Allow merging nodes

Quite a few node operators are running 2 or more nodes at the same time. 1 main reason is the delegator limit.

I started 2 nodes in the beginning to provide some kind of fault tolerance (different data centers and maybe even countries etc.) but quite some time later I would love to merge those validators again to keep maintenance low and also to offer better decentralization because I think the slots would also become available to other new validators.

The merge can be a bit tricky and needs some considerations so it can’t be abused. E. g. to move delegators from a 0% node to a 100% node or an offline node. On the other hand this can also be done right now already and it happened that node operators suddenly set 100% to make maximum profit until it’s detected.

Any thoughts why this should NOT be implemented to clean up and reduce multiple nodes?

I know the delegator limit is the most famous reason for multiple nodes and it probably has to be addressed first unless this here is done easily.

1 Like

I am also in favor of this evolution.
I have 3 nodes and therefore I pay for 3 servers. With the current price of Casper this is not sustainable…
This is truly an evolution to be implemented urgently…It is the only chain in the crypto sphere where we see this kind of thing (several nodes with the same op and the same name)

These limitations of the delegates at 950 then 1200 are a total aberration…no other POS chains has this…

@BogosChad

2 Likes

Would this CEP address this concern?

1 Like

I’m also in favor of such an implementation if possible. It might help with opening additional slots for new parties to improve decentralization, and transparency (since it will be easier to see the weight of an entity without searching for multiple nodes).

@michaelsteuer: That CEP does not cover this case.

1 Like

@kara can you explain why it doesn’t cover it? If I “move” all my delegators from node B to node A, doesn’t that result in me having “merged” my two nodes?

@michaelsteuer The implementation works like a shortcut, and meant to work for changing ownership. The target public key must be a non-validator. When the question was asked during the validator call, the devs clarified it like this and pointed out that a merge feature/function would be more complicated. This is directly from the CEP:

Then we'd verify that a `ValidatorBid` for the target public key does not exist yet. A new `Error` variant would have to be introduced to indicate a conflicting bid already exists.
2 Likes

Got it, thank you @kara.

Then this is a very valid proposal. Can we please get a template for actionable proposals like this implemented in this forum ASAP (and maybe the OP can then reformat the original message accordingly), so that we can really engage around it with core dev as well, and see if/how we can get it in the pipeline if the community aligns around it?

2 Likes

I could ask my delegates to move their stake on the 2nd node but this node is already full at 1200…
What is the solution?
Can you please implement a solution or put an end to the 1200 limit ASAP

See Joe Sacher’s explanation of next steps here: Remove the delegator limit of 1200 delegators ASAP - #17 by sacherjj