ANT Token - Price & Trading topic

[Southside]

Sorry, you are missing the point
The network is effectively crippled right now because ~50% of nodes are running old code that prevents any meaningful uploads. Version 0.3.7 of antnode already contains a lot of fixes for the problem ANT Token - Price & Trading topic - #930 by chriso

and more are on the way as @chriso says

But while 50% is running code that they have no incentive to update because it would dilute their profit then we can have the smartest devs writing the most amazing new code and it wont make a blind bit of difference.
This problem does not new code, it needs (temporary) suspension of decentralisation in a pragmatic way.

Yes decentralisation is A Good Thing and we must always strive to attain it.
For blessed be they who decentralise etc etc

But right here and now its working against us, not for us. And putting most of the emissions into a few wallets in an entirely centralised way. So going forward, no emissions rewards unless running antnode >=v0.3.7

And we can refine that to something more flexible in a week or two.
Iknow there is talk of an official testnet for the native token but in the short term it is effectively impossible to test new apps.
@happybeing 's dweb looks like it should work but I cant learn anything more until the network performance improves. Likewise for another project Im testing. It looks very good but until it can get properly tested it cant be announced.

Upgrade or go broke!!!

rant over

[bridge]

Decentralization is naturally slow to change. If the upload increases slowly, nodes running on servers will disappear due to the unsustainable server costs caused by traffic issues. In the last dev update, it was already mentioned that an update would provide more incentives to the latest nodes. What is needed now is not a major directional change but time. At most, only a month is needed.

[bridge]

The testnet will be released soon, and then apps can be tested there.

This kind of situation will continue to repeat in the future, and I believe that the team implementing updates that exclude certain nodes is extremely risky. While it may be a very simple solution, it ultimately takes away the node operators’ right to choose their version.

I think the current approach, where the team ensures that upgrading benefits the node operators, is the right direction—even if it is slow and inefficient.

Since this is just the beginning, I believe it’s better to prioritize maintaining sustainable decentralization in the long run.

[Southside]

@bridge

If the upload increases slowly, nodes running on servers will disappear due to the unsustainable server costs caused by traffic issues.

The point is the uploads are of max 20Mb each and I think we would talking petabytes to start making the big boys see a problem re server costs. THese servers are sitting about doing nothing anyway.
Sorry but I dont see that happening in

@bridge

only a month

@bridge

it ultimately takes away the node operators’ right to choose their version.

Where does it say an operator can run an outdated version of the code that is crippling the network for the rest of us?

@bridge

I believe it’s better to prioritize maintaining sustainable decentralization in the long run.

We are not talking about the long run here. You seem to be letting dogma get in the way of an actual functioning network as we have all envisaged.
We certainly dont have that now
Anyone arguing we dare not take the perfectly reasonable decision to mandate that code be kept up to date has to have their motives questioned rather than being praised for not deviating one millimetre from The Golden Path of Decentralisation.

You don’t happen to have an interest in an otherwise under-utilised datacentre, do you? That is suddenly a lot more profitable these past couple weeks… Just askin’

[bridge]

@Southside

We are not talking about the long run here. You seem to be letting dogma get in the way of an actual functioning network as we have all envisaged.
We certainly dont have that now
Anyone arguing we dare not take the perfectly reasonable decision to mandate that code be kept up to date has to have their motives questioned rather than being praised for not deviating one millimetre from The Golden Path of Decentralisation.

You don’t happen to have an interest in an otherwise under-utilised datacentre, do you? That is suddenly a lot more profitable these past couple weeks… Just askin’

What I don’t understand is—if running multiple nodes on a server is so profitable, why aren’t you doing it? For the sake of the network?

According to your logic, shouldn’t you be the one running multiple up-to-date nodes on a server?

[Southside]

@bridge

According to your logic, shouldn’t you be the one running multiple up-to-date nodes on a server?

Yes - exactly.

But - and you still do not appear to have grasped this so I will say it slowly

There are a large no of nodes -almost certainly in datacentres running OLD code. v0.3.6
These nodes are earning a large % of the emissions by simply being there and having random address rewarded for simply existing, not for storing chunks. It is infinitely improbable that the petabytes of storage actually exists. In theory every node has 32GB available. In practice it could be a bawhair over 28M for the antnode binary itself. These operators are gaming the system to put it mildly.

