Is my idea off track? Please look :)

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,871
1,863
1,283
I made a suggestion on how we might pay the masternodes, but InternetApe said it would be too much centralization. However, I think he is wrong. But I'll put it out here and see what you all think? Maybe you can explain to me where I'm going wrong :)

I realized that the reason we don't pay each masternodes a share of the 20% block reward is because there are so many masternodes, and to do hundreds or thousands of transactions for each block would obviously bulk up the block chain, not something anyone would want.

But what if an account - no, call it a secondary blockchain that is volatile, as it would be dumped once it completes it's task. This thing keeps track of each available masternode, for each block, awarding them a share if they were available, and then also collects the 20% of the mining rewards. Then once a day, this account pays all the masternodes at once, with one transaction, a percentage of the purse depending on how many shares each masternode submits, kind of like a pool.

Once the payment is made, the account is cleared, all the tallying for the day is deleted and the system starts afresh. Every wallet would process this information, keeping a copy of it, like the blockchain, except that it is volatile information, and it goes away once the payout is made so it doesn't clog up the blockchain.

Do you all think this is centralized? I think it's no more centralized than any single transaction, unless I'm missing something?

I think maybe the way I explain it isn't working, but if we were to talk about it here, the concept could be clarified? Or maybe it is a trash idea, and you all can tell me to give up the ghost, LOL Thanks for looking! :tongue:
 

Lzeppelin

Member
Feb 27, 2014
283
57
88
It's not a bad idea per se in my opinion, I just don't see how it would be better and it seems like a ton of work for no real benefit.
 

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,871
1,863
1,283
Well, the problem is that the mining nodes which vote for the next masternode also manage the payments with a complex system to keep anyone from misbehaving. But this is what was causing all the forks. I don't know of a way for the masternodes to trick this system into giving them more shares than they deserve (can only get 1 share per round, if you're online to misbehave, you would have been online to collect the share).

It's all automatic, nobody has control over the payment thingie... idunno, I must be missing something...
 

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,871
1,863
1,283
Ok, somebody explained it to me. The "thingy" is really an account, no matter how you look at it, and an account must have some kind of key to protect it, and if there is a key, someone could know it, which requires trust. Thanks for hearing me out, I really needed it spelled out to me so I could understand. Thanks :)
 

vertoe

Three of Nine
Mar 28, 2014
2,573
1,652
1,283
Unimatrix Zero One
I dont see why one huge transaction should be smaller than many tiny transactions. I think this is hard to realize, hard to maintain and you win just a few bytes, if so...
 

fusecavator

Member
Jun 4, 2014
40
38
58
Paying all masternodes every block is certainly doable without too much bloat, however it would be difficult to integrate into the bitcoin-based source. If changes in masternode list state were included in blocks( ex: block 1 -> mn 1 and 2 up; block 2 -> nothing; block 3 -> mn 3 up, 2 down), clients could simply maintain a list of what is up and down and add to balances accordingly when stepping through blocks. This would be easily implementable in a network like nxt which simply stores a balance for each address, however bitcoin requires that specific input transaction be referenced when sending, which you wouldn't have when trying to do it that way.