Stake-To-Farm (STF) protecting the network

Features
21

As a Vault you not serve just 1 user, you serve a lot of them. So when more and more users join SAFE as a Vault you can make more money… Until the FR goes down and everything balances out. So it would not (IMO) slow anything down.

For a Farmer it might just cost a few dollars worth of SAFE. Not much more than having an account with an ISP in the first place.

There is a calculation in the Vault that estimates (roughly) the size of the network. Based on disjoint sections. This could be a marker to say: “This function is only needed if the network is below 300K Vaults” for example. With several million Vaults it’s no longer needed IMO.

Just a few bucks at stake if you want to Farm. Not very different from getting an account on SAFE in the first place which costs you money as well.

I know, like I said, you can even make that more computational intensive etc. Nodeage will probably do the job.

It makes their network more secure. I know this is a problem, but not all people in poor countries lack all money. They might need an account as well which costs them money.

They won’t be trusted quicker. My idea is an addition to nodeage not a replacement. And look how many people buy GPUs to mine Monero and Ethereum. That cost them hundreds of times more than staking a few bucks like I propose.

:yum:

Nope, I know it’s hard. But it’s hard for everyone! On a network with 100.000 Vaults it’s as hard for everyone to join. And as an attacker with quite some money it’s less hard because you can buy in bandwidth and CPU for a lower price. On your home account with your ISP you are limited to maybe some fair use GBs. As an attacker with quite some money you buy TBs of bandwidth with maybe 30% reduction. That’s what I’m concerned about. That’s where the idea of staking comes from.

2 Likes
22

What if the enemy is lurking, waiting for that moment and throws in an equal or greater number of nodes. How will we know of their presence if they dont begin disruption early on? They simply gather data, deanonymize users, and taint the reputation of SAFE. They could remain active and behave until launch. Adding more nodes as they move closer to that long awaited day.

1 Like
23

These people have EARNED that privilege after countless hours of community participation. Most of us wouldn’t even be here if it were not for their undying commitment to educate and maintain our interest. They deserve it IMO.

1 Like
24

Not quite what I was saying. Basic idea was that we need to onboard participants (vaults as well), and the difference between “run a vault then participate” and “send some cash to an exchange, buy this crypto, then link your address to thing you need to run” may be the difference between mass participation and “why bother”

25

Good marks for thinking creatively. But I don’t think it is possible to raise the stake high enough to achieve the stated goal (while also greatly reducing or eliminating mass public participation). I think it is a good idea for us to brainstorm additional layers of network security in general though. IMO the more technological and less economic based solutions are preferable. Using network economics is tempting though… As in the case of spam protection…

8 Likes
26

Some Farmers (like me and more on this forum) will farm to support the network. But all other “bother” for the money. So if the network grows, the FR goes up which means there’s more storage need and you can make more money. Look at how miners are pushing your GPU-cards more expensive these days because they buy so much of them. That process is even more complicated but still they do it.

27

Some Farmers (like me and more on this forum) will farm to support the network.

I totally get you… and will be one of the people running multiple vaults from hour 1. Point taken about GPU mining. It may be a marginal effect, but still would worry about the proposal deterring new honest mining entrants.

1 Like
28

Contrary to some very old posts, the farming rate algo has not high starting point. Actually it will be low since there will be a lot of spare space compared to used. (used == 0MB, spare == many GB)

Not for someone who cannot buy a coin (eg unable to use an exchange like many of the poor or young or in certain countries). You are excluding them. The network then becomes a elitist system for those who have and they get more.

Each section uses its knowledge of its controlled vaults to work out the figures. It is estimated by us humans that this will be a fair estimation across the network because of the nature of XOR space.

Once you implement it then it needs special updates to get rid of it. But what if 75+% of farmers decide to keep the system. Then those who want to get rid of it cannot.

No no no and no. Some will have to farm just to get their first coin since they are not in an area where they can buy a coin (doesn’t matter the cost). See above. So you are excluding them. An elitist system is created.

And like I pointed out there are much better methods to get the network to a few hundred thousand nodes that does not require privileged people or an elitist system

No no no and no. Some have more than enough to have enough nodes with your 5 coins per vault to be an elder. Your system gives a FALSE sense of security and one that will bite you in the butt. Because you are excluding a whole segment of the world (millions, billion or more really) from joining the early network if they wanted to, which would be the thing to help get the number of nodes very large. So the relatively few (a few thousands) who have safecoin are the only ones that can join and you want them to get to 300 thousand nodes. It means the early network is VERY insecure

They may need to farm to get that coin. We both live in privileged countries where we can legally use exchanges and we are both of an age that is legally allowed to join the exchange. But we are actually a in a group that is smaller than those that cannot buy coins in a reasonable manner.

