HIP 94: Response Time Windows for Witness Rewarding

[disk91]

…o 14 randomly selected hotspots received in a given time windows

[waveform06]

Please change 92 to XX. HIP authors do not allocate numbers to HIPs.
See the HIP template https://github.com/helium/HIP/blob/main/0000-template.md

The HIP has no sections for:
Rationale and Alternatives
Unresolved Questions
Deployment Impact
(Who will be writing the code for this?)
Success Metrics

[waveform06]

Describing simple scenario numbers will help the understanding as well.
Eg in a scenario with 50 witness receipts of which 10 fail to meet good LoRaWAN-grade timing constraints.
Pre HIP 83, it was a random selection of 14 of all the 50
Post HIP 83, it selected the fastest 14
Post this HIP, it is a random selection of the 40 out of all the 50, that meet minimum good timing constraints.

[disk91]

Scenario still missing but template format should be better and multiple illustration have been added

[mawdegroot]

I would like to see more data beyond anecdotal evidence to back up some of the claims made in this HIP.

It's also important to note that first to respond is exactly how data packets are currently bought by the network and this proposal removes the alignment between proof of coverage and data transfer. The witness selection criteria only play a role in areas where the density is already 10 hotspots higher than the network's target (target = 4, max witnesses = 14).

With the average time between the fastest and the 14th witness being around 250ms this proposal seems primarily focussed at rewarding 4G hotspots on a mountain above all else. For example the Attractive Olive Cyborg hotspot is currently being rewarded roughly 3x the network average while changing to the randomized way would bring it back to 6-7x the network average. If we compare this hotspot to the hotspots in the so called city center on "fiber connections" which are receiving roughly 0.5x the network average it is hard to argue that the hotspot with "highly valuable coverage" isn't rewarded appropriately.

Finally, it would be interesting to see how this would affect current hotspots in a way similar to how HIP83 visualized it on a per hotspot basis.

[mawdegroot]

Is there any proof backing this up? Because current light hotspots in the field do not exhibit the behavior you describe.

[disk91]

Evidence does not really need to be shown.MCU computation power is lower than CPU computation power. Code on MCU may be better optimized someway ... but gateway-rs code is the same for all. Currently time is mostly spent on ECC signature witch is equivalent and hide the other difference. Let's be a bit scientific or prove me that there will never be a difference of computation power in favor of CPI based system compared to MCU based system.

[mawdegroot]

Fully agree, let's be scientific and back up your claim.

[mawdegroot]

That's a pretty big assumption without supporting evidence. I don't think this holds true in general, but it might hold true in the particular example you show.

[disk91]

This is also an evidence, that the way the networks are build.

[mawdegroot]

An evidence of what? If you're saying that fiber will only pass city centers and nowhere else then I don't think your statement holds true.

[HeliosHyperion1111]

An evidence of what? If you're saying that fiber will only pass city centers and nowhere else then I don't think your statement holds true.

https://fttx.gr/

that's a basic example to your ''asking for evidence'' claims,
if you see the map, you can see cabinets of fiber, the center of city has the most dense fiber infrastructure while rural are barely covering anything, the unique coverage is where there is no fiber.
hope that helps to draw a picture what your HIP 83 actually did.

[mawdegroot]

Downlinks are 1 second RX1 and 2 second RX2.

[disk91]

totally agree, thank you for reporting typo.

[mawdegroot]

If RX1 suffices it certainly has benefits over RX2 because it uses the same channel (= more bandwidth available) and the device can return to sleep faster (= energy saving)

[disk91]

it also have larger negative impacts : it has a higher risk of collision because it create a larger use of the same bandwidth (so basically you have less bandwidth) , is has a 1% duty cycle, really impacting the gateway duty cycle shared across all the devices and the limited power in Europe is a great disadvantage with a larger reception loss due to the unbalance noise level and antenna radio gain at the device level. This conduct to retransmission with a higher cost than the wait for 1s. Downlink usage in a correct implementation is limited to a couple per day and at the end the global power impact is limited. This is what an experienced device developper will tell you about it. RX1 / RX2 is a LNS choice not a network choice. As the HIP demonstrate it, the factor impacting the choice between RX1 and RX2 in a windows of 200ms is at first related to the distance between the device and the LNS.

[disk91]

Concerning the global remark, PoC reward coverage, if we take that exemple - and this is just and exemple as you requested exemples, to illustrate a general principle that apply to any cell-tower hotspot - this hotspot is 60km radius (80 for real) covering 60603.14 km2 of territory. This is to be compared with regular good hotspot 10103.14 km2. basically the coverage is 36x more. If we compare to the average coverage witch is more about 1km range 1x1x3.14 km2 is about 3600x. You can consider that x7 in reward well paid and I won't agree in this.
The question is not about the amount of reward this particular hotspot have. The question is why this hotspot get a penalty that can conduct some of the them to get 0 reward, compared to the one in city center, with fiber, providing a small coverage than get a benefit of the current HIP-83 situation.
HIP83 did not show any evidence of it's positive expected impact when written. So please show us evidence that the rewarding is, since HIP-83, better balanced to extend the network coverage. That way we will have something interesting to discuss.

[HeliosHyperion1111]

I would like to see more data beyond anecdotal evidence to back up some of the claims made in this HIP.

It's also important to note that first to respond is exactly how data packets are currently bought by the network and this proposal removes the alignment between proof of coverage and data transfer. The witness selection criteria only play a role in areas where the density is already 10 hotspots higher than the network's target (target = 4, max witnesses = 14).

With the average time between the fastest and the 14th witness being around 250ms this proposal seems primarily focussed at rewarding 4G hotspots on a mountain above all else. For example the Attractive Olive Cyborg hotspot is currently being rewarded roughly 3x the network average while changing to the randomized way would bring it back to 6-7x the network average. If we compare this hotspot to the hotspots in the so called city center on "fiber connections" which are receiving roughly 0.5x the network average it is hard to argue that the hotspot with "highly valuable coverage" isn't rewarded appropriately.

Finally, it would be interesting to see how this would affect current hotspots in a way similar to how HIP83 visualized it on a per hotspot basis.

that's very anecdotal claims, the same way you pointed at his scenario ''is cherry picked'' the same way you cherry picked 1 hotspot that makes x3, while if i bring you 3 4 hotspots that are in the center of city in a HEX of 5 hotspots( 1 of them claims 3k IOT the rest fall into the category of 2k and the lowest is 1k)
that's plenty of info to gather and see that the HIP 83 did more damage than good.
while looking at it on suburban/urban areas, if you call x3 of the network as 600 IOT per day, i can just laugh because this is hypocrite of you to only reward 600 IOT a hotspot that provides UNIQUE coverage while giving everything to the useless coverage center city hotspots, who made you the earnings police by the way?