Are Safe Vaults servers or not: a discussion

[zeroflaw]

@neo

Explain who is being taxed?
Answer NOONE The network itself out of its funds is paying it as a reward (payment).

The users who pay for PUTS. They pay, those coins get destroyed, on reissuing a 5% tax is taken.

@neo

Very much different to being taxed. Just like a professional charges for services provided so too the network itself will pay the professionals who do maintenance on the network.

It should be a donation, and people should choose who they pay to maintain the network. Like a charity. Like the ‘maidsafe foundation’. It shouldn’t be a fixed 5% either, it should be adaptive. 1% of a lot is a lot. The network shouldn’t reward a centralised entity more than is required, just ends up creating another Google.

@neo

As to many of your other points, a little deeper looking into things will solve your queries. For instance it is usual as in the internet usual, that is like a web-server or nntp-server and is not referring to older network definition of server on a peer-to-peer file serving local network where each computer has certain files held. Its trying to point out that there is no single point of call to do the transaction, it is distributed with one bit of data handled by one section and another by another section and independently of each other. In other words not the usual usage of the term server. And also as David said

I never said at any point the network had a single point of call or it wasn’t distributed. Creating a distributed network today already exists in the real world through Kubernetes. They didn’t make up new words for server, it’s just a cluster of servers, which removes the ‘centralised aspect of server’. The safenetwork takes that further its more like a giant swarm for servers.

@neo

When you get to understand the nature of consensus then you realise that you need to take over a section in order to change the protocols followed including how rewards are done.

Read what I said, if enough people ran the modified version which did not pay the maintainers, they wouldn’t get paid. Its open source so there is nothing stopping people doing this.
I also never made any claims about consensus or changing order.

@neo

I like that you stick to your guns. But the facts don’t support it. What facts you say, well the testnets when we had vaults at home and the network worked great with vaults (thats right redefined word) servers on home computers. If the vaults handled (any) transactions sent by a user then yes it would be called a server in the usual internet usage of the word. But the safenetwork is such that the vault only stores a small portion of the whole data and only participates in a very small number of the total communications in the network. There is no “load balancer” or we’ll store Joe’s data in this vault and Mary’s data in that vault and Joe’s transactions are handled by a specific vault etc. Its a distributed network and vaults work in a P2P configuration rather than a client-server configuration. Your definition really does have any device that supplies a packet is a server.

As we have no analytical data collected from these vaults at home networks, we have no way to prove how ‘great’ they worked or what hardware people were running them from. Therefore, you have no facts to prove what you are saying either, but nice try. Keep signing the song of @dirvine but that does not make it true or factual. Again, I never said the network wasn’t distributed. My claim is that saying Not have servers is a lie.

@neo

If you read what David was saying again, there isn’t technically a queue, but rather if you offer up your computer as a Node (vault) then it is assigned a section to (attempt to) join. If that section does not want a node then your attempt is rejected, not queued. You have to try again to join the network which means you will be assigned to another section to try and join it. No queueing

I know we already established the selection process wasn’t orderly, its random, the answer to everything around here. It’s the new 42 in the age of the safenetwork, can’t wait for the memes.

@neo

You keep saying this and that doesn’t make it true.

There maybe some advantages but there are disadvantages to running a server as a vault. (compared to a suitable home vault)

a suitable home vault, you mean a purpose built low powered storage server like a NAS?
Come on wake up! thats definitely a server even if its not in a data centre.

Expecting to run this entire network through laptops and iPads is a ridiculous claim, it needs servers because the current network infrastructure of the world will require them for its operations. Again, I never said this couldn’t change.

FYI, my laptop goes to sleep if I don’t touch it for 5 mins, its a terrible server, so do millions of other devices. The cost of copying data to these short lived devices means for it to be cost effective they will only hold small amounts of data. They will still be a huge part of the network because there are millions of them. However, they still need to be supported by, what is it you call them around here, oh another made up term for server archive node. The network needs these purpose built servers to help support the churn created by lots of devices switching on and off.

So let’s say it again. The network operating in the worlds current technology infrastructure will have servers.

@maidsafe

15. Not have servers (in the usual definition of a server)

This is still a lie.