search

oxen-io / oxen-improvement-proposals

The Loki Improvement Proposal repository
MIT License
12 stars 12 forks source link

LRC-1 #5

Closed KeeJef closed 5 years ago

KeeJef commented 5 years ago

LRC 1

Metadata 
LRC Number: 1
Title: Loki Monetization
Created: date (2019-02-12)

An LRC is a Loki Request for Comment. These documents should outline an issue that affects the direction of Loki that does not have a clear answer. LRCs are a place for discussion that ideally leads to a broad consensus on how to move forward.

Synopsis of LRC 1

LRC 1 is for discussion on how Loki should be monetized. The assumption is that Loki will need external users to inject value through markets by purchasing Loki. This LRC is to discuss the best way to attract and store the value of these prospective buyers. Please note that this is a long term strategic discussion.

KeeJef commented 5 years ago

School of thought # 1, Loki should be valuable as a currency seperate from Lokinet or Loki Messenger

Personally, I align with this school of thought. The general idea here is that we would allocate more resources towards developing Loki core to make Loki (the coin) a real competitor in the private currency space. This would include faster completion of our current roadmap features and additional, more experimental features to improve scalability, privacy, and the general user experience of using Loki as a currency.

Although features like Blink have been proposed since the first version of the whitepaper, they have yet to see implementation because of a long list of other features that have to be developed. Despite what you might think, Loki core, which works on all of the currency aspects of Loki, is actually our smallest team compared to Loki Messenger and Lokinet. Reallocation of team members from Loki Messenger to Loki core would allow us to tackle features like Blink, Ledger Nano integration, the Loki Name System, PaymentID depecitation, and light client speed ups, as well as focus on more esoteric features like atomic swaps, coloured coins, and payment channels. To supplement a shift to Loki core, we would want to consider applying additional focus into academic research through funding or grants, the goal of such funding being to accelerate the progress on new and novel cryptographic methods to further differentiate Loki from other privacy coins.

It is important to understand that it is likely that many of these features will eventually be available in Loki core, even if we were to focus on a ‘freemium’ model. However, I worry that by falling behind in our currency implementation, we will lack the value proposition that other coins offer, and users of Lokinet will simply use “Some other privacy coin” on top of Lokinet.

Advantages

Disadvantages

Haafingar commented 5 years ago

School of thought # 2, Loki should use a freemium model. Where in users of Loki Services (Lokinet, Messenger, etc..) can pay for additional features.

While I originally thought it would be a viable option to simply improve Loki as a currency, I have changed my position on this for a few reasons.

Firstly, even if Loki were to become the most scalable, most secure, and fastest privacy coin available on the market (Which is not clear to me how this would be achieved, or in what timeframe), we would be put in direct competition with ZCash, Monero, and arguably Bitcoin when it comes to cryptocurrency adoption. Having launched in 2018, we are well behind the pack in this regard. All of these projects have had much longer to generate a network effect, and I don’t see us overtaking them, no matter how whiz bang our cryptocurrency is.

Secondly, I don’t think it addresses the fundamental concern here, which is ‘How are Service Nodes continually funded?’, which could also be phrased as ‘How does the network capture value by usage? The traditional answer to this question is that by integrating Loki into the Lokinet/Messenger experience, Loki is more useful as a currency, which increases its usage and thus ends up capturing value between being bought by a currency user, and being sold by a merchant at the other end after some length of time (if they sell at all.). However, in practice I haven’t seen any smaller projects successfully reach a sufficient critical mass to get this sort of currency usage happening to the point where this ‘store of value’ occurs frequently enough to sustainably drive network value.

Thirdly, even if we are targeting Loki’s growth as a currency, I think it would be naive to reallocate additional resources to core. Loki’s unique selling point, and drawcard, lie within Lokinet and Loki Messenger. No other project is providing this kind of utility, and once it is out and can be used by the wider tech community, will attract a much larger volume of people to the ecosystem. While Blink, improvements to the consensus mechanism, and user experience upgrades to the wallet are all desirable features, I don’t think that stuff will matter if our main drawcards - being the mixnet and the messenger - suck. And it’s going to take a while to polish these products, get them working on all platforms, and integrate them into a unified browser experience, for example.

