It depends on network activity, but when other nodes think you are unreachable then they ignore you. When enough do you are dead.
Basically this is the case. There is a fast moving discussion with many options.
This is part of the discussion. Many ways to ensure the attack vectors are secure, i.e. not having them available until a sift/hard fork agreed by operators and such like.
@JimCollinson Is there a PDF version?
That site is not every browser friendly. I also find having it in PDF form is easier to read.
The white paper reads well. Good job.
Good points to ask 
To me this sounds, like it incentivizes someone to run as many nodes as possible on one machine
The original WP had answer, that only fastest node will get reward so you would need to have fast connection, CPU…
In our case with limited speed and resources you can have thousand nodes and probably get same reward per node as the ones with ten time less nodes with same number of CPU, RAM and bandwidth provided to the network.
So there should be some minimal threshold to be set.
Thought I’d put this here as it maybe lost in discord discussions. It very much reads like a throwback to sections, elders, etc
This paragraph gives me the idea that the nodes are collecting into sections, groups, neighbourhoods, etc
The nodes are able to organise themselves into small collectives, checking and double-checking each other's ability to keep on holding and serving the encrypted data, and cooperating based on a set of rules and incentives that enable them to function as an autonomous close group, and part of a wider global autonomous system that is designed to secure and retain encrypted data in perpetuity.
Points
To my reading this paints a picture of autonomi that is not true, does not exist and misleading. The truth is so much better and more powerful.
It is autonomous nodes working together with its neighbours in the global network in a cooperative manner ensuring its neighbours are healthy.
@JimCollinson Error on description of self encryption
Self-Encryption
All content on Autonomi is encrypted. When a client uploads a piece of content to the Network it is first broken into chunks. These chunks are then ‘self-encrypted’, a process patented by ‘MaidSafe’ the company responsible for the conceptualization and delivery of the network. Each chunk is encrypted, using its own hash and the hashes of the two previous chunks in the same file.
Each chunk is encrypted, using its own hash and the hash of the previous and following chunks.
Not 2 previous chunks.
AND following paragraph
These encrypted chunks are then hashed again to arrive at the XOR Network address where the chunk will be stored. At the same time, a ‘data map’ is created on the client device, which maps the chunk number to the XOR network address of the chunk and the hash to decrypt it and its two successors, allowing the content to be recreated. A number of copies of each chunk are stored by nodes in the Network to ensure redundancy. This means quantum secure, content addressable data.
These encrypted chunks are then hashed again to derive the XOR Network address where the chunk will be stored.
I like the soundtrack!!
Everything looks great and I like the snappiness of the video. 
@JimCollinson Either the concept here is not conveyed or it seems if is a form of double dipping on the Royalty when considering the emission of the 70%
The emission of the remaining token supply, comprising 70% of the maximum supply, will serve as a forward-looking incentive mechanism, ensuring consistent and dependable rewards for participants. Specifically, 70% of the remaining supply (49% of the total supply) will be distributed to the nodes participating in data storage as storage emissions. The remaining 30% (21% of the total supply) will be reserved for the potential future utility of the network nodes.
The 70% of total supply is being split on a 70%/30% basis with 30% of the 70% total supply going as royalties. What ever you give the farmers will eventually pay for storage and thus 15% of that ends up as royalties. Sort of double dipping seeing as royalties is not a tax system.
Why be so complex and just give the 70% total supply remaining as emissions and let royalties flowing that way instead of what seems to be double dipping of some confused sort of thing? When is an emission not a real emission but only a partial emission.
If its some sort of matching the initial distribution then its faulty maths since there isn’t the 5% investors nor the 10.5% MAID holders and only the 14.5 (15% nominally) for royalties. So to match the initial distribution it should be 85%/15% split of the 70% total supply for emissions. But still emissions end up back in royalties on the first pass of storage payments.
Just trying to understand here as this seems contrary to anything from the past. The 70/30 of the 70% total supply.
So either you have to explain it better or reconsider this 70/30 split of the 70% total supply for emissions.
I find negating r-1 as counter intuitive and doesn’t explain things by just looking at the equation. Writing equations is an art form in itself to help increase understanding with out so much need for graphical representations.
r - 1 does not give the idea of a reducing to zero denominator, whereas 1 - r does. From a reducing denominator its obvious that the factor increases. And without the negation of it shows that the result starts at 10 + 20 and increases.
My suggestion reduces the maths operations by 25%. 4 operations reduced to 3. Thus easier to digest on that basis
The equation as written gives the maths reader the initial idea of a graph with 10 as the max
Just a suggestion for improvement that is all.
Overall I like the WP. And @JimCollinson I’d love you to consider the suggestions and mistakes I found.
How does the network respond to transaction spam attacks given there is no fee mechanism for transferring autonomi tokens? I understand the data already exists however in terms of general network bandwidth essentially ddosing elders? Is there some sort of rate limiting or node to client blacklisting mechanism?
One factor is that the client does the majority of the work generating the transaction. The close group(s) validate it. This limits the transaction rate that a client can do.
There are no elders. The network structure did a full circle back to close groups, that is the group of neighbours that are the closest to the chunk in question. Each chunk has its set of close nodes and two near by XOR addresses may not have the exact same close groups.
Thanks that explains it well
the whitepaper link complains about javascript too easily and does not just work in forum app on the phone. Is there a direct link to pdf or similar?
Unofficial pdf of Autonomi white paper
https://file.io/TLOx0SsJGV2D
Reupload. Not sure why it delete it.
corrected quote tics:
"Autonomi White Paper.pdf" 3d8b80031d088fd244ab79498d245e62e75ce48bedc9afd6d0f46724801f4277
I asked before but doubt Jim has had a chance to see the request. Yes the site is an utter pain to work with. Also the formatting on the site is a shocker. I use a very wide browser window and it formats the lines to fill the width making it difficult to read. Also it then jumps to a 2 column format which doesn’t work well. Might be fancy or break up the format but with self adjusting widths on the page it fails.
I am guessing though that a pdf will only be officially released when they have ironed out any issues.
Thanks @Mendrit will check that out
