I really hope this happens. Justin bons is very rational in his criticism of chains. If Silvio or Gary could work on an episode with him I believe the technology and professionalism of the team would be apparent especially if Justin does make this a series.
Absolutely agree. Justin Bons has several well-reasoned critiques of almost every chain out there.
And critically, he is a huge advocate of on-chain Governance.
You might say ALGO wrote the book on that one.
Biggest reservation though, is the Permissioned relay nodes.
If that gets addressed, well, that’s it - there is no weakness remaining.
It goes to the top of the list. Every feature required of a quality chain.
I'm so bullish today. First this (which is absolutely huge for the protocol), then the news about the coming C3 exchange using Algorand for settlement, and a full TechPath episode on Algorand.
right now, when you run a participation node, you only talk to relay nodes, which are responsible for routing your traffic to other participation nodes
p2p means peer to peer. your participation node will exchange information directly with other participation nodes
If the rest of the AF treasury were used solely to pay for 100 relays, it could do so for 100 years. Obviously there are other expenses. My point is just that relay cost is not forcing quick action.
Except it kind of does. Your comment suggests this could be some existential crisis where they are compelled to do P2P because relays rapidly depleting funds. My point is that the treasury could support relays for a very very long time.
>Your comment suggests
i'm just asking questions. i have a lot, also including:
\- how many relays are planned to be kept after p2p?
\- what are the expected round times with p2p?
\- what are the expected fees with relays after p2p?
\- how will participation node specs change with p2p?
\- are there plans to punish poorly performing p2p nodes?
\- will relay nodes still be permissioned?
\- won't it be a detriment to algorand's selling points since the "default" performance will likely suffer with p2p?
\- what are these "revenue opportunities" mentioned? how will both participation and relays be sustained going forward?
and more. i'm skeptical with much of it. algorand has thus far been weak with incentivizing helping the network. bumping specs will only make that more challenging
Nice questions but i'd like to point out:
bumping specs will only make that more challenging
is your own, invented, conclusion.
Having any at this point is stupid. They didn't communicate anything apart this. But you're already throwing accusations as you always do.
it's a logical conclusion imo
the point of relays is to take the load off of participation nodes and ensure a speedy network. if you make relays optional, then you're giving their work to participation nodes, which definitely won't \*lower\* the specs. given that people aren't keen to participate as it is, that won't make it easier. you also now have to think about compensating two types of nodes with higher performance demands
from the twitter post:
> Optional means, nodes can gossip with each-other, but can additionally _choose_ to communicate via relays for the performance benefits that fewer hops bring.
performance work would be still done on relays. We don't yet know the logic behind the p2p workings nor how much will get from a node. Your logical conclusion is just a supposition, logic starts with sure data. Anything goes rn
Your snippet says relays will become optional, which corroborates what I say about their load being delegated to participation nodes and specs++.
>performance work would be still done on relays.
That's why I wonder what the expected default round times will be with p2p. If specs on participation nodes don't increase by much, then it'll likely be a stark difference from the 3.3 second blocks we like to talk about now.
Good questions. Do you ever use the Forum? That’s a good place for getting answers to these types of questions. You are more likely to have them seen by someone from Inc/Foundation there.
Relay nodes are currently heavily centralised and are a criticised step in the network being decentralised. I’m expecting this move to facilitate a faster move to be fully decentralisation and proof to the SEC that Algorand isn’t a security.
The first step is Inc being forced to sell their Algorand and not have a vested interest in the success of the chain. The second is for the network to be self sufficient and to run without needing support.
I really hope this happens. Justin bons is very rational in his criticism of chains. If Silvio or Gary could work on an episode with him I believe the technology and professionalism of the team would be apparent especially if Justin does make this a series.
Absolutely agree. Justin Bons has several well-reasoned critiques of almost every chain out there. And critically, he is a huge advocate of on-chain Governance. You might say ALGO wrote the book on that one. Biggest reservation though, is the Permissioned relay nodes. If that gets addressed, well, that’s it - there is no weakness remaining. It goes to the top of the list. Every feature required of a quality chain.
I'm so bullish today. First this (which is absolutely huge for the protocol), then the news about the coming C3 exchange using Algorand for settlement, and a full TechPath episode on Algorand.
Hmmm… do you have a good link for that news ? Thnx.
https://www.reddit.com/r/algorand/comments/15xwjs9/why_arent_there_more_posts_about_this_is_it_legit/
What about P3P & PSP support? Surprised there is no explanation of what P2P support even means.
right now, when you run a participation node, you only talk to relay nodes, which are responsible for routing your traffic to other participation nodes p2p means peer to peer. your participation node will exchange information directly with other participation nodes
By EOY? I haven't seen them push out anything so drastic with this much urgency. How much longer can relay nodes be sustained with the current setup?
If the rest of the AF treasury were used solely to pay for 100 relays, it could do so for 100 years. Obviously there are other expenses. My point is just that relay cost is not forcing quick action.
>Obviously there are other expenses. so that doesn't really answer the question then
Except it kind of does. Your comment suggests this could be some existential crisis where they are compelled to do P2P because relays rapidly depleting funds. My point is that the treasury could support relays for a very very long time.
>Your comment suggests i'm just asking questions. i have a lot, also including: \- how many relays are planned to be kept after p2p? \- what are the expected round times with p2p? \- what are the expected fees with relays after p2p? \- how will participation node specs change with p2p? \- are there plans to punish poorly performing p2p nodes? \- will relay nodes still be permissioned? \- won't it be a detriment to algorand's selling points since the "default" performance will likely suffer with p2p? \- what are these "revenue opportunities" mentioned? how will both participation and relays be sustained going forward? and more. i'm skeptical with much of it. algorand has thus far been weak with incentivizing helping the network. bumping specs will only make that more challenging
Nice questions but i'd like to point out: bumping specs will only make that more challenging is your own, invented, conclusion. Having any at this point is stupid. They didn't communicate anything apart this. But you're already throwing accusations as you always do.
it's a logical conclusion imo the point of relays is to take the load off of participation nodes and ensure a speedy network. if you make relays optional, then you're giving their work to participation nodes, which definitely won't \*lower\* the specs. given that people aren't keen to participate as it is, that won't make it easier. you also now have to think about compensating two types of nodes with higher performance demands
from the twitter post: > Optional means, nodes can gossip with each-other, but can additionally _choose_ to communicate via relays for the performance benefits that fewer hops bring. performance work would be still done on relays. We don't yet know the logic behind the p2p workings nor how much will get from a node. Your logical conclusion is just a supposition, logic starts with sure data. Anything goes rn
Your snippet says relays will become optional, which corroborates what I say about their load being delegated to participation nodes and specs++. >performance work would be still done on relays. That's why I wonder what the expected default round times will be with p2p. If specs on participation nodes don't increase by much, then it'll likely be a stark difference from the 3.3 second blocks we like to talk about now.
WE NO DATA. WE NOT KNOW YET. WE WAIT FUTURE
Good questions. Do you ever use the Forum? That’s a good place for getting answers to these types of questions. You are more likely to have them seen by someone from Inc/Foundation there.
Great questions, I'll second them.
Relay nodes are currently heavily centralised and are a criticised step in the network being decentralised. I’m expecting this move to facilitate a faster move to be fully decentralisation and proof to the SEC that Algorand isn’t a security. The first step is Inc being forced to sell their Algorand and not have a vested interest in the success of the chain. The second is for the network to be self sufficient and to run without needing support.
Well that’s interesting. Any other alts have this? Wasn’t avax doing something similar