[HN Gopher] A Primer Through Golem
___________________________________________________________________
A Primer Through Golem
Author : kristianpaul
Score : 93 points
Date : 2021-04-15 16:04 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.golemproject.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.golemproject.net)
| seized wrote:
| Oddly, they don't seem to support or want the providers to be
| running VMs. That moves it out of "idle hardware" into "dedicated
| hardware" territory right there. I can dedicate a VM as I can
| restrict that VMs resource limits, network access, and it's
| separate from my processes. But even if I had bare metal servers
| that weren't running VMware, Solaris, FreeBSD I'm certainly not
| going to let their provider service run on my hardware next to
| whatever else is on there that's mine.
|
| My idle compute resources all run VMWare.
| jacoblambda wrote:
| This is definitely my biggest issue at the moment. I understand
| the intent is to make it easy to port software to support it
| but I dislike the method none-the-less.
|
| I'd much prefer they provide a constrained environment and
| dedicated compilers (or compiler extensions). At least that way
| the code can be sandboxed in such a way that you don't have to
| worry about what it's actually doing.
|
| Honestly with the types of tasks they are targetting, a purely
| functional or algorithmic language requirement would serve them
| well. For example, I would be far more comfortable if they were
| using something like [Halide](https://halide-lang.org/) with
| some static analysis to deny any low level fuckery. At least
| that way the providers could have a reasonable assurance that
| they aren't going to accidentally unleash some malicious code
| onto their system.
| AgentME wrote:
| They support WASM-based workloads that are inherently very
| sandboxed by design (and have other benefits like being
| architecture agnostic).
| [deleted]
| AgentME wrote:
| I think it's because some configurations of Golem use
| virtualization features to sandbox individual workloads, and
| some platforms have limitations around VMs-in-VMs.
| smaddox wrote:
| This appears to have a bit in common with an idea I was toying
| with a month or two ago. I see nothing in this implementation
| that actually encourages decentralization, though. The economics
| of providing compute services certainly won't do it by
| themselves. We already have a networks of computers and ways to
| pay for them, and that has only encouraged centralization into a
| handful of cloud compute providers.
|
| I can certainly see how something like this can reduce the
| barrier to entry for becoming a small-time compute provider, but
| I don't see how it changes the economics: specialization and
| centralization (up to a point) is cheaper.
|
| Is there something I'm missing?
| indigochill wrote:
| Well, as I think about it, it's interesting because although
| you're right that specialization and centralization is cheaper,
| if I'm Ordinary Joe and I want to make some money while my home
| PC would otherwise be idling, I can still sell my compute
| resources cheaper than someone running it as a serious business
| because anything is more than zero and I have essentially no
| upkeep costs to cover.
|
| Granted, that kind of resource is only fit for some kinds of
| workloads, and I could be thinking about it wrong. But if this
| holds up, then I'd think the bottom's about to drop out of the
| cost of low-requirement cloud computing even though I expect
| this will not challenge the optimized cloud giants for large
| workloads.
| ftpssh wrote:
| What is the greatest value/contribution in tools of this type?
| costgallo wrote:
| you mean of these projects? Golem decentralizes computing
| power: censorship resistant, and resistant to central cloud
| failures (remember Google down in December)
| ouid wrote:
| I sort of despise the use of the word democratization to describe
| a system in which you pay for representation.
| m00dy wrote:
| Yeah, it is also very similar how US has democratized middle
| east for the past 20 years
| [deleted]
| vkou wrote:
| I rather like it, since it is in many ways an accurate
| description of how representation of how the democratic process
| works in practice.
|
| Voters pick winners, but get little representation, people who
| fund campaigns of the winners get a lot of representation.
| mLuby wrote:
| "Democratize" has joined "revolutionize" and "disrupt" on the
| list of buzzwords that make my eyes roll so far they glaze
| over. The words may be apt, but they need a fallow decade
| before being meaningful again.
