►
From YouTube: FIlecoin Plus - February 16 Notary Governance
Description
The community governance call to discuss the specific mechanisms and operations of the Filecoin Plus program.
Feb 16
The community discusses allocating DataCap and deal making between miners, and gathers input around defining operational rules. Also addressed, some of the recent slowness in DataCap allocation.
Repo: https://github.com/filecoin-project/notary-governance/issues/93
A
Hopefully,
if
we're
efficient,
that
we'll
still
give
us
some
time
at
the
end
for
open
questions
and
discussions,
and
then
hopefully,
there's
also
space
to
talk
about
like
action
items
on
how
we
can
improve
this
process
overall,
because
this
is
a
community
governance
project.
I
think
figuring
out
how
we
can
increase
trust
and
transparency
is
super
crucial.
A
So
the
aim
of
all
coin
is
to
be
a
protocol
to
enable
reliable
and
useful
decentralized
storage
and
falcoin
plus
aims
to
enable
this
by
adding
a
social
layer
of
trust
on
top
of
the
balcony
network,
to
plug
into
the
crypto
economic
model
of
falcoin
to
basically
incentivize
clients
to
participate
in
the
network.
And
if
you
take
a
look,
I've
linked
to
the
original
introduction
that
one
juan
gave
about
10
months
ago
in
may
of
2020
at
the
15
minute
mark
explaining
like
the
rationale
behind
falcon
plus
but
yeah.
A
It's
a
community
driven
process.
The
aim
is
to
have
a
a
set
of
people
to
want
to
have
it
be
governed
by
the
community
to
to
have
a
set
of
semi-trusted
fiduciaries
that
are
helping,
allocate
trust
on
the
network
and
three
for
that
trust,
to
be
used
to
help
incentivize
and
accelerate
the
adoption
of
all
coin
and
the
usage
of
the
network
and
the
way
that
that's
supposed
to
happen
is
because
our
clients
are
empowered.
A
Ideally,
that
can
be
used
to
heavily
incentivize
miners
to
work
with
clients
to
take
their
deals
and
to
increase
the
services
that
are
enabled
on
or
on
filecoin
and
so
inside.
The
original
fip.
If
you
look
under
the
incentive
section,
you
can
sort
of
I've
copied
and
pasted
a
paragraph,
but
that
was
the
original
intention
of
what
is
the
point
of
this
process.
A
And
so
I
think,
a
few
things
to
call
out
as
explicit
non-goals
and
things
that
we
can
then
say
like.
Is
this
process
working
or
not?
It
is
explicitly
a
non-goal
for
fog
coin,
plus
to
enable
anyone
to
just
print
money.
I
think
that
was
a
meme
that
we
saw
floating
around
and
especially
for
notaries,
who
are
elected
through
a
community
driven
process,
they're
supposed
to
act
as
fiduciaries
of
a
network,
and
if
they
act
improperly,
they
should
be
punished.
A
Those
are
things
that
are
encoded
in
this
protocol
as
well,
and
so
I
think
it's
explicitly
an
on
goal
and
we
should
be
very
clear
that
the
goal
is
not
to
enable
anyone
specifically
to
print
money.
The
second
thing
that
is
a
non-goal
is
that
it
should
not
be
the
case
that
this
is
implicitly
or
explicitly
saying,
like
auckland
plus,
is
supposed
to
bias
towards
one
size
of
minor
over
another.
A
There
is
like
a
practical
implication
that
small
minors
tend
to
benefit
from
popcorn
plus,
given
how
the
allocation
of
power
works,
but
it's
not
explicitly
designed
to
say
like
this
is
supposed
to
prefer
one
over
another.
I
think
it's
worth
pausing
here
and
just
calling
out.
One
of
the
big
topics
of
discussion
in
the
slack
channel
was:
do
we
need
this
process
at
all?
I
think
that's
a
super,
valuable
discussion.
A
A
This
was
going
through
the
slack
channel,
but
I
think
these
were
the
top
four
big
questions,
and
so
I
was
hoping
maybe
we
could
spend.
Maybe
we
could
have
one
person
summarize
for
each
question
and
then
we
could
talk
about
or
like
debate,
basically
how
we
can
come
to
some
sort
of
consensus
about
what's
reasonable
for
each
of
these
different
items.
B
A
B
I
can
totally
talk
about
the
first
one
yeah,
and
then
we
can
have
other
stuff
in
for
the
others.
So
I
guess
stemming
off
of
what
you
just
talked
about
right,
like
what
are
the
motivations
for
icon
plus.
Why
is
it
important?
How
is
it
structured
at
the
end
of
the
day,
like
you
mentioned
this
on
the
previous
slide,
and
we
use
this
phrasing?
A
lot
which
is
notaries
are
meant
to
be
fiduciaries
of
the
network.
B
B
I
there
should
be
no
case
in
which
you're
selling
your
data
cap
to
clients
like
we,
you
were
chosen
to
do
the
due
diligence.
Your
interest
should
be
aligned
with
those
of
the
network.
If
you
feel
like
you,
don't
want
to
do
that,
then
that's
a
different
conversation
and
maybe
that's
something
to
keep
in
mind
for
those
of
you
that
are
looking
to
become
notaries
in
the
future.
B
But
this
is
absolutely
not
in
line
with.
I
think
the
principles
of
the
program
and
generally
there
should
be
a
non-controversial
statement.
If
it
is
a
controversial
statement,
this
first
bullet,
then
I
think
I
would.
I
would
request
you
if
you're
in
the
audience
right
now
you
raise
your
hand
or
unmute
yourself
and
let's
chat
about
it,
but
what.
