I’ve read as deeply as I can into the not-yet-formally-proposed ‘rent’ model, and I wonder if there has been much discussion about alternative methods of alleviating the problem that rent is trying to solve.
I understand that rent is trying to solve the ‘long-term’ storage problem, but perhaps the promise of long-term storage itself is the problem. If the (implicit?) promise of long-term storage were removed, dApp developers would be forced to respond to that context by providing long-term storage themselves. In other words, they would have to write their smart contracts knowing that the data stored there had a lifetime. Instead of providing a rent mechanism, which seems wildly complicated (from a user perspective, not so much a developer perspective), perhaps a simple “old-data-will-be-evicted” policy would suffice.
If this were the case, the size of the chain data would stop growing at a certain point (all the blocks are full – new data is added to the head, old data falls off the tail).
Perhaps it’s a less useful system, but at least it won’t suffer from a problem that I foresee if a rent model prevails. My concern is that, over time, under a rent model, the entire chain will become “pay-to-play” making usage by those with lower resources more and more out of reach. This will create two sets of participants (haves and have-nots), which will kill any chance of building systems that maximize benefit for each individual and all participants at the same time (perato-optimal systems).
Yes – it’s likely I don’t know what I’m talking about, but I haven’t seen anyone else ask, so I thought I would.
Were alternatives to the rent model discussed and rejected? Or was the rent model the only alternative suggested to solve the ‘data is growing too fast’ problem? Are there other ideas to solve the problem?