Network of Momentum Phase 1

[aliencoder]

@Chadass

It’s not critical for BTC.

@aliencoder

Bitcoin survived because it chose the path of small blocks to safeguard the peer to peer network.

Small blocks represent the trade-off made to preserve the status-quo of the current peer-to-peer network that relies on volunteers around to world to operate and maintain it.

Again, you either don’t read my posts or simply you ignore them. I won’t answer you anymore if you totally ignore what I say.

@Chadass

You can’t predict pillars missmanagement or suddenly going MIA.

I don’t want to predict anything. If a Pillar is disassembled, we can check that and remove the undelegation fee for this particular case.

@Shazz

I suggest we dont tinker with emissions

I agree. We don’t change emissions. We just align all network participants and operations to create a self-sustainable network. This should be the main objective for Phase 1.

@Shazz

I agree this makes absolutely no sense. We need EXTERNAL DEMAND, not additional taxes on existing holders ffs

This is not a “tax on holders”. It is a mechanism to deter spam and create long term sustainability. External demand will come after we finish the main components that will drive utility and continuous growth.

@Nostromo

They check whether the transaction adheres to the prescribed format and verify the digital signatures.

In my opinion Sentries were initially envisioned as light nodes. But they should definitely act as public full nodes that support the p2p network.

@Nostromo

which guards against a double spend

The consensus nodes guard against double spends. The PoW link only represents an eliminatory criteria used by honest consensus nodes to deterministically select which transaction should be included into the meta-DAG for ordering.

@0x3639

So why do we need public nodes assuming we have a sufficent number of Sentinels?

Because we won’t have a sufficient amount of Sentinels. I’ve calculated earlier a maximum number. We need tens of thousands of public nodes for a truly decentralized network.

@Nostromo

Since transactions are confirmed by the account owner, there is no need for a global consensus mechanism to prevent double spends.

The block-lattice can’t prevent double spends on its own, it needs the meta-DAG for consensus (ordering).

Some parts of the whitepaper are a little vague, but remember it is just a draft version. Even Mr Kaine pointed into this direction, especially with the incentivization of the p2p layer.

I have another insight to share about the meta-DAG related to the accumulation of PoW in the transactional ledger: the meta-DAG will be transient, as it will get garbage collected.

“To this end, Narwhal leverages the properties of a consensus protocol (such as the one we discuss in the previous section) to agree on the garbage collection round. Blocks from earlier rounds can be safely be stored off the main validator and all later messages from previous rounds can be safely ignored.” from Narwhal and Tusk: A DAG-based Mempool and Efficient BFT Consensus.