I don’t think this is an issue.
Like bitcoin waiting for enough confirmations to give confidence, you can keep asking random nodes to validate until you are willing to accept the transaction as ‘confirmed’.
No need for elders, sections or any of that. For a dollar ask three nodes, for £1m ask 500. Etc.
That’d make nodes accepting payment slow if they have to query a number of other nodes till there are enough agreeing
But then the question is how would nodes validate when the records are not in their close group. That’d require nodes to be searching out new dbc transactions.
Sounds awfully messy in work flow for nodes and require them to take on more authority and of course a form of trustworthiness.
Good point. None of this sounds insoluble to me. Just as now, the number of records/group size used to validate is theoretical and may be adjusted in practice. Maybe for these records the ‘group’ is larger.
hmm - yeah and even with smaller amounts it would be an issue if exploitable … automating creation and collection of thousands or millions of little TXs wouldn’t be an issue if that would be possible … I think we’d need something pretty bulletproof (but selecting a large enough group - not being possible to know in advance of the reissue being triggered does sound/feel feasible to me … the trick most certainly needs to be the not being known in advance part) …
It’s a combo of how difficult to know what to target, value of the target, and the difficulty/cost of targeting.
The Cantillon Effect would suggest otherwise
Ok @TylerAbeoJordan pov pov pass
Like I said before there are 3 kind of SAFErrs. Fiat focused, Maidsafe’s algo focused and Attos focused.
The fiat focus can only see the sell price of ANT. Maidsafe’s algo focused follow whatever ANT they are charged to upload data on the Network, but this is also based on fiat. what my attos is worth, makes most sense. 1 attos should buy me CPU/DNS/GET/PUT/TXS.
Merchants love predictability and simplicity, nothing sounds more like both than costs? 1 attos.
With a hardcoded 1 attos I can use my 1 attos today.
Now some people tend to think that things need to be expensive for it to have value or make it interesting.
For me when a kid can ask an ai to use dns and name all galaxies in the visible universe within a year. I think it’s clear that we would have something on Autonomi that would never be possible on clearnet, not with currency needed or recurring costs.
When you pay out thousands of ANTs that get sold because your playing the fiat game you won’t last long.
I’m clueless, but if I plan to spent 1 attos on ai’s and you are spending ANTs on noderunners
I assume that you are doing that, because you think the noderunners are smarter than the ai’s.
Ai’s can be creating our ai doctors/lawyers/accounts/assistant atom by atom, but that’s if the atom is worth something to begin with.
Below the text from above link quoted. David’s views:
Main issues with Native IMO are
- Exchanges won’t touch it
- Even when proven non blockchain tokens are delisted and move to blockchain (avalanche being a good example)
- Who holds the initial supply
- Who decides how to share that out
Plus many more. To me this is not a technical issue, I think with GraphEntries we cna solve that easily. It’s purely political and regulatory.
DBCs are super, and we can have them operate at billions of TX/s and we have shown that. However then folk started wanting full auditability and also full privacy, so it became a fully private monero type thing that exchanges are even more scared of.
So DBCs with no auditing to me gives us a huge technical win, but there are 2 hurdles auditability (which I don’t believe should be required) and the political issues.
So no technical impediment, mostly political and then some idealogical manic and very agrerssive fights.
In all honesty I find the whole discussion and obsession with native to be extremely dissapointing and distracting. There is a much bigger fish here to fry and it’s much more important
I’m totally confused here. We were sold on the entire package, which included native. Now, it’s all just a distraction? If we are going to exist primarily on DEXs, why should we care about what these people think either politically or ideologically? What and who are the bigger fish to fry? If traditional exchanges won’t touch it, isn’t an alt/native exchange the killer app?
If pursuing the native token chimera at community’s expense is distracting and disappointing, I’m not sure what to do not to distract and disappoint 
Probably make do with the blockchain ANT and pretend Kraken, Coinbase, and Binance won’t get off the Autonomi’s phone in attempt to list it first. And now it feels as though the experienced voices who suspected the Arbitrum token is all we’ll ever get were not exactly wrong.
Maybe there’s a place for two kind of networks. 
One is this Autonomi is developing and the other is one which has fully anonymous native token. I can see great value in both approaches.
It seems to me that the efforts the folks in our community have made for native currency are quality stuff, and I would really like to see that kind of network out in the wild.
“Forking” does not need to be such a dramatic thing. Maybe it’s not so that these networks would even compete against each others, but simply just serve different audiences / needs. There should be plenty of folks willing to run nodes for both of them.
