LBRY Improvement Proposal: Hosting Incentive #418

New issue

Open

opened 2023-01-14 15:51:40 +01:00 by Obikawa · 0 comments

Obikawa commented

2023-01-14 15:51:40 +01:00

(Migrated from github.com)

This is not a problem report, so I decided not to follow the standard form.

I am just a LBRY user, and I have spent a considerable amount of time thinking about how to overcome LBRY's current most dangerous weakness. The weakness is the complete lack of incentive to host more content than consumed. Because I am not a developer, please forgive me for using analogies, rather than implementation examples. I sincerely hope my message is understood with good faith.

I was not able to find any historical records on any discussions about paying for hosting, but I seem to recall that past stances ranged from "It's too early to think about it" to "It's not scalable on the current blockchain". All valid reasons by themselves, but I think it is time to tackle this social vulnerability seriously.

It is a vulnerability, because currently the only way to earn any money on LBRY content is to partner with a hosting company, which takes money from the users. This centralizes power over the content, and filtering or censorship become a real possibility. Also, if the hosting company were ever taken down by a determined adversary, it could mean a massive loss of content and bandwidth on LBRY blockchain.

In order to truly decentralize LBRY, the users have to be incentivized to host as much content as they can. The simplest solution would be to pay out a flat fee in LBC for each blob of content provided. All of the tools necessary to implement this already exist. The only real issue I can see with this approach is that it is not scalable at all on a fixed-size blockchain.

However, just like bitcoin network aims to solve this problem with layer two solutions like Lightning, I believe the same could be achieved on LBRY blockchain. As far as I understand, Lightning involves nodes, which, as long as they are online, transact value "for free". Only when going down, do those nodes settle the transactions on the base blockchain.

Now, imagine each LBRY client is such a node. In order to operate, some LBC is now required to consume any content. However, with this setup, the users will want to host content. Those with good internet connections will be able to earn real income just by hosting.

And with that, the real decentralization can be achieved. A failure of any one provider will not impact the network. The content producers will be able to earn income from hosting of their archives, starting from the first upload. And on top of it all, LBRY could become a service equivalent to Filecoin.

Please do take the hosting incentive a serious consideration. Without it, the network is bound to stay as a niche product, propped up only by the enthusiasts alone, or to become another YouTube sponsored by advertisers and regulated like any other company.

This is not a problem report, so I decided not to follow the standard form. I am just a LBRY user, and I have spent a considerable amount of time thinking about how to overcome LBRY's current most dangerous weakness. The weakness is the complete lack of incentive to host more content than consumed. Because I am not a developer, please forgive me for using analogies, rather than implementation examples. I sincerely hope my message is understood with good faith. I was not able to find any historical records on any discussions about paying for hosting, but I seem to recall that past stances ranged from "It's too early to think about it" to "It's not scalable on the current blockchain". All valid reasons by themselves, but I think it is time to tackle this social vulnerability seriously. It is a vulnerability, because currently the only way to earn any money on LBRY content is to partner with a hosting company, which takes money from the users. This centralizes power over the content, and filtering or censorship become a real possibility. Also, if the hosting company were ever taken down by a determined adversary, it could mean a massive loss of content and bandwidth on LBRY blockchain. In order to truly decentralize LBRY, the users have to be incentivized to host as much content as they can. The simplest solution would be to pay out a flat fee in LBC for each blob of content provided. All of the tools necessary to implement this already exist. The only real issue I can see with this approach is that it is not scalable at all on a fixed-size blockchain. However, just like bitcoin network aims to solve this problem with layer two solutions like Lightning, I believe the same could be achieved on LBRY blockchain. As far as I understand, Lightning involves nodes, which, as long as they are online, transact value "for free". Only when going down, do those nodes settle the transactions on the base blockchain. Now, imagine each LBRY client is such a node. In order to operate, some LBC is now required to consume any content. However, with this setup, the users will want to host content. Those with good internet connections will be able to earn real income just by hosting. And with that, the real decentralization can be achieved. A failure of any one provider will not impact the network. The content producers will be able to earn income from hosting of their archives, starting from the first upload. And on top of it all, LBRY could become a service equivalent to Filecoin. Please do take the hosting incentive a serious consideration. Without it, the network is bound to stay as a niche product, propped up only by the enthusiasts alone, or to become another YouTube sponsored by advertisers and regulated like any other company.

No milestone

No project

No assignees

1 participant

Notifications

Due date

The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: LBRYCommunity/lbrycrd#418

No description provided.