Having read the white paper, and having observed the rise of masternodes in the past few years, I can’t help thinking that 500 zen for a supernode is far too low. Am I alone thinking this?
Me parece que asi se le da la oportunidad, que algunos usuarios de la moneda, podamos tener un supernodo.
Yes, but what happens when there are 10,000+ supernodes. I know they are not predicting that many, but I am. Can the network peer-to-peer honestly be able to handle it? - I have my doubts. Success in the future of decentralized crypto will eventually require hardware acceleration and fast network connections. I know they want to mitigate this with the addition / hybridization of DAGs, but I still foresee the need for intensive processing and that’s going to require very good incentives / rewards. Having too many supernodes could be spreading things too thinly.
If it were me, I would probably set the supernode collateral to at least 1000 zen, or possibly more. (And secure nodes to 50 zen). And I would change the reward structure to 12% supernodes, 8% secure nodes. This gives supernodes a small house advantage. Secure nodes, after all, are not actually doing much work.
If there were 10,000 supernodes you would expect there to be atleast an even amount of Zencash staked between secure and super nodes. That being the case over 10M zencash would have to be staked.
I’m not so sure. The resources needed for secure nodes are lower than supernodes and, indeed, I expect / hope going forward that supernodes will do significantly more heavy lifting than secure nodes. With an equal pool stake going to both classes of nodes, the only differentiating factors is how much is being staked and spent on resources… that’s the bit that makes fewer supernodes. Back in 2015 when masternodes were initially dismissed, a stake of 1000 units from a supply of 19M just happen to work, but now it’s 2018 and everyone understands the value of masternodes / supernodes… and there are some very deep pockets out there.