At least we can not enforce anything about the program used. But we can enforce certain rules/behavior, like:
Client must pay before storing the data, or else the data is not stored.
Node must deliver the data they are responsible for, or else they are shunned.
I’d be interested to know all the rules that are enforced. (No, not demanding anyone to tell them to me right now ) But in general, I think they are the most solid thing about the network, and in principle the actual software does not matter.
I think the point people are making is that by not upgrading, progress and development towards that place we want the network to get to is stalled, and the concern is that keeping it stalled might be in the interests of a whale or several, indefinitely.
If that is what’s happening, it’s a consequence of the network no longer being decentralised, in which case it’s not missing the point but a valid approach to get it back on track, towards decentralisation.
Right now it isn’t decentralised in multiple ways, and we all accept that while wanting it to get there ASAP.
On this, there is 38,087 units of emissions (~0.76 ANT) given out twice daily. While its supposed to be equal probably, it does not seem to be happening as desired, Also that is a Maximum of 38,087 nodes getting an emission. Less if some nodes are doubly requested a quote from them.
It was 72,174 units prior to sunday and changed to this. Thus reducing even further the number of nodes receiving an emission.
Emissions while having multiple purposes, it is supposed to be distributed in a way to help keep the network alive and give people something to keep their nodes running.
What the reduction in units means is that those with less than a few hundred nodes are very unlikely to receive anything for up to a month or more by random workings.
Many people are asking me, complaining to me, asking why nothing for weeks, and what can we say? With so few units, in comparison to the number of nodes out there, it really, really, really difficult to keep saying run your up to 50 nodes, knowing full well that they will receive nothing for days/weeks if they ever receive anything.
So there is “happening to plan” and there is programming in centralisation by reducing the unit size of emissions even more from the woefull small number of units it was before.
How can we get through to whomever is in charge that the unit size should be a lot smaller so the emissions are spread around a lot more. This would encourage the smaller node runners who are limited to max of 50 nodes with launchpad and increase decentralisation.
Also a request, @Dimitar , myself, and many others have been denied (by silence) when asking for the actual process of how the random file quoting is then translated into how much emissions are given out. Every time asked it is met with refusal to answer the simple request. Even when requested in the Moderation room where its not lost
It is very difficult to help people when many theories of how the random file quotes translates into distribution. One OG suggests there is ranking, one suggests another, I try to say its emission per quote. But with the low number of emissions units (size ~ 0.76 ANT) even I find it hard to believe only 36,087 nodes are asked for quotes. That equates to a maximum of 1300 3 chunk files being quoted on.
Sorry for honing in on this but it is really difficult helping the majority of people starting up running nodes, and others with one to few machines running LP when its like this. Its to the point I feel like saying I dunno, or its just not worth it. I won’t do that to discourage people because I know the important of more people to increase decentralisation and distribution. But its not easy.
I totally agree with you in a broad sense. There’s no bulletproof way to prevent attacks, and this network has seen the drastic consequences of point solutions over the years which have resulted in unwanted complexity and problematic scaling.
Where we are are at the moment is that it looks like a large portion of nodes aren’t incentivised to upgrade, and genuine improvements to honest or quasi-honest* nodes are not getting rolled out.
I don’t really believe that the 10M "whale’ is backing that up with 350PB of storage - Amazon would charge about $8M / month for that, and you likely couldn’t build an array for < $5M running spinning rust.
I think emissions are an elegant solution to getting tokens out there - perhaps to some folks that wouldn’t want to use them for uploads, but would be happy to sell them to those that would. Decent strategy in the early stages.
I think it might be acceptable to temporarily “sour the milk” by reducing / stopping emissions to out of date nodes if it might encourage node runners to upgrade. The honest ones will upgrade. The quasi-honest ones will possibly upgrade. The out and out fakers can’t really be forced to do anything as you’ve pointed out.
At the moment it’s a numbers game, and would be ideal if we can see the impact of the code changes the team have been working so hard on.
I’m also aware I’m not saying anything you (and the team) don’t already know, and aren’t already considering, but I’m offering this perspective in the hope it helps the discussion (even if the direction is to actually dismiss it).
Out of date nodes are actually now harming the network with uploads. Emissions are supposed to be for healthy nodes and the previous version is now making those nodes unhealthy for the network. So early on with these important to upgrade upgrades that it is in the spirit of the emissions to reduce emission amounts for the out of date nodes. Nothing to do with the whales, just any old version node
As bux said we still have our stabilisers on, if the nodes that aren’t updated to the latest version are hindering the team in any way (I think Chris said it is) it makes sense to do something about it. When the stabilisers are off and the team is confident it is reverted to minimum rules. If the team are happy it’s not causing harm let it be.
Dunno why. Why make it slightly better for the whales. They changed the address the emissions were being sent from and changed the unit size of emissions
Possibly, but when you look at the total cost it worked out to 2 or 3 ANT at 20 cents
I have almost entirely given up on running nodes, I am much happier for it. The constant effort to try and understand the reward process and to find info from day one was unnecessary and tiresome.
Idk, there are plenty of posts from all of us, you included, asking please explain how this works. Many times my final decision was based on, I trust the team.
running more than 1k nodes at the beginning was super special; and now people just mention as side note they’re running 20k nodes [blablabla…]
… way better to just relax and develop some apps to create value for the network (what you’re obviously doing already) …
I’ll join you when I get a browser API that supports all data types
not in the mood for building for multiple OSes … just nice and simple svelte apps is what I’m aiming for
(and probably testing out and implementing the logics in python first … to tell the AI what to implement in Javascript)
people get funny (oneself included) when money is involved
(very hard to completely ignore the money aspect if it’s part of the story; and for node runners it obviously is a significant part of the story …)
we can always just start a new network and leave the old one behind … it’s decentralized … no reason to stay in a dysfunctional network if that really doesn’t get resolved for a very long time …
ps: but yes - ofc that cannot be the solution on every update
) But in general, I think they are the most solid thing about the network, and in principle the actual software does not matter.
(what you’re obviously doing already) …