I think it would be good thing for many folks here to not try to influence the direction of Autonomi, as it seems to be a futile effort and bring great frustration, anger and other stress for so many, anf for what? So why not try to become more independent in trying to realize a vision, that seems to be common to quite many people here? There’s not much to loose. There’s no point in trying to hang on “we / us”, when that just is not the case anymore.
If people are willing to go for another kind of network, we can move forward together, as equals and see our ideas becoming real.
And at the same time Autonomi can continue it’s own path, which I honestly think has it’s own value. Having two ways is a win-win.
Main question for me is if there could be a way to somehow reward ANT/MAID holders if they choose to support another network? Maybe have burn address to port some value to this privacy centric version, or something like that? Just throwing sketchy ideas, I have no skills to come up with a solution.
(My personal worry here is that I wouldn’t want to miss an opportunity to be an early investor in fully anonymous version of decentralized network.)
FOMO for the win 
I’ll digest the rest of your post later
I don’t understand how something that can make transactions so slow, expensive and less private can only be considered distracting and disappointing.
Surely, everyone wants cheap, fast, private, data mutations, preferably with the fees going to node runners?
Neither do I.
But I’ve learned in life, that in these kinds of things it’s just better to not to try to understand, or convince the other. It’s better to just keep close to your own ideas / values / “soul” and let others be their way.
For a long time I have questioned this area and we were told (and still are) that native is planned once the network is sound.
I asked for a plan, not just for native but how to get there. I asked many times and lost patience.
And now this. 
Well, where the f are we now wrt native and what Autonomi are up to?
I humbly suggest we don’t know and they are not telling us, and either don’t know either or are dishonest about things. It is impossible to tell which but it is a terrible situation and David doesn’t help with this or his snide generalised slights about those who don’t care about money going token token token.
I was going to quote and support one thing he said over there - that he’s 100% about making this a network for everyone - but then read on and it is so much meaningless bullshit unless he or they will address the issues we raise (such as you just mentioned). But they won’t. He won’t. And they prefer to blame us for getting peed off or continuing to ask what to us are really important questions that are not properly answered.
It is such an about face from 18 months ago and the decade prior… but we are the problem even as we slog our guts out to support the project and the same goals they say they are aiming for.
I feel you man, but let’s just get over with all this resentment and launch a parallel network with different properties. Really. Such a waste of energy.
We can have it. We don’t need think about exchanges or care about if it succeeds or not. Let’s just try! (Easy for me to say when I will not be doing any of the programming…)
Without being on the inside we will never know, my guess is they know native is a long prison sentence and are doing what they can to avoid it and I don’t blame them. David said he can’t see why it’s not technically possible do you think it’s technically possible @happybeing?
I don’t think that’s likely to be necessary, but community led native-token test network(s) might be a good idea given the greater importance/urgency many of us place on Native Token than David & some of the team seem to.
If a solution gets to the point where it seems viable, we can see if the team is willing to help integrate it.
David, Bux, and others have been clear they want Native Token, but also clear that it’s not a priority at the moment.
I agree.
I’m uncomfortable with David’s disparaging tone about those who discuss Native Token / network economics. Though he does seem to be saying that it’s important, but can only be given his focus once the core network is further developed.
He’s also indicating (on discord) that regulatory concerns are a part of the problem with prioritising it just now.
I suspect they are a very major part of the problem with prioritising it just now.
So lets give management the benefit of the doubt for now and explore what is feasible ourselves.
We were told some time ago, that it’s now eyes on this project and they would have to be careful what was being discussed.
Governments rely on open source big time these days and i doubt they would want to miss out on the advantages this network brings.
All governments/ military running on an un-hackable network, ditto corporations…that is a world no-one has contemplated.
But what they wont stand for is a shadow monetary system, I think that’s part of why David says it without saying it…like a cryptic canary notice.
Good luck with a native token fork and the scrutiny…to me that would be unproductive for Autonomi…given eyes on. Edit: …and the planning of any such fork should be discussed elsewhere, because it is no longer part of this project.
My preference is to trust the team and see how it plays out…but the current Fiat conversion setup is a massive roadblock to end-user adoption..I’m no dummy and I hate it.
Exactly. It might then evolve to be part of Autonomi design, or some other network.
I get why Autonomi wants to avoid the legal risks that would come with anonymous tokens, and more privacy centric network design. But I don’t see much risk in making such a network reality, if we stay away of exchanging the token for any fiat money. Let’s just ditch that idea for a while at least, and see how the technology itself would work. Later there might emerge markets and marketplaces for the token, but we don’t need to worry about that right now. Bit like early times of Bitcoin.
Also, we are not bound by any promises, contracts, partnerships, shareholders… - or anything like that. We can just play and learn, instead of trying to push Autonomi in direction it just does not want to go.
