Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Bonded role for btcnode operator #175

Closed
wiz opened this issue Jan 28, 2020 · 4 comments
Closed

Bonded role for btcnode operator #175

wiz opened this issue Jan 28, 2020 · 4 comments

Comments

@wiz
Copy link
Member

wiz commented Jan 28, 2020

This is a Bisq Network proposal. Please familiarize yourself with the submission and review process.

This proposal is for @wiz to become a bonded bitcoin node operator, currently I'm running 2 nodes for Bisq and haven't posted a bond yet.

@sqrrm
Copy link
Member

sqrrm commented Feb 17, 2020

I only see one bond proposal for two nodes. That actually sounds reasonable to me, just that we have posted one bond per node previously. I will revoke ono of my bonds as btcnode operator if there is consensus on there being one bond per role rather than per node.

@wiz
Copy link
Member Author

wiz commented Feb 18, 2020

Yeah, the number of instances a node operator runs for a role doesn't matter, the bond is for the role itself. For example a certain role might run 5 or 10 instances of something, it's not related.

@cbeams
Copy link
Member

cbeams commented Feb 18, 2020

the number of instances a node operator runs for a role doesn't matter, the bond is for the role itself.

In theory, the number of instances an operator runs does matter. If we have a federation of 12 Bitcoin Core nodes and one operator runs all of them, they could do much more damage than a single negligent or malicious operator, right? From a network decentralization perspective, the general intention for most operator roles was always that it's a one-node-per-operator arrangement.

In practice, however, I don't think it's a problem that we have one operator running a couple instances of something, and that they post a single bond for doing so. Indeed, I don't want there to be a perverse incentive for people to run multiple instances of a given node type just so they can collect more bond interest.

For example a certain role might run 5 or 10 instances of something, it's not related.

If this is happening, something is probably wrong. In this case it's less about posting multiple bonds than it is about asking why we are allowing this kind of centralization.

@mpolavieja
Copy link

mpolavieja commented Feb 24, 2020

Approved on DAO voting. Cycle 10

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants