makes sense - yes i didn’t expect it to be this extreme thank you very much for clarifying
linking previous topic about this
Thank you for starting a constructive thread.
Does that mean that the network size can never go below 3-7% of it’s peak node count? That’s definitely good enough for the initial phase:
But i could think of scenarios when the network has too much hdd space and the SC rewords plummet causing nodes to go offline, also more efficient storage (higher storage capacity per node) could bring the node count down.
While more than 90% shrinking is quite a bit (while the storage needed in our world will always grow)
I think if this happens it won’t be a fast process but a development where there is some time to react again
No. Firstly, if node count drops by 3-7% it says nothing about the count of elders. But more importantly, if elders drop off the next oldest adults will be promoted to take their place. Nodes age as the network churns.
isnt there migration/relocation? so if a section got less and less nodes wouldnt it take nodes from other sections that are big?
That is worded wrong, although I think you are trying to say the right thing
It more that when relocation, which is fairly random, occurs that small sections will receive nodes, but so do sections of any size. At this time there is no action to specifically fill smaller sections. Although some of us have suggested some ideas for this.
When a section receives a request for approval of a new node will only accept when they are needed, otherwise it is rejected and the request is sent to another section. This means that the new nodes will end up in the sections that need it. This helps to balance the different sections of the network.
ive never said “by” but “below”. that’s based on the assumption that the global number of elders can never go down (bc the number of sections can never go down without section merges).