However, if we simply ploughed ahead with the current model, I’m not sure that the currency aspect of Loki is sufficiently integrated into the network to drive network value. The alternative approach to what Kee is suggesting (allocating more resources towards Loki core), is to design a ‘freemium’ economic model for the network. The idea with a freemium model is to provide a normal level of service to the majority of users, however also offering additional features that users can pay for that would offer a better user experience or extended functionality. For example, some ways we could add fees in Loki would be to burn Loki to obtain a unique name in Loki messenger or SNApp domains, use UDP traffic in Lokinet, or to create a large group chat in Loki Messenger.

I think enacting this model is a good idea for two reasons: Firstly, it provides a mechanism by which network usage can offset inflation driven by node rewards. In other words, network value is permanently captured through the burning of coins, helping increase scarcity, and effectively increasing the chances of a decent return for Service Node operators. Secondly, I think this economic model is much easier to explain to a wider audience. Under this model, the Loki coin has some real utility and the source of the value of Loki is clearly identified.

Advantages

Disadvantages

Further Notes:

Kee and I decided to launch this LRC because we’re kind of at an impasse. We understand the perspectives that we each hold, but want to open the discussion up to the community to get some greater perspective.

To be clear, Kee and I are not planning on forking away from each other or any other nonsense of that kind. You won’t be seeing Loki SV, Loki Cash, or Loki Classic (coughsaronitecough) from us.

And with that, what are your thoughts on this matter?

Joshalosh commented 5 years ago

I don't see the point in competing with coins like Monero and Zcash when these projects already exist with the sole purpose of furthering transactional privacy. The unique and private features that revolve around Service Nodes are Loki's point of difference. This should be the area that is focused on and refined while merging in new changes from surrounding privacy projects. I think Loki will be of most service to the wider community by focusing on these unique elements.

Even though I am in support of the freemium model, there is a fine line between what people will and wont pay for, especially when free options already exist. No matter what, people should not be paying for better privacy. Privacy is a human right and should be free. However, people will/do pay for more convenience, so charging people for things that make their lives easier is probably the way to go. Maintaining the balance between security and usability is always an issue when it comes to privacy, so it might be good to charge for features that increase usability, e.g. a decentralised password manager that works alongside the Lokinet browser, paying to choose the geographical location of your exit, or to be able to watch media content that is geographically locked. I think a lot of consideration will be required to decide what to charge users for.

necro-nemesis commented 5 years ago

I believe Loki, the currency, even if able to demonstrate technical superiority will none the less struggle to distinguish itself within a plethora of other cryptocurrencies. I believe Loki's current growth will arise from it's integration as a privacy payment system within it's own privacy network and should initially focus on being the payment system for services and possibly goods being offered within Lokinet.. Through this adoption on Lokinet I believe in future it may be able to gain the distinction and further adoption to be more widely accepted as a cryptocurrency of choice outside of Lokinet.

I agree with Josh's comment. Basic access is free. From the user perspective features that improve or enhance the user experience either through added convenience, personalization. increased status, or improved performance are pay services either subscription based or on a per use basis. I would try and avoid one time fees and encourage users to carry a Loki balance to pay for services in small incremental amounts thus stimulating the liquidity of Loki and generating a Loki based economy. This likely would require wallet integration into all Loki services and SNApps to fuel the system. I would also create a framework for SNApp developers which allows them integrate Loki wallet functions and the ability to charge for use of their SNApps in Loki currency on the system. In instances where SNApps are charging for use a portion of their revenue is paid to back to the network for facilitating the SNApp. This also could be done using the same freemium model and established in a manner that ensures Lokinet is free to the developer until such time as they have a sufficient revenue to warrant charging a royalty for network services.

jagerman commented 5 years ago

This isn't an either-or proposition, it's a matter or prioritization. Both @KeeJef and @Haafingar 's proposal seem sound to be perfectly sound in principle.

