You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: A Thought on RAM Squatting Problem
I gave you an upvote but I really dislike your solution. Punish users for using the system as it was designed? Really poor...
Make it like that: the higher the price of ram, the more money goes to BPs with a clause it's strictly for hardware upgrade, so when the RAM price increase, BPs simply add more RAM and the market gets fluid and stabilizes.
Punishing people for buying resources - really bad idea. And who would be the judge to decide is the ram bought for speculation, or a new dapp developer is just reserving the resources for a future launch? The system can't judge on that and human arbitration will be a failure (will punish some, leaving others unpunished).
Incorrect. The BPs have no increased income from higher RAM prices. These fees go into a system account, and are held there ad infinitum to cover the costs when/if the user sells the RAM. No proceeds from RAM sales ever go to the BPs.
I said: make it like that. I know this isn't the current state. The other option would be to oversubscribe: keep selling ram until the real usage goes above 60-70 percent and then just add ram to the system. Having 64GB available and 1GB really used, the system could sell even 360GB or more. A virtual ram. Like in vms
I agree, we need to let the system work, anyone squatting on ram may get rekt if a sidechain is created, and when the BPs add more RAM because of the squatting, i just want to know if a BP is squatting on RAM.
After Squatters get rekt a few times the market for ram should stabilize
Squatters may purchase the RAM, but mostly they do not use it. Now, maybe 40GB is purchased, but less that 1GB is actually used. The BPs have no technical incentive whatsoever to upgrade. Also, as the BP revenue is unaffected by RAM buy or sale, there is no financial incentive for BPs to upgrade.