My question was more aimed at the general topic that has spanned multiple threads related to the concept of ‘churn penalty’, and the hypothetical that at some point users who own vaults with lots of stale data might try their luck at forcing a churn in order to get new data that could bring with it more get rewards. (If I’m not mistaken, a churn event will cut a vault’s age in half). This seems like a fine demotion for people trying to mess with the network, but a bit too harsh for benevolent elders, and not-optimal for network health.
I do see the value in having a harsh penalty for a churn event in order to protect the network, just trying to think of a good balance to promote vault participation long term. From a different perspective, I think this issue could also be addressed by staying with a harsh churn penalty while also having farming reward rates get a bonus with age. That way, users who manage to keep a vault full of stale data running 24/7 for 4 years get a nice payday to make it all worthwhile in the slim chance that one of those stale/cold chunks is requested.
this has been like that for thousands years, or at least go in Egypt… you’re surely going to think that civilization really cannot survive otherwise. cat pics were mainstream for years and years
Though I said it jokingly, there is a lot of truth to the concept of using cat pix as an earmark of civilization. Aside from the cuteness (which correlates to a lighter side, necessary to living), there is also the aspects of adventurousness, insouciance and humor. Most of all, cats embody an attitude of individualism, without which civilizations become tyrannical.
Having cats, in all their manifestations, as a popular meme is a mark of advancing civilization. Look how far we’ve come since Egypt.
To tie this back to the OP: Cats honor the commons, not because they bow always to an external authority, but because they recognize their own authority and honor it in others, whether friend or foe.
Even before Egypt, cats have had a place in human existence. There is a theory that cavepeople would have not thrived as they did without cats. Wish I could find that theory that is presented as tongue in cheek stuff, but has a lot of potential truth in it.
And if nothing else cats teach young children the art of negotiation with entities that believe humans are their slaves.
Sorry for the delay, but I wanted to make tests in a local network to confirm what I said and I didn’t have time until now.
This won’t happen: Vaults have approximately all the same size because a vault manages a chunk of data if and only if it belongs to the group of the 8 vaults nearest to the address of the chunk.
Of course, there are variations because data density in XOR space is not uniform, but bigger vaults cannot manage more data than they are responsible for and too small ones will be expelled if they cannot manage all the data they are responsible for.
This is what current implementation actually does with target size = total size * 8 / number of vaults. And this is more than an encouragement because a vault with a smaller size will not stay active for long, and a vault with a bigger size doesn’t earn more rewards (it only gains the ability to remain active if the total size grows and/or the number of vaults decreases).
No risk of that, for the same reason (bigger vaults don’t earn more). Large operators can just create many small vaults if they want, but they won’t prevent small operators from creating their own small vaults. It is even expected that there will be a majority of small operators because home users vaults will cost almost nothing with hardware they already own and bandwidth they already pay for.
Note: Tests I have done confirm only one half of the story: vaults don’t store more data than they need to. I don’t know if the other half has been implemented yet (penalties for not providing data they are responsible for). But I am sure it will, otherwise the network would be unreliable
As you say, vault size should be fairly equal across the network at any point in time. But it should vary over time depending on the rate that vaults are joining or leaving the network, as well as upload rates.
It’ll be really interesting to see where the balance is for vault size in the real world. There are a lot of factors that affect it.
Just to clarify, by target size I mean more like a fixed hardcoded target size enforced by the network itself (like the block time target of 10 minutes in bitcoin). So the network may set a fixed target size of 10 GB; supplying more than that or less than that results in less reward to those vaults. Operators are inclined to stay close to that size by bringing on more capacity or removing capacity as needed depending on upload rate. This would probably make the question of ‘should I start a vault’ much more predictable than with a floating capacity. But it has some obvious downsides too. I’m not advocating fixed vault sizes, just thinking of it as a possible way to increase participation by eliminating bandwidth-heavy start conditions if large vaults become the norm.
