This update is music to my ears. My understanding is that this is a crucial area for routing and getting to closest nodes. Hope everyone has success in getting it all sorted out.
Do we expect that there might be an update to the self encryption algorithm because of this.
Or will we see a change to max record size where nodes will accept and store records that exceed the max record size by a small amount (maybe by 10KB or so)?
Please update us on this when there has been some decisions on how to handle this situation.
Thanks for the update team. Always appreciated to see the continuing progress.
Will anyone from the team elaborate on how this is important for the economic design? And further, will anyone concede the point if I logically can argue that it’s absolutely NOT important and in fact is is reality detrimental to the economics of the network and all involved?
How open minded are members of the team? All serious questions.
This is great! I hope to see more of this and more like this down the track.
Nice! Every ounce of speed and “weight” reduction is good - the best part is no part - when possible (this logic should apply to the emissions scheme too).
That’s right - which is also why believing in the certainty of the idea that emissions are for the economic benefit of the network is also ridiculous. There is no way to know and therefore, the “best part is no part” and Occam’s razor apply - there is no proven need - it’s all supposition.
Indeed … but shouldn’t that give the team incentive to show us why and to give detail instead of simply giving the same basic argument which isn’t actually supported by currently known reason and evidence? Or perhaps they just don’t have any other arguments and are simply taking the easy road of not making changes. Or worse case - they are somehow profiting off of this – I really don’t think they are and really hope they aren’t - but it’s easy for some people to think this may be the case, which is why they really need to give the deeper reasoning, logic, evidence here, as it seems really scammy.
Sure, but there is no need to feed them right? Or is there and the team is just keeping it a secret? If so why?
Not so for me at all … I am concerned we are setting the network up for a collapse down the track when these emissions go away. I am also concerned that we are devaluing our token and so discouraging new people from coming in to buy it - after all why would I buy more during a period where emissions are increasing and the network is far from proven … Sure there are some like me and others here who understand the future potential of the network, but for the masses out there who don’t dig into the deepest reaches, is just another storage network and they see little reason to buy in … and the emissions framework makes this much worse.
We are shooting ourselves in the leg here and not a peep of reason, logic, or evidence to the contrary from the management.
The Bible says X, therefore we do X … that’s not a rational argument for X … that’s dogma.
I never assumed the network would be profitable for running nodes, but emissions are making it worse by devaluing the token. We are giving away the value of the token (and the network) to have nodes the network doesn’t need. When the value of the token get’s low enough, these nodes will go away and we can only hope the network doesn’t have fatalities then (loss of data).
The mangement seems to think that the token is money and they are a central bank that can just create free money … that’s not how this works (well it sort of is in reality) … but in fact the more emissions the lower the value of our token - that’s taking value from everyone’s pocket - but where is the provable return? There isn’t one and the team has no argument proving that there is one … meaning well, how else can I say it - this is akin to a fraudulent system - it’s akin to defrauding investors and token holders of the future value of the token they own. If there was a provable reason that this was going to increase the value of the token and the network in the future, then let’s hear it! Else I have to say and whether the team realizes it or not, this may be a failure of the fiduciary responsibility of Maidsafe and I worry there may be investor class action lawsuits here.
People here will hate me for saying all this. I am a token holder and a lender as well - so many of my tokens are still locked and in fact I’ve converted none of my MAID to ANT … so I am not selling and won’t be selling - I just want to point out my concerns and I am not concerned with the current or short term price of the token - I am only concerned with the long term viability of the network and I wish the management were as concerned about that as I am - which apparently they are not as none will engage in a real debate on the logic of emissions - it’s all just white paper dogma as far as I can see, which is very troubling.
How about just an open discussion where the you give clear logical answers to the questions I have raised and others have raised?
I can’t speak for others, but I don’t think you get my concerns at all. Maybe read through my post here and respond point by point - if you are able to do so.
I’ve nothing at all against the devs - emissions complaints have nothing to do with the devs as far as I understand it - this is a decision from the top - I have issue with you and with Bux and any others in management who have chosen to make emissions a reality.
I of course don’t believe the team or the management are anything of the sort - but that doesn’t change the fact that outsiders to the project may see it as such and your lack of transparency on the reasons for emissions makes this worse - so it’s not at all moronic - it’s just people being rationally suspicious in an investment space that is full of scams. It’s not good of you to call people with concerns moronic either - there are two sides to this coin and value attracts value, which we won’t get if the team management doesn’t toughen it’s skin and answer hard questions.
So why not address at least the concern of emissions long term leading to a potential cascade collapse of the network? Step out of the the box you are in David and work to see the bigger picture here. We are building a ponzi data network here - I’m not at all being hyperbolic with that word either. We are creating a network that is larger than it needs to be and hence subsidizing data now at the expense of data stored in the future - economically, this means we will need more people storing data to cover costs of the network when the emissions curve starts going down to sustain the networks existence … this implies a potential cascade collapse where demand won’t be able to sustain a network that grew to fast for it’s own good.
