Can we please get a weekly or monthly report that will show detailed node data regarding number of nodes (both p and v), their uptime for the month, the number of times they have been selected, and their prv collected during that time period.
No personal data, ip info or anything like that needs shared.
This will make the node network transparent to show node selection truly is random and that the algorithm used for random selections does not favor any nodes.
Right now, we have average data information and info showing the list of nodes in the community. We also have INDIVIDUALS reporting their particular situations and averages. These are also great but don’t tell the NETWORK specific data.
I am interested in this, obviously, but was wanting it because of marketing purposes. Its hard to sell people on a system and nodes when you say they use a form of “russian roulette” to decide who gets rewards in a POS crypto project.
Transparency is the key. In the last weekly meeting, adding more nodes was a desire for the month of May. We need to make node rewards transparent rather than tell them its random, not rigged and just take our word for it.
PS - This data should already exist in the network databases and just needs extracted and posted.
PPS - This should help new AND old SEE clear data regarding not only trusted random algorithm but also consistency in node payouts month to month as well as increase and decrease in rewards on a network wide view, rather than just carls or mike or todd’s report about their current setup. My care is for the ENTIRE projects backbone, not just one or two individual setups that have been here since the project started.
What does more information and transparency bring that is bad to not only current investors but also MARKETING in the future with data driven information?
That’s a good question. It’s important to back up what’s said about the project with proof. It can also be tough for someone working on the project to know what is clear and what isn’t, so it’s helpful that you bring it up. Thanks.
Now for the answer:
As for whether selection is random, that can be verified in our github. A post by @dungtran explains it well:
Uptime, selection, earnings, and other info is available for anyone who wants to know, but it would need to be drawn from the data set and reorganized to show whether nodes really do earn the same, or if they’re favored based on age or some other quality.
To build the tool that would regularly compile a report like that could take about a month for one person, and the devs are working tirelessly on just about all there is time in the day for with pDEX upgrades, Portal, bug fixes, and a lot more. So we don’t have the bandwidth at the moment to build it. But, we’re happy to fund anyone who wants to, so if you’d like, put a request in bounce ideas and someone can make a proposal! In the meantime, the data should all be available here and here, and perhaps elsewhere (feel free to chime in if you find more info elsewhere).
There are two other things that tend to come up in questions that I’ll add here for the sake of transparency. It can be found elsewhere on the site but it’s helpful to have it in one place:
Nodes being equal is vital to both the ethics of the project and the effects of the project. A well-functioning, secure privacy network only happens if nodes have equal influence. While everyone understands that nodes have equal influence in the validation process, the equality of selection and earning is less clear, so we need to define equality very carefully:
Equality of Outcome would be all nodes earning the same. Equality of Opportunity is all nodes having the same chance to earn.
The latter is what is most important, and statistically the former should follow. While the nature of randomness is debated among physicists, for all intents and purposes, randomness is chaotic and unpredictable. This means that while every node is selected at random and has equal chance of selection, there is always a chance that earnings do not equalize. Statistically, over the long term, earnings tend to equalize, but it’s not something we can or should control.
The only way to ensure equality of outcome, i.e., nodes earning the same, is to control the selection process and make sure each node is selected in turn, which gives us too much power (among other security flaws I assume, which I don’t have the technical qualifications to comment on).
I once heard Neil DeGrasse Tyson put it like this:
“Line up ten people, each with a coin. Tell them to flip it, and everyone who got ‘tails’ has to sit down. Repeat the process until there is one guy standing. Completely at random, that one guy flipped heads every single time.”
Now, the numbers will be a little different since selection is not 50/50. But the concept is the same. So, a completely fair selection process will work itself out that way, almost guaranteeing some selections streaks and non-selection streaks.
That said, it’s important to note that, for the moment, some nodes do have fixed validator slots. Incognito takes a pragmatic approach to decentralizaiton in which, for security, some nodes managed by the core team are fixed validators.
The PRV does not go into our pockets, and I don’t own the nodes. @andrey explained it in another comment:
If I buy/run my own node, it will join the selection pool like everyone else’s. But the fixed nodes are there until the network is developed enough to be capable of full decentralization. There is already a plan in progress for removing the fixed nodes, which can be read here and here.
I hope that helps! If you have any follow-up questions, be sure to reply. And thanks again for taking the time to ask the question!