The world is full of greedy bastards, especially those with a religous attitude to “free markets” and they have no qualms in subverting a project intended for the good of all remember that old Secure Access For Everyone thing?
These noderunners have no incentive to upgrade, so why should they? Upgrading would only mean the network become less clogged with millions of nodes telling each other

[2025-03-10T06:48:35.062642Z ERROR ant_networking::event::swarm 354] Dial errors len : 1
[2025-03-10T06:48:35.062643Z ERROR ant_networking::event::swarm 374] OutgoingConnectionError: Transport::Other Custom { kind: Other, error: Right(Custom { kind: Other, error: Custom { kind: Other, error: HandshakeTimedOut } }) }
[2025-03-10T06:48:35.062650Z WARN ant_networking::event::swarm 397] Problematic error encountered: Custom { kind: Other, error: Right(Custom { kind: Other, error: Custom { kind: Other, error: HandshakeTimedOut } }) }
[2025-03-10T06:48:35.062653Z WARN ant_networking::event::swarm 449] Outgoing Connection error to PeerId("12D3KooW9roTXJUfqP3VBsQ2a6SsNDRmmDcK9eH7CtxyBTdcfb5o") is considered as critical. Marking it as an issue.
[2025-03-10T06:48:35.062660Z INFO ant_networking::cmd 1004] Peer PeerId("12D3KooW9roTXJUfqP3VBsQ2a6SsNDRmmDcK9eH7CtxyBTdcfb5o") is reported as having issue ConnectionIssue
[2025-03-10T06:48:35.063053Z WARN ant_networking::event::swarm 336] OutgoingConnectionError to PeerId("12D3KooWDJLVnkcR2f6e5WNv2d5J1asY1S6uWrM6v2HLC8Y2hhC4") on ConnectionId(136) - Transport([(/ip4/65.108.226.125/udp/27042/quic-v1/p2p/12D3KooWDJLVnkcR2f6e5WNv2d5J1asY1S6uWrM6v2HLC8Y2hhC4, Other(Custom { kind: Other, error: Right(Custom { kind: Other, error: Custom { kind: Other, error: HandshakeTimedOut } }) }))])
[2025-03-10T06:48:35.063085Z ERROR ant_networking::event::swarm 354] Dial errors len : 1
[2025-03-10T06:48:35.063088Z ERROR ant_networking::event::swarm 374] OutgoingConnectionError: Transport::Other Custom { kind: Other, error: Right(Custom { kind: Other, error: Custom { kind: Other, error: HandshakeTimedOut } }) }
[2025-03-10T06:48:35.063097Z WARN ant_networking::event::swarm 397] Problematic error encountered: Custom { kind: Other, error: Right(Custom { kind: Other, error: Custom { kind: Other, error: HandshakeTimedOut } }) }
[2025-03-10T06:48:35.063102Z WARN ant_networking::event::swarm 449] Outgoing Connection error to PeerId("12D3KooWDJLVnkcR2f6e5WNv2d5J1asY1S6uWrM6v2HLC8Y2hhC4") is considered as critical. Marking it as an issue.

over and over again for hours and days and normal user might actually be able to upload stuff we want to secure permanently and securely. ← Remember that?
If that was to happen, the chancers would have to prove they actually had something like the claimed storage.
They will NOT upgrade willingly so they have to be forced to do so.
And that means centralisation for just a wee secnd then its tough shit pal.

Why should we be held back for the greed of a few?

Force an upgrade to 0.3.7 or better NOW!!!

And I really CNGAF about your mantra of Decentralisation and

the node operators’ right to choose their version

Where did that “right” come from anyway?

We didn’t wait 18 years to be effed about by a few chancers that spotted a opportunity to cut their losses on under utilised datacentres.

So answer the question then @bridge

How many nodes are YOU and your associates running?
And what version of antnode is on these nodes?

[bridge]

In the free competition of the network, if a master emerges to control things under the pretext of greed, then it is a failed decentralization project. The only way is to let each node, which is thoroughly pursuing its own profit, make the best choices for its own benefit. Haven’t we already seen the failure of Bitcoin’s gentlemen’s agreement?

Right now, around 50,000 coins are being distributed daily to node operators, so I don’t think this project is at any risk of failing because of that. Also, I’m not even sure if running nodes on servers is that profitable. If it were, competition would naturally drive profits down. I’m not particularly interested in short-term, unsustainable profits like that.

I’m currently running around 20,000 nodes and enjoying checking my daily ANT rewards. Plus, since ANT has reached a sufficiently low price, I’ve been slowly accumulating more. That’s because I firmly believe this project will be in a better place three, six, or twelve months from now.

This will probably be my last reply to you. I’ve waited 10 years for this project, and now I’m building a portfolio and cash flow that will allow me to wait another 10 years if necessary. No matter how loudly the community shouts, no one knows when this project will be recognized by the world. That’s why you need to have patience. Good luck.

[Southside]

@Southside

How many nodes are YOU and your associates running?
And what version of antnode is on these nodes?

What is so difficult about answering BOTH questions?

Or did you think that by saying

@bridge

This will probably be my last reply to you.

you could run away?

ANSWER THE QUESTION
what version of antnode is on your nodes?
Its a very simple question.
Lets have an answer.

[riddim]

@Southside

These operators are gaming the system to put it mildly.

tbh we don’t know that

and maybe it’s really an attack on the network someone with deep pockets trying the simplest of all attacks by not upgrading and seeing if this project is brought down by this already and fully depends on a cooperating node-runners that want the best of the project and not only their own pockets

[Southside]

@bridge

and now I’m building a portfolio and cash flow that will allow me to wait another 10 years if necessary.

