Any info about how the queue to join will be managed? Could the queue could also be subject to sybil attacks? If the queue can be controlled that could be quite valuable in itself. (Seemed like this would be part of RFC Node Ageing but I couldn’t find any details on disallow rules other than the section Starting A Node which says only one node age 0 allowed).
A bit of a philosophical point on this: the network can control the supply very well (knowing how much spare storage there is, then slowing supply via disallow rules or increasing supply via farm rate). But the network can not control the demand very well (demand ‘just happens’, both read and write demand, although write demand can be slightly controlled by PUT price). So how does this supply demand asymmetry affect the design of the disallow rules? I think if demand is unavoidably chaotic then supply should very minimally constrained or effectively not constrained at all. Open to being convinced otherwise!
Is this relocation verifiably random? Any more info on this mechanism? The latest I can find is from 2015 RFC Address Relocation which uses a hash of current member names.
Looking forward to seeing some economic modelling of this. I’ve tried it myself but seeing it from elsewhere will be really cool.
This is an interesting idea (but not one that I know of any plans to implement).
There’s a good list of malic detection for malicious peers. I wonder what malice could be detected at the section level and what action could be taken.
Is detecting malicious peers good enough?
I have to admit I got a bit of a chuckle out of the name Proof-of-Importance. All this proof-of-this and proof-of-that, what even is proof?! The term is definitely becoming diluted and imo SAFE should stay away from proof-of-x naming.
In general I agree. More inclusion is usually a better result (my politics speaking). But the cost can be quite high, especially for performance. So to my mind there needs to be some conscious deliberate balancing going on (not necessarily hardcoded, but the joining rules should be made with a degree of predictable intention). Not easy!
But what’s the benefit? Why would an attacker do this? I’m not sure I understand the motivation for partitioning the network.
To take this slightly out of context, I agree and think proof-of-x also does not help the technical discussion and should be dropped completely at all levels from beginners to wizards. The SAFE network has consensus and it has event ordering, they work together to secure the network. There’s no proof of anything. Just consensus and event ordering.
But ‘telling people how to talk’ is pretty ugly so I’ll leave it at that!