Well, I meant crypto money, ant is near worthless obvs. How does 800 nodes help the network more than one large one - they are all running from the same device - besides arent there 20 million nodes on the network. How many users? 30 or 50 tops?
1 Like
You cannot run one large one
Technically not possible
800 x 35gb = 28TB Have you ever met an old laptop with 28TB of storage. Nobody is running 800x35gb of nodes except some commercial whales (and I doubt that too)
Aaaah - now I understand - this is about Fud…
2 Likes
If you don’t use Node Launchpad, you can overprovision the space, and many operators is doing that. But 800 nodes also require good router, so still not for everyone.
2 Likes
Yes I see that, in the future maybe, but the claim of autonomi is that people will be running nodes from their phones. And the idea that people today are running 32gb x 800 nodes on one machine is laughable. That is not why they are doing it. They are getting paid to run tiny and mostly empty nodes. This is about getting crypto not serving the network. We don’t need the 2 million or so nodes running right now, so why would I get paid to add another 100 tiny nodes but nothing to add a large one?
~2 million currently.
1 Like
OK thanks, I stand corrected, it was 20m at one point.
32gb is large
2 Likes
There are 2 factors at play currently skewing things. First is lack of rock solid network function. When that’s resolved, there will be lots of uploading and the need for storage will make underprovisioned nodes evaporate. Second, the use of a crypto. That makes it impossible to pay node operators with fine granularity. Already emission payouts are often delayed because of tx fees. When native token arrives, even 1 node on a phone will be able to earn something.
These are just growing pains.
2 Likes
My original question has still not been answered. Can you feasibly run a autonomi nodes on a phones ‘spare’ capacity and earn any ants? That was and still is the claim on the main autonomi landing page. Is that still a thing? even for the future? Can ordinary people even feasibly earn ants by donating spare capacity on their laptop/pc - I’d say 32GB (max node size) is about ‘spare’ capacity for most people, 500gb (15 nodes) possibly or maybe 1tb tops (30 nodes). 3 nodes over 3 months earned me zero ants - 96gb, not massive but its not a small amount either - for normal devices..
this.
2 Likes
I didn’t know that native token was being worked on. Yes that changes everything. But for the foreseable future there is still no incentive for me to run a node or 3 nodes, only hundreds. And the only incentive there is just for earning ANTS, not actually helping the network (2m nodes is more than enough already)
2 Likes
It’s a feature of simplicity and scalability. As the network data usage increases, it will balance out.
Not worth stressing about, tbh.
1 Like
But isnt the competition for earning ANTS in the future going to be greater not lesser than it is now? (even assuming everything goes to plan and the network runs perfectly). The potential for whales to dominate the network today is only going to get worse. I don’t see that running 3 full nodes in 5-10 years when/if the network is popular is going to earn me ANTs if those same nodes can’t earn a single ant today from emissions. The whale problem (and therefore the centralisation problem) isn’t going away.
People run vast numbers of nodes, arguably too many nodes for only 1 reason, emissions.
3 Likes
The large number of nodes increases the chance of not having 2 pieces of the same file on the same machine, @neo calculates it and even with 2 million nodes if someone has a machine with 10k nodes the chance is much less than 1%, so the number of nodes is not a bug, but a deliberate design.
The site’s claim about running nodes from the phone is what the network is designed for, this is the dream, whether it will achieve it we will see in the future.
My prediction, which I have shared a million times, is that there will not be 1 autonomous network, but countless many, because a Autonomi network is even easier to start than a EVM blockchain and we will see all kinds of economic token variations.
The technology is open source, the moment it is proven it will be copied, even at the moment there is speculation that the large number of nodes is from a person wanting to make a copy and and that’s why he provide a stable development environment with their nodes…
Otherwise, you are right that the site should have an explanation with examples of how much token mining is currently with 50 nodes, 100 nodes, 1000 nodes, so that people don’t waste their time. I’m pinging @rusty.spork to discuss it with the team.
Check out the Impossible Futures!
1 Like
The formula works on % of the total nodes stored on that machine. So 1 node on a machine in a 100 node network will result in the same chance as 10K nodes in a 1 million network. But 10 nodes in a 100 node machine is vastly different
What we must remember is that even if you mandated one node per machine, or per sub-net then we would still see people running multiple machines on one or more subnets.
All that would substantially change is the number of nodes in the network, not the %age ran by a person. EG one machine 100 nodes or 100 SBCs running one node each. Yes the %ages would end up less due to the number of smaller people.
Its kind of estimated that there is somewhere between 200 to 1000 people running nodes at this time. Doesn’t look like it will be less than 200 and not as high as 1000.
If we assumed that a chunk only ever lived on 5 nodes at any particular point in time then we would see some interesting figures.
The formula is based on %age of nodes controlled by one entity (they could remove all at once is the danger)
chance of all 5 copies of a record being run by the one person is
%age ^ 5
So for someone controlling 1% of the nodes then they have 0.01 ^ 5 = 0.0000000001 (0.00000001%) chance of controlling all nodes holding all copies of any particular record. That is one record in 10,000,000,000 records
chance of holding 2 copies of any record is %age ^ 2 which for 1% is 0.0001 (0.01%). That is one record in 10,000 records
BUT if one person held 10% then for all 5 copies it is 0.00001 (0.001%) and for 2 copies it would be 0.01 (1%) chance. That is one record in 100.
For 200 people and one node each, in theory, would see at least one person setup virtual machines, SBCs and the like all with their own IP address/subnet and have 50 or more nodes. 50 in 200 is 25% of the network under their control, which is extremely bad if they lost their internet connection for a day.
But the curve ball here is that the network holds records in a lot more than just the 5 closest nodes, somewhere between 15 and 50 nodes in my testing. So the figures above are worse case scenario and unlikely to ever happen since nodes only delete records when they need the space.
They’ll keep records that are within the neighbourhood if they ever held that record or were really close to said record.
Basically if restrictions could be placed to limit number of nodes according to IP address or subnet, then at best that would marginally reduce the %age of the network that any whale could hold. And if that was done then we’d still be in the same boat since 10% might become 8% or 9%. The reason that it isn’t higher like mentioned earlier is that more than one person would do this, more likely most of the 200 to 1000 would go to VMs (containers) and run a lot nodes as they do now.
There are advantages to having more nodes even if some have large numbers under their control. For instance a new node joining will have a chance of snatching away any whale has over a singular record.
3 Likes
No sure…
Each antnode living in its own close (by XOR address) group just got lucky with SC ‘spray of emission rewards’ I guess, which itself is driven by Pseudo RNG Random Number Generator…, really no different that a lottery…
No real rhyme nor reason to this model of reward assignment… other than the odds are the RPNG engine behind this will over time evenly distribute emission rewards…
So my 8 antnode XOR addresses being randomly scattered I guess lined up for awhile to what the PRNG engine was cranking out.
Upload reward behaviour will be quite different from this.
1 Like
Surely it means your file is MORE likely to be duplicated on the SAME machine . Since it can’t duplicate a file on a machine with only 1 node. What matters is the number of machines not number of nodes your file is on. Machines fail, if you are running 10k on one machine, that a lot of node failure. If one node on one machine fails, no problem.
2 Likes