None have addressed this technical and economic concern and I’ve been raising it now for nearly a year. Cascade collapse is a possibility in any case, but emissions, logically, make it much much more likely.
How is this the case? Doesn’t the team now have access to a lot capital post token launch? Shouldn’t your runway be much longer now? Also, IMO, the network will continue even if Maidsafe and the foundation folds - others will step in and take over, so no need to worry there. Walk away if you really want to - I honestly can’t believe you would ever do so though - you love this network - it’s your baby.
I humbly point out that it was brought up in this update:
If it’s not up for discussion and you don’t want it to be discussed, then why bring it up - you must understand some human psychology here -what did you think was going to happen?
Honestly David, this is a childish demand and indicates to me a lack of empathy on your part. We aren’t a bunch of vicious moronic dogs here - we have questions and we want answers. You are in the position to provide those answers, you bring up the topic, so we ask questions … we aren’t chewing away at your ankles here, we are simply worried and concerned for the network, the company, the team, for all of it. Why can’t you see this?
How can you of all people “be out” … you created this - you chose this. It’s your project to win or to lose. Don’t walk away from honest questions.
We cannot afford to have an unhappy Dev team, no compromises.
Maybe Dev updates should be read only posts from now on…I mean we’ve been pretty spoilt with the transparency shown over the years, but were now in a different phase.
Discord should be a Dev free zone I think, too many needy/ greedy handles demanding Maidsafe’s time and not willing to educate themselves.
Unfortunately there is an elephant in the room and of course it’s uploads. Devs were advised over the last 12 months that they don’t work and that, therefore we do not have a network.
David would have intervened for sure, as the signals were obvious.
Dev team dropped the ball here, no doubt it will be solved…but in my opinion all of the angst stems from this fundamental error of believing the internal test-nets over the testers operating from home.
I would like to see a post from the team acknowledging this oversight as the source of accumulated friction.
If we could clear the air in this way, I believe it would go a long way to righting the ship.
The Discord session with Victor was informative, and some good answers were provided.
The first ‘Impossible Futures’ video podcast with Edmund Sutcliffe was interesting and thought provoking… looking forward to future eposodes as they become available
The X Spaces with Bux and others involved in decentralised storage and AI was also interesting, and Bux made some great points, as did other participants. Hope some cross-pollination from engaging with other related projects happens.
Then, there’s the huge effort by the team on addressing key issues with uploading and downloading; it’s great to hear about some of the promising approaches being taken to tackle this.
API progress, DAVE will make a return, 30 Impossible Futures applications, significant network simplifications / improvements on the way, improvements in dropout-detection & routing table refresh, testing improvements and other improvements fixes all happening amazing work!
After such a positive week of engagement and a thorough and promising update from the team, I was looking forward to positive and encouragement discussions following this update… but unfortunately that’s not how it went.
Community - team discord
Everyone wants the same thing; a working & successful network, so it’s sad to see the miscommunication happening between some of the team and community.
I really hope the team and community can respect each other and highlight real concerns in a way that is clear, but not condescending.
We can’t go on together… with suspicious minds
Really hoping this can be cleared up and respectful communication remain here so that team members know they’re appreciated, and community members know they’re heard, and quality, constructive conversation can take place.
Anyway, other than that, great week, and I’m very much hoping the planned improvements help get the network to a better place.
Keep up the great effort, and press on despite the challenges. We will get there!
I have nothing to add about the emissions, except that several independent contacts of mine asked me if Autonomi itself launches these millions of nodes to get the tokens from the emissions.
Of course I told them that it is not so. But how many other people think so without mentioning it.
So if they know your name, it is very likely that you will be declared bad and evil regardless of whether you make the safest cars on the planet (Musk), whether you want to create a protocol to extend human life and health (Bryan Johnson) or a censorship-resistant data network (David)…
Maybe it would be best to post these Stages summaries in their own thread in general. They are anyway a bit different stuff and then it might be easier to focus on developement things in this thread.
no, because you can start nodes without antctl too, where does it stop, limitations only hinder the little guy. power users will always have the upper hand.
Not saying there should not be guardrails to prevent silly behavior depending on user experience but in this case antctl is not even needed, nor is launchpad.
Just and observation that does not make sense to me, who can tell me why this happens.
I have been trying to upload Big Buck Bunny since last night, it is making steady progress I keep retrying after every failure.
So far I have made 23 upload attempts, each run adds a few more successful chunks to the network.
When a new run starts it skips all existing chunks, then every time it has rapid success and can quickly put 10 to 20 chunks with no issues, then it starts to fail, like clockwork with every run.
Why would this be, the first 10-20 fly up then they start to fail, it seems off that there has not been a single fail within the first 10-15 chunks of any run, then it goes awry.
very near, maybe 2 runs to go, I am going for a cycle and then hopefully I get back to success. jinxed it now though most likely.
That said, I am noticing that chunks that were previously seen as successfully uploaded are sometimes uploaded again, but with a different chunk address, just poking in the dark. much of it does not make sense to me yet
is just another storage network and they see little reason to buy in … and the emissions framework makes this much worse.
