Allow storage provider to revert a deal back to CC #247
Replies: 9 comments 1 reply
-
this would mean making deal fulfillment optional. then we can just not do deals at all and put data into CC and utilize off chain payments |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Additional context: this post/proposal is one in an ongoing conversation that storage providers are having regarding personal liability for illicit content stored on Filecoin. Other relevant ideas include discussion post #132 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Currently, the rational guarantees of a deal are also tied to the guarantee of a sector. If a miner were to remove a deal, they might have to lose more than the deal collateral. If we simplify the proposal to the bare minimum, this proposal can be implemented via a new method called If a deal is terminated (or expired), you can use the Concerns:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
i see the storage provider collateral at stake for this (you terminate the deal, you loose the collateral) and therefore increasing if deals can be terminated |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hi @Fatman13, this post has now been open for longer than a month. Do you plan to write a FIP draft on this topic? If not, we can also flag this issue to live in our FIPs Discussion forum (coming very soon). That way, your idea remains, even if there are no plans to imminently implement a FIP. Please let me know. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Thank you for the reminder, @kaitlin-beegle. Will write a draft. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
fip: requires (*optional): <FIP number(s)> SummaryAllow storage providers to revert a deal back to CC. AbstractGiven legal consequences a storage provider can face when storing sensitive data, on protocol level, maybe we should allow storage provider to revert a deal to CC to avoid potential prosecution/scrutiny. Basically the reverse of lightweight CC upgrade (now called snap deal). Change MotivationFrom a discussion thread in SPWG, concerns were raised as there is currently no means for storage providers (SP) to remove undesired data from their own storage systems without invoking "terminate" command, which may cause financial losses to SPs. Specification
Design RationaleTBD Backwards CompatibilityShould current deals be allowed to revert back to CC, or should it only concern new deals made after this potential FIP? Test CasesTBD Security ConsiderationsAgain quoting @nicola's comments...
Incentive ConsiderationsAssume rational storage provider who maximize profits from deals. It should always honour the deal unless there are legal interventions. Market would stop payments once the deal is reverted back to CC. Or for more conservative design, storage provider could be stripped away with all profits they made with the deal thus far, from, for example, locked funds. Product ConsiderationsUsing @ZX's Airbnb analogy, landlord should be able to evict tenant any time they want just like storage provider should be able to revert deal back to CC. Like allowing setting deals to negatives, this also can be seen as a mechanic to grant more flexibility at protocol level. Quote from one of the SPWG members...
ImplementationTBD CopyrightCopyright and related rights waived via CC0. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Great, thanks @Fatman13! Tagging @zixuanzh to help provide feedback on the cryptoeconomic impact of this proposal. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
你好,您发送的邮件已经收到,我们将马上处理。
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Summary
Given legal consequences a storage provider can face when storing sensitive data, on protocol level, maybe we should allow storage provider to revert a deal to CC to avoid potential prosecution/scrutiny. Basically the reverse of lightweight CC upgrade (now called snap deal).
Motivation
https://filecoinproject.slack.com/archives/C023PAQ5SJV/p1629383994084200
Design
TBD
Consideration
Assume rational storage provider who maximize profits from deals. It should always honour the deal unless there are legal interventions. Market would stop payments once the deal is reverted back to CC. Or for more conservative design, storage provider could be stripped away with all profits they made with the deal thus far, from, for example, locked funds.
Using @ZX's Airbnb analogy, landlord should be able to evict tenant any time they want just like storage provider should be able to revert deal back to CC. Like allowing setting deals to negatives, this also can be seen as a mechanic to grant more flexibility at protocol level.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions