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

Sorry, but again your arguments are non-existent. Kind of sad since you proposed the whole idea.

I’ve been quite involved in the community since ICO and happened to meet most of them in person. I’d assume PyWaves support is run by the WNET team but that’s it.

Agreed. But mining hardware for PoW networks is blockchain agnostic and only limited by the different algos. In a PoS system, you have to purchase the underlying token which is everything else than blockchain agnostic. That creates an inherently closed system; implementing a limitation for the generating balance based on own WAVES would only worsen that situation further.

LPoS might have its flaws but it’s tremendous when it comes to securing the network. Without LPoS, I’d expect only about 10% of all WAVES to participate in generating blocks. That was the typical active stake in Nxt where you had to run your own node to mine.

1 Like

We have a great chance to experience that. Last year wavesgo node owner was talking about educating leasers and community. Let’s try this now to see how ppl will react when wavesgo do not support smart contracts. Now they have 9698366 waves in proccess let see how many of them will cancel leasing. I bet most of them will not care about that.

Still :face_with_head_bandage::face_with_thermometer: This is not make things obvious for us :hugs:

Still same :slight_smile: You should check some economy books to see real problem here :slight_smile: Bitcoin have it is own closed system due to electricity cost and mining equipment (e.g : asic)

So, you are saying %50 leasing to same nodes better than %10 distrubeted ? :slight_smile: unbelievable. I would like to see %10 of them distrubuted between real investors. This is quite secure than current situation.

I don’t understand this logic. We have WAVES token for two purposes: 1 - pay fees, 2 - generate blocks. Do you say that the requirements to have some WAVES to generate blocks is bad? I think it’s good, not bad. If you want to participate - buy some waves, it’s open :slight_smile:

Does this mean that reasonable target level for own miner’s fund requirement is 10%?

We should try that once there is a proposal we at WavesGo wouldn’t support. But SC definitely gets our votes.

Well, explain to me the real problem then :slight_smile:

Yes, but it’s not as tremendous as with Waves. If you have mining hardware for a certain PoW algo, you can switch back and forth between different blockchains operating with that specific consensus algorithm. Not as closed as Waves’ current state, let alone its future state assuming this proposal would make its way into the core.

You are putting words in my mouth. I said it’s better to have a total active forging stake of 43% than 10%; I never mentioned anything about the distribution of said total stake. Of course, the better it is distributed, the healthier for the network. I remain with my position; the current distribution is fine. Let me show you Bitcoin’s and Ethereum’s for context:
Bitcoin: | Charts - Hashrate Distribution

It’s not about me, it’s about the newcomers. I assume our goal is the same: Decentralization. That requires two things when it comes down to nodes:

  1. Well-distributed mining stakes among nodes
  2. As many nodes as possible (to create as many copies of the database as possible)

Personally, I think number 1 is satisfied but has potential. Anyway, nothing I would prioritize by implementing and enforcing such a proposal.

Number 2, however, is our bottleneck. At the time of writing, we have roughly 280 nodes of which about 100 generated a block in the last 30 days only. I’m sure you are aware of that issue given the Waves team tries to incentivize new nodes through different programs.

Now, the idea you are proposing would likely benefit number 1 at the cost of knowingly decreasing the total stake at work. Essentially, you are making the blockchain more vulnerable to 51% attacks. On the other hand, it would go against number 2, the very issue you are trying to counter. It elevates the entry barrier for new developers, especially those who want to support the network by running a node.

And that leads to the next problem: Waves’ developer community is lacking. We need people to build stuff on the platform, as seen with Ethereum. Making it harder for new members to contribute to the network does not attract them - it’s quite the opposite.

And as a side note - I really appreciate the feature that you don’t have to hold your own WAVES on the node, for security reasons. It would be real bummer to sacrifice that too.


And as a side note - I really appreciate the feature that you don’t have to hold your own WAVES on the node, for security reasons. It would be real bummer to sacrifice that too.

If this thread would not solve this key issue… What a waste…

I also have a node, which does not catch a cold. but unlike bitcoin, in waves people give power to a node. if people want to annoy giving power to 3 nodes, we can not do anything.

the pool will be interesting, miners vrs the people who want to continue giving power to the big nodes.

@KarlKarlsson I agree to keep away the waves of the node.

Is that the problem? Don’t you know how to secure your network? Even 2fa feature can’t help ? Please don’t cry for security, If you worry about losing your fund without leasing, same time you have to worry about whole network. This could lead to a much bigger loss. Maybe coins will not stolen directly from your wallet but yes this can hurt much.

Leasing the simplest and most safest method to maintain the node. It is more likely to make bugs in 2fa function than in leasing. Moreover, I still don’t see how 2fa gonna save you if the server with the decoded seed is compromised. Isn’t it necessary for blockchain clients (including nodes) to have decrypted seed to access their addresses?? It is possible to steal the key during the .dat file decryption.
If you wanna cancel all leasing feature, then i will offer to leave it alive but with limitation of 1 leasing tx per node. But im still thinking that it is possible to build workable LPOS. Seems like it could be possible only with complication of functioning step by step.

1 Like

I assume when ppl will run a full node with requirement generating balance (not a pool) , psychologically, people will make more efforts to protect their coins. This will lead to have educated node owners around waves ecosystem which can help in many way.

Why do I think ppl will run full nodes: when leasing will disabled the cake will be divide between less balance. So, do some math, there are 500 waves daily potential with mrt. with 2million waves miners can save %10 roi per year. this is a great rate for a system like waves which do not have inflation, From economic perspective ; don’t leave money on the table. When revenue will grow number of nodes will increase too.

I do not know much about computing, and I was encouraged to create a node, when they announced the call for community nodes, (I hope and they take me into account), I saw the deadline of September 11 and started to see how much YouTube video of Linux and pages of nodes waves I found.

and it gives me peace of mind that I’m not directly risking my wallet with the few waves I have, because I just implemented the security I saw on YouTube.

I am in favor of having my waves in a wallet outside the node

1 Like

we have to find the way that each node can mine at least 1 block every 24 hours.

Why do they want to have 300 or more nodes? it rarely exceeds 60 mining nodes.

Sorry man that’s why I don’t support leasing. You can’t run a full node properly.

as a node solved a block with 1000 balance waves, it still comes out in the 30 day relation.
with YouTube videos.


@alexkof how about holding Mrt in node wallets?

MRTs destiny is sealed. buyback and burn. And that’s all.
Anyway i don’t like this idea. It solves nothing.

I agree. We are talking about blockchain core here, and MRT is just one custom token.