As Simon brings up, however, there is a lot of competition in the privacy coin space already, and large network effect obstacles. While having Blink, atomic swaps, etc. makes Loki a compelling technical basis for payments, it is missing the demand-side "human" aspect of increasing demand for Loki by making people want to hold it so as to be able to spend it. You can build the best payment system in the world, but without anyone using it it doesn't really matter.

That said, with my own extensive involvement in the community of Graft (another competing coin whose primary purpose is to be a payment coin) before I got involved in Loki, I think a robust payment system would be a high value item for Loki to develop: privacy in every day payments fits pretty well with Loki's private communications objective. But that's a big project and is going to require a lot of development, a lot of dealing with regulatory obstacles, and a lot of effort to drive adoption. Blink and atomic transfers are only a small part of what it would need to get such a project off the ground. So while this is something that I think Loki can and should do, I'm worried that if we try to do too much at once the development focus will become too broad. Much better to start with one or two core features first, get them solid, then move on to other tasks.

I'd argue, then, that the sensible priorities need to be:

  1. Stimulate the demand for Loki. Right now all the demand is speculative; we need to start stimulating transaction demand as well, and that's really what Simon's idea is about.
  2. As demand for Loki as a currency grows, focus on improving the currency aspects.

To put them in the opposite direction seems like it would be building a technical layer before there is any demand to use that technical layer. As a developer, I absolutely understand the appeal of that approach (it's way more fun to develop), but as a user I don't really care about features that I don't yet have any use for. So like I said above, this doesn't seem like a matter of which do we do, but rather which do we do first? Or to put it another way, we should develop features and abilities (whether loki core, messenger, lokinet, or whatever other future projects we contemplate in the future) as we need them.

No matter what, people should not be paying for better privacy.

Agree completely.

I think a lot of consideration will be required to decide what to charge users for.

I think that, as a general principle, we should try to correlate the price for features with the cost to the network for providing those features to the maximum extent possible. For example, someone streaming Netflix content over lokinet for a couple hours a day is incurring substantially higher cost on the network than someone who uses Loki messenger to send a few messages a day to a friend in a country with restrictive access. This may not always be possible to do without compromising privacy, but it makes sense to me that our policies should be: 1) Privacy. 2) Incentived network structure so long as it doesn't conflict with 1).

necro-nemesis commented 5 years ago

I wouldn't look at users alone to carry the cost of maintaining the system. Although it appears as a network we are somewhat in agreement that basic use should be free, there should be consideration for developers that see privacy as a service, incorporate that into their systems and charge accordingly. Commercialization of SNApps should be a consideration. There should be tools to assist with integrating SNApps and Loki based payment for use. Loki should also be able to demonstrate an economic benefit to developers in building for their system thus motivating third party development. I see a requirement to take control of this early on or else run the risk of the system being commercialized with Loki being bypassed when it comes to the economic requirements and benefits of hosting the systems.

HIRAESH commented 5 years ago

There are many coins that have excellent currency functions, but Mixnet and Messenger are currently advantageous features of only Loki. Rather than extending the function of the currency, we should focus on expanding the network effect as a Loki currency through collaboration with Lokinet and Messenger. And in order to establish network effect, it is effective to make basic service free. (However, it may be useful to prepare some of the service nodes with higher bandwidth for paid power users and burn their fees.)

Can Messenger send Loki with the same simplicity as sending emoji? Can I transfer Loki to the host with a single click with the Loki browser?

If Loki Wallet, Loki Browser and Loki Messenger are all integrated, and the above can be done easily, people will not bother using Bitcoin or Monero's address and they will use Loki. In addition, if Loki is easy to use with Loki browser, Loki will be used in the marketplace in Lokinet. Likewise, Loki will also be used on crypto exchanges in Lokinet. People will send Loki with Lokinet or Loki Messenger with the same ease as pressing the like button on the Internet.