|
| Time to add "democratize" to mourner.github.io/bullshit.js. (I
| haven't seen it yet, but I'm predicting "catalyze" will join
| the list before the decade is out.)
| freewilly1040 wrote:
| Democratize has the disadvantage of never having made sense.
| It's usually meant to say "open access to all", but never
| implies any sort of distributed authority over how a system
| is run.
| Nasrudith wrote:
| Democratize made sense only when it made something
| inaccessible to all but a small group accessible and
| approachable to those without the resources with lessened
| advantage for being big.
|
| It fails for say CRISPR for democratizing gene editing
| because even if cheaper in labs gene editing is far more
| specialized a task than even surgery - if shit hits the fan
| even nonmedical people could do some messily. Most people
| even science PHDs not in the specific field would have no
| clue where to start.
|
| It works as a description for say sound mixing when people
| can even speed up recorded lecture notes and tweak pitch
| and pace of music. Before it required big expensive, and
| complicated audio decks to do signal processing.
|
| Just cassete tapes were a lesser degree of democratization
| in that you could pass around your own recordings but no
| way in hell would you get international reach without
| studios. Soundcloud, bandcamp, et al? International solo
| operations fit the bill pretty well as a next step.
| lostcolony wrote:
| Despise, sure, but accurate.
| amelius wrote:
| Is this sarcasm? In the sense that our political democracy is
| also sold to the highest bidder?
| lostcolony wrote:
| Sort of. But yes; the idea that Western Democracy seems to
| largely be based on the idea of "money talks". A rich
| person's voice is far louder, both in direct access to
| elected officials, and in affecting other voters, than a
| poor person's. The media reports on the amounts spent in
| any given election because it's a direct proxy on how
| likely a given outcome is. Etc.
|
| So I'd say it's not sarcasm so much as bitter truth.
| goodpoint wrote:
| "$country has the best democracy that money can buy"
| MereInterest wrote:
| Democracy is the principle of equal representation, one vote
| per person. Money is not equally distributed. Voting with
| money is inherently not democratic. Therefore, I would agree
| with ouid that "democratization" and "paying for X" are
| entirely separate things.
| cle wrote:
| Oxford Dictionary has a second definition of "democratize"
| as "make (something) accessible to everyone", which is the
| sense in which this word is being used.
| tablespoon wrote:
| >> Democracy is the principle of equal representation,
| one vote per person. Money is not equally distributed.
| Voting with money is inherently not democratic.
| Therefore, I would agree with ouid that "democratization"
| and "paying for X" are entirely separate things.
|
| > Oxford Dictionary has a second definition of
| "democratize" as "make (something) accessible to
| everyone", which is the sense in which this word is being
| used.
|
| But if someone has to pay for X, then you're only making
| it accessible to everyone _with the money to pay for it_
| , which is _not everyone_.
| cle wrote:
| If you take a black-and-white interpretation like that,
| then democracy is not accessible to everyone either. Not
| even the citizens living under a democracy, who for many
| reasons may be unable to vote, including financial
| reasons.
|
| If a service increases the accessibility of something
| that was previously only available to a smaller subset of
| people, then it can be said to be "democratizing" that
| service. I don't think it's a particularly good word to
| use, but I don't get to decide that. As we can see,
| decrying how words are commonly used just distracts from
| the discussion, just like when people complain about the
| word "serverless".
|
| We have the definition, it's right there in the Oxford
| dictionary. Let's just accept it and move on to
| discussing the actual topic.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > We have the definition, it's right there in the Oxford
| dictionary. Let's just accept it and move on to
| discussing the actual topic.
|
| Yes we have a definition, but it's being _misapplied_ in
| an irksome way. Doubly so since it 's a self-application
| by some company's marketing team. Let's not torture that
| cherished definition to try to defend their
| misapplication.
|
| And frankly, if being able to pay for computing power is
| "democratizing" it, it's _already_ long been
| democratized.
| pretendscholar wrote:
| Arguing a narrow dictionary definition is the lowest form
| of discussion.