A
I
think
is
yeah,
maybe
two
things
I
do
like
so
one.
First
I'd
be
curious.
If
anyone
actually
has
a
counterpoint
to
that,
I
do
think
we
should
talk
for
people
who
are
newer.
There
is
like
a
process
that
is
inside
of
this
and
I
think
like
so.
There
is
a
process
to
file
disputes.
I
think
someone
had
asked
so
if
someone
does
something
bad,
what
are
the
options
right
now?
There
is
a
dispute
and
like
audit
mechanism,
where
basically
anyone
can
file.
A
I
think,
if
you
go
to
the
notary
governance
repo
on,
I
can
put
a
link
in
the
slack
channel.
There
is
a
process
for
filing
an
issue.
I
think
specifically
for
the
complaints
against
notaries.
If
this
is
a
thing
that
someone
does
observe-
and
I
think
this
is
where
anyone
can
report
and
like
whistleblow
on
this-
we
have
a
process
for
removing
data
cap
from
notaries
like
root
key
holders.
A
Basically
like
root
key
holders
can
just
reset
the
data
cap
of
a
notary,
so
it
is
possible
to
remove
the
data
cap.
If
this
is
a
thing
that
is
happening,
but
maybe
prior
does
someone
have
an
argument
for
why
they
think
this?
I
I
think,
as
far
as
I
understand
everyone's
in
agreement
on
this,
but
is
anyone
arguing
the
counterpoint
that
notary
should
be
able
to
sell
data
cap.
B
C
Yeah,
I
think
this
is
largely
like
a
false
claim
by
people
who
me.
Maybe
we
must
misunderstand
how
things
works
like
there's,
no
proof
of
anything
remotely
closely
an
evidence
of
like
notary
selling
data
cap,
and
I
also
based
on
how
the
process
where
I
also
think
there
is
no
incentive
for
notaries
to
do
so.
C
Yeah,
because
in
the
selection
process,
one
big
part
of
that
is
like
because
the
program
is
pretty
new,
so
like
the
reason
why
we
care
in
the
rubric
there
is
this
like
token
exposure?
Is
that
when
there's
a
large
enough
exposure
or
people
who
have
been
involved
in
ecosystems
for
a
long
time
like
the
dominant
incentive,
is
to
actually
make
falcoid
more
valuable
instead
of
like
cheating
on
this
kind
of
small,
like
tiny
minigames.
C
A
I
do
you
think
it's
a
separate
note.
I
think
I've
raised
this
before.
I
do
think
there
is
a
reasonable
argument
also
for
how
the
way
the
rubric
works.
Is
it
successively
after
several
iterations
of
proper
execution
like
it
will
allocate
or
enable
a
notary
to
get
more
data
cap
after
they
like
reapply
and
get
selected
multiple
times.
A
C
Let
me
respond
to
that
like
so.
I
think
the
max
falcon
plus
can
do
that.
But
it's
not
like
an
expl,
I
mean
in
principle.
You
want
to
promote
decentralization,
but
like
we
also
shouldn't
feel
like
because
at
the
end
of
the
day,
it's
about
delivering
that
making
falcon
more
useful
and
then
delivering
the
product
and
services
that
will
attract
more
clients
and
in
practice,
like,
I
think,
there's
a
very
there's
like
a
very
clear
path.
C
D
B
Yeah,
I
think
there
have
been
a
couple
of
different
there's
been
a
couple
of
different
projects
that
I've
mentioned
doing
something
similar
that
have
come
up
in
the
last
couple
of
weeks.
I
think
the
third
big
bullet
in
this
page,
which
is
the
what
is
inbounds
for
clients
like
that's,
probably
where
we
should
have
that
conversation
because
that's
covered
in
issue
66
as
well.
I
have,
I
certainly
have
some
opinions
about
it.
I
think
other
people
have
other
opinions
about
it
too.
B
D
B
Well,
theoretically,
it
should
be.
We
should
be
getting
real,
solid
clients,
because
notaries
are
doing
a
lot
of
due
diligence
to
ensure
that
the
people
getting
the
data
cap
in
the
first
place
are
legitimate
use
cases
right.
So
I
think
the
value
proposition,
at
least
for
me,
from
what
you're
describing
is
effectively
in
the
case
that,
like
data
cap,
is
about
to
go,
get
wasted
because
it's
not
being
efficiently
used
by
that
client
or
the
client
over
over
requested
data
cap,
for
example.
This
gives
an
opportunity.
D
B
A
Well,
so
maybe
if
we
can
go
slightly
in
order,
so
one
of
the
things
that
did
come
up
was
people
had
asked
about
expectations
of
notaries,
and
I
know
I
think
feyen
was
one
of
the
ones
who
had
raised
a
question
about
like
having.
I
don't
know
if
he
ends
on
the
call,
having
made
some
like
issues
that
ended
up
getting
orphaned
and
I
think
for
a
number
of
folks.
A
They
had
mentioned
that
they
had
had
a
hard
time
getting
responses
from
notaries,
and
I
wonder
maybe
this
is
maybe
this
is
bridging
a
little
bit
into
the
next
section
as
well.
But
I
wonder
if
there's
like,
maybe
some
slas
or
something
that
we
can
like
define
here
for
what
are
for
people
who
file
issues?
What
are
the
sort
of
expectations?
A
A
A
E
Yeah,
I
think
my
my
point
was
that
I
think
I'm
a
little
bit
more
critical
towards
you
know
having
specific
slas
just
because
it
will
be
super
difficult
to
actually
hold
people
accountable.
Notary
is
accountable,
so
I
think
it
should
be
sort
of
like
a
more
open
trust
based
system.