In other words, deep integration with Loki Messenger and Loki Browser and Loki Wallet in the early stages is the most important for Loki 's network effect expansion. Otherwise, people just use Bitcoin and Monero in Lokinet, and they will use Loki Messenger to teach Monero addresses.

Haafingar commented 5 years ago

I see a requirement to take control of this early on or else run the risk of the system being commercialized with Loki being bypassed when it comes to the economic requirements and benefits of hosting the systems.

I don't think this is a good idea for two reasons:

One: Existing networks can provide a similar service to SNApps for free. I don't think it would be good for the growth of the developer ecosystem if we started charging developers to use it. There are cool things devs can do with SNApps that they normally cant with other networks, but I think we lose that selling point if it becomes something the devs have to pay for.

Two: Lokinet doesnt host SNApps, they still have to be hosted by the developer, so they also have a cost of deployment. Lokinet simply routes the traffic to and from SNApps, which is a similar amount of work to normal usage anyway.

In other words, deep integration with Loki Messenger and Loki Browser and Loki Wallet in the early stages is the most important for Loki 's network effect expansion.

I tend to agree wholeheartedly with this. There are security considerations at play but I think this is the key to long term success. It is unfortunately going to take a while to get to this stage (I would say 18 months if I were to have a guess).

halfaipg commented 5 years ago

LOKI needs two things right now. Better PR and more exchanges.

I love the scope of this project, and the problems it solves with current private commincation tek. A ripe field for better decentralization. The public interest is also growing in regards to this kind of tech.

I've tried to catch every interview with your guys, but it seems like you never explain or tout the fact that LOKI will be a better way to privately communicate and interact with others across the internet. This should be the headline theme of LOKI pr imo. I think for most people that have read about LOKI or listened to interviews, it's just seen as another private currency. It's so much more than that, and I want the world to know!

I'm excited about CryptoBridge, it's one of the best DEX imo and it's a move in the right direction. I would like to see listing on even more DEX in the future. Getting on 1 or 2 bigger name exchanges would also greatly increase exposure to LOKI and allow more risk averse investors to buy it. I can see people getting kind of uncomfortable about buying a coin that is only on some unknown exchange with the word "Ogre" in the name. Nothing against them, they are a decent exchange and much better than the one that recently got hacked imo but I think larger exchanges would really help LOKI become a bigger player in the crypto space.

hotgrillz commented 5 years ago

I'd have to agree with Haafingar's standpoint in allocating resources to Loki Network's unique features (Lokinet: Browser/Messenger). Most networks have absolutely no use and a platform supercede's its currency competitors.

Desire begins with attraction, which stems from a mindset. Use case will stimulate desire to hold LOKI.

majestrate commented 5 years ago

My general thoughts on this in no particular order:

jagerman commented 5 years ago

My general thoughts on this in no particular order:

  • pushing for pay services right out of the gate sounds like a good idea but it has an vibe that is antithetical to the hippy hippy free software model, most potential power users will get immediately turned off by this.

The incentivized structure has always been a core component of Loki. On the loki homepage "Why Loki?" lists three things: Privacy tools, Private applications, and incentivized network. Both Kee and Simon have repeatedly talked about the incentive component in videos and interviews. A proper incentive structure requires that there is some connection between the use of the network incurred by a user and the cost of that use. If those are severed—by making all use free regardless of its cost—the inevitable result will be overuse and underperformance of the network.

  • kee's model is a model that feels like it embraces the decentralization of free software, simon's model feels like it ignores the free software entirely. (free as in GNU/freedom libre etc)

This feels orthogonal to either model. Both are perfectly compatible with GNU-style free software. My browser is not anti-free software just because I can choose to pay for a plugin for it, or because I have to pay my ISP for an internet connection. Paying a fair cost for provision of a service is absolutely not antithetical to software freedom. Even AGPLv3 is perfectly fine with paying for service as long as the software providing that service is free.

