16, topic:3194”]
(think what if the Vender has only 10000XEM at the first place?)
[/quote]

but you know that’s not the point. Right?)

This too. I’ve never assumed this. I am always talking about the expected gain.[quote=“gimer, post:17, topic:3194”]
and recalculation that happens every 359 blocks
[/quote]

I also don’t understand why this has something to do with my argument here either.
You know that I’m not talking about 51% attack, don’t you?

This one is understandable since I omit some part in my last argument (because my story gets too complicated to understand.)
the person owns several accounts(holding 10000 vested XEM separately) can not only receive but he can also pay XEM separately, and he can choose account from which to pay so that making sure expected Importance from inter-level proximity matrix will be maximized.

What I am arguing here is quite simple, even if different two actors have same income and outcome, the one who is rich can choose which account to receive. and witch account to pay. while keeping every account holds 10000 vested XEM.

Yes I do understand this.

This was wrong, I apologize for your confusion. I’ve been mistaken about the roll of a super-node.

@Nemo You are wiser than me … I’m getting kind of tired here…

The situation of mine here reminds me that Vitalik Buterin saying that in PoS defender is more advantages than attacker, since attacker will only pay cost and gains nothing if he succeeds.

#22

[quote=“joemphilips, post:21, topic:3194”]
expected Importance from inter-level proximity matrix will be maximized.
[/quote]You have lost me right there, i´m out.

#23

The rationale behind PoI, was to give incentive to make transactions.

What I am arguing here is quite simple, even if different two actors have same income and outcome, the one who is rich can choose which account to receive. and witch account to pay. while keeping every account holds 10000 vested XEM.

So if I understand correctly what you mean is following scenario: If I own say 50M, it’s more profitable, to split it into multiple accounts, and pick the accounts for making transactions in a way to maximize PoI score - is that right?

If so, that is somewhat right but:

  • you could have them on a single account as well, no big difference here
  • if you’re normal account holder in most cases, that doesn’t really matter, you basically won’t have chance against highly trading accounts (i.e. merchants) (remember: rationale behind PoI)
  • if you’d want to write a bot that would simply be making transactions in the clique, there are few problems (what I wast trying to say before):
    • you need to remember about vesting - that is: remember importance gained from transactions is only a part of PoI and still main part is basically a PoS, and by doing outgoing transactions, you’d be constantly lowering your vested balance
    • point on NCD is to detect such clique
    • also keep in mind that the rest of the network is most likely doing transactions as well

You were asking earlier, how we obtained some of the constants, mostly from running different simulations and attack scenarios prior to launching mainnet.
As others have mentioned, there was also poi competition, and as you probably know, some people were actually using bots.

If you’ll want we (devs) are probably gonna try to set up some chat with you upcoming week, as I’m not sure if we can understand each other writing msgs here.

2 Likes
#24

This is perfect answer.

Yes this is right.

And I noticed that there are some silly assumptions I was making. Which is too silly to mention here.

you need to remember about vesting - that is: remember importance gained from transactions is only a part of PoI and still main part is basically a PoS, and by doing outgoing transactions, you’d be constantly lowering your vested balance

there are still worth sending XEM slowly in between two accounts though, right?

If you’ll want we (devs) are probably gonna try to set up some chat with you upcoming week, as I’m not sure if we can understand each other writing msgs here.

Thanks for your kindness. But let me think a while.

do you have source code or webpage explaining this ?

#25

in my opinion test it
if ya can increase ur harvesting income a bit its well deserved
because u fill a lot of harvest blocks from other people with tx fees from ur transactions

chances are very high that the fees u spend are less boost of ur havesting chance then added income because higher importance rating

the way the system was designed is to reward accounts that have lot traffic anyway with a bit extra harvesting power

for them the story is different they have to pay the tx fee anyway because its part of their services they run

and that NEM is the only coin that reward high active accounts (which run business on top of its chain) by give them a chance earn back a part of their TX fees with harvesting

one reason more to choose NEM chain for run blockchain business on top of it

1 Like
#26

Anyone familiar with the outlink matrix? Is it an exponential decay?

#27

As someone considering NEM over Ethereum blockchain, one of my major concerns is centralization. On Ethereum, everything needs to be decentralized, but with NEM you have a lot more options.

My concern is the public perception of centralization; POS/POI schemes generally eliminate the incentive to act unscrupulously (if you hold tons of tokens, it’s in your interest to keep the network running smoothly), but the public doesn’t realize that.

How can we make it clear to the public that this form of centralization is not nearly as concerning as EOS BPs?