Farmers = Servers
Servers will exist because the network rewards for correcting the imbalance. See thats simple.
In the future if everyones networks were equal in both up and down bandwidth, servers will reduce on the network as there would be no imbalance to be corrected by them.
Yet, to start with you tried to argue that only ‘computers’ are required. Even though thats true because Server = Computer. However, terminology does not deem those two words as equal. You think I’m trying to be ‘clever’, but *nothing is defined in a simple way around here. It’s all hidden in hand wavy answers, because nobody can possibly understand how it will work. *Exception to PARSEC that was well explained, I enjoyed viewing that content.
If you think I’m a Safenetwork doubter, you have me very wrong.
I doubt some details != I doubt the idea.
You are completely missing how this works. You will upload as a farmer slowly (possibly), many of you will upload different parts at the same time (parallel). That addresses the “imbalance”. To be 100% clear, servers in the common notion of the term are 100% not required.
This is your mantra, you own it completely and please do get on wikipedia and “correct” all references to p2p networks out there
I did not try, I stated a fact
This is exactly the point of this list, but if people wish to pick a word and re-define the accepted definition of that word I would say that is hand wavey. I hate the term as it comes across as insulting though.
There is this list, a wiki, dev forum, devhub, many patents (that MUST define exactly what they do, at least in the UK anyway), papers, forum posts, videos and more, but yea anyone can say easily, it’s all hand wavey, just like anything, however we also have code that people can look at exactly how stuff works, but again not read it and claim hand wavey, or me answering questions directly, again hand wavey. The list goes on, even when we condense the foundations you claim hand wavey, so like a server is every organism hand wavey I suppose is any communication according to the observer/recipient. So with that, all I can really say to help is
I appreciate that and you doubting is fine (totally), you redefining words is not fine.
My home network upload, is a lot slower than my home network download. Thats just the way it is, and the same for millions of other people. ‘Servers’ act as a way to correct the imbalance. As much as I would like ‘crust’ to fix my upload speed, it just can’t. Devices like the ‘iPad’ are design for the sole purpose of consuming content. If everyone on the safenetwork were using iPads, there would be nobody to serve anything to anyone.
That is why you will get downloads from many locations in parallel, that is just the way it is designed. You will upload slow, whether to a server or not, but you can download faster than a server from many peers. This is already proven and no need to debate it really, just look at BitTorrent traffic as a great example.
BitTorrent works because a lot of people run seed-boxes (severs in data centres with the sole purpose of serving data). Private trackers to police people ‘taking the biscuit’ and not seeding back.
Your example is assuming not everybody is trying to consume from the network at the same time. Which is strange because humans are a creature of habit, and if we weren’t there would be no such thing as ‘rush hour’
Honestly, how many home computers would it take to run youtube?
This is true, I do assume at least some farmers. Otherwise the project and its goals are assinine.
And if you were right bitcoin would have no miners, skype would have had no supernodes etc. etc…
A small amount could run an app like youtube (Jams etc.), the number to host all videos would be very large I imagine, but pondering dreaming and doubting is not building, so I have to go an build now. The design was done many years ago and still seems very solid, like every design there will be doubters who proclaim impossibility, just like with SpaceX, bitcoin, Internet, Web, car, train … (probably every invention)
The Cloud - Is a marketing term, it’s more “cool” than saying “We will host you data in a rack of dull servers.”.
Farmer - Is a marketing term, its more “cool” than saying “We will host your data in someone else server.”
The safenetwork is made up of vaults.
Vaults - Is just more “cool” than saying, “A node in a distributed network of servers.”
A vaults job is to serve data to people. To be able to do this, you have to pass a ‘Proof of resource’ test.
This test means it’s no longer just a ‘computer’, it meets the criteria to be a server for a fraction of the network.
Servers are 100% required because they help secure the network. Always on-line (higher node age). Normal computers are not always on. Therefore to secure the network, you need servers. To provide enough bandwidth you need servers.