  • kee's model is more trust agile as it decouples the dependancies between all the components. simon's is the reverse of that, it will trend towards consolidating all the components into a blob and that is probably highly undesirable from a trust agility point of view.

Again, Lokinet is not separable from loki at a high level by design because Loki is where the incentive for lokinet comes from. Keeping them as separate software projects is perfectly fine, and I think should that we should explicitly continue to do so. The problem comes in when we think about who is paying the costs of the service.

The most problematic aspect of separating loki from lokinet to me is that if the users of lokinet aren't pulling their weight in terms of supporting the costs of running lokinet, there is in effect a subsidy of loki-the-currency to support lokinet. But this can only be a negative for loki-as-a-currency and works against Loki's use and value as a currency: it becomes more expensive to operate the currency than, say, Monero because it has this dependent of lokinet (which doesn't or can't pay for itself).

  • in general I am going to put my money behind kee's philosophy because it's the most in line with the free software demographic which is who we need to win over more vs the coin people. the coin people are totally hooked but the free software people tend to be completely dismissive of coin tech over all, the more we neglect this the more we will hurt in the long term.

Did you even read Kee's proposal? The entire point is to drive demand by targeting "the coin people" through the development of "coin tech." It's hard to see how that is going to build the confidence of people who are "completely dismissive of coin tech."

  • we need to win over the rest of the free software crowd and simon's model will probably create an outcome where that will never happen.

There is an important separation here between "free software" and "free service" and I feel that you are conflating them. It costs real money to provide service nodes (which are and should continue to be completely free software); incentivizing the provision of that service means finding a way for the cost of that service to be transferred from the people who benefit from the service to the people who provide the service. (This isn't at all easy to get just right: if you transfer too much, you get underuse, and if you charge too little you get overuse and performance degredation).

To suggest that lokinet's high costs should simply be borne by someone else is basically a welfare argument where loki currency users are being taxed to pay for the service of lokinet users. I simply don't see such an imbalance working as a sustainable long-term model, but of course I'm open to discussion on the matter.

  • short term we should be winning over the hearts and minds of the free software community so that we can utilize the power of free software contribution, long term we should persue commercial interests but we can't if the wider community doesn't want to use us.

The software is free and can totally be used elsewhere. Someone could fork it and run their own "lokinet" with whatever incentive model they like (including free). What we need to incentivize is the use of the Loki service node network to align costs of service with payment for use.

  • if we don't get adoption from free software people we are doomed to irrelevance. we need a diverse set of use cases not all revolving around this one blockchain in order to truly thrive. we cannot dictate what use cases can be done on the network because we can't think up everything that can be done. kee's model is more cognitiant of this.

The currency and blockchain are the incentive backbone of the Loki project. If we don't get the incentive structure right for use of lokinet (and other future network components) then we're pretty much going to have to start by copying this FAQ entry from Tor: Why is Tor so slow?.

Now all of this said: I'm quite in favour of Kee's model. Building payments into the network makes a lot of sense; just take a look at the success of the payment+communication bundling of services like WeChat (yes, I know it's proprietary and Cc's everything to the Chinese government). I feel like I've been arguing again Kee's plan here, but I really haven't been: I don't see any contradiction between Simon's proposal and Kee's proposal. The fundamental issue here, as I argued in my earlier reply in this issue, is only one of priorities, not one of trade-offs.

majestrate commented 5 years ago

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 02:04:39PM -0800, Jason Rhinelander wrote:

My general thoughts on this in no particular order:

  • pushing for pay services right out of the gate sounds like a good idea but it has an vibe that is antithetical to the hippy hippy free software model, most potential power users will get immediately turned off by this.

The incentivized structure has always been a core component of Loki. On the loki homepage "Why Loki?" lists three things: Privacy tools, Private applications, and incentivized network. Both Kee and Simon have repeatedly talked about the incentive component in videos and interviews. A proper incentive structure requires that there is some connection between the use of the network incurred by a user and the cost of that use. If those are severed—by making all use free regardless of its cost—the inevitable result will be overuse and underperformance of the network.

