Potential for two networks with different aims

If we make it so that inadequate nodes are kicked from the network due to poor performance, this could prevent people with dated hardware from farming on the network. It seems like some amount of weeding will be necessary to prevent malice, but that a goal of the network is to be accessible and therefore the weeding will be mild.

Maybe we will end up with 2 networks. One that’s more accessible, and one that is more unforgiving. The former might end up with more nodes contributing, and the latter would have more efficient nodes on average. The former’s community would be unlikely to accept a change that raises the barrier of entry, and the latter’s community would constantly be pushing it higher.

I suspect something like this will happen. If not these exact philosophies, then some other. People love forking projects like this.

What would be the incentive for people to add data to a poorer performing Network? Probably cheaper upload costs, and thus a lower value token. Does this have a knock-on effect for the break even point and the viability for farmers?

Also, from a general accessibility point of view, slower performance, would mean fewer overall GETs, and perhaps people less inclined to download from and browse the Network… so what does that mean for the Network overall?

Interesting thoughts!

Perhaps another idea would be sticking with a single Network, and all the advantages that has, but to consider different types resources varying hardware might provide, and the variety of tasks they might have. We’ve talked in the past, for example, about mobile devices doing things other than storage, like message relay, or validation etc. Interesting way to look at the problem as well.


Cheaper upload costs could be one factor for the popularity of the less performant network. Another could be that its token would be recognised as more equitable than the other networks’, and that could attract investment.

The problem with keeping the two networks merged is that a phone will never be the most efficient device for any task, so allowing a device like that to act as a node would slow the network down.

“From each according to their means, to each according to their needs”

1 Like