Would anyone here like to help me write some smart contracts for the Boscoin network that would allow BOS holders with less than the requisite amount to run a node, aggregate funds to then run a node? These holders could then split proceeds accordingly based on percentages owned, etc,…
It would be like associating people to gather the 40,000 bos for the node. And receive rewards according to the proportion of each. The only problem I see is that the node not only serves as a way to earn rewards, but also as a right to vote and consensus. I do not know if it would be valid to participate in only one vote, ten people, for example.
I think then it becomes more about receiving rewards than actively taking part in voting in any coordinated way, I can see people within the node then becoming less committed to voting on proposals beneficial to BOScoin, I’m not saying I am 100% against it but it would cause fractures within the node
Exactly something I wanted to say, if it would be bad for the vote or if it would be valid to create groups for a single vote. since the node is your chair in parliament boscoin,It is the most important for my, haha
In the first AMA session Yezune replied to my question if there would be a super or combined wallet, where several people can merge their coins to reach the ammount of 1 unit or node with: -yes- they will implement it!
So, there maybe no need of a smart contract for a kind of pool, if thats it what you are suggesting.
That is true, but I already have the doubt of voting with groups of people, it is as if in the very extreme case, there were gathered 40,000 people to 1 bos each, to form the node. those 40000 would also have to vote? Would not it be chaos?
they would have to make a group, choose a delegate, agree on all of them and then the delegate give an answer for a single vote. hahaha is a supposition
@tijepietersma, please check this reply. BOSteam will add it anyway.
Of course not
I suggested to the BOSteam a super wallet with a max. of 8 participants.
The voting weight could be according to the ammount those particpants have and of course that wallet would vote with only 1 voice according to their internal vote.
Because the owners of the super wallet know that they need to vote to avoid a penalty for not voting I’m sure there will be no chaos.
That still leaves room for pools, but also for private initiatives like family or friends super wallets or those from private investment clubs. The intention is to make owning a node possible for small BOS owners in the future and to lower the risk of 50% attacks on BOS by big companies etc.
If they are going to do that, then great. They are kinda late on their previous estimates however but such is the life of software estimates.
I take it the main reason why people would want to pool their coins is to get a share of the rewards, this could be divided up as a percentage and the person with the most at stake could be nominated to decide on voting, I think any other way would just break down into anarchy.
Hi Bruce, very interested in your question, would like to be involved.
The situation Bruce proposes is nothing new IMHO. For example; it is comparable with an association of owners for an apartment complex. This is very well organized in my country, The Netherlands. Each complex is obliged to have an association of owners, from the moment the complex is split into apartments. This is described in the splitting contract and the splitting regulations. The splitting regulations also describes how the ownership ratio are, how decisions are taken, and so on. For some decisions half of the number of votes is required, for other, more important decisions 80% is required.
And would not the voting process be delayed? We would have to wait until all the subgroups reach an agreement and wait for their vote. By a simple vote. I also think that many of those who join the subgroups would not mind voting, only making money. and they would care little to say, yes or no. It is assumed that the owner of the node is because he is 100% committed to the project and attentive to the content of the vote and that is why he invested +40000. with the subgroups, I feel many votes and false decisions. It’s just an idea, since we’re making Boscoin jurisprudence. If the money and the vote were separate, I would not see any problem.the people who only prefer money would go diferent way,without affecting the vote.
I think that all this interesting talk could be a question from the AMA
I guess its TALed, means time automated.
If the votes are not placed in a certain time frame, they don’t count.
And if those non-voters/non-voting wallets do it too often they get a penalty (according to WP).
Proposals would go through the process in stages and all nodes would vote either Yes, No, or neutral for system proposals and other proposals don’t require a vote from a node operator but i would expect a node voting percentage to be factored in somehow to a node ranking on the network. I’m sure the details will be released once we are closer to governance release.