Shouldn’t the 3 million xem limit be lowered now that an xem is worth significantly more than when the 3 million limit was placed? As it is now it’s not feasible for a normal person to buy 3 million xem to participate.
I have to agree. Had to sell some to hedge and no longer will pass the balance test. I will leave it running for the time being though
I think this is a reasonable request and should be at least discussed …
I like to know too, if it can be lowered, right now its so much that I maybe have to let it go…
@BloodyRookie Hi, BloodyRookie.
I would like to change my supernode name from Shibuya001 to Shibuya, and sent change request like this.
http://chain.nem.ninja/#/transfer/c786e6d4c8eea056aebe7dd7b0840426cb9c5a5deea4705c4890970e795590b8
Is this a correct way to change my alias name , right?
If you need extra information, please tell me what you need.
Thank you
I understand why lowering the required balance is requested. The price increased, I know.
The required balance of 3m was set above one stake for some reasons.Those reasons probably did not change with the higher price. Think about it.
The efforts of those who invested on top of a stake to obtain the 3m balance should not be neglected because of questions of those who didn’t do the effort.
The number of network nodes are more than enough to secure the network, although not all parts of the world are equally represented.
And don’t forget all effects lowering the required balance would have as a result … not only positive effects.
Changing rules once the system started would be bad for the reputation of the team and the system they have set up.
I get what your saying about negative effects such as people selling some if the requirement is lowered, but this is happening already (me) with the negative effect of less nodes securing the network. The primary purpose of the project is to secure the network with high quality nodes and there wont be many willing to lock up 54btc to do that.
@BloodyRookie I’m setting up some supernodes for somebody who is afraid to send me their private delegated key. Is it possible to setup the servant/supernode without this if they just want to start remote harvesting manually or is it required 100%? Does anybody have a good source explaining why it’s safe to share the private delegated key?
Thanks!
Don’t make that assumption.
No
. Only think delegatet account can do is harvest for original account so he has nothing to worry about
You can set up everything but to be a supernode requires the delegated key being configured in the config.properties of NIS and the servant.
what would be the reason for failing the ‘PING’ portion. All other tests passed?
Give me the node alias please.
Bengal Tiger
Next round it will have a ping.
TehSuperNode2 is not getting a ping result as well. Appears to have passed all other tests in last pass.
TehSuperNode2 will have a ping in round 802.
1 Like
have setup two supernodes. one seems to be fine and all checks are ok. now
second node uses the same private delegated key as first because there are for
3 supernodes xem in the account which delivers the priv. key.
but that seems not to work
have i to setup a new computer with another account or could i use the delegated private key from
a secondary account in the same wallet which I could fill with 3 mio xem?
yes, a different account is needed, both accounts may reside in the same wallet.
(copied from other thread since i posted it in wrong thread)
General Remark:
I see nodes joining the supernodes program with a balance less than the required 3M xem. Remember that you cannot get a payout with a balance not fulfilling the requirements. It therefore does not make sense to have such a node enroll for the supernodes.
If people keep adding nodes that do not meet the balance requirement, we might have to change our strategy and reject any enrollment for which the balance of the supplied delegated key does not meet the requirement.