Should a nodes' value include bandwidth speed?

[whiteoutmashups]

@dirvine

That’s where I get off, all I want is to be able to ensure we all learn, so basically stuff we use to produce consume is specialised enough and SAFE fits in there.

I very much like the way you think sir.

Equal access to the core.

No preference / privilege to those with more money. It’s the only sustainable solution.

Greed only ruins systems

[Backseat]

@whiteoutmashups

No preference / privilege to those with more money. It’s the only sustainable solution.

Haha that made me laugh. In my head I saw you saying something along the lines of:

“Yea no specialized hardware! The people with money shouldn’t have any privilege above the rest of us. Only the people with 120% above network average storage capacity should have that privilege.”

[janitor]

@dirvine

Bad for those who want preference but probably better for all in longer run.

“preference” → “performance”?

[happybeing]

Its late here too but not that late. Did that earlier and been very busy since then so still tired and wishing I hadn’t asked that Q really, because…

@janitor

my claim was that rewarding anyone but the fastest of the 4 replicas for each chunk will get you a lower performance than if you always direct your request to the fastest replica for each chunk.

That isn’t what I thought you were claiming. This claim seems just to be circular logic, and I would not dispute that if you could always choose the vault that would deliver a chunk before any other, then yes the network would be faster - unless of course obtaining this level of accuracy was to slow the network because of the effort and communications needed to do so. I’ll leave it there :-). Nice sparring with you as always …now to catch up on this forum!