Oh yes they will. Only a few thousand have coins now and for the initial period. And we exclude all others who want to join. So YES those with coins and the more you have the greater speed they will get some vaults to elder stage.

2 Likes
29

I forgot to mention that this is how your stake to farm concept already enters the equations naturally. People that want to run a lot vaults will need to buy a lot of hardware. People that want a lot of elders will need to buy a lot of good reliable hardware. I don’t think a second level of economic stake is really warranted beyond this…

4 Likes
30

In summary

  • by requiring the user to have coins staked to become a NODE means only those who have coins can be NODEs, This excludes those in the world with no access or ability to buy coins (approx 1/2 the world [age, country, bank account, or even spare cash]
  • Only a few thousand people have coins now. So for the initial period only those people with coins now have any change of being the early elders. So by definition they have an unfair advantage to have some or all their vaults to elder stage
  • This unfair advantage means if even one of the people with millions of coins wants to subvert early sections (to destroy or get more coins) have an easier method.
  • If it was open with no requirement for stake then the early network is open to the world rather than thousands initially and growing from there. So it is actually a greater security risk to have this proof of stake. Suspect initially this means 10 to 100 times the people initially, since a lot watching and waiting will be able to join from the very first minute the network is announced. And in a month who knows it could be a hell of a lot more, but staking still means a much more limited number. Not many will be selling their coins at that stage waiting for price to jump.
4 Likes
31

You make it look as if there are only people that have coins (rich) and those that have not and for that reason wouldn’t be able to Farm. This is a misconception. The real poor (millions, billion or more really) not even have money so won’t have a computer to Farm to begin with.

And the “not enough Safecoin” around point can easily be targeted:

The current MAID cap is 211 million. Using my example you could start 47 million Vaults by staking them. But my bet is that even the wales will rather sell a bunch as this makes them more quick money than risking to become an Elder and make no money at it.

I think it’t more than that. But nothing prevents other from buying several dollars worth of MAID to start Farming as they can make money.

Like I said, most of them can’t even buy a computer and won’t be able to Farm any way. Don’t make it look as only my little Stake-plan is responsible for that :wink:.

It won’t be easier. They still need to go through nodeageing and resource proof. My idea is just an addition to that. And with more people wanting to Farm they’re better off selling a bunch of their tokens.

I agree, but it’s also a lot more open to big parties buying CPU and bandwidth with extreme discounts blowing the home users in the bushes and taking over the network.

1 Like
32

Been to Africa lately. Listen to some documentaries and that they cannot have landlines but “all” (obviously not literally) the youth in the remote tribes are clicking away on the cell phones. And we have been told that mobile devices will be able to be vaults.

But that issue aside. Its not necessarily the poor poor, but those who have computers donated to them through charities. We have that happening in Australia.

BUT it is also the people in countries that do not have legal access to crypto and cannot buy on exchanges. They have no easy method to transfer cash to an exchange or it costs like $25 just to transfer. And then only if they are of legal age can they do the transfer and supply ID.

The point is you are excluding people from participating Only those who can get 5 coins can be a node.

No its like 8000 addresses with coins in them and many people have more than one address.

It will be a LOT easier. Not bypassing ageing or anything but because they are the only ones adding nodes,

How can I explain it better

  • Day 0 has < 8000 people able to create nodes. The baddies are eager and add their nodes on day zero. One or more baddie with millions of coins adds 200,000 nodes on day one.
  • day 1 to 10 some people who don’t have coins buy some but not many are selling since everyone is hoarding since the network is going live. Maybe 12000 potential people can have nodes now. But all the nodes being added now are from people who only have a few coins so those 4000 extra people add 4000 nodes. And the others who got motivated also add one or 2 giving say 10000 nodes day 1 to 10.
  • Day 11 those day 0 people have all their nodes as elders or adults and the 10000 others are slowly becoming adults.
  • Those whose ID shows them not old enough to use an exchange or cannot have a credit card cannot join. They have to beg or steal to get a coin and most will not be able to. Those who cannot afford the cost to transfer money to exchanges because they are in the working poor/carers/unemployeed (approx 1/4 of australian families according to official figures). They have a computer because its needed for their kid’s schooling and life. But they cannot afford to spend it on buying coins. Again you are excluding them
  • Day 12 onwards, the majority of elders are those who had the most coins initially.

Just a simple thought shows that the wealthy can and will have the most elders from the very start because they can afford the stake. They may not have 100,000 between them but the fact remains that they have the greatest opportunity and thus easier for them. Especially compared to those who have no easy path to get coins.

If you think of it as “set” mathematics. You have 3 groups, out of all those who wish to try running nodes.

  • group 1 those with significant coins now
  • group 2 those with a few coins now OR able to buy a few of those left available to buy. (Coins will be scarce at this stage and becoming expensive)
  • group 3 and by far the largest - those who cannot easily get coins, be it because of age, or lack of spare wealth, or inability to use an exchange (illegal or in NYC or blocked by their credit card company or bank (citibank for example)

Group 1 is less than 8000
Group 2 is hopefully 1000 to 5000 (in first month)
Group 3 is unknown is size but easily 100,000 or way more (initially) (schools of kids some posted here, some areas of china, South Korea with their new rules for KYC, Some middle east countries eg IRAN Turkey, family has no spare cash, etc)

Now you have limited it to group 1 for day 0 and group 1&2 thereafter.

So compared to being open it is much easier to be an elder because you are excluding the majority of the people who maybe looking to running nodes. Thus much more insecure since less nodes and the ability for some to have the majority of those new nodes.

So it only takes one baddie with plenty of coins to gain the nodes needed.

If it was open then the baddie is competing with a set of 10 to 100 times the vaults. Thus the baddie is much much much less likely to be able to take control.

2 Likes
33

Any response to this?^^

1 Like
34

Any adversary that has unlimited resources and time will defeat any network. It is that time and cost that is security really. In our case, the time and cost is cheaper the earlier the attack (well before mass adoption). The point an adversary can de-anonymise users then it would be game over in many ways, including safecoin.

This is true for almost every single project you can imagine though, so we are in good company.

7 Likes
35

Not unlimited in my scenario but enough to keep pace long enough to pose the described threat. Jumping in with many vaults early on without some safeguard is a risk that might deter early users. We IMHO need an early strong core that will make the resources necessary to overtake a new but disruptive technology unfeasible finacially given these agencies’ reasonable distribution of money for investigative purposes needed to cover all of these anonymizing techs.

While we think were in some sort of entusiast bubble, I’ll wager that we have been noticed. PARSEC makes that more likely. I’ve seen mention of SAFE in some remote places on the net. Noteriety IS increasing. In the same way the network is designed to mitigate even threats most of us have barely or never thought of, they too make their calculations. This attack vector need not be open if it can be closed with some creativity. I am the last one to question your creativity. It apparently is your greatest attribute. All I say is that I strongly feel there is an opening left. If so let us find a way to close it. If after some convincing discussion there is deemed to be either no solution or threat we move on. The same applies to the relay fingerprinting problem that has been raised before. Though in that case, a solution was seemingly found. Remember?

1 Like
36

Thanks for your long replies here, but you just say: “No”

I started this idea not with a clear plan laying our every single detail and claiming this is how it should be done to any detail. I also hope that SAFE Vaults are spread all over the planet, even that little poor school in India where they have exactly 1 computer to share with 50 kids etc. But still there’s the problem with some groups already having so much money that they can attack a network with 100K nodes even without any need to stake money. So the staking idea should be an addition IMO.

You could say:

  • No need to stake anything at all but you’ll have to do quite some work to become an elder (like it is).
  • You could do a little less work (maybe 40% less than the rule above here) if you stake some Safecoin.

That way you’ll have it both. Open for anyone and everyone with some resources to Farm. And the need for some Safecoin if you want to have a little shortcut.

You could also say:

  • After becoming a pre-Elder (1 level lower than Elder?) you can Farm at 80% rate of a Farmer but are forced to stake 50% of that money until you actually become an Elder and reach a certain age before you get it out.

Although there are cons to this whole stake idea I still think it needs to play a certain role unless we reach 5 million Vaults for example. Would be a mess if we start the network and some big group would own x% of the Vaults while we’re at 100K size for example.

2 Likes
37

Like me you come here with ideas you hope people might be able to expand on. Not just simply dismiss. Keep going @anon40790172 , we’re listening. Something might just come of this. :v:

6 Likes
38

That would need big advertisement in a whole world and not only in english @SarahPentland

1 Like
39

Thanks! And hope all feel free to shoot! No doubt about it…

3 Likes
40

I’m like you trying to protect the seed. How do we ensure it grows without being stomped to pieces? Anyone? We have gotten beyond research. Now we are in mid to late development. Time is the only factor before release. Uncertainty is behind us. How do we secure the future of our child? Time to go to work people. However crazy, throw it in. This is the last real hurdle. Algorithms are easily tweaked but scars are long lasting if not permanant.

A parasite/invader is sometimes fatal. After everything we’ve been through, it CANNOT be allowed! If we are simulating nature we must like the endoplasm, facilitate the growth and survival of the entity. Carrying with it the fate of the beings existance. We can do more. We represent the many layers. No part can be ignored.

1 Like