Varun Srinivasan on Warpcast

Content pfp

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Varun Srinivasan pfp

Varun Srinivasan

FIP: Reduce Storage Limits @wazzymandias.eth's proposal is up for review. it reduces the # of casts, links and reactions per storage unit to help hubs scale. https://github.com/farcasterxyz/protocol/discussions/189

54 replies

31 recasts

208 reactions

Varun Srinivasan pfp

Varun Srinivasan

We've discussed this in previous dev calls, and the proposal is now fully fleshed out with details of how it will be rolled out.

1 reply

2 recasts

77 reactions

tomato pfp

I'm sure you have good reason to do something like this, but it's exactly the opposite of what I want. It seems like one of those "good for the network, bad for users" things.

3 replies

0 recast

24 reactions

Zinger ↑ is job hunting pfp

Zinger ↑ is job hunting

Feels like there should be a one-time storage unit adjustment to compensate users who have already paid for storage that is now smaller than what they paid for. Existing users shouldn't have to buy more storage units due to this change in order to preserve the data they already paid for.

0 reply

0 recast

12 reactions

Steve pfp

I’m sure this was discussed greatly at some point, but what if the storage model was reversed? i.e. a user pays storage units for each of their followers, reactions their casts receive, and even replies they receive. (I know this is very much a tax the rich idea)

1 reply

0 recast

7 reactions

vrypan |--o--| pfp

I would suggest timing this with the expiration of the first storage units. It’s summer, people are away, users that intend to preserve their casts and reactions may not see this in time to react.

0 reply

0 recast

6 reactions

Daniel Fernandes pfp

Daniel Fernandes

I like Bluesky PDSs long term, because it shifts the storage costs onto the user, and over-the-top cloud solutions built on Filecoin or Swarm could be created for persistent data availability. @ethswarm @fil-foundation

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

llamafacts pfp

@llamafacts.eth

Real users will keep paying for more storage because it's cheap enough. I doubt the usage from real users will be impacted. Not sure if this is targeted to bots, what's their usage? Would be interesting to know whether bots are purchasing more space? Or renewing when a year is over 🤔

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

eggman 🔵 pfp

Dropped a comment on the proposal itself; short version is this feels like a bit of a band-aid move that just kicks the can down the road (and not by much at all), to the chagrin of users who would lose something they've paid for. Biggest raised-eyebrow was data not presented on current rate of growth; a 20% saving will amount to very little if that 1GB/d number is expected to be doubling at a fast enough pace. Second largest concern was re: exponential growth concerns; if we do encounter another 10x in user onboarding, I believe the band-aid would quickly just disintegrate under it.

2 replies

0 recast

12 reactions

Cheryl 🔵 pfp

not great especially for those of us who had already purchased additional units. if a reduction is to happen, can it be implemented only to future units from now and not on the ones that we’ve already paid for? in a short span of time, i have already purchased 11 units and i keep running out on reactions

3 replies

0 recast

10 reactions

Angelus pfp

How does discouraging engagement is going to help farcaster reach the goal of onboarding more people?

2 replies

1 recast

9 reactions

puffdood pfp

this is not great. Isnt social media supposed to be about engagement and now it's getting more and more expensive to engage

0 reply

0 recast

6 reactions

LazyFrank🦉 pfp

When we hit storage limits, doesn’t it just start deleting our old actions / casts? Nothing needs to stay around forever imho. I’m fine with reactions from 3-6 months ago disappearing. Let them burn!

2 replies

1 recast

4 reactions

chie lilybell pfp

@chielilybell.eth

This is my storage. Reaction is by far the most used and I have a lot of casts and follows left over! I would like to be able to purchase just the reaction storage, is that possible?

2 replies

1 recast

4 reactions

Akinetic ⚔️ pfp

Akinetic ⚔️

If reductions are needed, it should only affect future units, not those already purchased. I've recently bought units and use them up quickly because I engage actively with friends I've made here. If these changes are already being implemented, it would be fair to make a one-time adjustment for users who have already paid.

0 reply

1 recast

2 reactions

mvr 🐹 pfp

Based on the replies, it seems necessary to clarify what 'running out of storage' actually means. It's not critical; it doesn't prevent you from engaging in Farcaster. There will likely still be archiving services available right? All data holds a lot of value... Also looking at the averages why don't we sacrifice other types storage for more reactions?

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

WooDee 🎩🍖🧾Ⓜ️ pfp

WooDee 🎩🍖🧾Ⓜ️

First you ask people to buy storage, then later you take some of it back? 😁 Nice move you got there mate

0 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Penguin pfp

@sleepypenguin.eth

Hmmm. Hmmm. this is huge reductions for people with lots of storages. I already have 11 in just 3 months.

2 replies

0 recast

2 reactions

comz pfp

never understood why reactions are so disproportional to casts. anecdotally a user may have 10x the reactions vs casts

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

borged.eth pfp

This is a bandaid solution. Farcaster needs serious long term solutions like data sharding and active storage fee markets.

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction