I honestly don’t see it as a big deal. Language changes all the time. You can be Scottish or English like me and use zeds/zees instead of esses. No-one dies.
1 Like
Just the National standard language is appropriate. It is the language they use.
We don’t have one
English. There are dictionaries for it. It is well documented.
You’re going to keep going over my simple request they use English English, aren’t you.
1 Like
And the decent ones feature alternative spellings.
Please, it was language choice (beyond just spelling) was based on an exchanges/KOLs audience reading this, not because of a “mindset here” (whatever that means or is intended to imply) - nor because we’re pandering, or because of partners requiring us to be ‘unBritish’. *also noting here that it is only the 'z’s which is also consistent with the existing website, we have not really jumped down the US language rabbit hole (been informed that it’s not ‘wrong’ to use z in such words as ‘utilze’ when using British English as standard).
Comments such as these, while there (perhaps) intended as support, via critical feedback (not that I would think language would warrant such a thread, as some more critical elements of this paper), are bordering on cynical and derogatory - what you’re hoping that achieves I’m unsure.
Anyway, no issue, will leave you guys to it and collate/pick up any questions ahead of responding to the same next week.
Enjoy your weekends, Bux
17 Likes
Did you see my comment above about storage costing and that in fact “bring what you have” means the outlay for people to buy storage is not new storage which the maths laid out, but almost zero cost to the node runner who brings their own gear to the party. Would be good to also show the “bring what you have” costing along with the “Lets build new for nodes” costing which was supplied.
1 Like
Was going to come back to you, but reading now - to be honest, I’m not entirely sure what you’re looking for answer/scenario wise? The point/principle (perhaps that you’re making from a different angle) is that there (unless you choose) is no cost outlay as the nodes are small and can run on current devices - which will (likely) get better performance wise also. Im not sure how we can calculate in any meaningful way the “bring what you have costing” and what we need from that?
This is how everyday devices are currently contextualised:
The Network itself does not directly track the actual price of resources. However, the availability of resources provided by the nodes can serve as an effective proxy. As individuals gain access to increasingly powerful and spacious everyday devices, The Network naturally benefits from greater access to raw resources. For instance, it is now common for mobile phones to offer hundreds of gigabytes of storage and substantial processing power.
I think we were quite explicit in saying that the supply can be increased not only by the actual drop in hardware cost, but also by allowing existing everyday devices to join without any dedicated capital investment?
3 Likes
The “bring what you have” costings was not shown at all nor considered.
It was mentioned in the discussions, but the calculations never consider it.
It changes a whole aspect of future costings of storing.
I think it would be good to show both the “bring what you have” costings (ie nigh on zero cost to supply storage) and to show the costing for new storage (which is whats there)
Then there is no consideration of how near zero cost for supplying the storage affects the need/amount of incentives are needed over the 12 years.
If I was to read the White Paper and the costings then I come away with thinking I have to buy my storage to add to my nodes since that is what the calculations only showed. Need to at least show what is expected when you “bring what you have” using real costings.
If you do it will make running nodes more attractive and also you (Guess that means Jae) might reconsider the amount of incentives needed over the 12 years. Maybe a in between figure or maybe leave at the rate suggested since it will attract more people and using what you have means its even more attractive to “bring what you have”
tl;dr I am suggesting the “bring what you have” calculations absolutely need to be added since it will make running nodes from home much more realistic and attractive. Also might require some rethinking on the 12 years of incentives amount (or leave as is after considering it)
3 Likes
I think we’re a long way from retail users, we will likely see similar profile node operators as we do today (tech and/or token enthusiasts), applications will be the first entry into folks running nodes - on free literal free capacity - which we are hoping is a benefit to earn tokens that they can then spend in their own personalised environments - not crypto or developer world.
That said, I will take this away, speak with guys and revert to you, thanks for the extra detail/explanation 
7 Likes
I think you missed what i was saying. Nothing to do with Apps or retail users. Its for all node runners.
Anyhow thankyou for getting say Jae to read. Its just a simple addition I think would be extremely useful in the cost consideration for running a node.