Where,
folks,
you
know,
I
think,
also
over
time
as
the
program
evolves.
There
could
be
sort
of
like
a
reputational
layer.
E
On
top
of
that,
that
could
be
some
kind
of
like
scoring
and
some
kind
of
like
more
fluid
between
kind
of
notary.
You
know
being
avoided.
New
data
covers
kind
of
like
being
kicked
out
of
like
the
notary
program,
but
I
think
you
know
imposing
very
strict
hard
rules
without
kind
of
like
having
a
clear
enforcement
layer
or
mechanism
seems
like
adding
more
complexity.
B
A
I
do
think
maybe
then
we
should
have
a
process,
though
for
like
how
do
we
surface
orphaned
issues
like
so?
In
the
event,
someone
doesn't
respond,
what
should
clients
be
doing
like
I
mean
I
have
an
opinion
here.
I'm
curious,
if,
like
from
a
notary,
would
you
prefer
having
the
client
like
reassign
it
to
someone
else
or
like
would,
should
they
pin
you
on
slack
like
what's
a
reasonable,
reasonable
path.
B
F
F
F
B
F
F
I'm
always
asking
do
you
have
already
open
or
have
any
data
cap
from
another
notary
if
they
say
yes,
usually,
I
said
that
you
should
go
through
this
one,
but
actually,
if
they
explain
that
is
out
of
data
cap
or
the
auto
allocation,
sorry
or
is
is
not
responding.
I
mean
I
can
end
up
the
this
or
I
can
ping
directly
feed
it
to
see.
What's
going
on,
what's
happening.
F
G
A
A
If
anyone
has
gotten
data
cap
right
now
as
a
client,
you
can't
get
more
data
cap
to
that
specific
address
which
is
kind
of
not
great
ux
and
especially,
if
you're,
a
web
3
developer.
That
can
end
up
leading
some
bad
architecture
decisions,
but
yeah.
One
of
the
conditions
is
basically
like.
If
a
client
has
applied
to
multiple
notaries,
what
might
happen
they
may
get
like
an
over
allocation
of
data
cap,
but
it
doesn't
actually,
I
think,
resolve
this
specific
question.
A
A
A
I
think,
for
if
notaries
deny
the
clients,
I
would
say
it's
worth
just
like
putting
that
as
a
comment
in
the
issue
and
then
just
like
closing
the
ticket.
I
think
one
thing
to
keep
in
mind
is
as
a
notary,
especially
like
all
notaries,
have
their
own
out
like
self-defined
allocation
plans,
but
it's
totally
reasonable
to
just
give
a
smaller
amount
of
data
cap
than
what
was
requested.
A
A
I
think
so
so
in
the
current
construction,
notaries
are
supposed
to
have
their
own
allocation
plans
and
their
own
levels
of
due
diligence.
So
everyone
submitted
their
own
application
with
the
questions
and
the
frameworks
that
they
would
use,
and
so
I
think
it's
reasonable
that
some
as
an
example
there's
an
automatic
notary,
so
they
will
just
head
out
a
small
amount
of
gigabyte
data
cap
to
everyone
has
a
github
address,
and
so
I
think
yeah
I
don't
know
if
other
people
have
thoughts,
but
I
think,
as.
B
A
C
C
C
There
aren't
that
many
clients
right
or
it
could
be
like
the
technical
difficulties
like
you,
have
to
jump
through
different
hoops
that
that
slows
down
the
allocation
or
our
notary
is
being
like
too
conscious,
given
all
the
pressure
that,
like
even
all
the
pressure
the
community
is
mounting
and
and
or
a
client
just
having
a
difficult
time.
I
I
talk
to
a
few
clients
right,
they're,
navigating
to
through
the
data
cap
application
process.
So
maybe
we
need
to
have
better
documentation
like
make
the
website
more
visible.
C
We
should
publish
as
a
website,
maybe
like
twice
a
day
and
and
also
do
we
need
like
more
interaction
time.
I
also
feel
like
we
can
use
like
the
falcon
plus
channel
more
as
a
community,
so
I
feel
like
there
are
some
level
questions
here
of
like
diagnosis
before
we
talk
about,
like
let's
say,
adding
more
notaries
and
so
on.
A
A
You
can
actually
see
the
data
cap
that's
being
or
that
currently
resides
with
any
of
the
notaries
just
by
running
this,
so
we
actually
have
if
you
these
are
all
in
bytes,
but
I
think
for
most
of
the
notaries
they
have
most
of
their
data
cap
still
remaining,
and
so
maybe
it'd
be
good
to
hear
from
some
of
the
notaries.
If
maybe
we
could
get
some
feedback
on?
What's
been
your
experience
like
I,
I
think
one
question
might
be
like
what
are
the
blockers
and
then
the
other
might
be.
F
Okay,
so
I
received
in
total,
I
think,
13
requests,
just
four
of
them
were
like
something
that
was
like
properly.
I
mean
that
are
real
requests.
Actually
I
think
I
got
four
of
them,
and
just
so
I
asked
additional
question
and
at
the
end
I
just
get
two
people
answering
me,
so
I'm
just
I
mean
I.
I
have
a
lot.
I
mean
10
times.
10
terabyte
is
not
a
lot,
but
actually
it's
more
that
what
I
need
right
now
to
to
allocate
what
the
clients
are
requesting,
because
I
just
have
a
few
clients.
F
B
F
What
we
capture
with
the
template
through
the
fireplace
application,
is
really
high
level
questions,
but
when
you
start
to
engage
them
by
asking
questions
like
you
have
to
confirm
what
type
of
data
you've
got,
how
you
can
you
please
provide
all
the
cids
in
the
chat
and
so
on
in
the
in
the
issue.
