You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: CBR Proposal: Update 2 - Only Three Weeks To Go!
Yup. Solutions are on the way thanks to other blockchains.
IOHK is leading the charge. Some info in the video linked below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1304&v=MeNJoJOgMHU
Thanks thats interesting. I guess a system with the k delegates as the target state, where if the same delegate authors a block withing k - n blocks of the last one the reward is diminished.
The closer together 2 blocks by the same delegate are authored, below a desired target, the less the block reward should be for the second block. This should be inversely proportional so staking consecutive blocks earns less than waiting for the target number of blocks to pass before trying again.
Reward % = (current block staked - last block staked)^2
So if delegate authors block 1 he gets 100% for that, but if he also authors block 2 he gets only 1%. If he authors blocks 1 & 3 he gets 100% for block 1 and 4% for block 3. Authoring block 1 & block 10 gives him 100% for block 1 and 81% for block 10. He must author blocks with a gap of at least 10 blocks between them to earn the maximum amount.
So the delagate and the pool members are incentivised to make more delegates, but not just 10 more because randomness will still present blocks below the threshold quite often, so there will be an incentive to make enough delegates of roughly equal weight to ensure rewards are as close to 100% as possible, but not to dilute the delegate count excessively. With 13 delegates in this scheme assuming they all staked at roughly 13 block intervals, each would earn 84% if the maximum reward, which is still better than the 81% they would earn by having just 9 delegates.
Just a rough idea that popped into my head, it must be harder than that though, surely...
If we ever move to a delegate system, I think this would work with proper verification
Right, delegates should be 'approved' in some way