Really? There’s a distinct whiff of blubber about you. Mixed in with the stench of parasite.

[scottefc86]

In this early stage I don’t see how restricting emissions to the nodes running only the latest version is harming decentralisation. When we are stable and data permanence is guaranteed then we can think about relaxing it.

[Toivo]

@scottefc86

nodes running only the latest version

I’d like to see that happening, but I’m not sure how reliable that information is. Can it be verified, that the version the nodes are claimed to be, actually is correct? Or can someone just say that they run a certain version, but the actual software can be whatever?

[neo]

The protocol is the version. It should be able to cryptographically know if a node is running a certain version. Even without that, the format of the packets can show it.

Although if a whale is not upgrading then are they seriously going to modify the code to pretend its the new latest version? I’d say if the whale is going to mod an old version code to pretend its the new version, then they would just upgrade and not waste time modding the code with all that effort

As to reducing emissions on version then that is not against decentralisation since emissions in part are there to keep the network alive and healthy and keep up the versions is helping to keep healthy.

As suggested above while updates are coming in relatively quickly and major changes to get the network working right then reducing emission given to old version nodes is probably the best. And when the upgrades are less about fixing major issues and more about trimmings etc then let it be 2 or 3 versions allowing people plenty of time to upgrade.

Also it will make the whales upgrade to be able to afford their setups

[jane]

Has anyone else noticed the autonomi.com landing page doesn’t work properly in firefox (or FF variants) , the images are black. Someone should probably fix this.

[Toivo]

@neo

The protocol is the version. It should be able to cryptographically know if a node is running a certain version. Even without that, the format of the packets can show it.

OK, that’s good to know.

@neo

Although if a whale is not upgrading then are they seriously going to modify the code to pretend its the new latest version? I’d say if the whale is going to mod an old version code to pretend its the new version, then they would just upgrade and not waste time modding the code with all that effort

Yeah, that was just a layman’s thought, I don’t have a grasp how hard that kind of modding is.

[neo]

Working for me and I only use firefox.

Do you have something like a “no-script” preventing scripts from “framer” working?

[neo]

@Toivo

I don’t have a grasp how hard that kind of modding is.

A lot more work than just doing a “antup node” And for what benefit. None I can think of since the whale is just after the emissions

[Toivo]

I was also thinking for the future. How much we can rely on the reported node version? Maybe at some point there could be more to gain from misreporting. Just speculating here, of course.

[dirvine]

This is the part that nobody is talking about

• Operators may run a gazillion nodes for whatever reason (attack, support etc. etc.)
• This is an open source product.

So whatever somebody can do to attack/support THEY CAN. That includes

• Altering the protocol claimed version
• Adjusting the reported stats
• rewrite the whole node with their own internal code that does XXX

That is the price of decentralisation, it’s the responsibility. So shouts and claims for crippling this group or that will force the hands of people who do have resources to simply make some code changes to support/attack the network.

I feel folk are really missing the point here a lot. We cannot enforce anything really, we have to make the protocol as simple as possible, but then it’s easy to change, as fair as possible, but who is to say what is fair to who. And so on.

The fact nodes cannot create coins, or data etc. is a really big issue here. It was also lost by some people of the importance of that.

What we have is a huge network, that has few rules and we make it as simple as possible, it has NO CENSORSHIP and I hope never ever has. The innovation is in making all of this work with lean nodes with few rules and for that we use cryptographic techniques for data “correctness” and that happen at paying clients. Right now the payment is on another network from the core, and that is currently a good thing, even if costly and cumbersome.

Even the chat in the forum of how we “control” the network and decide which nodes are best for “us” (who is us?) and so on, is, I feel, missing the point.

It has to get out there and work and with the least amount of rules possible.

Emission’s is also causing great concern, but it’s happening as planned, nodes are being paid pro rata, so every single node has the same probability of emissions, just as every single node will have the same probability of data payments. That’s life, that’s what all the people say

This is why the teams focus is on the biggest technical problems on front of them. That’s where they can make an impact without acting as moral judges, one way or another.

We build it and we keep making it better, the world will decide how best it’s used. I have a ton of ideas, I see many of this forum do a well, but we are off road here, no painted white lines, this is the reality of decentralisation and fairness across the board. The ebbs and flows will alter with use of the network. So let’s get our heads down and build and build and build and then we will all know!!!

[aatonnomicc]

I’m making a few ANT from home per day so it’s working as it should.

Id love to see some incentive to get nodes to upgrade sooner to aid with development.

And whoever has the money and skills to run millions of nodes fair play id rather they were with us than against us

As the team is well aware getting the uploads flowing is critical now so that there are more rewards going naturally into the node wallets so the smaller players running a few nodes for the first time get to see some attos coming into there wallets.