FLOT is a very new concept without a whole lot of thought put into it. We’ve been talking about nubits adoption and a profit model for over a year now. If you have something to say about those topics, please say it. About the concept of FLOT I have some things to say and I feel the freedom to say them. It’s even possible that we could come up with a blending of T3 and FLOT such that there are many many reserves and many many signers in different combinations. Like B&C but with Nu funds. I really think there’s a lot here to talk about here. Anyway, go to another thread if you don’t like this one.
Fine. If it’'s interesting I will discuss them.
No need to be condescending. If I see a waste of FLOT members’ time I say it where it is appropriate.
This thread is about how shareholders compensate FLOT. I find it strange that an FLOT member is telling a non-FLOT shareholder that discussing their pay is a waste of time. Anyway, i did not solicit a response from FLOT.
Discussing per se is OK. Your OP was fine and had interesting points. It was the long winded mechanisms all under “If” that I think is too much. I prefer to keep things simple although I, too, like to play with shining gadgets.
I am a shareholder. 
That ‘if’ was the third sentence of the OP and the whole point of this thread. Maybe I should edit the OP to read ‘when’ because I’m 99% sure someone would have brought this up if I didn’t. Eventually, someone’s going to start talking about 2 and 3 person multisigs and when they do this discussion will be very important. So you think it’s wasting time but I think it’s saving a bunch of time down the road to map this out theoretically now.
3 required signers might look like a bit too small but this is what NBT FLOT requires and so far it seems it worked fine.
Perhaps we can try 3 of 8 for BTC FLOT, NSR FLOT and BKS FLOT for a portion of the funds at the beginning to see how it goes.
1 Like
The reason I suggesteds 3 signers is strictly technical. I’ve begun to realize it wasn’t commonly remembered why NBT/NSR are confined to 3-of-5; it’s because the network doesn’t support 4-of-6 upwards. It’s not a difficult change but even when updated it will take some time for the network to handle it stably (i.e. most clients updated).
…is something we should avoid.
I consider it advantageous, if multisig tx need a majority of in total available signers - a kind of consensus like the one known from blockchains.
If you want more speed by requiring less signers, reduce the total number of signers:
- 2 of 3
- 3 of 5
- 0.5n+1 of n
I could see a case for multiple T3 custodians using the same address and make it like 1-of-3. I suppose that’s the same as them all just sharing the private key, but it would make the accounting neater.
T4 is n+1 of n with n>2, while T3 is anything less than that?
That distinction makes sense. T3 custodians are in a special role, normally using singlesig.
1 of n multisig for T3 custodians is an interesting idea!