You
know
in
the
comments,
so
we
can
dig
and
we
can
audit
and
so
on
that
just
disappear.
I
B
Well,
it's
possible
that
there's
questions
open
in
them
so
not
necessarily
either
case
but
yeah.
I
agree
with
you
that
I
think
we've
heard
this
a
lot
of
times
that
there's
not
a
lot
of
data
cap
circulating
and
so
it's
true
that
something
is
certainly
not
moving,
as
as
we
had
hoped
or
expected,
which
I
think
it's
important
to
figure
out.
B
A
J
Yeah
hi,
so
this
is
johar
from
van
bushy
capital,
so
we
are
not
tourists
and
we
actually
haven't
assigned
any.
I
mean
dead
caps.
Yes,
so
they're
like
two
one
main
reason
is
that
so
we
are
based
in
china
and
we
are
still
having
like
chinese.
You
know
luna
luna,
happy
new
year
holiday
right
now,
so
we
haven't
done
anything
yet
and
secondly,
so
we
so
I
mean
the
ficom
plus
project
is
just
launched
and
we
haven't.
J
So
we
are
still
formulating
our
like
internal
rules
on
like
allocating
data
caps
and
everything
else,
and
how
we
should
publish
everything,
and
you
know
like
we
need
to
like
process
some
protein
thing
first.
So
I
think
I
think,
in
the
end
of
this
month,
after
the
chinese
new
year
after
everyone
back
to
work,
we're
gonna
process
everything
very
quickly
and
those
clients
will
will
get
their
response
very
quickly.
B
A
E
B
B
B
K
Well,
I'm
actually
interested
in
maybe
potentially
asking
as
a
client,
even
though
I'm
a
minor
but
to
to
apply
as
a
client
and
then
I'd
like
to
know.
If
you
know
asking
for
data
cap
would
be
a
difficult
process.
I
mean
I
I
tried
at
one
point
I
just
queried
it
see
if
I
could
actually
apply,
but
I
didn't
go
very
far
with
it
and
you
know,
because
I
can
see
that
some
people,
some
notaries,
may
think
that's
a
a
conflict
of
interest.
K
F
Yeah,
so
just
to
answer
to
nelson,
so
I
am,
I
allocated
one
data
cap
for
now
and
I'm
going
to
allocate
another
one
in
the
next
two
days,
because
I
went
through
all
the
questions
I
have
got
with
this
client
I
think,
to
for
a
few
gigs
to
one
terabyte.
Let's
say
we
are
not.
I
don't
think
it's
very
complex
because
we
are
not
digging
out
to
to.
I
mean
we
are
not
going
that
far.
K
And,
and
in
terms
of
the
guidelines,
if
you
know
I
got,
I
got
a
little
confused
because
when
sling,
when
the
slingshot
race
was
going,
there
was
a
lot
of
the
talk
amongst
the
developer
of
the
people
participating
saying
that
you
have
to
actually
split
the
data
up.
You
know
to
different
miners.
Would
that
be
the
same
case
for
applying
as
a
client
for
data
cap
just
without
regard
to
this
slingshot.
B
And
this
is
interesting,
so
it's
different
when
you
talk
about
your
own
versus
not
your
own,
and
this
is
a
topic
that
I
think
we
we
talked
a
little
bit
about
a
lot
in
the
last
call
yeah,
the
consensus
was
trending
in
a
direction
and
correct
me
focus
I'm
wrong,
but
the
consensus
is
generally
in
the
direction
that
we
need
to
come
up
with
some
sort
of
reasonable
limit.
For
what
that
number
looks
like
like
within
some
reasonable
bounds
like
it
is,
it
is
probable
that
people
will
want
to
make
deals
with
themselves.
B
I
K
If
it's
completely
free
free
for
us
to
do
what
we
want
with
it,
you
know
I'm
fairly
certain
that
a
lot
of
clients
will
who
are
actually
minors
as
well,
would
just
allocate
to
their
own
mining
either
their
own
mining
rigs,
or
maybe
they
have
other.
You
know,
split
off,
you
know
larger
larger
miners
have
many
different
rigs
and
they
can
just
allocate
yeah.
A
Yeah,
I
think
that
one
of
the
things
that
came
out
of
the
last
call
regarding
that
was
especially
for
the
notaries
like
part
of
it
is
if
they
are
following,
and
I
think
for
almost
everyone
who
had
their
allocation
plan
there's
like
some
successive
thing
of
how
they
step
up
the
allocations
but
sort
of
the
same
way.
The
original
rubric
allocates
small
amounts
of
data
cap
to
notaries
and
then
increments
upon
good,
faithful
execution.
A
I
think
the
same
should
be
most
people
already
like
self-define,
that
inside
of
their
own
allocation
plans,
and
so
hopefully,
one
of
the
things
that
they're
looking
for
and
a
thing
that
like,
if
they
put
it
in
their
allocation
plan
and
then
they
don't
follow
through
that
they
could
get
audited
slash
a
dispute
filed
against
them,
for
is
if
they
aren't
actually
doing
the
due
diligence
to
see
like.
So
where
do
these
deals
end
up?
K
But
is
there
like
a
general
rule
that
most
notaries
are
following
like
if
you
try
to
self-deal
past
30
percent,
then
you're
going
to
get
rejected
on
your
application?
I
mean
I
I
I
have,
as
I
said,
if
we
leave
it
completely
open,
most
people
will
probably
truthfully
just
say,
I'm
going
to
allocate
most
of
it
to
myself.
