Launch of a community safe network


Is there some potential for denial of service with the proof of work (ie existing vaults might be able to deny new vaults)? Existing vaults can choose to (maliciously) claim the new vault failed the test. This is in their interest since it would be a way to exclude competitors.

I know this is maybe not the best topic for it but since POW-to-join is being discussed in pretty good detail I figured I’d put the idea here.

1 Like


I think this needs exploring. Is it really in their interests?

  • Nodes are relocated at times so their efforts may be for naught once relocated.
  • The node joining is generally not going to be located in the section the test is done against so no improvement in earning ability
  • Preventing the network to grow may actually hurt the network as a whole and reduce earning ability for that node and all others.
    • especially as nodes leave the network these malicious nodes may not recognise that since its happening in other sections. If sections fail because of this activity then the malicious nodes cannot earn either.

So really it would seem that this is a question to be considered when trying to answer the other.

My initial thought is that

  • if its an attempt to improve their earning ability then it will be minimal and potentially reduce earning as the network slowly dies.
  • If its an attempt to improve their chances to become an elder (for future maliciousness) then it may work and may cause the network to slowly die too.
  • If it is to slowly destroy the network then there is a fair risk it will not too.


How well does the smallest cloud VM (2.49 euro) perform with its 20TB bandwidth allowance. Is it sufficient



Wow that’s great @tfa that’s a cool way too, that I hadn’t considered :+1: was just looking for a way for the casual readers to be able to help if they wanted, but this is good enough for now. Hopefully most people can figure out how to create a droplet etc. Still limits the amount of people who can support this community network, but not too bad of a solution for now.

1 Like


Bandwidth allowance is largely enough. The problem is this one has only 20 GB disk and the vaults are configured for 32 GiB (specified in the OP and defined in safe_vault.vault.crust file).

The code doesn’t check the capacity of the drive containing the chunk store, so you can start the vault but it is not safe for the network. For now it’s ok because the needed space is largely below 20 GB. But if the network ever reaches this level it could be a problem (wrong group computation and cascading vault failures).



Ah yes. I didn’t look too far did I. Oh well I’ll leave them running till the space is needed.