Node Pool
Closed this issue · 9 comments
To be clear, we shall define what is the node pool and what it contains:
The nodepool is a synced file which contains all the signed statistics and verdicts of the actions of all the nodes.
For emitting a verdict, something like this is possible:
(verdict t :reward 1.23 :time 1234 :from 8NDchuk...)
(verdict f :penalization 1.23 :time 1234)
'reward' and 'penalization' are the reputation system.
A false verdict like the above could become into revocation of the CA if reputation reaches 0 or less.
The 'from' is the CA emitting the verdict.
And can be stored in sections and subsections, each one identifying a node by its public key:
(8NDchukUoqH1fjd82r9roqr5c6upCyf5n3
(statistics
(up-time 123)
(n-users 123)
(bandwidth-served 123)
(storage-used)
.....)
(verdicts
(bandwidth
(t :reward 1.23 :time 1234 :from 3jdn3...)
(f :penalization 1.23 :time 1234 :from d8sks....))
(storage
(t :reward.....))
(uptime
...))
(554chukUoqH1fjd82r9roqr5c6upCyfg64
.......)
Any ideas and improvements or rejections to this are welcomed.
'reward' and 'penalization' are the reputation system.
I don't see how this is possible, unfortunately. Reward and Penalization would be done based on the workers actions. If they are based on themselves then it appears to create an infinite loop in which we are trying to figure out the Reward and Penalization for a person and we are looking to the Reward and Penalization in order to do this.
Im probably mistaken in which you should explain how this actually works.
“Emergent” reputation system - didn’t Google PageRank solve this issue - at least on the conceptual level?
If I am way off that’s because I am new here. :-)
Alex.
On 30.1.2014, at 19:53, cbbcbail notifications@github.com wrote:
'reward' and 'penalization' are the reputation system.
I don't see how this is possible, unfortunately. Reward and Penalization would be done based on the workers actions. If they are based on themselves then it appears to create an infinite loop in which we are trying to figure out the Reward and Penalization for a person and we are looking to the Reward and Penalization in order to do this.
Im probably mistaken in which you should explain how this actually works.
—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.
Yes:
there will be gateways that will be the ones serving HTTP content to the
users. Those gateways are in charge to evaluate the nodes to which they
are connected. Other nodes will judge other nodes when they connect to
each others.
“Emergent” reputation system - didn’t Google PageRank solve this issue
- at least on the conceptual level?
If I am way off that’s because I am new here. :-)
Wecome to the team. ;)
This hasn't got anything to do with Google PageRank, as we are
evaluating bandwidth and storage, not the contextualization of content.
@JavierRSobrino
I don't see how that solves the issue of using Reward/Penalization to judge for Reward/Penalization. The process you described seems fine to me but I am referring to the flaw I see in the judging process.
Mostly, users have to connect to the system using gateways.
Gateways are judging the nodes from which they retrieve the data.
You can read more here:
https://github.com/wetube/bitcloud/blob/master/filesystem-decisions.org#distributed-filesystem
@JavierRSobrino Alright, Sorry, It makes sense in the linked to paper but not when you were explaining it here, so maybe you should make sure they align better.
I think we need more organization of the new ideas.
The problem is that the main paper (bitcloud.org) has become outdated.
I should address that and rewrite it, but I prefer that the protocol
should be written by the contributions of all of us.
To all: feel free to open issues on github (and please provide a link in
the forum and optionally in reddit), and once an idea has been settle,
we should agree to write it down.
The new protocol paper is protocol.org, and there is where we should
start working on.
Yes, I realized this and was also going to try to update it but then realized that I didn't know what all of the changes were etc. There have been quite a few arguments and Im not sure what the eventual consensus was.
I also thought that updating the roadmap thing with options/final decisions would be helpful. We'd then know what needed to be decided still, and what had already been decided etc.