Hardware nodes should be better rewarded versus those who operate with nodes on VPS

Nice to greet you all. I am opening this topic for debate and discussion, so here is my proposal:

Those who operate with hardware nodes should be better rewarded versus those who operate with nodes on cloud servers in third party companies (VPS).

I detail my reasons:

*** Those who operate hardware nodes clearly help in decentralization. however in the VPS as happens with ETH are giving the power of the nodes to large companies we are giving them control.**

*** Those who operate hardware nodes have much more work to do because they are maintainers of software and hardware.**

*** The investment cost they bear is higher, in time, in hardware cost and in electricity cost.**

I believe that what I am saying is not at all far from reality and I think that these operators could deserve a reward NFT as recognition (this last one was a joke but may make sense).

I open thread and listen to your comments

3 Likes

Hello, with the implementation of the roles that will change. Each node will need different characteristics for its operation and the rewards will depend on that.

2 Likes

At first, what you’re saying sounds pretty good. I understand that for this reason this will be one of the considerations to take into account. Do I understand that it is possible to simply determine which are hardware nodes and which are not? Correct? More or less there is a special date for this.

Well if the nodes have different roles of course that will impact the rewards, Due to requirements we do not have information at this time, in q4 It will start ipfs storage role as the first element

A thing I want to point out is that you can only host one node at home. If you are also a Flux node operator then you have no possibility to host a Presearch node at home. So then the only way is a VPS…

@monohhhh please see other ideas on how node rewards should be distributed here.

I certainly think there is merit in what you are saying. ‘Hardware’ nodes should be compensated first by the virtue of their decentralization but also if the quality and performance is greater as well this structure I am advocating for could be effective at addressing your concerns.

Would like to hear your thoughts on what category(s) this should fall under or if a new category should be added to the discussion?

‘Hardware’ I think is a misnomer because all nodes are derived from hardware its just that some hardware is used to virtualize potentially multiple instances. Whereas I believe you are meaning hardware running a single instance or hardware actually under your ‘physical control’.

I disagree though that simply operating a ‘hardware’ node or a single instance or physically controlled hardware nodes should be rewarded greater than a VPS other than for the decentralization aspect (which I do think is important and should be rewarded). First depending on each of the underlying hardware and the quality of internet connections the VPS could be better performing. If this were the case why should rewards be paid in a disproportionate way to a node that is less able to meet the demands of the network?

I think if we all look at the network objectively and say what does this network need to be successful? Then those are the things we should build a reward structure around.

1 Like

You could host as many nodes at home as you have IPV4 IPs for. You can pay to get more IPs assigned to you at which point you could run more nodes from home. Some also have multiple internet services running at their home in which case each could run a node.

1 Like

Yeah I checked that option and I already have two internet connections. I can’t get more ip addresses for a decent price. I already pay over €100 for these two subscriptions. The only option is a corporate subscription what is extremely expensive.

1 Like

I agree. I host 1 node at home (can’t do more due to IP limitations). If we could only adapt a system by which we were allowed to host more than 1 node on a hardware, I’d switch entirely to my computer

2 Likes

I also support the proposal to host more than one node on a single IP address. I believe this can be accomplished once full Web3 implementation has been finished using separate private keys issued internally for each node instead of one private key for all nodes and separate Web3 staking wallets as the beneficiary address. Look at DATA token for how this is accomplished. It can be done and will greatly increase the ability to launch multiple nodes on higher end VPS and home hosting hardware and will reduce operating costs for node operators. Maybe at this time it is not needed for the amount of traffic we are directing but in the future when we 10X or 100X this may be a much needed option.

2 Likes

The problem with many nodes on 1 IP is that those IPs become a potential liability/target. if many searches are coming through a single IP requesting data from the google and other APIs they may block or ban at which point Presearch could go down as a service for all its users. Once there is an organic index then maybe.

2 Likes

Suggestions for a reward system differentiating hardware Nodes from VPS Nodes

As a member of the Presearch community, I’ve been closely following the discussion around the importance of node diversity and the potential benefits of differentiating rewards between hardware and VPS nodes. While I understand the need to balance incentives, I believe that a tiered reward system could effectively recognize the significant contributions of hardware node operators while also providing opportunities for VPS nodes to contribute to the network’s overall health.

Motivation
I strongly believe that hardware node operators play a crucial role in maintaining the decentralization of the Presearch network. By running nodes on dedicated hardware, they contribute to the network’s resilience against potential attacks or censorship attempts. In contrast, VPS nodes, while providing additional computational resources, may concentrate power among third-party cloud providers, potentially compromising the network’s decentralized nature.

In addition to the security implications, hardware node operators shoulder a significantly higher investment cost compared to VPS users. They must purchase or maintain dedicated hardware, ensure reliable uptime, and manage software updates and security patches. This commitment to providing stable and secure nodes deserves to be recognized through a more equitable reward structure.

Proposed Reward Structure
To incentivize hardware node operators and encourage a more decentralized network, I propose a tiered reward system that recognizes the unique contributions of both hardware and VPS nodes:

Tier 1: Hardware Nodes

  • Base Reward: Hardware nodes would receive a base reward that reflects their essential role in maintaining the decentralization and security of the Presearch network. This base reward would be higher than that of VPS nodes to adequately compensate for their higher investment costs and operational responsibilities.
  • Activity-based Incentives: To further incentivize hardware node operators, I propose additional rewards for their active participation in the network. This could include rewards based on transaction processing volume, query resolution efficiency, and uptime. These incentives would encourage hardware node operators to contribute actively to the network’s performance.
  • Maintenance Incentives: Recognizing the importance of proactive maintenance, I suggest additional rewards for hardware node operators who maintain and manage their nodes effectively. This could involve rewards for timely software updates, regular security patching, and consistent uptime. These incentives would encourage hardware node operators to prioritize network stability and security.

