Varun Srinivasan
@v
An interesting Farcaster idea: what if apps paid for storage, not users? - Apps buy a chunk of bytes. - Free to allocate to casts, reactions, follows in any way. - Free to assign to users in any way (fixed rate, free) - Lower cost by avoiding "unused storage" h/t to @vrypan.eth @deodad and @sds
24 replies
37 recasts
124 reactions
vrypan |--o--|
@vrypan.eth
Let's have a placeholder for this: https://github.com/farcasterxyz/protocol/discussions/200
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
vrypan |--o--|
@vrypan.eth
In this proposal, apps can not free space. They have to buy more, because it is used "on submission", and comes with one year retention for every delta submitted. Users can buy additional space to preserve their archives after one year.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Varun Srinivasan
@v
we should try to preserve the model where apps can free space.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
vrypan |--o--|
@vrypan.eth
why?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Varun Srinivasan
@v
1. there are many cases where you want to delete older data (e.g. this user is spammy, i no longer want to pay for them) 2. apps should be able to reclaim space when this happens and reuse it elsewhere
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
vrypan |--o--|
@vrypan.eth
For spammy users, apps can cut them off, and they can't post any more data. They can also throttle users. Deleting user data just because is not a good idea imho. And also, if you allow apps to delete and reuse, you are exposed to... spammy apps. Finally, in a globally ordered env, it's much harder to actually reclaim this space. There will be nodes keeping the blocks, even if their content has been deleted.
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
vrypan |--o--|
@vrypan.eth
I remember there was a legitimate service that had to create multiple accounts to deal with storage unit limits, but I can't recall the exact case. What was it?
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction