All talk of emissions goes here - nowhere else
If it helps to vent - vent here
Caution: It is probable no-one will ever read any of this but if you desperately need to batter a kybd about the mechanism for distributing tokens at random to users – Do It Here
@ing team members is frowned upon with extreme prejudice - you have been warned
now - let it rip…
OK, ill vent.
My car failed her emissions test a few weeks ago for her MOT. She’s old like me. But I’m not giving up on her. She’s a ford Capri with rusty arches and literally falling apart. I’m sad. Really sad.
A capri? Pics please 
What engine?
Have you tried making sure the oil is up to the dipstick mark, warming it up gently and then thrashing the arse off it for a good 10-15 mins? This best done just outside the MoT station as it doesnt get time to clog up again and its someone elses neighbours you are annoying
It worked for us on a couple of well loved motors
Oh wow - you don’t see many of those about these days. The new namesake is just another SUV too… travesty!
Hope you can keep it on the road!
My Turn
I am planning on having a vindaloo for dinner tomorrow. Should I expect an increase in emissions? 
Depends on your lager intake and whether you have made a nice yoghurty dip to go with it.
Modern takes on any old version car are horrendously ugly, unfortunately most modern day car designers don’t have to graft, they have templates passed on that they either ruin, or copy. Why cant they just keep originals original. I feel sorry for folk who admire Teslas and ugly SUV.s Small d*ck syndrome.
For once I totally agree with you
Though I would take a Merc W123 coupe with a Tesla motor
You should add some peanuts for extra thrust
I bet you wouldnt say that quickly with a drink in you
Did I ever tell you about the time I accidently removed the rear windscreen from a girlfriends Capri with my bum? Too much peanuts
I have a different perspective on emissions, not from the point of view of ‘intended effect’ but from the point of view of ‘observed effect’. Not trying to state facts or truths, just trying to see if this perspective can push the project in a useful direction.
Emissions are not currently functioning as a reward. They’re functioning as a cost to the whole network with the aim to identify where the weak points are. How long can this cost continue to be paid before the weak points ‘must’ be fixed? Seems like that cost can continue to be paid for a while. It’d be nice to not pay it, but sometimes things have a cost.
The people benefiting from this weakness have put in work to achieve that benefit, and that work has highlighted a weakness for everyone to fix or benefit from. Whether those people ‘deserve’ the reward of finding and showing that weakness is up for debate, but it’s valuable all the same.
The people benefiting from the emissions don’t have much liquidity on the market so the current benefit is pretty limited. If the accumulated rewards are held until a better time to sell, it adds a new and different sort of ‘problem’ at a later time (in the markets instead of in the network). But I don’t personally see this as a problem, the same way I don’t see long term investors as a problem to short term traders. They’re taking a risk by running so many nodes and having to speculate on the future reward of those risks.
The network has a lot of excess storage. Debate as much as you like, but seeing so much participation is a good sign that if there’s an influx of uploads we have some idea that the supply side seems pretty strong.
In my opinion, the imbalance that needs addressing is not emissions. The imbalance is that it’s very easy to start nodes, but very hard to upload. Instead of making it harder to start nodes, we need to make it easier to upload. Emissions is the wrong lever to be pulling to fix this problem.
For me, the biggest problem with uploads is that they’re unreliable. The second biggest problem is they need eth gas as well as ant which creates friction and needs extra steps outside the autonomi ecosystem. Third problem is it isn’t simple to upload because the app ecosystem is minimal and not simple enough to use (largely because until the first two problems are fixed why would anyone bother to address the third). Fix these things and I have a feeling emissions won’t need to be touched.
Sure, we should make nodes better if we can. But emissions isn’t it. Fix uploads.
On a personal opinion, I agree here 
, and the team is all over the uploader and downloaders as a top priority, which is taking the team deep into KAD and other areas of the network as highlighted by the dev updates.
I should probably not comment more on this emissions topic/thread haha, given that I am not focused on emissions at all.
100% agree. And is the reason i say that if uploads were working *properly* (and shunning) then this would most likely be a non issue
And uploads would likely work properly IF there were not millions of unresponsive nodes on the network - as a direct result of a stupid emissions policy.
An emissions policy that we all know has nothing to do with the actual short term functioning of the network and is only there to satisfy the ideological whims of the “free marketeers”
The network will function well for a few months/years without ANY emissions and we will see the real economy of folks being paid for storing chunks.
What is the REAL reason for this slavish devotion to the concept of emissions right now when we could have a functioning network without them?
Is it a “loss of face” if we go from a claimed 50m nodes to an actual real network of a couple of million?
BTW if anyone had offered you a network of 2 million nodes 12 months ago, every single one of us would have bit your hand off for that.
The devs are being asked to solve a very tricky problem here - and its almost all of our own making.
Lose the emissions, drive out the parasites, reset the network and start from scratch.
OK we know we cannot enforce the 35GB/node rule, so we need to be able to shun effectively.
In time we will, hopefully, run into a situation where the network is so large that we again have ~45m unresponsive nodes polluting the routing tables. But that should be a long way down the road - IF we hadnt offered free money to any chancer with lots of unused datacentre resources.
The team report that uploads work well in internal testing - but what size is the internal network?
I agree with you on most of this.
But testnets didn’t have emissions. Uploads didn’t work well there either.
So saying uploads are broken because of emissions doesn’t ring true to me.
Removing emissions to fix uploads doesn’t seem grounded in observed reality. It’s an interesting theory, but can we take it further and show it to be a real solution? Genuine question.
Please correct me if Im wrong.
Emissions are ONLY an economic Band-Aid to satisfy the free marketers. They are in no way essential to the running of the network in the short term.
So why not “nurture” our network to a size where it can stand the added strain of emissions impacting the token price?
One issue you did not consider is that the small user that the network is, or was, being designed for is being pushed out by both no emissions at all no matter how small, and also seeing no uploads to their nodes. You addressed the no uploads, and the feeling of being compensated even a token amount is encouraging to them to continue. The network is gravitating to these mining for emissions nodes (in the millions) in combination of some setups of medium size of thousands.
So while I see your point and agree totally with if uploads were working right, there is more than just the devs getting to see how the network works with large number of nodes in various states of functionality and no shunning of the bad ones.
We have now had 2 months of the huge network, some effort in emissions has been made to get people to upgrade to latest release and emission unit size reduced to 0.0566. If the emissions size was reduced to like 0.0005 then the smaller people would see some encouragement with token amounts every so often.
There has to be some point where we need to stop the every growing %age of the network being these crippled mining for emissions nodes. Its growing because they keep adding more to try and squeeze out every ANT they can and the smaller people are leaving. Its a dual effect.
The solution that can help is to
The team have stated numerous times that they see far less problems on their internal test networks.
What is the obvious difference? To me it is that a bunch of people are not incentivised to ram a million nodes onto a pi.
Hence why I am really excited to see how devnet performs.
#MeToo but if the whales push out all the genuine home users, will there be anything left for the apps that are built on DevNet to run on?
Or will as someone said yesterday, DevNet becomes the actual working network and we have to switch that from Sepolia to Arbitrum One again?
What would the financial implications of that be?
Should I place lots of buy orders at 0.0000001USDT and below?