Just a thought, but people are worried SAFE can’t properly work in the wild outside of MaidSafe’s own vaults, so I tried to come up with the best + quickest way to totally prove that wrong with what we already have.
Can we turn TEST10 into a live wild SAFE Network by adding in donations / rankings ourselves, without code?
We can create an open topic here and people can tell what kind of computer / internet connection they have, and people can sign up, and only trusted people with good specs / connections can get this community binary, and then at the end of the week BTC/MAID donations are made & dispersed (farmers put their address) to keep it running,
So it’s basically like people getting paid real live SafeCoin for farming, and others are kind of “paying” for their PUTs and in the meantime we have a decentralised SAFE Network instantly?
I like the concept of a community network that only allows high quality nodes to participate to demonstrate how the network performs ‘in the wild’ under those conditions.
I’m not sure anyone’s going to pay to use it before it’s proven, though I could be wrong
I like the idea behind the proposal as well and also thought about it before but from an outsider’s point of view it might look like the network:
can’t and won’t be able to handle ‘weaker’ nodes.
the network will only be available to people that have the money to buy better hardware.
And thus the network excludes people with less resources.
I might be overthinking this but because this proposal only satisfies critical thinkers on the short term, I think it’s better to keep it as it is right now and focus on fixing the vaults and handing them out to everyone at the same time.
We just need a few trustworthy third parties to add nodes to the alpha network and job done. Proving the network can go global, with multiple parties running vaults is a worthy step.
IMO, it is another, separate, step to prove vaults can run out any nodes, trusted or otherwise.
Great idea and 100% agree with @Traktion . Anything that simulates real world will be a bonus to users and community and could prove valuable to development. Maybe a few of the Safenet App builders would sponsor this with their crowdfunded warchest in exchange for a little promotional space.
I think part of the point is proving that is isn’t a threat. If the reason we are running on only maidsafe nodes for the alpha is because unstable nodes cause problems, there should be no issue with adding stable nodes. If there is an issue, then it suggests this isn’t the only problem.
If adding stable nodes should pose no problems, I think if would be great to prove it. It would show that we are beyond a closed maidsafe run network.
Interesting. At some point it may be useful to expand the network in this way, actually inviting decent spec nodes to join and try to attack the network. This is a major concern of some, and would be a pretty good proof. Especially if a bounty were offered. Would be an interesting challenge and a public proof of security.
The threat I was thinking of is potentially increased chance of data loss on the network due to lower node reliability (even if quality controlled).
I don’t know if / how much the risk of networking data loss would be increased by adding high-quality third party, but if it is an increased risk, it shouldn’t be on the Alpha network, but a separate test network for this purpose.
Of course, if the risk to network stability is very small, adding high quality third party nodes to Alpha could be great.
If there’s ever a dummy safecoin on an Alpha, I’d expect just the feedback from that could see a league table; which in turn might also support some real sense of how the network is getting stronger and then the potential for launch. Create some positive feedback loop and it could cascade, especially where that is made visible. Already it seemed estimation of the number of nodes was possible; if there were other routes to stress indicators, those might help… even if those are artificial and temporary add-ins. Some measure of the sigma stats from nodes would be useful… I seem to recall that the reward would be geared to whatever the normal is… perform above that and get a reward; introduce a node that’s too weak to be useful and see feedback about that.
