1.5M Tokens Allocated for Node Operations from Oct 29 to Dec 10!

Development Updates
21

Would it be fair or foul play to have a couple of different wallets collecting payments from different nodes? Is it controlled in the end that the price is really dealt per person, and not per address?

If per address, it might make sense to run a few different batches of nodes with each batch having a different address, to collect more money. For example, better to have 3 addresses in the positions ranging from 4001-5000 earning a total of 240 tokens instead of having one address in 501-1000 range earing a total of 230 tokens.

Or if you are wealthy, and can run a lot of nodes, you could maybe grab three first positions instead of just one.

Obviously, there is a risk in this approach, but that is not the question. The question is if it is right or not? And if not, how is it controlled against?

2 Likes
22

See Jim’s reply above, it isn’t controlled.

No requesting of who has what payment address.

It seems to now be a game of working out the best mix of number of addresses for the number of nodes you can run

2 Likes
23

Bux said the quiet part out loud yesterday during stages. The more active address we have, the larger the community appears to exchanges etc.

So I think it’s our civic duty to have several.

7 Likes
24

So a system that firstly (likely) favors datacenters in a technical level, and on top of that rewards the wealthy more than the less wealthy.

The folks able to run thousands of nodes could easily push all the folks running just a few out of the rewards.

5 Likes
25

The the least thing to do is to be open about it, and not say it is per person when it is per address.

1 Like
26

Well in stages they did say per address and per person. I think their thinking was based on the typical person running launchpad

2 Likes
27

Should be fixed in here, too:

28

If we speculate a bit in light of this leaderboard for example:

…we can see that with a bit of collaboration the two biggest farmers could catch the first six places before the third biggest farmer.

3 Likes
29

Go nuts. The behaviour that is rewarded will - in general - be the one that happens.

1 Like
30

I could be wrong, but I think it could be an improvement over simply basing it on Attos earned, because big players who want to maximise their earnings have to work for it by handling multiple addresses & optimising their nodes etc vs simply running loads of nodes to 1 Ethereum address.

Surely anything that makes it a little harder for the big players is an advantage for the smaller players?

31

Maybe a simple request that they don’t try to maximise their rewards might prove useful. AFAIK the big players are reasonable people and if asked they would somewhat be kind to everyone else and just use one (or two) addresses for their nodes.

2 Likes
33

I can understand this to a degree, but if they’re contributing more resources, shouldn’t they get proportionately bigger rewards? That seems reasonable to me (though I’m not one of the ‘big players’).

I certainly wouldn’t think any less of any big player splitting nodes between multiple Ethereum addresses to optimise rewards… they should respond to the incentives provided.

3 Likes
34

It’s definitely a balancing act we need to attract more people to run smaller numbers of nodes to scale the network.

I’m guessing that looking at the rewards table for this phase that marketing and PR are are coming soon as currently we have around 200 node runner wallets.

But if we allow for people already having multiple wallets that number is a lot less.

2 Likes
35

They are if in first few places. The ones at the top get more of the pie. But if the 28K node runner takes the first 6 to 10 places then its not fair to those below who put a lot of resources into it

5 Likes
36

Another angle:

There is 6500 places getting rewards. My gut feeling is that there is not going to be that many people running the nodes, at least not in the beginning. If all the places are not filled, there’s going to be money left on the table. Is that going to happen in this world of crypto?

But let’s assume that just the first 1500 places are filled. The last guys on that list are running maybe 1-5 nodes, as a ballpark figure. Who would mind, if they run all of them in different addresses. Probably no one.

But it would probably be profitable to split your nodes somehow at every level, until all the 6500 paying places are filled. Where would we draw a line, like “Yeah, it’s OK for the last 15%, but everyone better than that should have just one address.” Even if we could draw a line, it cannot be enforced, and in this world of crypto… you know.

Then it comes to the fact, that the people running so few nodes cannot probably be bothered to assign different addresses to them, because the official, easy way does not support that. They would need to learn new skills, that is not at all easy at the skill level where they are. Whereas someone starting a few thousand nodes with a script, can probably do a bit more scripting, and do the math to get somewhat reasonable deviation to grab as many places as he can.

So, now we have a system, that on the official procedure is trying to be easily accessible to everyone. But the table is tilted so that the chips are going to roll to the side of the “rich and able”.

Imagine someone going out their way to teach a new person with great effort to run a node, and tell them that now you have a good chance to earn something. And when the game is over, they are just going to find out, that others, who are better off and know the inner workings of the game, have just pushed them out of any little money they might have earned. My advise would be: don’t bother.

Maybe they are doing just that. Because:

So if it is about appearances, this system will get that. Maybe with a side benefit of getting a more stable network, because it makes so much more sense to run this via datacenters than from homes.

So at the end of this period we might very well have a smoothly running network, that is run in a somewhat centralized manner from datacenters, and favors the rich. At least the push is to that direction.

Then, what is supposed to happen after that? What is the direction the network can and should take then?

5 Likes
37

We are trying to build functional network, not a communist paradise. People who are willing to go the extra mile, put more effort or even risk their own money are always going to get more than people just riding the bandwagon. That is how world works and it is foolish to go against it.

4 Likes
38

I get your point, really do. But isn’t it enough to just reward each node the same for the benefit they provide? Why is there need to reward some nodes more just because they are run by the same entity, who also runs other nodes?

Also, the goal is to develope a network that is truly decentralized and run on everyday devices. Why is it incentivized to make it more centralized and needing special equipment?

3 Likes
39

I don’t think the announced reward scheme is doing that.

Ideals and technical limitations have to meet somewhere. Less and less people have classic PCs at home and with phones and similar HW the network will will never have the performance and stability we want.

It is not incetivized. “Econnomies of scale” is one of the basic economical priciples, it comes naturally.

1 Like
40

It might, or might not, depending on how the actual distribution goes.

I think it is possible, even likely, that under some limit, people are pushed below the margin and don’t earn at all, even if their node would have gotten some tokens. If you are at place 6500 you earn 30 ANT, if you are at place 6501, you earn 0 ANT.

Now is this difference between places 6500 and 6501 going to be a difference of 1 node per address vs. 2 nodes per address, or 11 nodes vs. 10 nodes… or something else? That depends entirely how the bigger players decide to play the game.

If the goal of using extra resources of hardware at homes is abandoned, it should ne openly stated.

It is incentivized by making it likely unprofitable to run just a few nodes. And it is also incentivized by having the nodes connecting so much better from datacenters, than from homes.

@JimCollinson What is actually the goal here?

2 Likes
41

One more example, then I’ll quit until someone else comments:

Positions 11-20 are rewarded 4520 ANT each. You could have all your nodes under one address, and end up there. But you could also divide your nodes to two groups and get two positions. If those two positions are at the slot of 91-100, you’ll break even. If any higher, you’ll win.

I really don’t know how all of this is going to end up, but one thing is certain: this is a very complex game. And I’m almost certain, that small and simple players are going to lose out.

6 Likes