Nodes can deduct a fee though - that 'fee' could be pointed to a MN share address and proceed from there? The software already tracks submitted user work, so you could keep track of who'e owed what percentage of MN payouts.
Having said that, why not just have the MN network as one big old regular (but distributed) pool? Need to think some more about it.
after thinking another two minutes it would be easy to make sure that >51% didn't get at any one node... just have the masternodes track their load and if any one node started receiving too much hash it could start randomly dropping packets to reduce the hashrate being thrown at it... Think WRED as it realates to QoS.
Yeah, it had already occurred to me that as and when MNs have the ability to really enforce MN payments, they will almost by default also have the ability to also enforce hash distribution, in that they could monitor pool hash and orphan blocks from any pool approaching or at 50%.
With this you are opening the door to bad actors... the node fee gets paid to the node operator... now we are back to trusting whoever owns the node to actually pay out what is owed. Which is why I moved off the regular pools and set up my own p2pool node. Its like solo mining without the huge variance and I don't have to trust some unknown person to not shut the pool down without actually paying out and then claiming that they got hacked.
[/quote]
Make it happen down at the protocol level, or use multisig addresses that require users to countersign any movement of funds? Got to be a solution...
). Put it this way - if we're in this to hedge ourselves against a 300 trillion derivatives crash then you'd think they might be as well since they're the ones writing the derivatives).
