Limitation of the node generating balance by the percentage of own invested funds

Your “core spirit” means that 60% (26 mill Waves) stakes belongs to top 5 nodes. Which make decision to accept/deny critical updates of the network. And by your ideals it is normal that they havent any investments in the platform. May be because you are from top 1 node team?
I repeat my last post - you can invent the algorithm that soften the requirements for small nodes and tighten for large ones. The limitation of max generating balance can begins from 1 mill for example.

Lol. The problem I see here all the time is that most of the algorithms based on utopian “core” principles not taking into account the behavior of real people. The “ask” method against the blockchain ideology.

If node’s api is open then yes, if not then you might guess but do not know for sure. I thought it was clear as I meant it. Because in most cases i would make node api access public if would have considerable own balance. For query purposes we can always have separate nodes which does not participate in generation process (ie waves teams nodes as example). I though my point of “not available information” was clear. If not now it probably is :slight_smile:

@KarlKarlsson do you know that most people cannot make critical decisions when they are needed (ie if person dies during car crash in some countries there is a ruling that his organs would be donated automatically unless family decides otherwise and if you check statistics it is mostly done as default ruling in that country, because people cannot make a decission) and blockchain might be the place we talk about such moments when we have to react fast to make network secure but our lessors are not so fast and does not care much actually - look how much time it took to make network more decentralized and only when rewards have been decreased. It took 1.5 years to introduce FairPos. Greed and desire to get more profit is what drives all decentralization problems. We have to eradicate this problems in it’s base and set rules for users to comply. We are actually not free in our decisions even it if seems that we are…

Tell me how many nodes/waves actually supported decentralization - i will tell you, these are the nodes and their lessors who did not forfeit the idea behind decentralization and did not switch to get more profits and continued to hold their nodes/waves still knowing that they will earn less. I started a node before “inception” of LPOS and at first i had 25-30 blocks mined daily and after LPOS amount of blocks significantly decreased + did get “addedEffect” of notVeryFairPos.

LPOS should help decentralization and not kill it - if in essence it is very easy to lease everything to 1 address without any limitation at some point in time we might be dealing with possible forking issues…

@c1oud Nope, the generating balance of each node is publicly available, even on pywaves.

people who read all these posts should remember that most of them are written by the owners of large nodes. :wink:

I am also heavily against the idea to set up threshold of 10% instantly. My proposal is to start with 1% and then gradually increase to 5% (during one year for example). I don’t think generating balance drops considerably in this case. You can expect some drop of course, but it’s very doubtful assumption. I can say that if there will be deficit of miner’s stake I’d setup my own node and many other people will do this.

As for decentralization, I cannot say whether this rule will make network more decentralized or not. Some nodes will appear, some will be decreased, but it’s unknown how many top nodes will have 50% of stake. This is not about decentralization and it’s not something action against some particular node - I don’t actually know who exactly will benefit, I guess someone who has more waves.

What I’d like to achieve is responsibility, fundamental economic incentive of PoS - you forge if you invested some amount. This is fair rule and it keeps network healthy.

ah i meant that server location if smb would like to attack it :slight_smile: balance of course is available for every1 to see.

@c1oud Well, via /peers/connected you get some infos at least about the nodes your node is connected to and via the name you get a lot of infos about who is running it, so i guess it is not as anonymous as it may look. And i’m not even talking about analyzing the network traffic…

@Undland exactly, and that’s why those guys know what they are talking about.

1 - Assume that there are 50 full node with total 200k waves rule the network. Each node have 4k. A malicious attacker need 200,001 waves in that case. Make the math how much will cost. And please explain if there are any cost (except hosting) in LPoS to get people leased to your nodes. Even now, the top 4 ,5 or 10 nodes may run by one guy who didn’t purchase waves. In future there could be 1000 pool run by one malicious.

2 - “One should be able to join a network without any limitations” , no sir there are always limits. It could be hardware or coin doesn’t matter but there are limits. This is the way to eliminate ppl.

3 - Nature of ppl. They must have something to get benefit.

Can’t really follow your argument here. Yes, I’m from the currently largest Waves node but I am heavily invested in Waves.

Well, yes, the leasing market is not as dynamic as some people would like to be. Nonetheless, I don’t want to limit people’s range of decisions. It’s the contrary - I want people to be able to act according to their wish. That means we do not impose any limitations but allow it to be a free market. That’s what cryptocurrency is about: Allowing people to take care of their own money and decisions. A better path would be to educate them about the consequences of their decisions. Again, that’s what we did and in my opinion it was a success.

I’m not making any secret about this at all. I am objectively presenting my arguments and so should you.

