If the number of validators who participated is around 400 and the number of seats per round is 1400, this means that on average some validators have more than 3.5 seats. What is the distribution of seats among the validators?
The distribution of stakes among them is the one I calculated earlier here, can we assume that the distribution of seats is also similar?
This is why it would be important to have this information in the dashboard.
Regarding relay nodes, I found this analysis quite interesting. It would be good to have something similar in the dashboard too.
Well, this means that the average validators participating in the consensus are only 25-16, so Nakamotoās coefficient is not around 400, but close to 20-30, comparable to other blockchains, but not as good as I thought.
the beauty is that they arenāt the same validators like in other chains. And because of its randomness they are in different configurations throughout the protocol execution
According to @fabrice: Yes, the distribution of seats on committee is, on average, the same as the distribution of online stake.
So the validators are on average the same. Furthermore, 25-16 of them (assuming the above calculations are correct) have the super minority in the commitee i.e. they can block the consensus of 2/3 of the BFT algorithm of algorand.
If not, can you explain why?
there are 3 or more sets of seats and thereās no way to know which set you are in until youāre done. thereās no guarantee that your vote was included in the threshold . Because of player replaceability thereās no intersection between the sets. and why the 400 may differ
According to what is written in the articles I have read, including those linked by you, and according to what is written in this thread, the sortition algorithm and the choice of validators works as reported above.
What are these sets? I donāt remember finding them anywhere.
there are 3 steps in the protocol hence 3 committees with different sizes. if things donāt go as planned there are subsequent steps with a different committee members and sizes. 1st step is proposal , 2nd step soft vote , 3rd certify vote. this is why I said itās best to go watch some videos or read the whitepaper(in its entirety) . Sortition is just one part of the protocol design
Okay, you were referring to the three stages. According to what is written here, the committee members for each phase are always drawn from the same set of validators with the same stake. So probabilistically, on average, the distribution of committee seats is as reported above (25-16 validators are enough for the super minority 33%).
A recent research article by Kraken from August 2022 reports the same data I obtained from the explorer so it confirms the correctness of the same (16 validators).
this why I said they are in different configurations. how many combinations can you have them in the committees together with the rest. The pool of validators are not always the same. Aside from the fact youāre not always selected, consider that if for example 50 go offline and a different 50 join you would still have the same number of validators. Furthermore, consider that this new 50 have a different distribution of stake. The algorand selection is very dynamic. Additionally, youād have to consider although they may on average get the same number of votes itās not all the time. And they would have to know each other to coordinate if they want to attack. Because selection is private you donāt know. Like I said previously you wonāt know if your votes were even included until the round is done and you can check.
You donāt even need to consider nodes going offline and new ones coming on. Among online nodes you needs to consider the stake changing among them because you donāt have to lock a certain amount of stake for a period and wait for a withdrawal period
Your points are basically correct, but they are general in nature and valid for any blockchain.
According to the documents I have read, although about 380-400 validators participate on algorand on average in a week, those who hold 33% of the stake and thus get on average 33% of the committee seats are 16 (25 depending on the calculation).
If you have some documented where it is stated otherwise, bring it back to me.
they are not valid for every blockchain. can you bring me a documentation says this and proved this. And another that says every blockchain operates like algorand. i havenāt taken a look at your numbers to see if itās right because it doesnāt matter when itās painting an inaccurate picture from a faulty understanding. My point was showing you how the nakamoto whatever canāt accurately apply to algorand. If you think my points are correct but still think itās not decentralized in how it operates because of nakamoto, I canāt help you any further. Maybe you think the coefficient is the end all be all, which it isnāt.
Please read carefully. I wrote that your reasoning is generic and that it is valid for every blockchain, not that every blockchain works like algorand.
According to the official documentation of algorand, according to my calculations and those of Kraken, it works as explained above. Furthermore, @Fabrice also confirmed how the selection process works.
So if you have any documents or data showing otherwise, please report them here. Otherwise there is no point adding noise to the discussion.
please read carefully as i asked of two things. The kraken paper does not show the nuances involved for algorand in their analysis; iāve already spotted wrong claims. Fabrice only confirmed the distribution of seats to online stake (duh) like i also did before and after linking you to two documents. He did not mention the nuances i mentioned and thereās much more to it than iāve previously said. Thereās no point in replying to me or this post if youāre throwing numbers that lack understanding. youāre just creating noise in the forum and looking like a child crying but but mom i want a blue toffee i like it,bring me a blue toffee now. but mom says thereās only red or no money and time for your tantrums. go to school
I personally do not consider information reliable if it is not supported by facts and evidence.
If you think my statements or those of Kraken are wrong, you need to provide evidence, not words.