18 ms·

> If the network could lose 90% of its capacity over a month and still store all of the data it currently does, and then that happens, so what? If the network

> If the network could lose 90% of its capacity over a month and still store all of the data it currently does, and then that happens, so what? If the network lose 90% of capacity over a month, you'll hear about grim the future for FIL is, on every crypto newsletter. And the price would tank even more. And if the network already lost 90% of its capacity it means that the economics is already very bad for node operators, so any worsening is likely to get even more node leaving the ship. Crypto going do dust because of crowd dynamics isn't completely unheard of… > As soon as you get caught once, people go back and retroactively verify everything you've previously done, How can they link me to my previous identity though… I'd just discard the previous wallet after having drained the available funds and restart from a clean state. > the model you screwed up gets recomputed using the money you didn't get to keep or had to stake in order to be trusted to do computations with lower frequency verification. The stacking must end at some point, and given that I can do damage with only a fraction percent adversarial computation, I can just make sure that my probability to get caught during the stacking time isn't enough for it to get a negative expected value. Your scheme is pathologically broken, and that's no surprise, you're not going to invent a billion dollar winning multiparty computation model as an argument on HN… > Put functional 16TB hard drives on Amazon and eBay for $99.99. See how long they last. I'd guess less than six months before you've sold 10PB worth. You'll need to send roughly a thousand of them, without getting bad reputation from all the disks that will break soon after the buyer receives it (because on that amount, and given the state of the disks, a lots will). Also, you're not really disagreeing with my assessment, 6 month is pretty illiquid by investment standard: it's even less liquid than real estate!

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> If the network lose 90% of capacity over a month, you'll hear about grim the future for FIL is, on every crypto newsletter. And the price would tank even more. But the supply of storage goes down, which the storage buyers now need to outbid each other for, so they need to buy the coin. I'm assuming it's also possible for the price of storage in FIL to go down as the price moves. If $1 US is 100 FIL but now providing 1TB/year of storage yields hundreds of FIL, you still earn several dollars US per TB stored. > How can they link me to my previous identity though… I'd just discard the previous wallet after having drained the available funds and restart from a clean state. No reputation is the same as bad reputation. To have a good reputation you have to engage in a large number of transactions which are less profitable to you because they're undergoing 100% verification. Building a good reputation allows you to make higher margins, which is valuable and therefore costly to sacrifice. You can't transfer funds you've staked against your reputation until the buyer has had a reasonable amount of time to try to prove you defected. > The stacking must end at some point, and given that I can do damage with only a fraction percent adversarial computation, I can just make sure that my probability to get caught during the stacking time isn't enough for it to get a negative expected value. Suppose you have a good reputation so you only undergo verification 10% of the time at random instead of 100% of the time. You also have to hold 20 times your revenue from this transaction as collateral during the verification window, or however much is necessary to more than compensate the buyer and punish you in the event that you defected. Now if you defect you have a 10% chance of losing 2000% of your payment. This has a negative expected value. Meanwhile it's now public that you defected and every other buyer still in the verification window is going to go back and verify 100% of their transactions with you, causing you to have a 100% chance of losing 2000% of your payment for those transactions if you defected. > You'll need to send roughly a thousand of them, without getting bad reputation from all the disks that will break soon after the buyer receives it (because on that amount, and given the state of the disks, a lots will). The annual failure rate for ~6 year old hard drives is ~2%. Presumably the failure rate over six months is about half that, and you have plenty of other functional drives to send replacements to satisfy the ~1% of customers who got unlucky. > Also, you're not really disagreeing with my assessment, 6 month is pretty illiquid by investment standard: it's even less liquid than real estate! That's only because you're trying to sell 10PB of hard drives. It's like saying shares of stock are illiquid because if you want to sell ten billion dollars of shares in the same company it might not be advisable to do it all on the same day. And even that you could still do, if you want to solicit a large buyer, which in this context would presumably be some kind of data center. But even supposing that it would take six months, what's your reasoning for why it has already persisted for longer than that period of time then?
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  > No reputation is the same as bad reputation. To have a good reputation you have to engage in a large number of transactions which are less profitable to you because they're undergoing 100% verification. Building a good reputation allows you to make higher margins, which is valuable and therefore costly to sacrifice. This is just a balance between how much you win, and how much it costs you. If I double my earnings for sub 1% chance of being caught, then you need to have a very expensive reputation build-up to compensate for that, and this is going to put a big burden on legit providers who want to enter the system, making it even easier to cheat. > You also have to hold 20 times your revenue from this transaction as collateral during the verification window, or however much is necessary to more than compensate the buyer and punish you in the event that you defected. Same as above: the higher the stacking is to fend of cheaters, the less attractive it is to legit players. Also, with your scheme the “verification window” doesn't matter, since you're not going to catch me after the fact: you're going to catch me iif my adversarial transaction is being checked. > Now if you defect you have a 10% chance of losing 2000% of your payment. Not if me cheating allows me to make even just 223% of the legit payment. As I said before, you're not going to design a billion-dollar scheme in this HN discussion… Edit: I just realized that your scheme would be even more penalizing to legit node than I thought: with one random bit flip, the node would lose all their stacking and all their reputation. Talk about an expensive cosmic ray! (Or an attacker could even voluntarily send rowhammer workload to legit node in order to destroy their reputation and stacking, reducing supply and hence increasing their own margin). And I'll say it again: this stuff is HARD and you're very unlikely to find a working solution on your own in this discussion! > The annual failure rate for ~6 year old hard drives is ~2%. Not if you've spend the said 2 years stressing the drive in a PoST scheme. There's a reason why these schemes break the manufacturer's warranty … > That's only because you're trying to sell 10PB of hard drives. It's like saying shares of stock are illiquid because if you want to sell ten billion dollars of shares in the same company it might not be advisable to do it all on the same day. You'll be able to sell them. You'll take a haircut (likely less than the 70% you're talking about when reselling old hard drives), but you'll sell them in the same day anyway. > And even that you could still do, if you want to solicit a large buyer, which in this context would presumably be some kind of data center. Good luck selling worn-out hardware to a data center! > But even supposing that it would take six months, what's your reasoning for why it has already persisted for longer than that period of time then? Hodl to the moon (AKA sunk cost fallacy)… They have an illiquid asset, have swallowed the cost of the capital investment (i.e. they had little to no leverage on it) and no need to fire sell it. Also the 6 months is just your optimistic hypothesis…

