Back to collectionAn offline machine tests the proposed reward rule
After the proposal to pay rewards by the interval between challenges drew support, key holders began examining edge cases. Someone asked whether rewards would be based on the time since the previous challenge or since each operator's previous participation. The example moved the discussion from broad support to rule design.
A creative chronicle combining project history with imagined scenes. Story events are not verification of network activity.
After the proposal to pay rewards by the interval between challenges drew support, key holders began examining edge cases. Waiting time looked straightforward for a machine that stayed online. Fair allocation was less obvious if a machine went offline during that interval.
Someone asked whether rewards would be based on the time since the previous challenge or since each operator's previous participation. The team answered: the previous challenge. A counterexample followed at once. A machine could be offline during a gap and return just as challenges resumed; if only the interval between challenges counted, it might receive a windfall for time it had missed.
The example moved the discussion from broad support to rule design. Measuring from the previous challenge could compensate for waiting, but might also count time spent offline. Key holders planned to press for eligibility and payment conditions. To implement the proposal, the team would need to explain how such offline periods would be handled.