K
G
A
I
think
there's
t
cases
right,
there's
the
case
where
someone
explicitly
says
that
I
am
a
minor
I
am
applying
for
data
cap,
I'm
planning
on
storing
some
with
myself
and
then,
like,
I
think,
having
an
agreed-upon
like
threshold.
I
think
this
is
actually
going
to
bridge
into
the
next
question,
which
is
what
is
in
bounds
for
clients.
I
think
that's
like
one
path.
The
other
is
like
you're
a
sneaky
subvertive
person
and
you
are
a
minor,
but
you
choose
not
to
disclose
it.
A
You
pretend
to
be
a
client
and
then
you
plan
on
storing
it,
and
so
I
think
the
the
former
question
is
one
that
I
think
is
about
standards
for
like
what
is
inbounds
for
clients.
I
think
this
naturally
falls
into
that
question.
I
think
the
latter
one
maybe
we'll
actually
get
to
in
the
fourth
one,
which
is
like
the
tooling
that's
being
built
and
like
how
do
we
analyze
on
chain
to
see
like
100
people
being
super
sneaky,
which
yeah.
C
If
it's
everything
is
encrypted,
then
like
okay,
then
there's
there's
like
more
scrutiny
and
I
think,
like
sonic
mentioned,
that
you
need
to
produce,
provide
like
a
dual
id
as
well
and
then
the
second
piece
is
the
allocation
plan
for
the
client
right,
like
if,
let's
say
I'm
planning
to
allocate
like,
I
think,
deep
mentioned
like
20
to
myself.
Let's
say
that
is
something
that
the
community
deem
as
reasonable
and
then
the
rest.
Let's
say
it's
public.
Does
that
wikipedia?
I'm
I
want
to
like
look.
C
My
allocation
plan
is
for
like
small,
for,
like
small
minors
in
the
region,
that's
something
that
we
can
start
experimenting
with
and
then
about
and
see
how
that
goes.
But,
of
course
like
this
would
be
up
to
the
notary.
Different
notaries
may
have
like
different
policy
and
and
and
guidelines
in
there
in
the
allocation
plan,
because
the
other
ones
doing
the
due
diligence
at
the
end.
K
Yeah,
I
I
think
it's
interesting
the
zx
that
you're
bringing
up
the,
for
instance
the
public
information
like
like
a
wikipedia.
I
think
that's
something
that
fits
into
the
original
idea
of
filecoin
and
it
should
be.
You
know
we
should
use
this
opportunity
with
falcoin
plus
to
try
to
to
advance
that
you
know
it's.
It
is
a
large
larger
miners
also
have
their.
K
You
know
the
their
own
agendas,
but
for
for
smaller
miners,
we
a
lot
of
us,
are
just
waiting
for
you
know
real
clients
to
to
put
put
data
on
our
systems,
and
you
know
we
don't
want
to.
We
don't
want
to
lose
out
just
because
we're
you
know
we're
not
able
to
create
our
own
data
sets
or
find
our
own
data
sets.
H
K
B
F
A
F
A
A
C
Just
one
last
bit,
I
think,
like
the
feature
that
client
requested
might
matter
too
right,
like
if
it's
public
data
and
then
like
the
client,
will
request
minor
to
produce
to
enable
fast
retrieval,
like
I
think
of
it.
As
like
the
early
phase
of
the
program,
we
are
basically
showcasing,
like
all
the
other
amazing
data
that
we
can
store
on
file
coin
and
and
how
people
can
use
file
coin.
That's
why
we
were
proposing
a
file
coin
plus
day
before
so.
K
K
K
B
That
is
one
of
the
things
we
talked
about,
so
this
kind
of
goes
into
the
conversation
on
like
how
what
zx
is
saying
is
like
what
is
the
strategy
for
like
bigger
clients
in
general
and
depending
on
their
needs
like
both?
How
do
we
get
the
data
across
then?
How
do
we
get
the
the
data
back?
I
think
his
initial
take
was
it
kind
of
depends.
He's
got
two
types
of
data
that
he's
looking
to
store
so
depending
on
which
one
he
chooses
to
go
with.
In
the
short
run.
B
It
will
change
his
demand
and
need
for
faster,
retrieval
or
not,
because
he's
got
one
data
set,
that's
more
archival,
and
for
that
one
he
doesn't
really
need
it
and
then
he's
got
another
data
which
is
like
the
actual,
like
uncompressed
large
video
files,
and
if
he
does
go
down
that
path,
then
he
will
probably
want
faster
table,
but
those
are
in
slices
of
32
gigabytes.
That
would
be
a
piece.
A
A
Maybe
it's
worth
moving
to
this
third
one
which
I
think
was
maybe
the
spiciest
of
the
things
in
the
slack
channel,
which
is
what
is
inbounds
for
clients,
and
so
I
think
this
is
where
issue
66
came
up,
which
charles
had
originally
kicked
off.
Let
me
try
to
summarize,
though
I
will
also
tap
folks
to
maybe
like
rephrase.
If
I
get
it
wrong,
I
don't
want
to
misrepresent
anyone's
arguments
here.
Basically,
the
question
is
for
clients
who
receive
data
cap.
What
are
reasonable
rules
for
operation?
A
A
Another
argument
is
that
clients
should
be
able
to
use
that
power
to
increase
services,
and
so
payment
might
exist
in
quotes,
but
payment
might
take
the
form
of
services.
So
fast
retrieval
or
free
retrieval,
if
that
were
possible
on
the
protocol,
things
like
that
and
then
the
third
argument
is
that
it's
a
totally
free
market
and
so
yeah
well,
maybe
not
totally
there.