2 Likes
The two are connected - the foundation advertising ‘run a node’ to the everyday person with little knowledge of tech or desire to earn tokens, is a very hard road. The node incentives are for people that are deep in technology, happy with nodes, likely involved in running nodes - or indeed in tokens already.
For the first few years they will provide the backbone for applications that people will start to use and experience, as those grow, linking ‘run your own node’ to them and integrating a better launchpad type experience (which I’m sure folks will build), makes sense.
But, yes, to confirm, ive pushed on to Jae for you all the same.
2 Likes
Don’t get me wrong, I am not against the incentives and think they are actually very valuable.
Also i do not think pricing should be based solely on near zero storage costs either. Since people’s effort has to be considered anyhow. Also as you say people in the beginning will be using purpose build machines/networks at home, also some in data centres.
One thing I think we need to address is not working towards assisting those using data centres. I don’t mean work against them doing it, but not doing anything special for them, otherwise it will end up a network with greater than 75% or even greater than 90% of nodes in data centres.
2 Likes
There was also going to be a further incentive pre launch for nodes - beyond the leaderboards everyone running nodes has had chance to access - do you not think that’s now required? @neo
1 Like
This is apart from the White Paper 12 year incentives? Like the rewards we’ve had for running nodes?
Anymore beta style rewards need to be toned down now as we transition into TGE and more of an ongoing network.
But yes some rewards (like the beta rewards) may assist for the next 3 months, but nothing as generous as it has been. No encouragement to run EXPENSIVE data centre nodes
My opinions of course
2 Likes
I don’t think we mention or intend on emissions being used in that way, but equally, this is an open, decentralised ecosystem, the write up and approach shared, based on the features of the storage network, are where we feel the best balance is found. We believe (as stated in WP) that we need incentives for node runners in earlier years, but once the system scales and we have more of every type of participate that these can tail off, especially if we still have creator/builder rewards that derive from foundation and an insurance policy against network volatility and potential data loss via the Node Network Reserve
2 Likes
Now that is cynical and derogatory. You appear to suggest I have alterior motives. My motives are to set aside financial gains in favour of the fundamentals and original vision of the project.
You may well believe that your choices are consistent with that. I disagree and have explained why.
On language, my point is that you are making choices based on a mindset that is not consistent with the fundamentals, and you confirm that IMO, by saying the choice is to appeal to exchanges. To me, the mindset is capitalist-startup and has lead the project into a cul-de-sac. For most of us the project was in part about profit and in part about the fundamentals, but one has IMO been pretty much lost.
4 Likes
And I agree.
And the WP doesn’t seem to assist people to run in data centres either. Doesn’t work against them either. All good as far as I can see at the moment.
All I am saying is we don’t want to incentivise people to run nodes in data centres. And not to work against them doing so either. We want to encourage people to run nodes from home and the more technical people will setup systems to run plenty of nodes. But this way its more decentralised and not at risk of large portions of the network being shut down by a data centre operator deciding all the people running nodes cost them too much.
3 Likes
It’s a shame to read that, I don’t know what fundamentals, beyond a delayed native token you are referring to, nor what profits (as the network itself is not for profit) you’re referencing.
But every product or service has an audience and after this many years I would hope that there isn’t harm in my trying to find a larger one to launch the network into. The good news is, no one owns the network, and the chap that you do believe in fundamentals wise, has designed it, and I’m sure will spend many years building various applications on it. I’m just trying to ensure there is data and rewards enough for that to be possible long term.
Maidsafe is indeed a wonderful Scottish business, created by a wonderful Scottish founder, it will have designed and deployed a network that, post Swiss Foundation payouts to maidsafe shareholders, will be borderless and boundless, open to everyone. You may disagree with the way Im conducting myself in my role, you may feel I don’t respect the fundamentals, but please know (whether you do or don’t), that I do have huge respect for the big picture of Autonomi - and to all the team(s) that will continue to work hard to deliver it and make it all it can be.
18 Likes
Jae will add some clarity over weekend to make logic a little more clear, I also have this response in relation to our conversation here;
The capacity of your personal devices on which you will run nodes will depend on the hardware cost. If we launched 10 years ago, your devices would have much smaller capacity than what they have now.
1 Like