Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

bluesky - Re: Hi, and some comments

bluesky AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Global-Scale Distributed Storage Systems

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Brandon <blanu AT uts.cc.utexas.edu>
  • To: Global-Scale Distributed Storage Systems <bluesky AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Hi, and some comments
  • Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 21:47:27 -0600 (CST)



> But we should find out which tradeoffs are necessary and which ones are
> not. My concern is that a "good-enough" system will get a monopoly and it
> will be impossible to overhaul its architecture.

Indeed.

> Just because different
> projects have different goals it doesn't mean they'll all survive or be
> used.

Agreed.

> I think it's quite likely that the network effect will be so strong
> that the first system to become popular will have a monopoly on this
> entire space. And if for example it does not offer censorship resistance
> or reliability, it may become impossible to create a viable second system
> that does.

I don't think so. If it doesn't offer censorship resistance then it
obviously can't be used by anyone that needs it. If it doesn't offer
reliability then it can't be used by anyone that needs that. I think that
the biggest risk is for "optional but nice" features like micropayments
and quality of service assurances being left out.

> This scenario is completely compatible with what I wrote earlier. In a
> market-based system, the people who have storage and bandwidth will rent
> it to those who don't. The prices will certainly be low enough that the
> costs for anything you can upload through a dialup link will be
> negligible. And also there will probably be plenty of servers willing to
> donate storage to worthy causes.

If you can't run a node then how do you collect capital to pay these low
fees?

> Keep in mind that the purpose of having payment is to control abuses and
> defend against attacks, and to allow people who contribute resources to
> recover their costs. It may be difficult or impossible to do these things
> without it.

As far as defending against attacks, micropayments are one way and it's a
nice way. There are other ways as well which might work. Recover costs is
a different issue and I'm pretty happy with a voluntary network in which
the cost you pay to be a part of the network (ISP and bandwidth
charges) is the cost you pay to be able to access the network's
resources. But this is of course not a suitable model for everyone's
needs. Some people are going to want more accounting and reciprocity of
resource usage.

For Freenet, however, where the goal is anonymity, accounting is exactly
what we don't want. I would, however, be interested in hearing about any
sort of system of symbolic reciprocity balancing (micropayments) which is
totally decentralized. Ever system that I'm aware of uses a central trust
authority (bank), which is the main reason that I consider micropayments
to be unsuitable for Freenet. Obviously some system of abuse management is
needed, but it has to be fully decentralized for our particular needs.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page