| cle wrote:
| If you don't agree on definitions, then there is no
| discussion.
| warkdarrior wrote:
| By that definition, AWS democratizes computing as well.
| Just enter your payment info to get access to
| democratized computing!
| guerrilla wrote:
| Yeah, everything available on the market is democratized
| by their definition.
| hanniabu wrote:
| > Democracy is the principle of equal representation
|
| It's democracy in context. Golem has requirements to
| participate just like the US has requirements to vote.
| uoaei wrote:
| We also don't have democracy in the US, FYI.
| Engineering-MD wrote:
| You guys do have democracy, it's just rated as a flawed
| democracy [0].
|
| [0] https://www.economist.com/graphic-
| detail/2020/01/22/global-d...
| uoaei wrote:
| And I have a "flawed million dollars" but that doesn't
| mean I can spend a million dollars today.
| keiferski wrote:
| Democratize can also just mean "make more accessible to
| everyday people." Which leads to the interesting and possible
| scenario that one can be against democracy (as a political
| system) but for democratization.
|
| Apple (at least back in the 80s) could probably be described
| this way. Democratizing computer technology but operated as a
| secretive hierarchical organization.
| andrewtbham wrote:
| Yeh. There are two definitions. I think OP is confusing them.
|
| - introduce a democratic system or democratic principles to.
| "public institutions need to be democratized"
|
| - make (something) accessible to everyone. "mass production
| has not democratized fashion"
| [deleted]
| deburo wrote:
| If you wouldn't pay your taxes, you wouldn't be able to vote.
| Paying is one of the main part of our society, and I wish I'd
| see less HN'ers obsessing over anything with a price.
| aaomidi wrote:
| Many countries, no matter what, you have an unalienable right
| to vote.
|
| Just because American "democracy" removes the right to vote
| from individuals because of things they've done doesn't mean
| its right or even the typical behavior from a "democracy".
| duckfang wrote:
| I think it's the "1$ = 1 vote" is the issue here.
|
| That means a single person with lots of money can literally
| buy their way over all others.
| gumby wrote:
| What do you mean? People who don't earn enough to have to pay
| taxes certainly don't lose the right to vote for that reason
| in any democracy I know of today.
|
| And many people pay taxes who don't have the right to vote.
|
| Voting power is only loosely correlated with the amount of
| taxes paid.
|
| Paying taxes is important but is orthogonal with the right to
| vote.
| nicomeemes wrote:
| What does orthogonal mean in this context? Just wondering
| guerrilla wrote:
| Neither depends on the other.
| Majestic121 wrote:
| There's not really a relation between the two. A lot of
| systems have taxes and no vote (see medieval European society
| for example).
|
| And in a lot of current countries, your vote is not linked to
| you paying taxes : for example in some countries very poor
| (and it's somewhat true of very rich as well) people pay
| little to no taxes, while sometimes getting a non negligible
| amount of money from the government, amounting to the
| opposite of paying taxes in a way. They still get a vote,
| exactly as valuable as one from someone paying a lot of
| taxes.
| lostcolony wrote:
| The US decouples voting from taxation in the opposite way
| too. Felons, those here on a visa, even those here
| illegally, etc, all get taxed, but don't have the right to
| vote.
| notJim wrote:
| Oligarchize doesn't quite have the same ring to it.
| tdeck wrote:
| Plutocratize?
| dang wrote:
| The submitted title was "Golem democratizes society's access to
| computing power", which is a representative sentence from the
| article, but since it turned out to be baitier than the main
| title, we've replaced it with the main title above.
| ouid wrote:
| Since this remains a claim in the article, I think my comment
| remains a reasonable contribution, even after the title has
| been changed. Please consider unflagging it.
| dang wrote:
| It's not flagged, but I marked it off topic and collapsed
| it, because the subthread it led to is so bad. That's as
| much the fault of the responses to your comment as the
| comment itself, but these things are related. A one-liner
| about what you despise isn't a substantive comment, and a
| low-value, off-topic subthread is the expected outcome.