A
It
might
be
four
it's
a
market
where
there's
supply
and
demand
when
clients
are
in
power
where
there
is
like
fewer
clients
relative
to
the
total
storage,
clients
should
be
able
to
wield
that
power
appropriately
and
then
there's
like
potentially
like
how
does
one
define
what
appropriate
is
in
that
context?
I
know
that
was
a
very
superficial
definition
of
those
like
high-level
versions.
Does
anyone
want
to
restate
any
of
those
three,
I
think?
A
A
B
I
was
just
gonna
say
this
is
also
somewhat
tangentially
related.
Not
hundreds
is
directly
related
to
what
dr
antion
was
referencing
as
well.
With
regards
to.
Can
data
cap
become
like
a
tradable
resource
between
clients,
for
example,
because
it's
kind
of
it's
kind
of
the
same
thing
it's
just
like
in
one
case,
are
you?
Are
you
selling
it
to
a
miner
to
incentivize
a
deal
another
case?
Are
you
selling
it
to
another
client,
and
what
does
that
actually
look
like?
C
C
I
Oh,
I
just
think
it's
a
bit
of
a
slippery
slope.
If
you're,
you
know
what's
a
service
and
what
is
money?
What's
I
think
it's,
it's
all
a
little
bit
naive
to
think
that
that
you
can
trade
money
like
that
or
services
without
influencing
notaries
and
clients
and
and
getting
a
little
bit
sleazy
well,
notaries.
C
C
A
Was
gonna
say
I
think
it's
worth,
especially
on
the
on
joe's
point
about
like
how
do
we
ensure
like
what
is
required
to
end
up
getting
like
trust
in
this
process?
I
think
that
might
be
the
bullet
point
for
where,
like
what
do
we
need
to
know
in
order
to
like
trust
or
not
trust
the
system,
but
I
see
reba
has
a
hand.
M
I
just
wanted
to
say
something
on
the
technological
front
of
fast
retrievals
in
general.
Given
the
current,
you
know,
state
of
the
art
of
what
sdr
can
do
for
unsearing
from
a
technical
perspective,
actually
very
much
recommend
that
you
do
everything
with
faster
three.
Well,
yes,
it
will
take
you
twice
the
space,
for
you
know
for
four
seconds
that
do
contain
deals,
but
the
amount
of
cpu
that
unsealing
burns
is
way
more
than
offset
by.
M
You
know
you
just
keeping
data
in
the
unsealed
state
at
all
times
and
in
fact,
the
lotus
that
is
already
in
in
the
the
latest
priorities,
and
it
will
definitely
be
1.5
as
well.
There
is
an
actual
configuration
option
for
miners
to
just
set
everything
to
be
fast
and
trivial,
no
matter
what
the
client
requested.
G
G
A
We
moved
up
the
stack
a
bit
on
the
original
thing,
so
I
think
zx
you
were
making
an
argument
about
like
services.
I
think
joe
flags
that
there's
naivety
if
we
conflate
like
services
and
money
are
somewhat
interchangeable
and
then
also
there
might
be
naivety
on
the
notary
side
expecting
that
notaries
will
not
violate
the
data
cap
thing
I
think,
maybe
I
don't
know
do
we
want
to
put
a
pen
in
that
argument
and
then
come
back
to
the
trust
and
transparency.
A
C
C
But
then
there's
another
argument
there,
which
is
that
may
create
this
like
so-called
community-endorsed
way
to
acquire
data
cap
and
that
that's
something
that
we
should
be
aware
of,
even
though
there's
nothing
stopping
kind
of
an
upper
band
kind
of
agreement.
But
we
may
not
want
to
endorse
that
in
a
sense
that
people
cannot
publicly
advertise
for
like
selling
offline
data
cap
but
like
there's,
any
kind
of
like
like
an
entire
client
can
do
that.
But
let's
cannot
do
that,
but
unless
the
miners
want
to
offer
it
that
might
be
okay.
K
I
have
a
I
I
actually
I'm
more
concerned
about.
One
of
you
know
the
top
miners
deciding
that
they
want
to
attract
all
the
the
data
cap
and
then
just
you
know
basically
say
that
they'll
pay
a
certain
amount
for
any
data
cap
and
all
clients
you
know,
will
well.
First
of
all,
they
already
know
that
these
larger
players
are,
they
have.
You
know,
data
centers,
they're,
24
7..
You
know
they're
going
to
gravitate
towards
that.
K
I
mean
because
it
makes
sense,
it
makes
sense
if
it's,
if
it's
free
and
actually
they
can
the
clients
can
actually
make
money
from
it.
Then
why
not
go
to
the
to
the
providers,
the
miners
that
are
doing
that
and
then
the
smaller
miners
we
would
have
to
just
basically
lower
our
expectations
or
to
to
you
know
the
beggar
thy
neighbor
dilemma
which
which
at
the
end,
we
you
know
as
small
miners
we're
going
to
lose
because
we
don't
have
the
resources.
C
I
I
will
push
back
on
that
in
a
sense
that
we
can
have
a
lot.
I
mean,
as
I
said,
I
think
we
might
be.
Our
perception
might
be
shaped
by
what
we
observe
today
in
the
sense
that
data
cap
allocation
pipeline
could
be
a
bit
slow,
but,
like
sure,
let's
say
in
the
world
where,
like
large
miners,
are
offering
like
a
big
chunk
of
their
earning
to
attract
this
client.
First
of
all,
their
profitability
actually
goes
down
right
and
if
these
clients
are
really
useful
and
actually
there
are
beneficial
to
the
network.
C
K
Well,
I
mean,
is
it?
