Crust Test v2 (concluded)

无 ~not this

Surely, it’s not an either or. The network is the sum of contributions. How it finds its balance, acknowledges; welcomes; and makes use of all that is not truly a drain on the performance, will perhaps necessarily follow from testing and then an iterative load balancing that’s dynamic and responsive. I wonder that a simple reward for bandwidth or for hard drive, might force the kind of resource provided… and that might be ok if the devs know what is truly key to performance… perhaps hard drive space dominates and bandwidth follows, since the base is to ensure copies exist. Still, it would be nice to reward all contributions made… a welcoming environment for all, rather than some survival of only the ‘fittest’.

2 Likes

Bandwidth, 20 chars.

IMO, tunneling or having common neighbors help negotiate a connection will only help things.

1 Like

Ha - nice! (effectively one hop more then for that farmer so a competition disadvantage but still super awesome that it doesn’t prevent consensus to be found :slight_smile: )

Perhaps this could be a useful service provided by the nodes who are trying to prove themselves as they work towards becoming elders.

1 Like

Hi All,

Just thought I’d let you know that we’re going to be stopping the Crust test today around lunchtime (UK time). If you haven’t already had a chance to participate (where have you been?) then you’ve only got a couple of hours to go now.

You can see the current results on the dashboard. Note that the dashboard will be unavailable after the test concludes.

I’ll take this opportunity to thank everyone who’s got involved - we’ve really appreciated it.

David.

16 Likes

Me again…

That’s the test down. I’ve updated the OP header to reflect that it’s not active anymore.
The notification page is here:

Conclusion of Crust Test (v2)

Thanks again for all the help.
David.

3 Likes

As the dashboard now redirects here, how about a pic here of the final score - if possible :wink:

1 Like

I had actually considered that then thought I’d go with the more minimal approach then it seemed too sparse so I popped the sign image in there.
Two imaginary votes to zero imaginary votes - I’ll update!
David.

Edit: @TylerAbeoJordan - I’ve updated the post. You’ll note that I’ve not namechecked you there… that’s because I think you’d probably get sick of all the groupies that would be assembling outside your house chanting your name and wanting autographs. It’s nice at the start but gets tiresome - you should see the throng of people I have to fight through just to get into the office in the mornings. :smile:

9 Likes

We will see another crust test before alpha 3 release?

1 Like

I guess that decision will be made after they have finished analysing the results.

4 Likes

Hi @anon40006692,

@neo has beaten me to the punch there but I’ll step into the ring as well.

As it stands there isn’t another Crust test scheduled but if that changes we won’t be shy letting everyone know about it. More to come on our thoughts after the results analysis next week…

David.

12 Likes

I just wanted to say that you’re doing a great job keeping everyone informed, responding to questions, etc. That is all! :+1: :grinning:

17 Likes

Just curious, is there a chance we will see tunneling through common nodes in a crust test v2.1 to get around the symmetric Nat issue?:grinning: Is it even possible currently or is it unnecessary given the number of connections achieved through other means ?

1 Like

Haha - nice idea! - the little it makes sense it would still be a joy to see a 100% connection rate

Hmm, tunneling reminded me of the payment routing issue on the lightning network. Figuring out how to connect from here to there can get difficult.

Not in the Safe Network.

Lightning network is based on a P2P destructured network so finding the route becomes extremely complicated (basically a NP Hard problem).

Safe is based on a structured P2P network, also known as a third generation network, where finding the optimal route is very simple since every node is in a specific position.

2 Likes

Yes, SAFENetwork could actually provide a lightning network implementation, I believe. It could mean lightning transactions could happen without both peers online, with the lightning transactions stored off chain until the receiver goes online.

I’m not a lightning expert though, so I could be missing something! :slight_smile:

3 Likes

This is just the crust layer though. Isn’t it still unstructured at the crust layer?

Reading a bit about lightning, it sounds like it requires both sender and receiver to sign the transaction, which is why it needs to be done with both parties online with the current implementation.

With SAFENetwork acting as a persistent store, it could provide an additional option; a SAFENetwork message could be sent to the recipient, who could counter sign and message back to the sender. Since messages do not require both parties to be online, this would make lightning network much more usable for most people who either aren’t online 24/7 and/or don’t want to use/trust a 3rd party service.

It would be a rather good feature to add to lightning/Bitcoin and illustrates another use case for the underlying SAFENetwork technology.

9 Likes

In this Medium article, I found this sentence to be confusingly arranged:

“SAFE-Fleming itself only requires Crust to provide the ability for computers to connect via direct connections or through what is known as UPnP connections (where an individual carries out manual port-forwarding using his or her router in order to connect to the Network).”

UPnP is automatic if enabled, so I think the manual configuration part is actually referring to the first part of the sentence about direct connections. Maybe just reversing the order in the sentence would be easier to read?

“SAFE-Fleming itself only requires Crust to provide the ability for computers to connect via UPnP connections or through direct connections (where an individual carries out manual port-forwarding using his or her router in order to connect to the Network).”

1 Like