1

For example I have Proof-of-Authority private Ethereum network that has three nodes (pretty small network), which I control all the three nodes and can decide who is sealer or not. Later additional nodes can connect to those three nodes.

As main goal: I want to use all three nodes as miners to keep blockchain growing. In order to provide better network redundancy, which path should I take:

  • [Case-1] Only one sealer Ethereum Account that is unlocked on each three nodes?

  • [Case-2] or three different sealer Ethereum account that is unlocked on each three nodes?

Please note that each node under three nodes miner.start() is activated.

Possible Scenario:

I have only one sealer Ethereum account and I am using it on the three different nodes as a signer. In that case, if two node is down, remaining one node can keep up the mining process, since its Ethereum address is the only signer on the system.

On the other hand, if I use different sealer Ethereum account per node. If two node is down, since the remaining active sealer node (one sealer account left out out three sealer account) number is smaller than the 50% the mining process will be stopped.

[Q] If we have a small network, it seems like more redundant to have same signers on different nodes. Is it recommended to do this way or should I keep each node having different signers between each other?

  • Did you already try to run multiple sealer nodes with the same account? I never tries such a setup. Does it work? Are there any racing conditions? – ivicaa Mar 5 '18 at 11:20
  • If 2 nodes are down, doesn't it make the total 1 nodes => 1 signer ? so that signer will probably have 100% not less than 50%. – Kaki Master Of Time Mar 5 '18 at 11:20
  • I have tried same sealer account on three different nodes, and I did not observe any racing conditions yet. But right now there is not much transactions on the network. I never think it from the race condition aspect, would it be a problem? @ivicaa – alper Mar 5 '18 at 11:22
  • Yes,that is right for the first case, but for the case-2 signer have around 33$ so the mining process would be stopped. @MedMansour – alper Mar 5 '18 at 11:22
  • @Alper i meant that for the second case, because if we relate to BTC PoW system, if nodes are down they do not account in the total nodes. ( i think that i am not totally sure actually ). Did you code the behaviour you mentioned yourself ? – Kaki Master Of Time Mar 5 '18 at 11:36

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.