 |
October 20, 2017, 08:18:17 AM |
|
NEM has been one of the most interesting altcoins since bitcoin for me. This is due to the internal understanding of how the consensus protocol can be used as a motivator.
However, the basic structure of the distribution of XEM is majorly flawed. A huge amount of of XEM was set aside to maintain the supernode program, which is critical to being able to deliver on the promises, but they recently doubled the supernode reward, meaning the reserves will last for less than four years. What's the incentive for people to run costly supernodes then?
It's too bad, because so many of the core concepts are solid. The way NEM was launched indicates to me that it was created by genuinely gifted people who decided not to use their power for good, and in my opinion it appears not to be sustainable due to this greed.
My question is, could a consensus protocol be based off of a trust system where the trust value is derived from activity external to the normal node operations? For example, could a 'hashrate' value based on compliance with contracts embedded in metadata serve as a substitute for the algorithm based on node integrity?
In many ways the behavior of nodes in a distributed network is akin to the behavior of actors in an economic network, only that it is value being sent and received rather than data. Is anyone interested in discussing this?
|
