AIUI (disclaimer) it doesnt matter how the DBC data gets from Alice to Bob, but when Bob tries to “cash in” his new DBC from Alice, the Elders will take a cut.
Happy to be corrected on this.
5 Likes
This hasn’t changed. The network was always required to ‘confirm’ the transaction - re-issue the DBC and mark it as spent - but you can transfer without this so long as you are willing to risk that the payer is honest.
9 Likes
Is it Alices duty to prepare for this cut? What if it is not enough, can Bob then up the fee in order to cash his money (minus the fee)?
4 Likes
Wouldn’t it make more sense to do it on the creation of data exchange and not on the exchange itself? Meaning, when Alice reports she is creating a transaction, the elders still have to do work at that moment in time to remove those funds from Alice’s balance.
4 Likes
Quite possibly. This assumes that I have this correct in the first place 
1 Like
This is why we tend to call it “half-offline” transactions.
E.g. I could take a paper DBC on a highstreet shopping trip. I go to a store take my goods and DBC to the checkout, and the shop keeper confirms the DBC is legit on the network connected POS, and gives me the goods, re-issuing change on a paper receipt if needed. And I carry on my merry way to the next shop.
11 Likes
There’s more to do, things like that as well. And there is already more than growth that affects it.
But this is just a first implementation. Expect it to evolve, as we search for more ways to do this.
12 Likes
Let’s not get too hung up on things being ‘old’! Some of us are almost as old as personal computing itself and still consider ourselves relevant!
A lot of apparently new ideas are just old things repackaged and a lot of the fundamentals remain the same.
I’ve not read it all but the start of the article looks entertaining. It’s written in the style of a SF thriller like something Phillip K. Dick would have written.
It is about the growing disparity between storage capacities, storage performance and network performance. This issue in storage is not going away and is only getting worse. Any improvement in the balance is just temporary and leapfrogged by the next advance.
But I’m going to mark it down because it is touting the benefits of BlueArc that turned out to be an absolute flop in the market. It was clever to make use of FPGAs to accelerate storage performance by reconfiguring the system to meet the changing demands on the system minute by minute but not so when combined with a distinctly average everything else about it. The other systems on the market - especially the clustered systems such as Isilon - out performed it in practice. I worked for a company that almost bought some and we couldn’t make it work and the demo system was put in the car park in the rain for them to collect it and good riddance.
But I digress…
I’ve thought for a while that Safe is addressing capacity but not really the bandwidth so @rreive has a point here in my view.
I’d also like to throw into the mix ‘data locality’. I know it might be a generally terrible idea to have the network care about data locality but other services take that into account - Storj for example. A central London node on the Storj network gets more stored on it than one in the middle of nowhere because it is quicker to put to and get from. Even if we don’t take this into account at the moment it would be nice to keep it as an option for later unless it fundamentally breaks privacy and/or traceability of data.
5 Likes
There are also plenty of arguments for going with random global distribution though, many of them relating to security, resilience, privacy, and neutrality. These are some of the core issues to address first in my opinion (and that of the fundamental of the project too) and then we can look at further performance related adaptations, and layers later on I think.
11 Likes
Preach it, bro!!!
My first computing homework required that we attached the roll of punched paper tape to our answers. - A simple calculation of bending moments on a cantilever. Its just I didnt find it simple at the time…
I would bet fairly substantial quantities of beer that I am in the top 2 or 3 of the more elderly regulars on here
4 Likes
Thx 4 the update Maidsafe devs
This is really great news, about libp2p and oss.
Keep hacking super ants
10 Likes
As I was reading the question about dust, tiny amounts of SNT.
Since the fee will be significant and offering to pay a very small fee will be rejected up front, how does a person who now only has dust get to combine them since the fee (for each input) is the same or more than the dust.
This would lead to eventual cold universe scenario where the majority of SNT is now dust. Also when fees are really low (read lowest) then the fees themselves become dust since it costs as much or more than the fees for the elders to combine them in a transaction. The release says the elder gets the fee and has to transact that when fees are lower later on.
EDIT: This happens since fee is paid on each input and separate fee to each elder.
5 Likes
Finally! Now anyone and everyone will be able to easily participate in test nets and make launch so much easier! The hole punching in libp2p and Maidsafe’s previous inability to utilize has long taunted me. I can never seem to get port forwarding to work 
Like David said, it’s kind of like Proof of Stake but without having to pay for anything. The Howie test can kiss off on that one! Nothing to purchase expecting a return, just running software on a device I already own, providing utility.
The lock-in aspect is especially interesting to me. From the time a node reaches Elder status in the network, to when the network has grown enough to see rewards appreciate enough in price to be profitable, will be chronological, steady and relative to each Elder, so selling for profit could be similar. What I see as interesting about this is the potential for stability in network growth and token price appreciation, or less volatility.
But then again there will be speculation on price as well. So perhaps a sudden huge increase in token price where many would see profit taking as an opportunity at the same time could happen, which is also feasible but maybe less likely?
We see Bitcoin miners all take profits at certain times and some even capitulating at certain price levels but more so because it is so expensive and specific to mine Bitcoin.
Wonder what others think of this and it’s implications, how it gels with the supply and demand of storage as well. Very thought provoking! Great work @maidsafe
13 Likes
This is really “move 37”, and actually a logical feedback of what the network is doing. This is probably the first pos, without negative consequences to your steak.
Thanks for the in-depth explanation of the client/elder fee payment.
Best thing is to become an elder asap and work towards network growth. Eventually those nano’s are not worthless, but actually become a like, comment and subscribe in an SNapp…
4 Likes
Nicely written issue on their github
@Vort ears might be ringing…
7 Likes
I don’t understand why you are pinging me.
1 Like
I thought you would appreciate a well written guthub issue, that’s all
No worries…
4 Likes
I’m glad that “tractor : next-gen Python parallelism” have good GitHub Issue.
More good GitHub Issues → the better our world will be.
1 Like
lol. to date myself I personally saw the sun set and rise many times, after ‘graveyard shift’ fighting syntax errors from lousy typing skills on key punch machines, before submitting my deck of key punched cards to Main Frames for WATFOR77 programs @ Uni Waterloo ON Canada . The fastest way to get them processed ‘in the day’ was to include a mickey of Seagrams FiveStar rye in a brown paper bag with my deck to the guy in the booth, so as to jump to the front of the job queue and get the processing of the deck done first, all so I could take another crack at refining/fixing the program before submitting for marks every week, a special type of madness! 
5 Likes