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> If the network lose 90% of capacity over a month, you'll hear about grim the future for FIL is, on every crypto newsletter. And the price would tank even more. But the supply of storage goes down, which the storage buyers now need to outbid each other for, so they need to buy the coin. I'm assuming it's also possible for the price of storage in FIL to go down as the price moves. If $1 US is 100 FIL but now providing 1TB/year of storage yields hundreds of FIL, you still earn several dollars US per TB stored. > How can they link me to my previous identity though… I'd just discard the previous wallet after having drained the available funds and restart from a clean state. No reputation is the same as bad reputation. To have a good reputation you have to engage in a large number of transactions which are less profitable to you because they're undergoing 100% verification. Building a good reputation allows you to make higher margins, which is valuable and therefore costly to sacrifice. You can't transfer funds you've staked against your reputation until the buyer has had a reasonable amount of time to try to prove you defected. > The stacking must end at some point, and given that I can do damage with only a fraction percent adversarial computation, I can just make sure that my probability to get caught during the stacking time isn't enough for it to get a negative expected value. Suppose you have a good reputation so you only undergo verification 10% of the time at random instead of 100% of the time. You also have to hold 20 times your revenue from this transaction as collateral during the verification window, or however much is necessary to more than compensate the buyer and punish you in the event that you defected. Now if you defect you have a 10% chance of losing 2000% of your payment. This has a negative expected value. Meanwhile it's now public that you defected and every other buyer still in the verification window is going to go back and verify 100% of their transactions with you, causing you to have a 100% chance of losing 2000% of your payment for those transactions if you defected. > You'll need to send roughly a thousand of them, without getting bad reputation from all the disks that will break soon after the buyer receives it (because on that amount, and given the state of the disks, a lots will). The annual failure rate for ~6 year old hard drives is ~2%. Presumably the failure rate over six months is about half that, and you have plenty of other functional drives to send replacements to satisfy the ~1% of customers who got unlucky. > Also, you're not really disagreeing with my assessment, 6 month is pretty illiquid by investment standard: it's even less liquid than real estate! That's only because you're trying to sell 10PB of hard drives. It's like saying shares of stock are illiquid because if you want to sell ten billion dollars of shares in the same company it might not be advisable to do it all on the same day. And even that you could still do, if you want to solicit a large buyer, which in this context would presumably be some kind of data center. But even supposing that it would take six months, what's your reasoning for why it has already persisted for longer than that period of time then?

littlestymaar 3y ago
> No reputation is the same as bad reputation. To have a good reputation you have to engage in a large number of transactions which are less profitable to you because they're undergoing 100% verification. Building a good reputation allows you to make higher margins, which is valuable and therefore costly to sacrifice. This is just a balance between how much you win, and how much it costs you. If I double my earnings for sub 1% chance of being caught, then you need to have a very expensive reputation build-up to compensate for that, and this is going to put a big burden on legit providers who want to enter the system, making it even easier to cheat. > You also have to hold 20 times your revenue from this transaction as collateral during the verification window, or however much is necessary to more than compensate the buyer and punish you in the event that you defected. Same as above: the higher the stacking is to fend of cheaters, the less attractive it is to legit players. Also, with your scheme the “verification window” doesn't matter, since you're not going to catch me after the fact: you're going to catch me iif my adversarial transaction is being checked. > Now if you defect you have a 10% chance of losing 2000% of your payment. Not if me cheating allows me to make even just 223% of the legit payment. As I said before, you're not going to design a billion-dollar scheme in this HN discussion… Edit: I just realized that your scheme would be even more penalizing to legit node than I thought: with one random bit flip, the node would lose all their stacking and all their reputation. Talk about an expensive cosmic ray! (Or an attacker could even voluntarily send rowhammer workload to legit node in order to destroy their reputation and stacking, reducing supply and hence increasing their own margin). And I'll say it again: this stuff is HARD and you're very unlikely to find a working solution on your own in this discussion! > The annual failure rate for ~6 year old hard drives is ~2%. Not if you've spend the said 2 years stressing the drive in a PoST scheme. There's a reason why these schemes break the manufacturer's warranty … > That's only because you're trying to sell 10PB of hard drives. It's like saying shares of stock are illiquid because if you want to sell ten billion dollars of shares in the same company it might not be advisable to do it all on the same day. You'll be able to sell them. You'll take a haircut (likely less than the 70% you're talking about when reselling old hard drives), but you'll sell them in the same day anyway. > And even that you could still do, if you want to solicit a large buyer, which in this context would presumably be some kind of data center. Good luck selling worn-out hardware to a data center! > But even supposing that it would take six months, what's your reasoning for why it has already persisted for longer than that period of time then? Hodl to the moon (AKA sunk cost fallacy)… They have an illiquid asset, have swallowed the cost of the capital investment (i.e. they had little to no leverage on it) and no need to fire sell it. Also the 6 months is just your optimistic hypothesis…