How would the nodes coordinate what computation to replicate without a consensus protocol?
1 Like
@JaMarco
I should’ve wrote that as “as long as you have a system where nodes and users can communicate arbitrary data and transfer tokens, you don’t need to prescribe the compute environment (subnets) like the current system does”
Communication and token transfer obviously needs to go through a consensus protocol to work
1 Like
How does that scale without subnets? This one network will have to process all dev and user activity, what do you envision the throughput is?
1 Like
Subnets are a way to scale it, subnets do not need to be at the protocol level to scale it, my point was to demonstrate what is absolutely necessary at the protocol level versus what is prescribed by the network. I believe any system that aims to be maximally extensible will win versus one that tries to maximally useful, because one cannot predict what people will find useful in the future. ICP & DFINITY prescribe way too much on the protocol level such that I believe it’ll be beat out by more extensible solutions if another team make them.
4 Likes
Depending on demand of what?
1 Like
This thread explains what he means, instead of having fixed subnets the protocol decides which nodes will run the canisters based on dev specified parameters: location, replication, etc…
3 Likes
@Zane
And that’s just one other way to do asynchronous smart contracts,
EDIT/Addendum: A federated system would also work well too, instead of the example I gave, where users bid for compute jobs. A federated system would mean nodes themselves associating with each other and determining the structure of the network, such that they form federations where developers can deploy smart contracts to if they agree to the federations rules/requirements.
(From my previous post in this thread)
And all of these systems don’t even need to be on the protocol level if it was designed from the ground up to be maximally extensible for everyone, you could have the current subnet model, as well as these two models that I have proposed operating on the same network, all created by developers or DFINITY at the application level, instead they chose to do more work to create an overall less useful system
1 Like
We aren’t talking about scaling throughput but scaling the network as in the actual hardware running it, other chains have a much simpler and more fluid model that is known beforehand so the miners/validators know what they get into: there is a fixed issuance + network fees, if both aren’t enough then the node owners can either keep their hw on at a loss as an investment or back out.
On the IC providers are promised and expect fixed monthly rewards, that by itself creates many potential issues such as continuous growth needed to avoid inflation as you mentioned but also raises the question of what should be done with those nodes when in extreme cases network usage spikes and then is drastically reduced, e.g after a bull market.
Sure there is nothing that stops the NNS from changing how the current system works to solve such scenarios were they to arise on day, but:
- They have barely if at all been discussed, which doesn’t inspire confidence.
- They’d most likely result in tokenomics changes or kicking providers and we go back to my initial point of new potential providers being disincentivized from considering running nodes on the IC.
On their own they might not be a problem but once you start mixing them together, e.g low repl subnets with low block rate and nodes run in X country it becomes trickier to make sure the protocol’s computational capability is constantly being used as cost efficiently as possible and stuff like running a canister on an arbitrary number of nodes won’t be feasible without subnet rental, which is extremely costly. The subnet model forces every possible permutation of those options to be its own subnet with nodes dedicated only to it, so a tradeoff has to be made between customizability and cost efficiency.
3 Likes
It is true and scary. The fact that certain fundemental things can be changed simply by voting can potentially be a showstopper for new node providers who are willing to contribute.
4 Likes
What do you consider acceptable criteria for what constitutes decentralization?
1 Like
I am struggling to understand alternatives to the NNS that would allow for a protocol as complex as the IC to be seamlessly upgraded across all hardware providers.
That’s what’s so beautiful about the IC, it brings together hardware providers and weaves them into the protocol. AWS and other clouds work the same way, they unilaterally control the provisioning of their own protocol across all of their hardware…well, or at least they give developers the option to spin these up.
I would love to brainstorm how to remove the centralization risks of the NNS while not losing its most important benefits.
13 Likes
No, what’s really scary is the alternative of trusting a dictator to be benevolent.
4 Likes
Decentralized systems are flat, there is no top-down control. Even though they technically allow centralized systems inside them. A system that presides over the entire network (The NNS) cannot ever be decentralized, regardless of if its democratic or despotic.
2 Likes
I am struggling to understand alternatives to the NNS that would allow for a protocol as complex as the IC to be seamlessly upgraded across all hardware providers.
I like simplicity not complexity, complexity just means, there’s more stuff that can go wrong, especially in dynamic systems. If the NNS was confined to software upgrades then that’s a much more bulletproof system, but that’s not DFINITYs goal.
2 Likes
Can you elaborate more on what you mean by “If the NNS was confined to software upgrades”? Software upgrades would still facilitate changing essentially anything about the protocol, at least technically speaking.
Are you suggesting that confining NNS proposals to replica binary upgrades would solve many of the problems you’re concerned with? Basically that would just take away the ease of changing many of the things that the NNS can change.
Also of course complexity is not desirable, but the IC is complex and the NNS provides a simple means to upgrade it.
2 Likes
Can you elaborate more on what you mean by “If the NNS was confined to software upgrades”? Software upgrades would still facilitate changing essentially anything about the protocol, at least technically speaking.
As in, the NNS’s only purpose being to negate the need for hard forks when something absolutely needed to be changed at the protocol level.
Are you suggesting that confining NNS proposals to replica binary upgrades would solve many of the problems you’re concerned with? Basically that would just take away the ease of changing many of the things that the NNS can change.
Doing so would mean that the network is at least uncensorable, it would also require deep thought and design by DFINITY such that every system the network is composed of is carefully thought out because it’s not expected that the network can be rapidly changed and iterated upon.
Would I reinvest if that was the case? Probably not, I think the blockchain networks going to win out are the ones who design their entire network around a specific aspect of the stack like data storage, computation, customizable node topologies and virtual machines, etc. I’m not gonna do anything shilling on this forum but I think that’s the narrative that will play out. Which ties into my previous recommendation for DFINITY to make the protocol much more minimalistic, and get rid of the NNS. (This doesn’t mean do a complete 180, just release the “killer feature” as a side feature to the current network and then progressively direct development into making that the main system)
2 Likes
So you sold your ICP, which is ok considering the confidence level you have on the product.
It’s fine because it most likely did not fit or meet your expectations.
But instead of leaving the project peacefully, and give a chance for those interested to work on and maintain what’s in course, you come along and want to get rid of NNS. What did the NNS do to you ??
I stated at the beginning that I still think ICP has the potential to be a top 5 coin. I’m not here to fud, just give my opinion.
You can generally tell you’re in a bad place when open dialogue is discouraged, I’m not going to participate in this forum other than replying to posts in this thread because I have nothing tying me to this project anymore…
3 Likes
We should explore all valid criticisms, and if getting rid of the NNS would benefit the protocol then it should be done.
I’m not decided that’s the right path, but I understand the great negatives that the NNS brings. It also brings positives.
Not sure we’ve taken the right trade-offs, thus we need to explore solutions to these potentially existential problems.
11 Likes
Can you please do us a favor and make a list of the negatives and positives that you are exploring or have in mind.
That would help us gauge the intentions of your concern.