If someone would be kind enough to answer the following questions I’ll really appreciate it. Although I’ve tried to do my own research as much as possible, not being technically knowledgeable forces me to ask the community about things which may be obvious to others.
So, let’s get started:
In Node Ageing RFC it says:
"A node joining proof
On joining a group a node will require to prove capablity.
This is on every join attempt to a group and the proof must be sent directly to each node as a connection is made. The steps to create this proof are:
Concatenate the key create to join the group 32768 times to create a chunk of ~1Mb in size.
Increment an integer value to the end of this message until the sha3 of the message has 5 leading zero’s (a proof of work similar to hashcash). A simple script demonstrates this process with sha256 time (perl -e ‘$n++ while
echo "A Public key$n"|sha256sum!~/^00000/;print$n’)"
What exactly does the above mean? A node is to prove its capability but I don’t really understand the methods above, if someone can ELI5 the above to me I will be grateful.
Is SAFE measuring capability of a node based on computational power alone?
Every Vault that joins SAFE is in essence bringing with it resources: Storage capacity, Bandwidth and Computational Power.
Higher ranked nodes are rewarded more because they receive more GET requests. In a sense it shows higher trust of the network.
Also, the more storage capacity a vault has - the more data chunks it will store and so the more GET requests it will receive = more chances of rewards.
If we look at it from a POS perspective, every Vault is basically staking a certain storage amount in the network - rather than SAFE coins themselves - but I have not yet come across material in which SAFE network gauges capability of a node based on its storage capacity.
Is there a reason there is no GET score of a node (cumulative number of GETs a vault has gotten over its life) or some other reputation or capability mechanism of a node based on its storage capacity.
Are Fat Nodes (for example 100 GB storage capacity) equal to Slim Nodes (for example 1 GB storage capacity) ?
Obviously Fat Nodes get more reward as they receive more GET requests - I am talking in terms of network trust.
In terms of rank - if two nodes one with 1 GB storage staked into SAFE Network and another with 10 GB storage staked into SAFE network - join at same time and stay connected to SAFE network 24/7 for 4 weeks - will their age and hence rank be the same?
Would it not make sense to have Fat nodes age more quickly than Slim nodes? Or have those nodes with more Cumulative GETs age more quickly than those who are just joining SAFE network for the first time with no history? By ageing faster I mean that it should be easier for them to have a higher rank - other things being equal.
Perhaps network should mandate certain storage capacity if a node is to go beyond a certain rank - let’s say rank 5 - so to achieve rank 6 - the node should have a minimum storage capacity and so on - I’m sure community can think of better means to give rank advantage for storage size.
To be clear I am completely in favor of everyone being able to farm using whatever device they fancy - I am advocating for nodes with more storage capacity to be trusted and ranked more by the network.
If storage size calculation is an issue, SAFE network can perhaps record number of GETs for each vault
As a person who is not technically literate when it comes to computers and coding - I am just trying to understand why SAFE network is not taking into account storage capacity of different nodes into their ranking system.
As far as my simple mind has understood SAFE network - I understand Node Ageing to be more related with the amount of time a node has been active in the network and behaved well - it doesn’t look into storage capacity of node.
Every node will bring differing amount of storage capacity to the network, so not every node is equal.
To me, 20 nodes of 1 GB are not equal to 1 node of 20 GB - if nothing else the quorum of network takes into count number of nodes - and a malicious actor looking to infiltrate SAFE would be better off creating 20 nodes of 1GB if SAFE regards 1 node of 20 GB = 1 node of 1 GB in quorum calculation and node ranking.
I am sure 20 nodes of 20 GB will cost more than 20 nodes of 1 GB.
So I think infiltration of the network with malicious nodes will be made much more expensive if nodes with higher storage capacity are ranked higher. And I think we all can agree that the more expensive it is to attack SAFE, the better.
If someone more technically abled can shed some light on why storage capacity cannot be calculated easily or is not included in rank or is in fact included but I have not been able to understand SAFE network - I will appreciate it. Thanks.