Manifesto of the node. [Centralization alert]


#1

Dear representatives of the Waves community! We decided to make a public appeal in order to share our vision of the current situation with the Waves network and the ideas and steps that we will take to solve the problems that have arisen.

Centralization of the network


It turned out that today the Waves platform suffers from strong centralization. More than 58% of the network capacity is concentrated in the hands of only 3 nodes. These nodes receive 58% of commissions from all operations in the Waves network. This deprives other nodes of the possibility of a normal existence. In addition to this, the monopoly of the three nodes leads to a much more serious problem: to sabotage of features activations.

How does the Waves blockchain activate a feature?

Any update or feature that developers want to add to the platform, first goes to the TESTNET. Only after passing all tests and successful voting it finally appears in the MAINNET. Burning tokens, airdrops, and things like that - all these changes have to collect a certain number of votes from the community before being activated in the MAINNET.

How many votes are needed?

For a voting to be considered as successful, it should be supported by 80% of the network.

How does the network vote?

When any node generates a block, it can add a “FOR” voice to each of the generated blocks. However, if the node does not record the “FOR” voice, then this means that the node votes “AGAINST” automatically.

What does all of this have to do with sabotage?

In order for a new feature to be activated, it has to be supported by 80% of the Waves network. This means that at least 8,000 of the 10,000 blocks have to be generated with the “FOR” record. In the process of voting for the feature #8 (Fair PoS) 2 of the 3 top nodes with a total capacity of 29% refused to vote for its activation. Such a big capacity let them put a veto on any activation.

Why did the two top nodes vote “AGAINST”?

Only 2 nodes have decided for the entire network, what it needs and what it does not need. Is it fair? We carefully investigated the arguments of these nodes and we consider them unconvincing. References to the code investigation (there is a TESTNET for those purposes, isn’t it?) serve as a screen, and the essence was to deliberately delay the activation for unknown reasons. This is confirmed by the fact that for no apparent reason these 2 nodes suddenly changed their mind and voted for activation.

The essence of the problem

Sadly enough, a rather large part of the Waves community does not think about the consequences of leasing. By leasing their Waves to top nodes, lessors do not just condemn themselves to a lower profitability, but they also support centralization, unconsciously increasing the capacity of the top nodes and the power of their voice. People just send their Waves to these nodes and then receive dividends without understanding how these leased Waves affect the network.

How does this relate to the Tradisys team?

We are very concerned by the fact that only 2 nodes can block any activation without a broad and thorough discussion within the community. The consequences of blocking activations can be severe. For example, we develop rather complex software and have an internal schedule of product releases, which is also available to our business partners. If we add certain functionality to the release schedule, and this functionality is tied to a feature that must go through the voting procedure, then automatically this schedule becomes dependent on the top nodes decisions. By blocking activations of useful and progressive features, those nodes can cause direct damage to our business.

What will prevent the top nodes from blocking the voting of smart contracts activation for a week or two?

The solution

Currently, this problem has only one solution: a more even distribution of capacities among the network nodes. As long as only 3 nodes control 58% of the blockchain and can block any voting for an indefinite time without any consequences, you can forget about decentralization.

We also suggest the Waves development team to reduce the minimum network support threshold for successful feature activation from 80% to 51%. After all, the majority should make decisions on the most important issues, and 51% is the majority, though with a slight advantage. It is people who must determine the future of the network, rather than the monopoly of the top nodes holders. Waves tokens should give everybody the right to vote. And this power must be returned back to the people.

In addition to this, we call on all the nodes, without exception, to stop overusing the misunderstanding of the people who have leased the Waves. Waves is not just money. Waves is the power and right to vote. The lessors must have the right to vote inside the node for whether this node will vote FOR or AGAINST the new feature activation. To do this, work should be done to inform the lessors of all new features and stages of voting.

How will the Tradisys node vote?

Every time before voting for a new feature or against, we will issue a token. For example, let’s assume that feature #10 is in the voting stage. We count all active lessors and the number of Waves that they leased to our node and send out a new TradisysVote10 token in a ratio of 1 new token for each Waves leased. In the description of the token we place 2 newly created addresses. Sending tokens to the first address will mean the voice goes “FOR”, sending to the second one - “AGAINST”. After 72 hours we will count the votes and make the decision based on the majority of votes. We do understand that this is not a simple process. We realize that not everyone will vote (as indeed in any other election). However, this is only the beginning, and with the launch of smart contracts this process can be significantly improved.