|
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&so
| r...
| ouid wrote:
| I disagree with you that it is off-topic, and the comment
| itself has nearly as many upvotes as the article.
|
| The comment is short because it the problem with the
| technology is a simple to describe deception. Many good
| comments are short.
| dang wrote:
| You can't go by upvotes alone. Indignation reliably
| attracts them. Indeed, indignation generates much more
| upvoteage than intellectual interest does--such is the
| way we're wired. The job of moderation is to have someone
| paying enough attention to nudge the system out of the
| failure modes it gets into by default.
|
| https://hn.algolia.com/?query=%22upvotes%20alone%22%20by:
| dan...
|
| Many good comments are short, but short + indignant +
| inflammatory equals flamebait, which is not good. Also,
| it was a generic tangent, i.e. taking the thread away
| from the specifics of the story into something else which
| is more generic and therefore more repetitive. Worse, it
| was a generic ideological tangent, and those are
| basically always flamebait.
|
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&
| sor...
|
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&
| sor...
| nathias wrote:
| you mostly pay for it with taxes, or other people's labour
| (slaves)
| AgentME wrote:
| It's an open marketplace for anyone to sell or buy compute
| power, not a giveaway from someone. I think the word
| "democratize" is clunky but I think it has some overlap with
| the idea that you don't need special connections to trade in
| the system and act as a seller or a buyer in it.
| goodpoint wrote:
| Similar posts should be clearly flagged in the title.
|
| Even better if we could have user-configurable filters to hide
| unwanted topics.
| xpe wrote:
| Yes. There are alternative message boards that provide
| filtering (and many more useful features).
|
| Hints: pincers, sideways walking, marine habitats.
| goodpoint wrote:
| I'd rather use https://lemmy.ml/ - it's implementing
| federation over ActivityPub.
| ComodoHacker wrote:
| The first question I have is whether a resource lender have a say
| in what's being computed on their resource?
|
| If yes, it's not 'censorship-resistant'. If no, how can one be
| sure he's not transcoding CP at home?
| eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 wrote:
| I think the more important question is:
|
| Does the foreign code my machine runs have Internet access?
|
| Or can it only send the work result to the Golem network
| itself?
|
| I wouldn't want my IP to be used for DoS on the public Internet
| or whatever.
| shakezula wrote:
| This is a hard problem, but usually gets handwaved away to
| "that's the cost to play". Distributed storage has the same
| problem - how do you know you're not storing CP? - and there
| are some novel approaches to attempting to solve that problem
| (content hash checks against known material, IP list flagging,
| etc...) but at the end of the day you basically have to admit
| you can't solve that problem. That's the price of "censorship
| resistance".
| ComodoHacker wrote:
| Anonymity isn't the only possible solution to censorship
| resistance. Transparency + decentralization is another.
| shakezula wrote:
| Absolutely agreed, I just was referring to specifically the
| problem-sets where anonymity is crucial / required / built-
| in/ whatever you want to call it.
| wos-dv wrote:
| Is this another marketed solution that let's you do less than
| when not using it, effectiviley creating more problems without
| actually solving anything? Or am I just paranoid?
| jacoblambda wrote:
| I mean it's basically just a zero trust fog compute platform. I
| apologise for the buzzwords but it's probably the most concise
| way to describe it.
|
| On the Consumer/Requester side it let's you farm out a parallel
| and reproducible compute problem at whatever the going rate is
| based on market forces. If you can break out the heavy lifting
| in your code into parallel and deterministic/reproducible
| components then you can run compute fairly cheaply and quickly.
| For most people the zero-trust security isn't as important but
| the redundancy aspect of it is nice.
|
| On the Producer/Compute side it lets you sell your unused
| processing power to do something actually useful. Think of it
| like BOINC but with a financial reward attached to it. While
| some people may eventually try to set up data centres as
| producers, for the most part the intent is to allow people to
| get some small profits back from lending out their compute
| power to scientific computations, 3d renders, simulations, etc.