Just like the fixed 1MB chunk size (not sure if this is mega or mebi bytes), wouldn’t it be most straightforward/logical to have a fixed vault size? Intuitively it seems that this would allow for some performance optimization.
For example consider 1 chunk as 1000000 bytes, and by analogy 1 vault would be 1000000 chunks.
But what about Mobile the masses scream!? Nothing says there couldn’t be farming pools for mobile users, might even be preferable if the farming pools are setup in a way to benefit mobile users that would otherwise churn. Mobile will eventually have a few TB of SSD anyways…
The tragedy of the commons is a term used in to describe a situation in a shared-resource system where individual users acting independently according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the common good of all users by depleting or spoiling that resource through their collective action.
— WIkipedia
There are a few fallacies in this term when using it as an argument/problem for SafeNet and its reliability. @Warren touches on this further up in this thread. The term has a very narrow scope taking very destructive intentions into consideration assuming all factors are known. Lets entertain the discussion anyway. It could possibly apply to Blockchain technology as all data is shared (shared resource) and propagation delay in regards to scalability will be affected and may even halt the network at some point. But lets focus on Maidsafe.
Resources in Safenet are not shared with everyone, everyone has equal limited access, only whats needed. I guess it will be clearer when the paper on disjoint groups are released (sharding). I personally look forward to understand better myself. Anywho, a piece of data that Alice has stored with Bob doesnt need to be shared with Eve, it will be stored at enough places to be retreivable with privacy and randomness so it cannot be targeted in any way. This also removes the attack vector of shutting down/overload disjoint groups. I like Davids comparison to ants where no single entity needs to know everything, yet work in complete unison for the better good of the network. Many Alices need to store a great amount of data to even have an effect but I will get to that further down.
As @Antifragile touches upon further up this thread, every time data is stored someone is rewarded, this reward will have certain value. Its important to keep in mind that the network is autonomous, not a human controlled system (hence the requirement of certain level of completion before Safenet can launch) where individual users act independently according to their own self-interest and contrary to the common good. In Safenet, every individuals self interest is ALIGNED with common (network) good. If you think you can bloat the system, all you do is reward other participants which increases the value of the network and attracts more participants. The network will (automatically) adjust the rewards and if resources are scarce there will be an arbitrage opportunity which the free market exploits (free market assumption is based on fungibility). The only way this logic would fail is if people suddenly lose interest in wealth, which is beyond the philosophical scope of this discussion.
Another point that @fred mentions further up is the redundancy of Moores law, does not apply to storage whatsoever. For somebody to attempt such an attack where they cause an immense amount of PUTs to then immediately go offline to never return will cost the attacker much more than the network, if the attack is targeted to a “popular” piece of data (read DDoS) the network only gets stronger and faster as every participant enforces the data. The supply of storage and accessibility due to privacy will make farmers very wealthy as the demand for both the coins and securing the network (farming) increases under such an attack (Need coins to create PUTs and storage providers will be needed, thus higher rewards if scarce). If the network was not autonomous this could be exploited through forced inflation with sudden cut of demand, such instance is taken care of by the network.
I personally dont see this as a valid issue/threat.
Common misconception, but not quite right. Every time a chunk is requested someone has a chance to be rewarded. There is a cost paid to the network when a chunk is stored, not to a farmer. They get paid for serving data.
Not specifically related to the OP … but I am curious if anyone can explain 1) how the network knows if/when the total amount of vault space is running low and then 2) how it goes about increasing the via incrementing upwards the price paid to farmers to encourage the production of more vaults.
I’m guessing these questions haven’t been fully fleshed out in code yet, so expecting speculation based on white papers.
SAFE is a “Collaborative Commons” Well what about the tragedy of the commons? Well what about the tragedy and idiocy of rent seeking. SAFE is a liberating enclosure breaker. Its about liberation, its about freeing people. So its a new model of economic activity. But you can sit there and smoke the Koch Brother’s crack pipe or you can adopt a higher level perspective. One can continue behaving and thinking as a reptile or get a clue.