This is a lie. Its marketing lie, you can keep calling them farmers and vaults. The fundamental properties match those of servers.
Farmer is not the same kind of word as Miner. A miner is a computer with a specialist purpose (solving problems to secure a blockchain, *thats efficient enough to earn a reward). A farmer is a marketing term for a computer that servers data to people. Things that do that we refer to as Servers. You want your own special word, thats fine but please stop trying to tell me its not a server, when it is. Just so you can claim you don’t need servers, when you clearly do.
Isn’t a server a machine that runs services such as resources, DB programs etc… basically client-server/server-client data? If so, then running a ‘vault’ or ‘farm’ for example from a data centre server (for data integrity, node age, reliability, etc…) to be rewarded safecoin - IS a server? I realise that there will be multiple laptops, iPads, smartphones soforth serving up data on request (assuming they are always on) but hypothetically they are essentially servers to the network? Or farmers? Isn’t it the same thing? This whole server debate thing can be a bit of a mixed message… hence I see where you are coming from.
But does it matter whether safe refer to it as a server or a node? Or a farm? I don’t know.
A server tends to be dedicated to the job of providing services to others, hence the name. A computer which is used both as a client and a server tends to just be considered as peer to peer. Safe network falls into the latter definition, no matter whether you leave your computer on all the time or not.
Also, under the consideration for a “server” is the OS that it runs!
Actual “Servers” run a Server version of an OS, whether it Windows Server or Ubuntu Server, they are dedicated to purposes the require special Security and set-ups, Which Farming Nodes are NOT!
Explain who is being taxed?
Answer NOONE The network itself out of its funds is paying it as a reward (payment).
Very much different to being taxed. Just like a professional charges for services provided so too the network itself will pay the professionals who do maintenance on the network.
As to many of your other points, a little deeper looking into things will solve your queries. For instance it is usual as in the internet usual, that is like a web-server or nntp-server and is not referring to older network definition of server on a peer-to-peer file serving local network where each computer has certain files held. Its trying to point out that there is no single point of call to do the transaction, it is distributed with one bit of data handled by one section and another by another section and independently of each other. In other words not the usual usage of the term server. And also as David said
When you get to understand the nature of consensus then you realise that you need to take over a section in order to change the protocols followed including how rewards are done.
I cannot see it till Friday morning, so don’t feel bad
Only if you want to do this. Its just one feature available to people. It has its usage and really quite obvious that privacy/anonymity between the two parties is not there. But SAFE allows them to set it up without intermediaries.
If you don’t want this specialised situation then don’t do it.
I like that you stick to your guns. But the facts don’t support it. What facts you say, well the testnets when we had vaults at home and the network worked great with vaults (thats right redefined word) servers on home computers. If the vaults handled (any) transactions sent by a user then yes it would be called a server in the usual internet usage of the word. But the safenetwork is such that the vault only stores a small portion of the whole data and only participates in a very small number of the total communications in the network. There is no “load balancer” or we’ll store Joe’s data in this vault and Mary’s data in that vault and Joe’s transactions are handled by a specific vault etc. Its a distributed network and vaults work in a P2P configuration rather than a client-server configuration. Your definition really does have any device that supplies a packet is a server.
If you read what David was saying again, there isn’t technically a queue, but rather if you offer up your computer as a Node (vault) then it is assigned a section to (attempt to) join. If that section does not want a node then your attempt is rejected, not queued. You have to try again to join the network which means you will be assigned to another section to try and join it. No queueing
You keep saying this and that doesn’t make it true.
There maybe some advantages but there are disadvantages to running a server as a vault. (compared to a suitable home vault)
The users who pay for PUTS. They pay, those coins get destroyed, on reissuing a 5% tax is taken.
It should be a donation, and people should choose who they pay to maintain the network. Like a charity. Like the ‘maidsafe foundation’. It shouldn’t be a fixed 5% either, it should be adaptive. 1% of a lot is a lot. The network shouldn’t reward a centralised entity more than is required, just ends up creating another Google.
