Not. They want to take 10 coins for each node.
That is, when you deploy 30 nodes on the server, you will pay 300 coins
This calculation has nothing to do with the generate ID fee, it only shows one thing: mining on cloud is not profitable. This is definitely true, and in the long term mining on VPS will simply be not profitable regardless of what. Plus, you didn’t consider the additional mining reward coming from MBA address. After you take that into consideration, each node mines exactly the same as before.
Let’s say Johnny and Michael each have 100 nodes.
Johnny’s nodes have mined 1000 coins within 1 year. Michael’s Nodes mined 10,000 coins throughout the year.
This will not happen. When you only have one node, luck plays an important role, and node reward can have huge variance. But when you have hundreds of thousands of them, they average out each other, and only node count matters.
I think that you need to take 10 coins for each node and freeze them for six months.
The miner will be able to pick up his coins in six months, regardless of whether his nodes are working or not.
This is exactly why staking is worse for network security. Malicious party can make use of this, stake and generate ID, then unstake the ones they don’t need, and use the rest to attack. In order to get same level of security, staking requires about 20x the amount (i.e. 200 NKN) assuming 5% opportunity cost, or 100x (1000 NKN) assuming 1% opportunity cost, making it infeasible for most miners. That’s why we would prefer miner get back token only through mining, it lowers the entrance barrier so much.
Just ask the community what they want - give away coins or HOLD coins!
You probably missed it but staking was our initial proposal, we have been discussing about staking for months all over the place (e.g. NKP-0022), collecting people’s feedback about what staking amount is acceptable, making detailed calculation about what amount is secure enough to prevent attack. That’s how we find staking cannot make both miner happy and network secure enough with the current condition. And from our perspective security is the top priority.
I am ignorant in the technical aspects but to comply with security requirements is the staking required in order to generate ID? Or could the fee be taken from first reward (similar model to that of NKNx)?
The fee cannot be taken from first reward, otherwise it will not improve the network security at all. Basically a node needs to pay the fee upfront, and then gradually get it back over a very long period of time if it stays in the network and continue mining.
You are rich! Staking 1k NKN means the current 100k nodes require 100M NKN staked and that’s just impossible…
作为新进入的一名不懂技术的矿工 参考了很多教程 但仍然很难部署节点 ，nknx很友好 简单易用，做的很好。我在nknx上一键部署了一些节点，nknx收取第一个块，也没有问题，人家提供了服务理所应当收取一定的费用。同时也尊重项目方的政策，但是希望项目方可以考虑一下像我一样不同技术的一类群体来参与共建节点的成本，其中包含：“服务器费用5美元/月、 nknx第一块11个币 、新节点：10个币 ” 在理想的状态下 ，假如我每个月挖到1个块 至少半年内无法实现盈利 这其中还不包含币价的波动风险，现在我很怀疑我来做这件事情的意义是什么，项目方应该鼓励新矿工的加入 而不是提高进入的门槛 虽然新政策是为了项目更安全的运行，但是这不可否认的对新矿工产带来一些负担。无论是项目方还是nknx 是否可以考虑一下对新加入的矿工提供一些支持政策。
This decision felt so backdoor. What other surprises should we expect in the future as miners? Now that you’ve used us all to boost your network, you turn around with a new ID fee when many of us have already been faithfully mining for some time. Why not just implement the fee for new IDs only? You lost me and my nodes. I’ll switch to a more sensible chain like Atom. Forget this piece of trash. It’s called protocol and governance for a reason, you can’t just “guess I’ll change things all a sudden”
2 Likes
There is no fee to miners who already run nodes. And the reason for fast and decisive action is security: I’m 99% sure you will be much much much more pissed if after all your hard work and investment in time and money, attackers will steal most of the mining reward. For security and attacks, we don’t have the luxury of length community process.
Fair enough and true but shouldn’t this have been implemented from the start? And…where is the vote? Is there no governance or is it literally one or two guys making all decisions? Why would I want to contribute bandwidth to something so utterly centralized and unpredictable? Mentioning security, how do we know that you yourselves aren’t the attackers right now with this update? This is not a trustless system. Best luck to you
1 Like
Of course it was implemented from the very beginning of mainnet launch (2019): we just set it to zero to encourage new miners. Until the attackers found their way.
You don’t have to trust us, but you can always look at the code.
At the end of the day most nodes are run for profit, and the number of nodes fluctuates according to node number and token price. So market will decide. It is not a pure idealogical system.
Excuse me, if a node without a new id can continue to work before 2,600,000
I think yes, no matter old or new id if it working well now.
I might be the only one with a different opinion here.
I believe this change is ment for network continuity, longevity, security & commitment.
As a miner I care much more about the network utilization than to a menial fee.
This in my opinion is a much needed change given the newly acquired attention. I previously mentioned in another post that token appreciation will indeed bring about attacks and here we are.
Stop the saltiness miners.
There is nothing bounding you if your mining operations do not provide economic soundness.
To all that want to continue providing the service. I applaud you, we are making history.
2 Likes
so if mining is not profitable as you say using a vps. why would anybody ever want to mine NKN… is there a better way? not understanding as most people use vps.
The dissatisfaction among all the miners is evident.
Some miners raised some serious problems, problems that I had not previously thought of in my post:
Will miners have to be twice as lucky?
Currently the algorithm chooses nodes mainly for ping and connectivity with its neighbors, but we know that not all nodes are always “successful” and this is normal, everything is fine.
There is no certainty that this fee paid will initially return to the miner who paid it, and will most likely return to another successful node.
All fees will go into the hands of successful miners, and miners who don’t have lucky nodes will never see those coins paid out again.
But there is a solution to that. 
The implementation could happen, but with a small change that this fee returns to the miner who paid it in a period of 30 days … That way this implementation would happen, but in a much more just way.
We will check with developers if that is feasible, as well as analyzing the impact on potential attackers.
1 Like
I will create a new post on this subject and promote a healthy discussion on the topic.
Our long term vision is always that, when you have a computer, raspberry PI, smart router or other device that has idle Internet connections, you can run a nkn node on it and provide service to other people. That’s why we make nkn node as light as possible so running it will consume minimal resources. You don’t need to pay anything extra: the device is already owned by you, it’s running anyway so no extra electricity or network cost. This way we can really scale to millions of nodes or more: imagine every home run such a node, it will just be awesome.
Currently most people use VPS because it’s scalable, i.e. if it’s profitable on one node, you can get 10x profit by running 10 nodes. But on the long term VPS will not have any cost advantage over home nodes, although it would take a long time before we have enough home nodes.
Yes 
Thanks for your support, it’s our goal to make the network better over the long term. You can definitely not the only one who supports the proposal. Actually it’s our community who first pushed us on the ideal of staking requirements back to the last year. It’s just people tend to express more if they have objections.
Let me reply to you in your post to make information more organized.