From f292346293888b550e6f16d0a6edc41cff57a34b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Oskar Thoren Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 13:14:38 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] 18: Bump update --- content/docs/rfcs/18/README.md | 20 ++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/content/docs/rfcs/18/README.md b/content/docs/rfcs/18/README.md index 979ac684..c2a3348d 100644 --- a/content/docs/rfcs/18/README.md +++ b/content/docs/rfcs/18/README.md @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ The Waku network makes up a service network, and some nodes provide a useful ser By using a delayed payment mechanism in the form of cheques, a barter-like mechanism can arise, and nodes can decide on their own policy as opposed to be strictly tied to a specific payment scheme. Additionally, this delayed settlement eases requirements on the underlying network in terms of transaction speed or costs. -Theoretically, nodes providing and using resources over a long, indefinite, period of time can be seen as an iterated form of [Prisoner's Dilemma (PD)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma). Specifically, and more intuitively, since we have a cost and benefit profile for each provision/usage (of Waku Message's, e.g.), and the pricing can be set such that mutual cooperation is incentivzed, this can be analyzed as a form of donations game. +Theoretically, nodes providing and using resources over a long, indefinite, period of time can be seen as an iterated form of [Prisoner's Dilemma (PD)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma). Specifically, and more intuitively, since we have a cost and benefit profile for each provision/usage (of Waku Message's, e.g.), and the pricing can be set such that mutual cooperation is incentivized, this can be analyzed as a form of donations game. # Game Theory - Iterated prisoner's dilemma / donation game @@ -60,11 +60,11 @@ This can be complemented with node selection mechanisms. See [Book of Swarm](https://swarm-gateways.net/bzz:/latest.bookofswarm.eth/the-book-of-swarm.pdf) section 3.2. on Peer-to-peer accounting etc., for more context and details. -This approach is based on communicating payment treshholds and sending cheques +This approach is based on communicating payment thresholds and sending cheques as indications of later payments. The first part is done with a handshake, the -second done once payment threshhold is hit. +second done once payment threshold is hit. -TODO: Illustrate payment and disconnection treshholds +TODO: Illustrate payment and disconnection thresholds TODO: Elaborate on how accounting works with amount in the context of e.g. store @@ -86,15 +86,15 @@ NOTE: This may later be complemented with other metrics, either as part of SWAP Assuming we have two store nodes, one operating mostly as a client (A) and another as server (B). -1. Node A performs a handshake with B node. B node responds and both nodes communicate their payment threshhold. +1. Node A performs a handshake with B node. B node responds and both nodes communicate their payment threshold. 2. Node A and B creates an accounting entry for the other peer, keep track of peer and current balance. 3. Node A issues a `HistoryRequest`, and B responds with a `HistoryResponse`. Based on the number of WakuMessages in the response, both nodes update their accounting records. -4. When payment threshhold is reached, Node A sends over a cheque to reach a neutral balance. Settlement of this is currently out of scope, but would occur through a SWAP contract (to be specified). -5. If disconnect threshhold is reached, Node B disconnects Node A. +4. When payment threshold is reached, Node A sends over a cheque to reach a neutral balance. Settlement of this is currently out of scope, but would occur through a SWAP contract (to be specified). +5. If disconnect threshold is reached, Node B disconnects Node A. ## Policy -- If a node reaches a disconnect threshhold, which MUST be outside the payment threshhold, it SHOULD disconnect the other peer. For the PoC, this behavior can be mocked. +- If a node reaches a disconnect threshold, which MUST be outside the payment threshold, it SHOULD disconnect the other peer. For the PoC, this behavior can be mocked. - If a node is within payment balance, the other node SHOULD stay connected to it. - If a node receives a valid Cheque it SHOULD update its internal accounting records. - If any node behaves badly, the other node is free to disconnect and pick another node. Peer rating is out of scope of this specification. @@ -102,9 +102,9 @@ Assuming we have two store nodes, one operating mostly as a client (A) and anoth ## Protobuf ``` -// TODO What information to include here? For now "payment" threshhold +// TODO What information to include here? For now "payment" threshold message Handshake { - bytes payment_threshhold = 1; + bytes payment_threshold = 1; } // TODO Signature?