Masternodes are gaining prominence in FIRO, at the expense of miners. But already, although it is very different, some criticize masternode holders for having it hosted at AllNodes, which would create a risk of concentration. I demonstrated in another post that we were far from it, but I remain a fervent militant of decentralization, so I retain the argument.
In a post, one of the forum members claimed that, by getting behind TOR, each individual could host their masternode themselves with the only constraint of leaving their computer on 24/7 (TOR would allow via a kind of VPN function to simulate a fixed IP? ).
If this solution is confirmed, it seems to me that adding this feature should become a priority in the FIRO development roadmap. This would allow both full masternodes decentralization and saving hosting fees for masternode owners (which will become vital as if FIRO continues to drop, masternode rewards won’t even be enough to pay the hosting fees at AllNodes, which means that it will be the end of FIRO masternodes, therefore the end of FIRO).
This is a great addition. For people mining it shouldn’t even be that hard to do as usually a good mining rig is never really offline.
Which would probably help decentralization even further.
We did look into this but using onion addresses adds a lot of latency and lag that may also affect the forming of quorums on LLMQs. Something that we can look into but I’m not sure if we want several masternodes hosted off a single machine (especially a home machine which is prone to outages). I actually want to see a guide on how to host on Flux and if that solves part of the issue.
Personally, and I imagine that this is the general case for individuals masternodes owners, the solution of a machine that hosts several nodes seems to be the absolute solution.
Yes, there will always be a percentage of machines that will be offline, like today. But the ease of hosting will also make there likely to be more FIRO fan who own masternodes.
I tend to agree with this.
There should be a node limit per machine, like you wouldn’t want 100 nodes going offline from a single machine.
However I would personally prefer that people were able to host several nodes at home Vs relying on corporate infrastructure thats vulnerable to government regulation.
Maybe there is a sweet spot, or a way to sufficiently incentivize node stability. Users who can’t provide reliability can use allnodes etc. instead.
However I don’t really know enough about the forming of quorums on LLMQs to say what that balance should be in terms of max. node numbers per machine.
Thank you for your documented response.
I read the 2 threads that you linked: it’s very interesting.
From what I understand, the problem is both technical (IPV4 vs IPv6, static port number vs various port number) and ideological (fear of too many domestic masternodes break). The technical part seems to have solutions and the ideological part is only legitimate as long as it is shared and this is not the case for everyone (and a break can arrive even in a professionnal masternodes provider).
So I repeat that one of the priorities of Firo’s development should be the implementation of domestic masternodes hosting: the money that is invested each month in VPS/masternode provider could stay in the Firo ecosystem, for example to buy more Firo on the exchanges , and support its price.
I tried to host on Flux, it didn’t work out very well. The Firo node instance (IP address) on Flux changes too much to keep up with - I couldn’t keep the Firo node online, even checking/updating the IP several times a day. I hope this is something they are working on - maybe an inquiry/prod from you to the Flux team would help?
edit: I asked if the IP switching problem was being addressed on their Discord at the time but didn’t get any response