|
| Golem has been through a number of iterations over the past few
| years and is starting to come together in a fairly cohesive
| manner now. There are a lot of limitations at the moment but
| each time I've checked in on the project it's been a lot more
| versatile and a lot less restricted. I don't think it's ready
| for a lot of use cases yet however it is getting closer.
|
| So I'd say it's worth playing around with if you like the tech
| however if you are expecting a well polished product I'd
| recommend keeping an eye on it for the next year or two.
| ThaDood wrote:
| I bought some GNT back around 2016-17 because I thought it was a
| cool concept. Held it for a few months, years maybe? I can't
| recall for certain. I do recall Brass Golem getting released
| which was supposed to be a big deal and I never saw anything
| change. So I sold my GNT and looking at the primer, I still don't
| see much of a change from a few years ago.
|
| Mined some ETH at the same time and it is doing much better.
| russdpale wrote:
| Anything that uses the word democratized is something I'm not
| interested in. It's scary that paying money is considered to be
| some kind of representation.
| ChrisClark wrote:
| That's not the meaning they are going for. It means allowing
| everyone to have a chance. Like when Unreal Engine or Unity
| said they democratized game development by releasing their
| engines for free.
| dang wrote:
| The submitted title was "Golem democratizes society's access to
| computing power", which is a representative sentence from the
| article, but since it turned out to be baitier than the main
| title, we've replaced it with the main title above.
| shakezula wrote:
| Sounds very American.
| djohnston wrote:
| Yeah that definitely isn't the case everywhere.
| bitwize wrote:
| This is kind of cool. It's like Urbit without... well, at least
| half the bullshit.
| iandanforth wrote:
| Sounds like this could be summarized as a compute/currency
| exchange. Convert compute to currency which can be used to buy
| compute.
|
| Does this have the built-in price correction of PoW crypto where
| economic viability determines how much compute is being dedicated
| to the network?
|
| Aka, do prices naturally rise in this system until it's
| economically viable for someone to run their system?
| AgentME wrote:
| >Does this have the built-in price correction of PoW crypto
| where economic viability determines how much compute is being
| dedicated to the network?
|
| The answer is essentially "yes", but I think this question is
| showing a misunderstanding. Golem isn't the one creating the
| workloads that people are running, it's just connecting people
| selling compute power and people paying to run workloads. (The
| compute workloads aren't used as a consensus mechanism like
| PoW. Golem just relies on Ethereum to manage consensus.) The
| question is like "Does ebay implement a price correction system
| where economic viability determines how many resources people
| sell to it?".
| Animats wrote:
| Remember Filecoin, where you can trade storage in a similar way?
| Does anybody really store files in it?
| ChrisClark wrote:
| Yeah, it's so cheap to store on Filecoin I really want to
| backup to it as another offsite option. But I'm waiting until
| Duplicati has built in support for it instead of figuring it
| out on my own.
| jimpick wrote:
| You can see the live file storage deals here.
| https://filfox.info/en/deal
| pupsikus wrote:
| Good question. Would be nice if they would. Does anybody really
| uses Bitcoin?
| ansible wrote:
| I had started reading about that and Siacoin a while back.
| Never got around to starting a node or anything like that. With
| Sia at least, you had to put up a stake first before you could
| start a storage node (for reasons that made sense). But then
| I'd have had to go through the rigamarole with buying some
| other coin, trading for it, setting up various wallets, etc.
|
| Maybe at the end of the day I should just be giving a little
| money to rsync.net or Backblaze.
| Geee wrote:
| You can use Sia from browser nowadays. They built a
| decentralized CDN network called Skynet on it.
| https://siasky.net
|
| You can host web apps on it too, here's the "Skynet app
| store": https://skapp.hns.siasky.net/#/apps/all
| Asparagirl wrote:
| Is the admin password "emet"?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-15 23:01 UTC)