You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Having your own full node to verify payments received is incentive compatible *if* either you have frequent large payments incoming or you've already funded your node by other means (like Dash?), making the ability to .verify small or uncommon incoming payments icing on the cake.
I haven't seen anybody look into this particular Dash feature in any sufficient detail though.
No that doesn't do it.
Dash has L-2 Master Nodes (MN), a type of full node that earns rewards. Running an MN requires 1000 Dash lockup (preventing Sybil attacks). 45% of mining rewards are allocated to the L-2 MN network. MNs enable private and instant send, and owners get to vote on proposals.
Ordinary full nodes don't earn rewards. Incentive is no different to Bitcoin full nodes.
they didn't solve it. If you are looking for nodes to be paid, first is LN, and then its the @beamprivacy @grinMW dandelion; in MW supposedly nodes can take a small fee from the transaction- if they take too much of a fee, they risk miners preferring other routes who took less
I think that @horizenglobal (a zcash fork) has partially solved this problem by asking the nodes questions about the contents of the blockchain and checking for a correct response. it is now a centralized solution but they are planning to have the nodes monitor each other soon.
What stops node X from just re-asking the same question of node Y? Also, at best this proves archive node, not full node, and certainly not usage of a full node.
I'm not sure about their exact implementation, but in principle you would do this by making the queries that the nodes send each other depend on e.g. the most recent block hash and an identifier that is unique to each node (like the address they use to receive block rewards)
so nodes are unable to predict the next question they will ask and/or receive.
Okay, but that assumes there isn't some malicious party just answering any/all questions asked... (And again, it proves the wrong thing.)
so to prevent malicious actors you could sign each response with the private key corresponding to each node supposed to answer that specific query. what exactly do you want the full nodes to prove they are capable of?
ah i think i now understand you are thinking of malicious actor offering to answer the question for each node and just giving them the answers...i think this is solvable too
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