I never said at any point the network had a single point of call or it wasn’t distributed. Creating a distributed network today already exists in the real world through Kubernetes. They didn’t make up new words for server, it’s just a cluster of servers, which removes the ‘centralised aspect of server’. The safenetwork takes that further its more like a giant swarm for servers.
Read what I said, if enough people ran the modified version which did not pay the maintainers, they wouldn’t get paid. Its open source so there is nothing stopping people doing this.
I also never made any claims about consensus or changing order.
As we have no analytical data collected from these vaults at home networks, we have no way to prove how ‘great’ they worked or what hardware people were running them from. Therefore, you have no facts to prove what you are saying either, but nice try. Keep signing the song of @dirvine but that does not make it true or factual. Again, I never said the network wasn’t distributed. My claim is that saying Not have servers is a lie.
I know we already established the selection process wasn’t orderly, its random, the answer to everything around here. It’s the new 42 in the age of the safenetwork, can’t wait for the memes.
a suitable home vault, you mean a purpose built low powered storage server like a NAS?
Come on wake up! thats definitely a server even if its not in a data centre.
Expecting to run this entire network through laptops and iPads is a ridiculous claim, it needs servers because the current network infrastructure of the world will require them for its operations. Again, I never said this couldn’t change.
FYI, my laptop goes to sleep if I don’t touch it for 5 mins, its a terrible server, so do millions of other devices. The cost of copying data to these short lived devices means for it to be cost effective they will only hold small amounts of data. They will still be a huge part of the network because there are millions of them. However, they still need to be supported by, what is it you call them around here, oh another made up term for server archive node. The network needs these purpose built servers to help support the churn created by lots of devices switching on and off.
So let’s say it again. The network operating in the worlds current technology infrastructure will have servers.
Who is TAXED. No one the network decides what to charge for PUTs so it can make payments for people who provide a service.
No matter how you logically look at it do not get tax.
If it were a tax then FEDEX is charging me taxes to send my parcel because they have to pay for fuel, pay for new vehicles and oh pay for staff. Hell we are being taxed by every company if we used your redefinition of tax.
You did when you said vaults are servers. You cannot have it both ways. Either vaults are servers and what I said applies since they are servers, or they are not servers and P2P devices.
And if you read what I said I agree if enough people, but you didn’t quite imply that did you
Anyhow once “enough” people run anything then they can do as they damn well please can’t they, there is no safenetwork any more and so no principle applies. It is a taken over network since they can control consensus.
Either you were trying to make a point where some people can change the code and stop rewards, OR you were making no point since if you take over consensus then its no longer the safenetwork and nothing applies any more.
No I can understand what is being done and have investigated it for myself, sorry mate, I have been developing for longer than David and have plenty of my own experience to call upon to evaluate things for myself.
And you IGNORE why its not queuing. Me thinks you just wish to argue. What you said is not relevant to why its not queuing as you claimed
Well if you keep changing what people mean by obvious statements then you can claim anything can’t you. But it doesn’t help discussions and coming to new understanding of whats right or wrong.
Actually you are he one making that statement. Others say laptops, home computers, dedicated SBCs, datacentre VMs and a few other types of devices.
But if you keep using black/white arguments then yes it won’t work with just iphones will it. At this point in time iphones have no chance have they and of course you win the argument by not using what is actually said but the extreme. Mind you maybe in 5 years iPhones with their 40-120Mbits/second internet and 5TB storage (look at how far things have come in just 10 years), your extreme claim may not even be right.
And I claim as a qualified network engineer, qualified system admin, computer scientist and qualified electrical engineer that you are wrong.
Again using extreme end of the spectrum for available devices+circumstances to try and make an argument correct. By doing so you show that your claims are fragile indeed.
Ahh you claim is chainging. Good to see. But again some vaults may run on server infrastructure, but certainly not all or even most will be in all likely hood. Too expensive to do so when compared to the potential billion+ devices already out there that can just use their spare resources.