“Collaborative Commons,” to understand this in its greater context- I mean capitalism sucks its theft, somebody else does the work- like Marx said at some point in an average day the worker pays off their wages then a little later pays for the capital and even any reasonable return and then for the rest of the day its just working for free in pure rent seeking for the capitalists. So to clarify 3hrs in your just being rent seeked upon having your blood sucked out, your time your life by the rent seeker but en masse. So that was never going to work it was always theft. And that theft requires a lot of secrecy to keep going so there is always a lot of lying going on but unlike with truth and transparency lies have a lot of overhead and are always subject to collapse, but never have to do that with anything approximating truth. So truthfully capitalism was always some sort of slavery or wage slavery of phony economy wage slavery like we have now and then even cooperatives weren’t good enough- you still had the same kinds of problems because you had dumb management involved with stuff and a dumb board, so that wasn’t going to be good enough so we needed a collaborative but then you still had issues with collaboratives because you still have in group and out group membership its not really an full enclosure free open collaborative but now with the digital commons you have a truly open collaborative in a true commons and these are these sort of flatter types of relationships which seem to leverage the way we’re wired to relate to each other so SAFE is something that is really wonderful as it enables this kind of locked open kind of thing where we get relations ships based on honesty, trust, openess and transparency instead of lies and theft. Have to marvel how far lies, theft, inequity and injustice or the basic criminality of capitalism took us even before it went defunct. Image a society based on justice and actual freedom.
SAFE gets us away from using money to control people and turns it into a mere means of exchange. You could see this in work of Marx but also Christ and Mohammed and Buddha (think monastic begging bowl,) they were all fighting against this use of money to control people. The classic formula is to reduce wages (most people’s incomes) increase debts and decrease opportunity so you could enclose people and treat them as chattel or live stock and enslave them and turn them into property. You also stunt their development with this because they can’t ever develop where they are stuck in a juvenile state unable to exercise will. And you can also see that tax and money were always of themselves the primary means of enclosure, a glue or means to get people to interact with one another so as to get them to know each other and participate in a society and become dependent on it and identify with it. I see our mutual interdependence as a natural state as between the sexes but here I mean money has been used to set up enclosure to rent seek people against their biological needs and keep them in a weakened undeveloped state so they are easy to confuse about their interests and control. So I see SAFE destroying the rent seeking enclosures for things like sponsored media and by extension sponsored government and fossil fuels and the artificial scarcity they have been used to reinforce in an automated post scarcity problem world. I see it as a means of enabling people to apply their wills to their personal and collective interests for the betterment of all in a collaborative commons.
Again the motivation for talking about a tragedy of the commons is never really about neglect of a public resource leading to unavailability but double speak meant to create intellectual room and consensus around the idea that rent seekers should be able to use money to enslave people- some rent seeker appointed probably by heredity should allowed to screw over most people and create a class of untouchable elites through this process who are protected against all checks on wanton criminal behavior by above all the very rent seeking they use to oppress. The commons is a collective homestead where we say to the would be oppressors learn to wipe your own arses you useless MF(s,) you’re walls of enclosure and inculcated learned helplessness can hold us no more see if you really are the fittest to survive, see who is expendable now!
As Gladstone said liberalism is trust of the people and rule by prudence- conservatism is mistrust of the people and rule by fear. The whole game has always been to use enclosure to produce scarcity and rule by fear. Get wages down and increase debt and limit opportunity to get control and enslave with fear. So even in post scarcity its a tradition of trying to do the same to perptuate a system based on theft and lies and the secrecy/censorship needed to hide this core truth. Think of the survivability and stability crises this creates
But what is shown in the new unified field theory (Haramein’s) is “that all is contained in all” which is really an over riding unity. You can never impose scarcity where it is realized time and space are a collapsed illusion in a superposed super coherant unity- putting everything always within reach. Identity also is collapsed so there is no other to oppress. So its over, that lie is over.
