Next step of safecoin algorithm design


And the vault will (eventually) be kicked out for not doing as its told. Well thats how I understand what happens to vaults that do not store chunks (S or P) that are given it to store.

You cannot have the individual vaults just telling the section that its stored xx S chunks and expect it not to be gamed by every script kiddie around. It seems pretty clear that if S chunks are used as a way to determine spare space then its the section that decides to store them and tells the vault to store them. They may even be chunks from another group in the section.


Yeah, vaults should be kicked for not storing P, but for S the response really is a choice for the vault (and needs to be) if S is a useful tool for measuring. P is like binary question ‘can you store’ (if no then kick) but S is like asking the range of ‘how much can you store’ (for network planning purposes). It’ll be interesting to see what the rules are for S (or if not implemented using S then some other space measuring algorithm). I reckon almost all the economic ‘optimizations’ and ‘cheating’ and ‘edge cases’ will happen within the confines of those rules.

Sure, but the vault/section dialog is an ongoing combination of a) the vault communicating to the section what it can do and b) the section communicating to the vault you are being tested. I suppose just b) would be enough and no amount of a) realling ‘matters’. But the vault being tested still has some amount of choice to deliberately pass or fail the test, which in a way is the vault doing a) via b).

My prior concerns about the sacrificial chunks algorithm (particularly the impact on farm rate) is not about a vault ‘bragging illegally’, it’s more about vaults being cunning with their test responses. Ideally there’s no opportunity for cunning, but it seems unavoidable whenever the test has no predetermined answer (eg how much space do you have).

Taking the current state of rfc-0012 I feel there’s probably too much room for cunning and there should be some tighter constraints on the quality of participation. But maybe I’m being too cautious. So far the discussion hasn’t really indicated one way or the other.