Anti-"Spam" measures before safecoin implementation

Probably this has been discussed before, but I think now is a good moment to bring this topic up again: When the minimum viable product is released for testing, without safecoin implemented, what measures will be in place to prevent “data overload”? I am sure that the vast majority of forum members here will be careful not to upload too much data, because they want the network to be succesfully tested, but what if some “malicious actor” wants to sabotage the test network, or make it look more unstable than it will be once safecoin is implemented? Is there a data limit per account? What would prevent the creation of more accounts? Is there a limit on the number of accounts? Or do we just have to take that risk?

I would hope that we would try at least once to bring it down in the way you suggest. Science requires experimentation right?


I didn’t think about that, but you are absolutely right :wink:

I hope none whatsoever.

The purpose of the network is to be overloaded. That’s how farmers make money and users use of the network.

The idea to intro preventive measures sounds very funny when one considers how 99% of people on this forum bxxxx and moan about the QoS/rate limiting introduced by most telcos and now even before the network has come to life, people are wondering whether SAFE should do the same. Make up your mind, people!

I heard there will be a data limit per account, but there’s no way to stop a sybil attack from an attacker until we are constrained by (test) coins.

@janitor, he is talking about the MVP which doesn’t include SafeCoin.


Copying this from @frabrunelle in #lounge (Slack):

yes, but there is currently a hard-coded limit (for the MVP). if you look at the code of safe_vault, it seems like each new account is able to store 1 GB (DEFAULT_ACCOUNT_SIZE) and PUTs cost 1 MB (both for immutable data and structured data). so it would free, but you can’t store more than space_available (1 GB by default).