I dug up this comment from a community member, and I think it’s worth a look @Nokuaru GP8 Measures DRAFT for Community Feedback - #40 by Nokuaru
For this quarter, as I stated above I support the 500k node runners measure
4 Likes
From what I’ve read here, my understanding is that the more successful the proposal is, the bigger the security drop. So even if this proposal works great, it creates an equally great problem because the stake will dump at a known time. Even in the optimistic case where we returned to the exact prior levels, it’s not good to have drops like this. Moreover, what happens in 2024 Q1, Q2, Q3…? Is this really a sustainable way to get people to participate or will we create a pump and dump in security?
I think consensus participation incentive structure is an integral part of the network protocol and should thus be handled by INC. We don’t have to try and tinker with these just because Folks added rewards and slightly more stake came online.
3 Likes
*** UPDATE 28 August ***
Thank you all for your feedback. Your deliberation has highlighted the need for further discussion on this topic. We will not proceed with measures 5, 6 and 7 this quarter.
8 Likes
I want to thank everyone who participated in the (constructive part of the) discussion and I would like to stress that the decision to not proceed in this quarter must be seen in a positive light: the Community has demonstrated enormous interest in addressing this issue and therefore it’s necessary to have a more detailed discussion about the actual implementation and its consequences on the security of the network. At the same time, I feel the need to ask everyone to discuss, even fiercely, the ideas but abstain from transforming them into a personal issue: let’s put aside our egos, we are here to build something together.
6 Likes
Really appreciate the decision to not rush it and instead trying to work on points that were brought up!
It is important to continue such a discussion now openly instead of it going back to a committee imo so we don’t end up with the same problem next period. This should be the general approach: get early feedback and try to work on the measures together.
And to comment on the last point: while my opinion was always backed by reasons (at least i hope i could make that clear) I know that some of my comments were directly directed towards FF. As long as we can a real discussion where we both acknowledge the points of the other party, balance pros and cons, I definitely don’t want to continue it this way. On top, part of this was due to the short time we had to make our points clear where I personally felt the need to address points more aggressively and I honestly just became pretty emotional because I just want the absolute best for Algorand.
1 Like
People have been wanting consensus rewards for a long time. Governors should be able to vote on it.
it’s vital to emphasize the preeminent significance of upholding Algorand’s security. The ongoing fluctuations in market dynamics have inadvertently magnified the susceptibility of the blockchain to adversarial actions, thereby underscoring the imperative nature of its protection. The adverse aftermath of a successful attack not only endangers invested capital but also engenders the potential for widespread job dislocation.
As FYI, there is another idea/suggestion for participation node rewards here. To be clear, that shouldn’t necessarily block or impact this measure for GP8, but it is good to be considered for future decisions.
Idea:
The rewards (Say all or portion of fees + any extra Algos the foundation adds) go to a single participation node through a lottery (in parallel or combined with the committee selection) in each round, independent of its Algo stake size . Basically, receiving rewards works like an actual lottery and the only required qualification is running a participation node. In other words the rewards are given based on allocated hardware/network resources.
and this would lead for node runners to form pool coalitions so and distribute the rewards to coalition members 
btw, how do you define the node runner? at the moment it is the account which is online not the node…
i think we really need to teach everyone that online account does not need to mean that you have to run the software… Lets make 10B algos online… for this we need to change this mindset
regarding the idependent thing of stake size… i can split 1000 algo account to 1000 1 algo account… i can make it online in one node… do you think i should have higher chance to win the lottery?
btw i agree that this lottery solution might be easier to implement and it might have also better legislative and accountings impacts
1 Like
sounds like people will be incentivized to bring as many accounts online as possible which doesnt sound like a good idea imo. if you add a minimum stake to it, depending on the amount, it would just mean that whales can play this game
There is a cost to running a node. You cannot rely on lottery to run many (1000 as you said) nodes. You may run one or two though.
There is a cost to running a node and given that it is a lottery you would not start spending a lot of money running tens of nodes with the hope that the future payments will cover the costs.
1 Like
You can make many accounts online in one node… Check out for example my public node: Swagger UI
You can make your account online there…
The goal is to reward one node not accounts, which should be clear from the rationale. The only question is whether that’s possible or not. In the worst case it could be semi-manual similar to gov rewards not embedded in the protocol.
At the moment you can track either online public node (by monitoring the swagger i sent you) or you can track list of accounts and its stakes…
Note that the public node requires proxy app to allow use of cpu sensitive “partition key creation”. This is not officially done by Algorand atm, and there is no official way to create partition keys from web on nodes run by algokit or official docker images. (To my knowledge… perhaps something has changed meanwhile)
There is no way at the moment to say which nodes are validating which accounts as far as i know.
Technically those nodes holds the private keys for signing the block proposal messages, so it should be possible, but i am not sure right now if they can sign arbitrary data so that you can registrer your node to some database to link node with account… Nodes does not have any identifier to my knowledge nor they use some account, so it might be good to change protocol if we want to these things properly.
Btw, in my opinion it would be great if we generate account for each node, and this node would identify in the network with his public key…
2 Likes