This has only been put on line now, again peer reviewed at a conference and shows more mechanisms for decentralisation and distribution of resources the MaidSafe way You know another version of the impossible thing folk tell us is too hard to even contemplate.
This is sans safecoin and similar to the mechanisms we have with regard to sharing space between nodes and having the network guarantee data security and fairness (as described in systemdocs).
These papers will increase in number and are a pretty decent way to investigate different parts of the network. The peer review is what a lot of folks cry out for (understandably) and where critiques etc. should focus on and take a professional stance when discussing SAFE ad SAFE related technologies.
I hope you find this useful, for us just imagine adding safecoin (this will be another paper, or more likely a range of them) and you can see the picture build. Handy for folks who get into debates about the impossible things we do and point them to academic papers like this and the others we now have under our belts. Not the be all and end all, that’s still launch
This is really interesting, but I’m not sure where it fits in.
If I read it correctly, it proposes the necessity of a direct exchange or sale of storage capacity between users who can prove they own the capacity and those who want it. It also proposes bitcoin as the means of value exchange. I know you referred to safecoin in your post, so I’m guessing that this paper is a sort of incremental conceptual step.
This isn’t an actual proposal as to how the network will function in the final analysis, is it? Any further context as to how to digest this?
This is how the network could operate without safecoin, academic papers will look at all aspects of the network and this is one. It proves the logic, whether safecoin exists or not. This should be seen as an academic paper on decentralised autonomous networks and not an implementation doc for SAFE.
Hope that is a bit more clear, I should have outlined it better perhaps.
What about double selling? A node sells additional storage, goes offline, deletes stored data, launches a new instance and sells again.
This is something safecoin makes much more efficient, in the case of no safecoin though what you do is sell in arrears. So prove you provide space for X period and then the network allows reward for that. There are really a million ways to do it.
This is a peer-reviewed paper that put forward a mechanism for decentralised networks and not SAFE. If we were doing what the paper states we would choose a different mechanism (share the drive space is a simple one). A great many mechanisms can be used, the important issues are the network can measure and quantify actions and resources. This is what most folk appear to think is not possible or just to hard.
IMHO when it comes to selling space safecoin is the most efficient mechanism as you are rewarded for resources provided and do not need to worry about bartering to people, even indirectly via exchanges etc. With safecoin the network decides on a rate that’s nearly constant across the eco-system in a fair way.
This paper primarily outlines the way in which a network could use node managers to maintain storage quotas without a centralized service reliably, and as a result one could attach a digital contract in order to reliably in a distributed manner sell storage.
Bitcoin is used as an example. Though SafeCoin could always be more effficient since it is baked into the network; I’m sure this paper provides great insights into how safecoin is accounted for and also how many other utilities can benefit from such a design as auditing nodes for data.
Haha… the “Too many connections” error makes it sound like we downloaded the paper too many times!
That won’t happen on SAFE!
You imply there are other peer reviewed papers, which ones are peer reviewed? Where can I find them?