Is
it?
Is
it
possible
at
after
let's
say
we,
we
try,
we
try
giving
basically
a
free
market
a
chance
and
see
what
the
larger
miners
do
and
if
we
find
out
that
they
are
deciding
to
do
that,
which
you
know,
which
is
completely
understandable,
because
we
didn't
restrict
it
as
a
community.
H
J
K
H
H
C
Well,
it's
very
clear:
there's
a
crypto
scene-
and
I
think
like
but
crypto,
doesn't
mean
it's
always
zero
sum.
I
think
we
are
here
because
we
want
to
make
it
a
win-win
and
then
like
we
are
we're
discussing
like
different
kinds
of
ways
to
like
to
make
this
work.
That's
why
I
was
thinking.
That's
why
I
mean
we
don't
have
to
that's
what
I
was
thinking
like
proposing,
like
we
forbid
like
an
advertise
on
advertising
level,
but
there's
no
there's
no
like
real
way
to
really
stop
stop
that
right.
I
I
don't
understand
that
argument,
so
you
can't
advertise
you'd
rather
take
it
into
the
shadows
and
just
back
back
room
deals.
I
mean
that
doesn't
make
any
sense
to
me
either
make
it
public
completely,
so
you
can
see
which
miners
have
which
data
from
which
notaries
and
which
clients
completely
open
or
get
rid
of
the
10
to
1
disparity
and
that
way
you
do
not
need
to
police
this,
because
you're
going
to
lose
you're
you're
not
going
to
be
able
to
to
keep
well
miners.
C
Well,
it's
not
me
going
to
lose,
or
it's
not
like
the
protocol
is
going
to
lose
this
community
going
to
lose.
We
are
in
this
together,
where,
like
like
it's
infeasible
for
like
let's
say
one
single
party
on
the
network
to
all:
do
the
other,
policing
or
analytics
and
analytics
will
likely
be
the
key
for
successful
governance.
I
I
A
I
A
One
point
here
I
I
think
like
to
joe's
point.
I
don't
know
if
it's
like,
even
with
analytics
and
stuff
there's
like
there's
some
point
where,
like
someone
can
fake
almost
perfect
like
it
could
also
just
be
the
case
that
you
give
like.
Let's
say
you
were
in
trying
to
fake
this
transaction.
Jay
is
a
minor
I'm
a
client
like
I
could
just
have
an
address
that
hasn't
been
sent
on
chain.
A
A
I
do
think,
like
one
thing
that
is
happening
here,
that
is
a
decision
point
is
if
someone
is
trying
to
pay
for
data
cap,
if
they
do
it
explicitly
through
advertising
and
it's
like
price
gouging
e,
and
we
decided
as
a
community
that
this
is
something
that
we
like
don't
want
to
promote,
and
it's
something
that,
like
the
notaries,
can
then
just
shut
off
allocation
to
that
client.
Then
the
client
loses
out
on
like
a
recurring
basis,
because
they
won't
be
able
to
support
what
if
the
vetting
has
been
done
correctly.
A
It's
supposed
to
be
like
a
legitimate
use
case
and
so
like
for
one
allocation.
They
may
get
a
kickback
with
whatever
minor
but
like
if
they're
legitimately,
trying
to
store
some
stuff.
That
may
not
actually
be
the
like
rational
choice.
I
think
the
other
thing
is
like
the
minor
that
took
that
deal
and
like
bribed.
The
client
like
it
doesn't
actually
like
it
doesn't
improve
their
profitability
in
the
long
term.
A
So,
if
like
that,
sort
of
action
would
end
up
sorry,
if
that
sort
of
action
is
gonna,
result
in
like
lower
profitability
and
potentially
like
non-recurring
clients,
would
that
actually
be
the
best
rational
choice
either?
I
guess
so
sorry
that
was
a
incoherent
way
of
saying,
although
it
may
not
be
something
that
you
can
explicitly
ban,
if
you
set
up
the
incentives
properly,
you
could
also
through
process,
reduce
the
likelihood
of
like
bad
client
actions
in
quotes.
K
But
you
know
if
there's
another
mechanism
and-
and
I
don't
think
we
can
fault
anybody
in
terms
of
the
large
miners
or
you
know
other
any
any
miners
in
this
in
in
this
network
because
we're
this
is
this
is
a
market
and
whoever
has
an
advantage
is
going
to
take
advantage
of
that.
So,
but
we
need
to
to
know
that
there
are
certain
things
we
as
a
community.
We
want
to
decentralize
the
network.
K
I
think
we
need
to
really
set
it
out
clearly,
so
people
can
can
play
by
the
rules
and
once
we're
not
going
to
be
playing
by
the
rules,
they
there's
penalties
to
it.
Somehow
I
mean
it
could
be
market
penalties
just
inherent
in
the
market
system
or
it
could
be.
You
know
that
doled
out
by
the
arbitrators
or
people
that
we
give
power
to
do
that.
H
Yeah,
just
just
a
basic
idea
like
having
verified
miners
in
general
miners
that
that
that
could
get
raided
by
other
miners
by
clients
by
paying
clients,
for
example,
and
there's
a
power
in
the
rating
yeah.
I'm
still
writing
writing
some
stuff
down
about
it,
and
I
and
I
need
to
clean
things
up,
but
but
the
general
idea
is
having
verified
miners
yeah.
K
A
There's
a
few
tools
that
I
think
are
trying
to
make
that
happen.
I
think
powergate
has
a
reputation
module
inside
of
it,
though
I
don't
know
if
anyone's
using
it.
