Jump to content

Adopt a Node Initiative


Julian_Williams
 Share

Recommended Posts

This is not the right step for decentralization IMO.
It's basically paying the same individual/organization to run multiple nodes. An organization which already received funds from Ripple. Completely useless or even counterproductive IMO.

We need a robust codebase of rippled and a robust network. We need completely uncorrelated validators. We need a community.

To me this looks only a lucrative way of riding the wave of the network failure.

Edited by tulo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gepster said:

Do you need the community to fund your full node? Where do we send the money?

Absolutely not. When I decided to run my node I knew the costs associated. I did it for my "business" and personal interest. If my product built on XRPL can't sustain even the cost of running a node then I did something wrong with my business plan. And I don't look for tips from the community.

We need a reliable network so that people can build on top of it, make business on XRPL and run their own node.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, tulo said:

This is not the right step for decentralization IMO.
It's basically paying the same individual/organization to run multiple nodes. An organization which already received funds from Ripple. Completely useless or even counterproductive IMO.

We need a robust codebase of rippled and a robust network. We need completely uncorrelated validators. We need a community.

To me this looks only a lucrative way of riding the wave of the network failure.

While I don't think it's fair to say they received funds from Ripple, so they shouldn't ask for additional help, I totally agree about being a step in the wrong direction in terms of decentralization. 

I would be happy to support something like the following instead - 

  • As experts in maintaining building and maintaining XRPL nodes, offer DevOps services for infrastructure that the buyer owns. Who does the grunt work of setting up infrastructure should not matter. What should matter is who owns the infrastructure. In the current proposal, ownership remains with XRPL Labs and that gives me pause.
  • Community should be able to organize as DAO to buy full history nodes that the DAO owns, rather than buying share of a node that XRPL Labs owns.
  • These nodes, that I feel shouldn't be owned by XRPL Labs but by a DAO or an individual buyer, should have a fair shot at UNL.
Edited by Ripley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the basic idea.

If the node is not on the UNL, then it is just an access point, for either listening to ledger data, or submitting TXs.

If the ownership of a validating node on the UNL can be distributed across multi "owners" I think that would be good. I'd imagine a group of small XRPL dApps pitching in for dedicated service. Sort of like AWS for XRPL.

If one entity owns it, it sort of feels like one of those mining botnets, which I know it's not the same, but sort of.

Also almost like Flare's Delegations to FTSOs, except you get compensation for delegating. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KarmaCoverage said:

If the node is not on the UNL, then it is just an access point, for either listening to ledger data, or submitting TXs.

I just pictured it as sort of an air intake manifold and was like "Oh, need a bigger one for more flow?  Sure thing."

https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/ctrp-1202-intake-manifold-secrets-when-bigger-really-is-better/

Edited by NightJanitor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, tulo said:

This is not the right step for decentralization IMO.
It's basically paying the same individual/organization to run multiple nodes. An organization which already received funds from Ripple. Completely useless or even counterproductive IMO.

We need a robust codebase of rippled and a robust network. We need completely uncorrelated validators. We need a community.

To me this looks only a lucrative way of riding the wave of the network failure.

This was a good short term option, since it critical to make sure system is not dependent on Ripple. Which quickly raising funds outside of Ripple, so nodes can be setup is a good short term option for this issue.

I agree this is not a good solution long term. Including we need uncorrelated validators and a community.  Not just one organization (Ripple, XRPL Labs, etc.) controlling the whole system.  The XRPL foundation pitched itself, like it would be the lead for this: https://xrpl.org/index.html. But it seems like that will not happen.

Eitherway, if XRPL will continue to be successful in the future, this is a hard requirement. It is not possible for a system like this to scale up and be used throughout the world, if funds and development are primarily owned by just one organization.

Edited by wogojump
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's fine and will increase participation.  Honestly they will lose money on this in the long run, so I hope that they are profitable enough in the future it isn't a big hit. The more encouraging development is that people are asking new coin projects if they will run their own nodes, and that seems a good social way to fight the scam/leeching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/3/2021 at 4:15 PM, tulo said:

This is not the right step for decentralization IMO.
It's basically paying the same individual/organization to run multiple nodes. An organization which already received funds from Ripple. Completely useless or even counterproductive IMO.

We need a robust codebase of rippled and a robust network. We need completely uncorrelated validators. We need a community.

To me this looks only a lucrative way of riding the wave of the network failure.

Please note that these nodes we're talking about don't have any influence on transaction voting or consensus. These types of nodes just provide transaction, balance, order book, etc. information. With five digit simultaneous users, there are quite a lot of queries these nodes have to answer every millisecond. That's what these nodes are doing. They have no amendment voting power, they don't participate in consensus like validators do. 

Nodes like these (providing balance, transaction, order book, etc. information) are inherently somewhat centralized if they must be usable for end users, as there's a node address one connects to. Someone or some company is operating that anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/6/2021 at 12:59 AM, Wietse said:

Please note that these nodes we're talking about don't have any influence on transaction voting or consensus. These types of nodes just provide transaction, balance, order book, etc. information. With five digit simultaneous users, there are quite a lot of queries these nodes have to answer every millisecond. That's what these nodes are doing. They have no amendment voting power, they don't participate in consensus like validators do. 

Nodes like these (providing balance, transaction, order book, etc. information) are inherently somewhat centralized if they must be usable for end users, as there's a node address one connects to. Someone or some company is operating that anyway.

MVP for taking the time replying to Toxic Tulo :victory:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.