Why the requirement to boot the node with the private key of the account? Wouldn
@jabo38s: Using local harvesting seems fine to me.
Maybe I am missing something but why should there be the difference between the method of rewarding harvesters and rewarding nodes ?
What I propose is to use the same method for rewarding nodes as is used for harvesting by using POI, only the sum of POI of all nodes will not be 100% but a lower variable number.
Then people will complain that we make rich people richer. Just imagine an exchange will run a single node with very high importance and get lots of rewards for it.
3M XEM isn't such a big investment imo since regular stakeholders already have 2.25M XEM.
Then people will complain that we make rich people richer. Just imagine an exchange will run a single node with very high importance and get lots of rewards for it.
Valid point but the same goes for harevesting so I don't see the difference. And who says the exchanges will opt in ?
One solution to this would be to cap the importance to for example 50*10(-5) ( but I have a feeling I am not going to convince you about using the POI ;) )
3M XEM isn't such a big investment imo since regular stakeholders already have 2.25M XEM.
I disagree with you on this, 3M threshold is too high IMO. What if there is a decent price rise, if XEM market cap doubles this will allready be more than 1000$ in XEM requied to be eligible :o
The question that should be asked is: How many nodes are we aiming for (short and long term) ?
Currently there are a little over 250 accounts with more than 3M XEM. (including the funds and exchanges) How many of these will be interested in running a node ?
Based on which criteria was the number of 3M XEM chosen? ( I am sure some thought went into this so I sincerely would like to know this...)
And last but not least, if the threshold remains at 3M XEM you can count on it that people will complain this is done to make the rich richer :(
@Xpedite:
Well you answered your question 1 by yourself. It is to avoid centralization. We don't want people to run hundrets of nodes, because that would create too much influence of that single person to the network (person dislikes anything, switches off hundrets of nodes etc.).
So what you suggest is using the importance score instead of just the stake. As long as there are not many transactions on the network, this is a) very similar (because PoS is part of POI) and b) that would make it hard for people to understand if they are qualified for rewards and how much they can get (I understood you want to weigh the importance score in, and not introduce a threshold like it is proposed in the draft). But I think it should be simple for people to undertand under which circumstances exactly they can get a reward and when not.
To your 2. question: Because a random payout makes it more fun/addictive ;)
I am confused here... :-\
On one hand you want people to know what to expect while the random payout is a lottery anyway. And for harvesting POI is used anyway
Then people will complain that we make rich people richer. Just imagine an exchange will run a single node with very high importance and get lots of rewards for it.
Valid point but the same goes for harevesting so I don't see the difference. And who says the exchanges will opt in ?
One solution to this would be to cap the importance to for example 50*10(-5) ( but I have a feeling I am not going to convince you about using the POI ;) )
3M XEM isn't such a big investment imo since regular stakeholders already have 2.25M XEM.
I disagree with you on this, 3M threshold is too high IMO. What if there is a decent price rise, if XEM market cap doubles this will allready be more than 1000$ in XEM requied to be eligible :o
The question that should be asked is: How many nodes are we aiming for (short and long term) ?
Currently there are a little over 250 accounts with more than 3M XEM. (including the funds and exchanges) How many of these will be interested in running a node ?
Based on which criteria was the number of 3M XEM chosen? ( I am sure some thought went into this so I sincerely would like to know this...)
And last but not least, if the threshold remains at 3M XEM you can count on it that people will complain this is done to make the rich richer :(
we need between 250-1000 high powered nodes to do the projects we want in the future.
a high deposit ensures that we can stay decentralized, but if it is too high as a barrier of entry and we don't get at least 250, then it will need to be lowered.
the truth is, we don't know for sure how the community will react. this is the first time something like this has been done so it very well might have to be adjusted. But we figured we are giving away A TON of XEM to make sure that these nodes are both going 24/7 and will be high quality, and that should incentive people to step up at which point the higher the deposit the more the decentralization.
@jabo38s: Using local harvesting seems fine to me.
The real question is whether such nodes will continue passing the tests and remain on the
What are the advised specs for a high quality node?
my computer is 4 gigs of RAM and I have super fast internet, at least for my country, so I think my local node I am running 24/7 at home will be okay.
Don't get me wrong... I'm with you!!! ;D
Question:
Do the node health tests allow for unavoidable downtime (reboots, client updates, etc.) or is it almost guaranteed to get hit with the 2880 block penalty if caught during such cases?
yes, all those things will definitely be allowed for
guys, calm down a bit.
