Thanks for the detailed proposal, had a couple of questions/concerns
Found that the project uses a proof of credit consensus with a 35 node validation mechanism, are these nodes shuffled in a timely manner to avoid a bias centralized attack?
The contract also does not mention that the minimum number of signatures must be greater than 1, is there any reason for that? And does that not impose centralized risks?
Hi thanks for your question, you must read our whitepaper very carefully, we are very happy that you are paying attention to this. I should've explained previously how the Nerve consensus works in the proposal.
To answer your 1st question, Nerve has 3 different nodes with each one having different roles to play :
1/Virtual banks
A virtual bank is responsible for the maintenance of cross-chain, including creating and managing multi-signatures accounts and smart contracts, broadcasting transactions. Virtual banks are selected from consensus nodes (top 15 nodes with the most amount of $NVT(our native token) staked.
2/Consensus nodes
The consensus nodes are responsible for the maintenance of the blockchain, you can deposit NVT to create a consensus node, which requires at least 200,000 NVT.
The top 35 nodes with the highest deposit amount are responsible to maintain the entire network.
3/ Normal nodes.
These nodes are responsible for transaction collection, block and transaction verification, etc.
Anyone can apply for the nodes, as it is mostly selected by the amount staked.
Now answering the 2nd question, requiring 66% of the nodes signatures instead of 1, this is decided by our consensus algorithms (Byzantine Fault Tolerance). But as we know a 51% attack can cause a disaster to most POS networks. We increased this number to 66% in NerveNetwork.
I hope my answers help :)
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
Hello there
Thanks for the detailed proposal, had a couple of questions/concerns
Found that the project uses a proof of credit consensus with a 35 node validation mechanism, are these nodes shuffled in a timely manner to avoid a bias centralized attack?
The contract also does not mention that the minimum number of signatures must be greater than 1, is there any reason for that? And does that not impose centralized risks?
Hi thanks for your question, you must read our whitepaper very carefully, we are very happy that you are paying attention to this. I should've explained previously how the Nerve consensus works in the proposal.
To answer your 1st question, Nerve has 3 different nodes with each one having different roles to play :
1/Virtual banks
A virtual bank is responsible for the maintenance of cross-chain, including creating and managing multi-signatures accounts and smart contracts, broadcasting transactions. Virtual banks are selected from consensus nodes (top 15 nodes with the most amount of $NVT(our native token) staked.
2/Consensus nodes
The consensus nodes are responsible for the maintenance of the blockchain, you can deposit NVT to create a consensus node, which requires at least 200,000 NVT.
The top 35 nodes with the highest deposit amount are responsible to maintain the entire network.
3/ Normal nodes.
These nodes are responsible for transaction collection, block and transaction verification, etc.
Anyone can apply for the nodes, as it is mostly selected by the amount staked.
Now answering the 2nd question, requiring 66% of the nodes signatures instead of 1, this is decided by our consensus algorithms (Byzantine Fault Tolerance). But as we know a 51% attack can cause a disaster to most POS networks. We increased this number to 66% in NerveNetwork.
I hope my answers help :)