To clarify if my understanding is correct, this flag seems to allow all nodes (ie not just elders) to say to the elders “my node wants to allow new nodes to join”. Elders look at the total vote from all nodes and if a majority want new nodes then the gates are opened. Have I understood the feature correctly?
How is this flag chosen to be set (or not set)?
What is the experience for new nodes that are trying to join a section but are not accepted? What message do they see in their logs? Does the node automatically retry again or does it simply stop the node process?
This is a really interesting inclusion. I reckon it will speed up the arrival of a reliable testnet but a lot of things are rattling around in my head with this change.
Will be good to have some monitoring of the routing table in the early stages of the real network so we can track that these early nodes (presumably all will maidsafe nodes) have departed and the remaining active nodes are considered starting from ‘fair’ conditions.
Picking some arbitrary starting condition for new nodes at age 10 and 1 hour until age 11 (needing double the time for each age increment); age 32 would take 478 years to achieve. Point is, age 32 could be a lot of doublings of work.
But does it really matter? I may be wrong, but as I see it, all elders earn equal, not more the older they get. Is it so? Anyway I think it would be good to have a cap on earnings. I don’t see a reason why super old nodes should earn super much. Just enough to stay around. And we really have to assume that the first nodes are honest, so why not just have them as they are?
But I think that the first earners should not be over-rewarded just because they are first. The distribution curve should not be very steep in that way.
Come on, you should know that no timeframes are given here.
But I would also like have some kind of a view of what needs to be achieved for the next testnet? A couple weeks ago @dirvine said that it is just some startup issues. Now it seems to me that it is much more. Situations change, that’s ok, but it would be very nice to know where we stand now?
I’m very exited to hear about all these new proceedings, that are going to make the final network so much better. But at the same time it seems to me, that testnet is moving out of sight. And if that is the case, it may be so for a good reason. What is the point of testing something, that quite certainly is not the path forward? Also I think that testnet might slow down the developement, because it might tie up some resources for “customer support”, helping people to set up nodes etc.
But testnet would be good in order to show that there is progress done, in hopes of getting MAID price higher. I personally would be happy for that, and it should be good for the Maidsafe funding too.
But really, what is there to be done before testnet? What will the testnet be for? What is going to be tested and why?
and even though it’s becoming less and less relevant, the latest economic design document in rfc0057 says in Farm Reward Calculation “The remaining amount (85 or 95%) is divided amongst the vaults in that section, each being awarded a share proportional to its age. (This might need adjusted later, e.g. to bias rewards towards or away from Adults)”
nodes reporting they are full. Elders will aggregate votes on this and the gates open for new nodes (Infant and perhaps later we request nodes from other sections).
At the moment we don’t ban these nodes we will readily accept them. So the relocate (for now). This is one area where we need to dig deeper in relation to other talks here where we assume a bad section. There Is an opportunity here to prevent that bad section relocating if we know it’s bad (big if there)
Yes, not fully bought into this change just yet (it speeds up testnet though). The initial elders from the first section IMO should not be able to farm, so these should be suicide nodes. Those should be auditable as well. All sections will have the first sections section chain (the root of the binary tree).
I think a provable non-farming root section is a requirement. Perhaps the simplest way is no tokens exist until the first section splits? Let’s see though (it’s the quandary of making tokens anonymous, but again I feel bulletproof can help here to “start” the supply in a provable manner that is auditable, but secure. Bit like zk-snarks but no startup issues)
This is happening. We have tasks for Fleming and are working on those as well in parallel. Currently testing network startups etc. and we will release a testnet with that in place.
We have in house lists that change a lot. We are working with these and they do add tasks on bugs and remove on bug fixed etc. It’s very dynamic and I feel GH tasks will slow us right now. We all want the best xmas we can get and we are working to make sure of that. A wee boost and focus this week to help us get “somewhere” closer to Fleming for then.
Above we have two examples of the verb “farm” being used in a context where “earn” would sound strange to me. “Earn” may be good in some contexts, but we probably should not ditch the verb “farm” completely.
I think there are some instances in which “earn” provides a concise articulation of the activity to take place. However, “farm” provides a lot of branding potential (i.e. differentiation, definition, opportunities to capitalize on gamification, etc.). It will be interesting to see how these terms are effectively deployed in the UX so as to capture the value each provides.
I think you’re right! Here’s to smooth sailing for the MaidSafe Crew
Isn’t ‘data farming’ often described in a similar fashion to data mining? Common people who join the safe network are trying to get away from the data farming and data mining they here about in the media aren’t they? I’m fine with retiring the “farming” term, considering ‘vault’ is gone.