Tier 2: VPS Nodes

  • Reduced Base Reward: To balance the incentives between hardware and VPS nodes, I recommend a reduced base reward for VPS nodes. This reflects the potential centralization concerns associated with VPS usage and ensures that hardware node operators receive a higher reward commensurate with their contributions.
  • Performance-based Incentives: While acknowledging the limitations of VPS nodes in terms of decentralization, I believe that they can still play a valuable role in the Presearch network. To incentivize VPS node operators to contribute to network performance, I propose performance-based incentives based on uptime, transaction processing speed, and query resolution accuracy. This would encourage VPS node operators to optimize their resources to enhance the overall performance of the network.

Implementation Details
To implement this differentiated reward system, I propose the following approach:

  • Node Identification: Implement mechanisms to distinguish between hardware and VPS nodes. This could involve utilizing node-specific metadata, such as hardware specifications or IP addresses, or integrating with cloud provider APIs to verify node location and resource allocation.
  • Network Activity Tracking: Monitor network activity metrics, including transaction processing volume, query resolution speed, and uptime, to identify and reward active hardware nodes. This could involve real-time data collection and analysis.
  • Node Maintenance Monitoring: Develop a mechanism to track node maintenance activities, such as software updates, security patches, and uptime, to reward proactive hardware node operators. This could involve automated monitoring of node logs and configuration files.
  • Reward Distribution Automation: Design a secure and transparent mechanism to automate the distribution of rewards based on the established tiers and performance metrics. This could involve smart contracts or a central reward distribution system.

Benefits of the Proposed System
The proposed reward system would provide several benefits:

  • Enhanced Decentralization: The differentiated reward structure would incentivize hardware node operators, increasing the number of nodes running on dedicated hardware and reducing reliance on centralized cloud providers. This would strengthen the overall decentralization of the Presearch network.
  • Diverse Node Ecosystem: The tiered system would encourage both hardware and VPS node operators to contribute to the network, leading to a more diverse and robust ecosystem. This would improve the network’s overall resilience and adaptability.
  • Strengthened Community Engagement: By recognizing the contributions of hardware node operators, the proposed system would foster a stronger sense of community and encourage continued participation in the network. This would promote a more engaged and supportive network.
  • Alignment with Network Goals
  • The proposed reward system aligns with the overall goals of the Presearch network:
  • Decentralization: By incentivizing hardware node operators, the system reduces reliance on centralized cloud providers and strengthens the network’s decentralized nature.
  • Performance: The system rewards nodes based on their active participation and maintenance activities, ensuring that the network operates efficiently and reliably.
  • Resilience: A diversified node ecosystem, with a mix of hardware and VPS nodes, makes the network more resilient to potential failures or attacks.
  • Community Engagement: The system recognizes and rewards the contributions of hardware node operators, fostering a stronger sense of community and encouraging continued participation.

By aligning rewards with these network goals, the proposed system promotes a more decentralized, performant, resilient, and engaged Presearch ecosystem.

  • Rewards Structure Alignment: The system aligns rewards with the overall goals of decentralization, performance, and node maintenance, ensuring that the network is rewarded for its positive contributions.
  • Transparent and Efficient Distribution: The automated reward distribution mechanism would ensure transparency and efficiency, minimizing the risk of manipulation or biases.
  • Community Feedback Integration: Incorporating feedback from the Presearch community throughout the development and implementation of the reward system would ensure that it aligns with the needs and expectations of the network’s participants.
  • Continuous Improvement: Regularly evaluating and refining the reward system based on data analysis and community feedback would ensure that it remains effective in promoting decentralization, node diversity, and community engagement.

Conclusion
I believe that a tiered reward system that differentiates rewards between hardware and VPS nodes offers a compelling approach to incentivize hardware node operators, enhance network decentralization, and promote a healthy and sustainable ecosystem for Presearch. By recognizing the unique contributions of both hardware and VPS nodes, we can further strengthen the network’s resilience, performance, and overall value proposition.

I encourage further discussion and refinement of this proposal to ensure that it aligns with the Presearch community’s vision for a decentralized and thriving search ecosystem.

4 Likes

I have previously discussed this topic as well here.

The simplest solution is to base rewards on performance. If a hardware node outperforms a vps in the speed and performance of duties in the node role then it should be rewarded more but a blanket higher reward is silly especially if it underperforms. I also breakdown decentralization because it is important what location/jurisdiction the nodes are in as local issues legal/emergencies/governments/regulators could influence/impact nodes presearch needs to make sure their is good geographical distribution of nodes as well as user distribution (meaning not allowing single users or entities to control too much of the node network. These should be a factor incentivized for greater decentralization. See my ideas on how to reward exactly what the network requires to survive and thrive.

What I can observe is that no developer or serious project administrator is responding to these requests, nor providing any perspective on the issues raised. Additionally, I notice that there are some very serious responses to my post that have an interesting foundation

2 Likes

Hi, this forum is mainly for community members to raise their ideas and also to be discussed with other community members, for example if you saw yesterday’s weekly update it mentions that the team has been reading all the requests taking as an example the XPRE suggestions, the developers cannot answer or respond to every single suggestion that is made in the forum as they have a lot of work to do and attend to several things at the same time, in case there is something that needs an answer we the Adm will give it to you without any problem, but mainly it is to allow the development of the ideas of the members that write, we read the messages.