I want to preface this with a few things: We’ve only seen the initial thoughts on consensus participation The people creating it are geniuses, I am most definitely not I’m just offering my opinions. Take them as that. There’s probably many mispellings and typos That said, I wanted to bring up a …

according to some smart people current node software is not optimized for multiple addresses participating on the same node and apparently after 3-4 doing so the node might run into problems (missing votes/proposals). this would mean the lower the cap the more physical nodes those entities would hav…

[image] lobo: this would mean the lower the cap the more physical nodes those entities would have to run. The number of simultaneous part keys before significant slow down on well spec’d machines is about 5. [image] lobo: this would mean the lower the cap the more physical nodes those en…

[image] JohnWoods: Not in a highly available manner. The cloud expense will be minor concerning the overall operational expense. A dedicated team will need to be available 24x7 to maintain, support, and secure the entire system. Large staking pools can’t be managed half-assed by a bunch of am…

[image] oysterpack: That would simply be dumb for large staking pools. But, staking pools will do it if they get so large as to reach whatever the cap is. If they are profitable, and they reach the staking cap, they won’t leave money on the table. They will spin up another node, copy their ex…

10mm min = 1000 max #of nodes 1000 * x watts = network max energy req You can start by defining how much max energy is reasonable (compliant) to spend and then get to your min node stake cap. Lower max cap might become redundant then

Not only can they spin up multiple nodes and control them like they would with just a single node, but all the same concerns about cloud outages would apply. If they have 60MM in one node on AWS, or 60MM spread across 6 nodes on AWS, the result is the same if AWS goes down. What you hope for is tha…

[image] d3ath5t4r: 10mm min = 1000 max #of nodes I don’t think a 10MM minimum was suggested. The discussion was about a maximum allowed in a node.

Like I said, if they do it then it means they don’t understand risk management … and that they are dumb.

Consensus rewards whitepaper concern

General

d3ath5t4r February 2, 2024, 6:31pm 23

High max cap* redundant I meant to say, sorry

Topic		Replies	Views
GP8 Measures DRAFT DeFi Rewards Allocation Q4 Governance Measures gp8	74	4868	August 29, 2023
[Temperature Check] Reward node runners through governance Governance Discussions	18	2018	January 14, 2023
GP8 Measures DRAFT for Community Feedback Governance Measures gp8	42	5559	September 6, 2023
Idea for decentralization -- subscribe to participation nodes through wallet General	7	1460	August 29, 2021
Serious lack of transparency and engagement of Algorand foundation	29	9638	August 16, 2022

Consensus rewards whitepaper concern

Related topics