The Tradisys Node will never get profit from commissions from the Waves that people leased to our node.
The Tradisys Node will never abuse the opportunities offered by a large generating balance.
The Tradisys Node will never fake the demand for their tokens by rewarding those lessors that will buy these tokens.
We are always open to any discussions and encourage all other nodes to maintain an open dialogue with their lessors.
We call to the Waves Platform developers to stop encouraging top nodes to prevent further centralization of the network.
We believe in the Waves platform. And we believe in decentralization and encourage the nodes to find a compromise between the commercial profit and public benefit.

How to start decentralization?

You can take your Waves from leasing from those nodes whose capacity exceeds 5% and send to any other node, including ours. Perhaps, the outflow of the generating balance will cause other nodes to reflect on the fact that abuse of a dominant position cannot exist in the decentralized system.

Also, you can share the link to this manifesto with all your friends.

In addition to this, you can tell about this manifesto in different chats and forums.

We encourage you to start using your right to vote!

This manifesto is not a revolutionary destructive step, but an urgent evolutionary call for the development of the ecosystem.

Original article

Our Telegram channels: English channel | Russian channel.


#2

Ok, I understand this problem. However you don’t know who owns every node. Someone could own more nodes and the problem is still there unsolved.

You could open a topic and try to explain in simple words to those who do not know what a node is and the problem.

Eh eh eh. I see 2 obstacles to your proposal

  • It seems like you’re just promoting your node :thinking:
  • I don’t think people will block their waves tokens in leasing for 72h just to vote. :grin:

It’s just my humble opinion :relaxed:


#3

Hey! Today it doesn’t matter who owns the waves nodes. Today we are talking about this tow problems:

1. WavesGo can block all activations and freeze current network state FOREVER.

2. The only 3 nodes can fork the whole network to run rollback transactions. It’s okay?

You could open a topic and try to explain in simple words to those who do not know what a node is and the problem.

This thread is just a start! And It’s a reasonable idea to lead a separate topic about this.

It seems like you’re just promoting your node

And only our own node allowed to delve into the whole situation and find out what is happening. Our node is one of many nodes, an alternative, not the only way out. And we are directly talking about this. This entire topic is a very complex issue.


#4

Please, do not misunderstand my comments.

I think this discussion is very interesting and that the objections you raised about the centralization of decisions are legitimate.

I only raised doubts about the final part of the post, “my first impressions” reading your post as a simple non-owner of nodes.

I hope someone else will express their opinions about it and you’ll find the best possible solution :+1:


#5

Maybe I wrong, but I think it’s hard to check who is the owner of every node. Let’s suppose there are 100 nodes controlling 1% (each) of the blockchain. Who can guarantee me that the owner of most of them isn’t the same person or organization?


#6

You are right. That’s why there should be hundreds of nodes to reduce the likely risk of collusion. Now there are enough three people for collusion, which is a terrible problem for the network. If the minimum number of potential conspirators grows to a hundred, then this is more like a consensus.


#7

Centralization is very common problem in crypto, that’s just how “economy at scale” works.
4 pools in BTC have 51%, and just 3 pools in ETH, etc.

We understend the problem is there, might address it by imposing new requirement that node needs posess some funds in order to forge blocks, like 5-10% of its total mining power cap.


#8

Another way to kill nodes?

You can start from removing promoted nodes from your website first.


#9

We offer a two-step voting scheme.

The first step:
This implies that people who leased the Waves get the opportunity to vote first inside the node. They do not lose the opportunity to profit from the mining and they vote consciously for a particular option. Based on the majority of the votes, the node makes a decision.

The second step:
Then the decision of the node is used during the main voting of the nodes.

Those lessors who are not interested in voting can continue to just receive dividends. However, those lessors who are interested in the right to vote can speak during the internal node’s voting. If the results of node’s voting do not satisfy them, then they can cancel the leasing and transfer their Waves to another node.

In other words, it is all about the possibility to use the right of choice for those who bought Waves and contributed to the development of the Waves platform

Centralization is very common problem in crypto, that’s just how “economy at scale” works.

You can’t say that until you stop encourage centralization as a developer.


#10

Why can’t they do so right now?
If someone who leases Waves to node is not satisfied with voting choice of the node, why can’t he lease her Waves to another node?


#11

The problem is that many people don’t even know about what is activations and how it works. They don’t realize thу voting power of their waves and focusing on fees only. Simple lack of awareness.


#12

Nice article. The problem of centralisation is existing and need to do something with this. Agree with you that nodes must inform their leasers about voting features, because most people even don’t know about voting. But I think that your idea to use new tokens to voting will not help. And also, I fully agree that first thing to do it’s that waves must to stop promoting any nodes on offical page of leasing


RuWaves.ru