Thanks to @steevc for pointing me to the top 20 witnesses feed https://peakd.com/b/badge-874543 which I didn't know existed. It explains the distribution of payment for running #hive nodes. And it got me to wondering . . . who decided that only the top 20 get the lion's shares? Why not top 100? Or 200?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The top 20 are the ones that are the backbone, many of the backup witnesses only sign a block every 1-3 days, where top 20 are signing every minute.
But it sounds like the non-top 20 don't have the option to sign a block every 1-3 minutes unless I'm misunderstanding. If more witnesses were guaranteed a block, rather than having to wait for a random one then they too could sign a block more often couldn't they?
No, they won't sign as often, that's the point. They are backups. The consensus witnesses need to be the most trusted. If every witness signed as often, it would be really easy to sybil attack the chain.
OK. Makes sense. But couldn't other witnesses become consensus witnesses over time as they prove their trusworthiness and thus increase decentralisation. 20 seems a small number from a dentralised perspective.
If you add more, you slow down the chain, although the recent one block feature helps this a lot, but increasing it also increases risks.
Interesting. Thanks for answering my questions.
you'd probably have to look at posts from a pretty long time ago for those takes is my guess.
I'm surprised at that. I thought it would be something those in the know (of which I consider yourself 😁) would know. I assumed it was a fundamental feature.
we all have opinions at this point.
I'm sure @themarkymark may see the snap and give his thoughts. I used to see these opinions more often years ago when it was talked about a lot more.
I doubt it would be worth it to run a node if the rewards got diluted to too many witnesses. Also what happens if HIVE craters to a few cents, yeah it's unlikely but not impossible.
Did you do the math? It would easily work out if not only the top 20 would get the lion share.
So Hive isn't likely to get any more decentralised than it is now then sounds like.
Of course the current Top20 don´t want to change to a Top 30 or 40 scheme, because their passive income then would go down significantly!
And no, Hive isn´t really decentralized, check out how many Hive the top 10 hold! At least better then with many other chains.
Yes. That's what I was getting at although I don't like to be so direct for fear of the downvote mob. 😂 I wasn't aware of the physical implications of more witnesses though although how much the chain would actually slow down if there was a top 100 v 20 I have no idea.
If the top 100 would get votes like the top 20 now, that would probably be not so good, as further down witnesses (including myself) have no backup server yet (that would double the costs). But there could be a better way than now, here is the current reward distribution:
Definitely looks like there could be a better way. Intuitively you would think that best would be a curve that sloped gradually from left to right. Or at least had much less of a drop off after the first 20. But, as you say, there's not much appetite to change it.
I think it's decentralized enough. I would rather have speed and reliability rather than 100 witnesses receiving pennies if I'm being honest. Imagine having to manually vote for 100 witnesses. What a nightmare.
Not sure. Pro and cons of both. I'm keen on true decentralisation over money but I've yet to find any projects which work well and are truly decentralised. No matter what the majority of the power always seems to end up in the hands of the few.