Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
"I use all my reaction storage but very little of my cast storage. Can storage units be flexible?" > Flexible storage units are very tricky to implement with a good UX. There are many problems, but the most pressing one is what to do when youβve exceeded the limit and send a new message. The only solution with our eventually consistent network is to prune the oldest message, irrespective of type. This means that if you run out of space and like something, the first person you followed may get unfollowed, which is really bad. There is no easy solution to this problem.
16 replies
3 recasts
103 reactions
π _π£π _π
@m-j-r
tbqh, I think we're too early. storage units, even if increased b/c of this, are still significantly large enough, and the total spend is well within global annual spend. are there any remaining options for loss-maxxing compression?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
not sure I understand
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
π _π£π _π
@m-j-r
I think farcaster is gucci w/ these param changes. I'd ask about multiple categories of storage, but that'd be a distraction, and it seems like pruning isn't going to be an issue day-to-day. idk, maybe I'm smoothbraining it.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
We will eventually optimize all of this once we've hit product-market fit. But right now, the issue with Hubs is they are growing quite fast from a storage perspective *and* we still have too many of them. Could let the storage grow to weed out hubs, but hurts ability for good actors who want to run hubs affordably to do so.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
π _π£π _π
@m-j-r
ig the existential question will be: - nvme or gtfo - trust assumption for archive - no-sync variants could be an incentive problem, but that also is a distraction. if you leave it as is, is there a guaranteed cap on known hub operators?
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction