It’s really just the market.
If we thought we were immune when bitcoin crashed from 100,000 to 70,000 we were wrong. I know people with bitcoin and they are not happy. Best they can say is it will go up in the next cycle.
ANT has many reasons to go up and not just ‘the cycle’.
I am certain we will bounce back before bitcoin and bounce back stronger.
I’m only really upset I don’t have the spare cash to get these delicious sub 0.10 ANTs.
Knowing my luck we’ll be back at 0.40 by payday.
It isn’t all about mathematical proof. It is understanding the mutable data types, how their values are changed by consensus of the group holding it.
You can make the argument that the close groups can be compromised, but arguably that would hold true for immutable data too.
Native token can be very efficient because only a few nodes are needed to look after that data and it is very hard to force your way into that group. It’s a very different design to blockchain.
I’m sure you could get a probablistic, maths based, answer though. Maybe the team will provide that when the time comes (and most folks will skim over! 
).
We should get you a 10% interest payday loan from the BGF! Then you and the BGF would split the profits. 
Looks like the price got too low for poor mr. baby poo poo pants who was all for pushing the price as low as possible beforehand/before this. Hypocrite. Goodbye. See you later whenever the price goes back up again, peddling the same stuff.
Anyway.
Whoever is buying at these prices will be a force to reckon with on the way back up, but IMO not the worst force to deal with. Going up with a greater force is all a matter of uploads being streamlined, crypto bloodbath being over, and the rest of the network’s features being developed. The website needs to be updated with many more things as the months (not years, though that has its place as well) go by instead of just running nodes: uploads, OS, apps/API, etc.
It’s really about what the dev team AND the community does from here. I’m sure everyone is either going to keep holding—or continue itching for wanting to day-trade at prices quite higher than this (now that ANT allows for that), but not yet having the chance to, thus complaining here.
Pawn your kidneys like the rest of us did 
How is massive spawning of nodes and them not becoming part of their own close groups prevented? Honest q
Maybe worth questioning what the benefit of that might be.
I could imagine for some short moments the largest of current operators indeed might be in control of the majority of nodes that are responsive for certain chunks.
Coordination and even knowing that would be a pretty challenging task. (+taking action before churn reshapes the network and majority for the chunk is lost again)
What could they possibly do if they manage to capture majority and manage to take action before loosing it again?
Someone more knowledgeable than me might correct me and or point out where I missed something
The random rewards emission is too large a honeypot IMO … it means we have to have countermeasures that degrade the performance of the network - even assuming current problems are worked out.
Thanks to Josh’s comment in the update the other day I learned that emissions are currently double the rate they are supposed to be … I imagine this is do to the system being gamed already … so countermeasures will have to be put into play and there is no way this won’t have a detrimental effect on network performance.
We have too many issues overall for the network to be viable and rewards for doing nothing useful for the network is us simply shooting ourselves in the foot, the leg, and inevitably in the gut … we won’t survive.
Random reward emissions need to end - completely. We need to get back on track to real grassroots growth by paying influencers to promote the network and bring demand into the ecosystem. This is marketing 101.
One could double spend native currency in this instance no?
Currently, the monetary system is outside the nodes and is controlled by a smart contract on Arbitrum.
This smart contract has admin keys and can be changed, if you are looking for a way to take control of the network until the native currency is released just find out who holds the key and confiscate/acquire it - while this key exists it is a kill switch for the entire network…
Of course you can always release a new version with a new smart contract and airdrop all holders so maybe it’s not such a problem…
Check out the Dev Forum
Nope - for spending you need to create a valid transaction… With a local majority you could smuggle in a valid transaction from your wallet for free instead of paying for the data storage (if you’re very very very lucky) … But you couldn’t create a valid transaction and steal coin for someone else
Edit:
Oooooh - by dropping a transaction you don’t like and invalidating that branch of the dag through this 
I guess that is theoretically possible … But targeting data to drop (without any remaining copies) is super super difficult… Managing to drop some random data is already more or less out of scope… Doing this with a specific tx is significantly more difficult…
Right now the network is rather empty and has large amounts of excess copies which makes it close to impossible to try this… And the larger the network grows the more difficult this endeavour becomes…
In theory the network could add additional security to the native currency above regular data by storing that in some variants…
So an attack like this might theoretically be possible but very difficult to really do and fairly easy to make it insanely more difficult…
That doesn’t mean that rewards-for-nothing can’t be gamed and hence our network’s value sabotaged by those who game it and dump tokens - effectively stealing value from all of us because, frankly we are stupid to give away value for nothing.
Here’s a little exercise. Find the miners who are dumping and compare them to those who exchange eMAID for ANT and dump the price 
https://dexscreener.com/arbitrum/0xbf24f38243392a0b4b7a13d10dbf294f40ae401b
Check out the Dev Forum
Regardless of the ratio, rewards-for-nothing makes it worse and you are engaging in whataboutism with this argument.
I’ve also argued that we need to get influencers onboard and I’ve argued for solid marketing since before launch all in order to soak up all the tokens that would be dumped by those converting.
So:
end rewards-for-nothing as this program is self-injurious and we have enough problems already.
market the network -even now, no need to wait, our token is a bargain and marketers can use this to drive interest in the project.
Both of these are important, it’s not one or the other.
Issue is without nodes live…
They cant host anything on network.
We first need miners… For network space then hosters…
What are you meaning by this? Autonomi doesn’t have mining. Nodes are the closest thing to “mining”
The challenge for them to run has to be high and hard enough, so that they can be evaluated, then shunned, if they cannot perform them. That’s how the design tackles that approach.
The problem right now is that it is too easy to spin up nodes, as they have very little uploaded data to manage. Compounded with emissions which provide the funding to run said nodes.
I’m actually more concerned with emissions providing the ammunition to overcome the already built in countermeasure.
A benefit of tiny rewards is a handbreak on rampant network growth, which discourages this sort of ‘google attack’. It makes it much more costly to do.
Just to be clear here. With native transactions we only need to see a valid unique transaction form the local group. If there is more than one then the transaction is considered dead. This is OK as a user (or bad app) tried to double spend.
So the local group is also interesting as folk can think, I can just inject nodes all over the place to take over that group. So we have a measure here DISTANCE. So instead of X closest nodes we say all nodes in DISTANCE are responsible. To calculate DISTANCE nodes measure the average (median, but ignoring the detail here) CLOSE_GROUP (i.e. 5) distance from each address they are closest to.
So what this means is that an attacker can inject a bad node, but that bad node cannot prevent the good node publishing the transactions he sees and if all he sees is the honest one then we are fine.
Hope that makes sense, No fancy maths and consensus here, but validatable data (like chunks or signed data) and all we need is 1 honest player in the group.