Requirement for delegated harvested might be removed.
That is why this document has been posted to public BEFORE we launch the programme.
To get the community input on the topic.
The only aspect I dislike in the proposal is the lottery thing.
I'd like a small reward for non winners too.
What if I run more than one node with the same boot key? Do you consider my account eligible if one of my nodes is up and the others are down?
The only aspect I dislike in the proposal is the lottery thing.
I'd like a small reward for non winners too.
I think if you run a node for 3 month then the payouts should be quite evenly distributed. (hopefully ^^ )
What if I run more than one node with the same boot key? Do you consider my account eligible if one of my nodes is up and the others are down?
Good question. i think that is not possible since we rely on an ip when contacting a node. Or how do you imagine this to work?
I'm out lol
you want me to deposit 42 million xem to apply. :o
mmmm no
good luck
The only aspect I dislike in the proposal is the lottery thing.
I'd like a small reward for non winners too.
I think if you run a node for 3 month then the payouts should be quite evenly distributed. (hopefully ^^ )
What if I run more than one node with the same boot key? Do you consider my account eligible if one of my nodes is up and the others are down?
Good question. i think that is not possible since we rely on an ip when contacting a node. Or how do you imagine this to work?
Isn't it possible to manage a list of ips per account?
I'm afraid of people complaining you tested the wrong node...
guys, calm down a bit.
Requirement for delegated harvested might be removed.
That is why this document has been posted to public BEFORE we launch the programme.
To get the community input on the topic.
I think it should be fine to allow inactive delegated harvesting node. People like me who have multisig account, have been harvesting locally on personal computer, can just put their 3+M XEM account's local private key to NEM Public node. Since it's multisig, it's secure, and I don't see any harm in that.
I also support lowering the amount of required XEM to participate in rewards program. How low? May be a stake, or half? as it will definetly increase the number of nodes if we require 250-1000.
On the other hand various factors of having a performance nodes, then this rewards system is fine.
If more complexity could be added to this reward program, I would have suggested divide the program according to NODE performance, and amount of XEM with that node.
Benefits:
- More number of nodes will be on network.
- Less performing nodes, and less XEM having nodes will be motivating themselves to improve the performance and XEM in their accounts.
Post any drawbacks. I don't have one.
Cheers
The only aspect I dislike in the proposal is the lottery thing.
I'd like a small reward for non winners too.
I think if you run a node for 3 month then the payouts should be quite evenly distributed. (hopefully ^^ )
What if I run more than one node with the same boot key? Do you consider my account eligible if one of my nodes is up and the others are down?
Good question. i think that is not possible since we rely on an ip when contacting a node. Or how do you imagine this to work?
Isn't it possible to manage a list of ips per account?
I'm afraid of people complaining you tested the wrong node...
It is possible that a person could have multiple IPs for the same node.
One solution could be to have a person send their IP of their node when they opt in, then it would be clear exactly which account is associated with which IP.
The only aspect I dislike in the proposal is the lottery thing.
I'd like a small reward for non winners too.
I think if you run a node for 3 month then the payouts should be quite evenly distributed. (hopefully ^^ )
What if I run more than one node with the same boot key? Do you consider my account eligible if one of my nodes is up and the others are down?
Good question. i think that is not possible since we rely on an ip when contacting a node. Or how do you imagine this to work?
I think that should be possible. I don't know how it's going to be implemented but if i run 3 nodes with 3 IPs all of them should be eligible if the performance tests pass.
After a winner is picked you look at the account it's booted with and then you know whom to pay. I don't see why IPs would be limiting in any way.
the truth is, we don't know for sure how the community will react. this is the first time something like this has been done
It seems that Dash (former Darkcoin) have very similar approach.
To be honest I don't understand what is it stands for:
> The high performance node must use the private key of the (delegated) remote account of the deposit account as the bootkey.
Could somebody explain? I definitely don't want to store the key there, but feel that I not understand something…
the truth is, we don't know for sure how the community will react. this is the first time something like this has been done
It seems that Dash (former Darkcoin) have very similar approach.
They have a deposit for their masternodes. The only thing similar about that is the opt-in - the purpose is comletely different. They are using it to secure the network while in NEM it's - for now anyway - only to reward people who run nodes.