Nice coverage. I guess we can observe outreach by the price development within the next 7 days.
This is a great bit on the farming that has me excited for sure:
“Another interesting debate will be on the issue of rewards. The centralisation of Bitcoin through the growth in size of mining firms is at times detrimental to that network, Lambert argues. “It’s something we are acutely aware of,” he adds. “There’s no point having a decentralised network only for it to become centralised again, so we’ve put a mechanism into the farming (end users are ‘farmers’ and developers are ‘builders’) algorithm whereby you earn a certain rate until you get to about 20% above the average. So let’s say the average amount of data stored on each node on the network is about 40GB; you will continue to earn up to about 50GB and then 20% above the average rate the earning algorithm will flatten out, so you won’t earn any more.” It sounds like a neat solution to stop power accumulating at the top but again you can also argue that hard-coding a rule into the network is interference in the concept of the free market.”
That could cause a serious storage shortage.
depends what the average is…if there are big mining operations then the average may be petabytes, it may slow scaling initially of the storage but will keep it spread out more so than bitcoin…and they do mention a possible interference with free market so its seems its still TBD…
I think 20% above average actually still allows for farming competition and keeps the power in the hands of the many
A farmer might have a warehouse full of average-sized nodes. Could that make him the owner of most of the storage?
He may have the most storage space available or the most nodes available at the time, but the farming rate as I understand it will be paid on a network average and the nodes are assigned data on a lottery basis, so the love/safecoin can still be spread around to us mere mortals.
Eh, no real storage shortage. Farmers who are bent on large storage can run multiple vaults. No reason not to. I plan on doing so myself.
Why bother with the algorithm limit if there is such an easy workaround?
There are benefits to the network with more vaults
More vaults = more nodes = more “workers” in the network.
There are disadvantages to the operator with many small vaults vs one large. More processing/bandwidth requirements for the multiple vaults.
There are advantages for the operator using many vaults vs one large vault. More chunks since each vault in the network has approximately equal chance of getting a new chunk. More rewards since more chunks spread across the operators vaults, which results in more retrievals.
So what you’re saying is if you have a ton of processor power and bandwidth then multiple vaults might be the way to go but with less bandwidth and/or procesor speed a single vault might be better. The trick will be finding out how many vaults a given amount of bandwidth or processor speed can support.