I have no idea where you are coming from with that argument. We had scenarios in the past where we had to act fast and we did so without any major effect on either the network or the lessors as a whole.

I have personally bought more WAVES than I have ever sold. Also, if you have followed me over the last months on Social Media/Discord, you should be well aware that I am all for decentralization. Again, we publicly asked people to switch their leases from WavesGo to smaller nodes. If you compare stake distribution 3 months ago with the current, you’ll see that it had quite an impact.

The old algorithm is not an argument anymore as it has been changed, period.

There is two sides to it: Without leasing, the total forging stake would only be a fraction of what it is with leasing. That, in turn, would heavily undermine the security of the network. Also, I heavily doubt that we would have more nodes on the network without LPoS.

You’d set up your own node, fine. But who would switch his lease to you, especially considering the leasing market is that undynamic? It would again take considerable time to even come close to compensating for the loss of active stakes. And let me also raise my doubts about your assumption of other people starting their nodes out of a sudden. I honestly don’t think that would be the case.

I ask you to investigate the mining distribution in other major networks, e.g. Bitcoin or Ethereum. We are in a good position with the current stake distribution, particularly if compared to those two blockchains.

Benefiting the rich over the poor? Come on, PoS already is an inherently closed system as you require a stake to participate. Setting that barrier even higher for someone who wants to participate with his technical skills seems very absurd to me.

You don’t get responsibility by enforcing it. Either people take it or they don’t, forcing it upon them will do no good. It would be healthier to educate people about their responsibilities, as we did it in the past. I still believe it has worked quite well and actually made community members more aware of what importance taking on their responsibilities has.

It’s quite obvious that the top 10 nodes are all run by different people. It would also be quite easy to detect if something would change.

“Permissionless: No arbitrary gatekeepers should ever prevent anybody from being part of the network (user, node, miner, etc).”

We are trying to play the arbitrary gatekeeper here. Please, don’t.

We do not. We are trying to design algo which ensures security itself, without need to know that the top 10 nodes are all run by different people and with no need to detect if something would change. Moreover I haven’t got your idea why it’s obvious and how will you detect this.


@KarlKarlsson I don’t have any personal comments regarding you or WavesGo actions, you are not to blame that WavesGo became number 1 node because of most lessors were more concerned regarding their own profit and not health of the network (ie issues with decentralization). Also node provided good and consistent service which also played its role. Your actions by decreasing % of fees distributed to lessors played its role so lessors were motivated to move out. I’m very disappointed that when I first mentioned PR problem in May 2017 nothing had been done in supporting decentralization with MRT distribution from the waves team participation - already at that time amount of MRT distributed should have been limited by N blocks per day and first several released blocks would have received double payout. Amount of possible MRT distribution that way could have been prolong for a yearl! The only option to motivate some1 is to take their profits away or give them new profits somewhere else.

I’m probably not going to come back to the past regarding this post any more, what has been done is done already and cannot be changed, we can look only further and act accordingly, as we are doing now discussing it. I hope that every1 learned at least one lesson in respect of their actions, be it node operator, lessor or waves team. At least now we have a damn good decentralized network, we have fairPos, waves team is starting to support small nodes with share of their waves to better support decentralization, but the possibility is still there that several bad actors could act in bad faith and commence an attack.

As waves team ideology was always and is “think forward” we should think about it now and commence required operations for better future performance. Maybe we should look at the possible problem with different angle and think about the way to take into account number of total nodes while “accepting forked chains”.


Finally i find the second key method to create trustless system. People should to discontinue the SC development and use “educate and ask” features.
Sorry, but i can’t reply to this without sarcasm and sadness.

1 Like

How? :face_with_thermometer::face_with_head_bandage: 404 :joy:

Everything same with bitcoin, it is permissionless open chain. People can run their own full node without any limitation. We are talking about having enough power here, to find a block with this proccess. So, there are limits.

that’s why I keep saying disable leasing and find a different solution to allow ppl participate in consensus. like voting mechanism for any change on code source. Only ppl who want to make money from fees should run full node with their own balance. ppl do not act against their benefit.

I know that the distribution in the nodes is bad, but we can not limit the access to lease to that they mount a node. easy access will be crucial for a mass adoption

Leasing may be useful although. You can think of it as a leverage which you may get. Same as in trading - you trade with your money, but someone can lend you some money to buy more. This is working schema, since you put your own money and it’s your risk and responsibility. Same with leasing.

1 Like

I find risking to lose a big chunk of the total generating balance quite counterproductive to achieving security, honestly.

Because most node owners are public. From the top 10, I got to know 8 of the node operators. And most likely, an anonymous node wouldn’t even have a chance to get into the top 5 given the current leasing market.