3 ms·
Great questions :) -- this borders into future announcements, so sadly I'll have to defer to the answer on this paper, which you summarize well here. (Not askin
by _prometheus 12y ago
Great questions :) -- this borders into future announcements, so sadly I'll have to defer to the answer on this paper, which you summarize well here. (Not asking you to believe, only to wait a bit longer.) Also, this answer is actually not bad: information on the distribution of pieces will become widely available so users can tune rewards accordingly. Storage pools also have a ceiling: after backing up the entire piece set, it's better for them to compete than to keep growing.
- Taek 12y agoAfter backing up the entire piece set, the requirement per-node for joining the pool declines - say 100GB each instead of 500GB each. Or perhaps you have a setup where the pool master takes care of storing all the data and the workers all do POW. Then it's up to the pool to tune prices so that workers can profit as much as possible. You might end up with multiple competing pools, but it puts the barrier-to-entry of being a new pool at a high price. Everyone will mine for the cheapest pool, and the 1 pool that can provide all the storage at the lowest cost is the 1 pool that will control all of the data on the network. It seems like a fragile solution.
- _prometheus 12y agoIn equilibrium, people will still compete to avoid sharing the reward with others if they can avoid it. You don't need a full pool to have high expected reward. Anyway, stay tuned ;) (+ for getting rid of PoW altogether).
- _up 12y agoMaybe you could also expand to also allow poeple to mine by running a distributed search engine. So they can basicly decide wether they offer simple storage or storage + processing power + low lattency.