I
believe
it's
either
consent
or
consensus
or
digital
mob
is
working
on
a
reputation,
score
tool,
and
then
I
think
it's
a
part
of
bill
swan,
there's
another
one
as
well,
then
I
think
phil
hubb.
I
don't
know
if
how's
on
the
call,
but
I
think
they
were
also
working
on
a
platform
for
that
as
well.
E
E
A
B
Just
before
we
do
that,
I
mean
there
were
a
couple
of
open
questions
like
joji's
points
and
stuff.
Are
we
in
consensus
to
put
a
pin
on
those
points
and
let's
aim
to
address
in
the
next
call
or
shall
we
continue
offline
conversation?
It
would
be
good
to
have
some
next
steps
to
people,
so
you
can
all
also
do
the
reflection
that
you
need
and
come
back
with
some
actionable
sort
of
like
next
steps
and
ways
in
which
we
can
ensure
that
this
is
set
up
for
success.
I
Yeah,
I'm
done
I
mean
if
you're
in
slack,
you
know
what
my
opinion
is.
I
mean
I
think
we
need
to
just
get
rid
of
that
completely
and
if
the
the
foundation
wants
to
find
some
big
clients
to
to
showcase
what
the
network
can
do,
that,
that
makes
sense
to
me,
but
a
secondary
market
of
data
caps
and
corruption.
Just
does
not
work
for
me,
but
thank
you.
B
I
B
If
everybody
sits
around
the
data
cap
and
every
single
deal
on
the
network
is
happening
because
the
data
cap-
that's
not
a
bad
thing,
it
just
means
that
every
deal
is
happening
with
a
use
for
the
world
and
so
you're
right
that
it
might
reduce
some
of
the
economic
incentive
to
go
chase
after
deals
with
data
cap,
but
in
and
of
itself
that
doesn't
render
it
useless.
It
still
means
we're
getting.
I
B
So
I
I
think
this
whole
like
painting
is,
is
tricky
and
that's
still
an
open
question
like
I.
I
don't
I'm
not
necessarily
in
favor
of
having
a
market
for
data
cap.
All
I'm
addressing
is
that
I
don't
think
it's
a
bad
thing
to
have
data
cap
in
every
deal,
because
you
made
the
point
that
oh,
if
we
have
too
much
data
cap
and
it's
no
longer
in
scarcity,
then
it's
a
problem
and
what
I'm
saying
is
that
I
don't
think
that's
a
problem.
I
hear
you
on
the
market
point.
B
B
A
E
Yeah,
there
are
two
points:
I'm
just
gonna
address
them
in
the
reverse,
so
kind
of
like
on
this
on
the
on
the
ladder
kind
of
like
better
cons
and
education.
So
there's
going
to
be
a
landing
page,
that's
going
to
be
hosted
as
a
subpage
on
the
falcon
foundation
website
and
we're
trying
to
get
it
up
and
running
within
the
next
week
or
two,
and
that
site
will
just
kind
of
like
summarize.
The
information
and
properties
of
the
program.
E
We'll
also
have
all
the
key
links
to
the
dashboard
to
the
github,
repo
governance
and
and
whatever
else
we
think
is
important.
If
anyone
has
any
recommendations
or
ideas
of
the
type
of
information
that
we
should
summarize
there
I'm
happy
to
hear
that,
and
so
that
will
hopefully
kind
of
like
just
explain
or
help
make
the
whole
process
a
little
bit
more
transparent.
E
So
the
falcon
duck
grant
program
which
is
administered
through
the
foundation
has
now
been
starting
to
work
with
a
team.
So
we're
just
you,
know
finishing
up
the
spec,
we're
hoping
we're
truly
hoping
to
get
it
built
as
fast
as
possible,
but
will
probably
take
a
few
more
weeks,
and
I
think
one
thing
that
I
can
do
also
just
in
a
second
transparency,
there's
a
there's,
a
public
proposal
for
that.
E
You
know
initial
piece
of
tooling
that
I
can
share
later
on
slack
and
if
you
have
any
recommendations,
also
any
kind
of
like
wishes
for
features
and
so
forth,
then
I'm
happy
to
kind
of
include
and
and
also
try
to
like
get
that
into
like
the
first
release,
but
again
kind
of,
like
all
of
that.
You
know
kind
of
tooling
and
building
that
this
is
the
initial
step,
and
I
we
hope
to
kind
of
really
progress
and
evolve
over
the
over
the
course
of
the
entire
program.
B
B
Cool,
I
think,
jb
we
should
wrap
it
for
today.
We've
got
a
couple
of
interesting
topics
to
open.
I
think
you
know
thank
you
all
for
coming
really
appreciate
open
forum,
open
discussion,
open-mindedness
and
working
towards
building
a
more
constructive
and
effective
framework
for
making
falcon
useful.
B
So
thanks
for
that,
looking
forward
to
continuing
the
conversation
on
many
of
these
fronts
and
thanks
to
the
notaries
that
also
spoke
up
a
little
bit
today
shared
the
side
of
the
the
story
and
their
opinions
and
we'd
love
to
hear
more
of
that
in
the
coming
weeks
too.
So
we
can
continue
to
drive
the
overall
accountability
story
in
this
space.
A
Also,
thanks
to
all
the
europeans
who
are
up
super
late
and
the
folks
in
china
who
are
up
super
early,
I
know
it's
not
like.
We
did
not
get
to
the
question
that
you
had
asked
about
the
show
foundation,
but
I'll
add
that
to
the
list
of
the
threads
that
we
we
chat
about
in
slack,
because
I
think
the
the
super
large,
like
upcoming
data
cap,
things
are
gonna,
be
important
as
new
use
cases
sort
of
on
board.