  • kee's model is a model that feels like it embraces the decentralization of free software, simon's model feels like it ignores the free software entirely. (free as in GNU/freedom libre etc)

This feels orthogonal to either model. Both are perfectly compatible with GNU-style free software. My browser is not anti-free software just because I can choose to pay for a plugin for it, or because I have to pay my ISP for an internet connection. Paying a fair cost for provision of a service is absolutely not antithetical to software freedom. Even AGPLv3 is perfectly fine with paying for service as long as the software providing that service is free.

I agree it's totally in line with GNU/Freedom. It's the feeling that it givess off that worries me.

  • kee's model is more trust agile as it decouples the dependancies between all the components. simon's is the reverse of that, it will trend towards consolidating all the components into a blob and that is probably highly undesirable from a trust agility point of view.

Again, Lokinet is not separable from loki at a high level by design because Loki is where the incentive for lokinet comes from. Keeping them as separate software projects is perfectly fine, and I think should that we should explicitly continue to do. The problem comes in when we think about who is paying the costs of the service.

The most problematic aspect of separating loki from lokinet to me is that if the users of lokinet aren't pulling their weight in terms of supporting the costs of running lokinet, there is in effect a subsidy of loki-the-currency to support lokinet. But this can only be a negative for loki-as-a-currency and works against Loki's use and value as a currency: it becomes more expensive to operate the currency than, say, Monero because it has this dependent in lokinet (which doesn't pay for itself).

From a technical debt point of view coming from i2p (and glancing at what tor has had to deal with removing jacob appelbaum's directory authority), I think that fusing lokid and lokinet any more than it is would be a massive mistake because it would kill any remaining trust agility that the protocol has in the future.

I am 100% against this and will disassociate from the project to preserve this if it is required to preserve that property. I do not negotiate on this.

We need to embrace a model that will permit maximum trust agility for all the components of the ecosystem.

  • in general I am going to put my money behind kee's philosophy because it's the most in line with the free software demographic which is who we need to win over more vs the coin people. the coin people are totally hooked but the free software people tend to be completely dismissive of coin tech over all, the more we neglect this the more we will hurt in the long term.

Did you even read Kee's proposal? The entire point is to drive demand by targeting "the coin people" through the development of "coin tech." It's hard to see how that is going to build the confidence of people who are "completely dismissive of coin tech."

I don't think that's enough to only target the demographic that is directly interested in market growth, If your network is "only activists and terrorists" (in the case of Tor) then something is wrong. Diversifying the demographic isn't optional if we want to survive the incoming shitstorm lokinet will create by existing.

  • we need to win over the rest of the free software crowd and simon's model will probably create an outcome where that will never happen.

There is an important separation here between "free software" and "free service" and I feel that you are conflating them. It costs real money to provide service nodes (which are and should continue to be completely free software); incentivizing the provision of that service means finding a way for the cost of that service to be transferred from the people who benefit from the service to the people who provide the service. (This isn't at all easy to get just right: if you transfer too much, you get underuse, and if you charge too little you get overuse and performance degredation).

To suggest that lokinet's high costs should simply be borne by someone else is basically a welfare argument where loki currency users are being taxed to pay for the service of lokinet users. I simply don't see such an imbalance working as a sustainable long-term model, but of course I'm open to discussion on the matter.

fair enough

  • short term we should be winning over the hearts and minds of the free software community so that we can utilize the power of free software contribution, long term we should persue commercial interests but we can't if the wider community doesn't want to use us.

The software is free and can totally be used elsewhere. Someone could fork it and run their own "lokinet" with whatever incentive model they like (including free). What we need to incentivize is the use of the Loki service node network to align costs of service with payment for use.

I agree for the most part with this. I am concerned with winning over potential power users, not only making loki turn profit for service node opers.

A lokinet network fork is an bound to happen it's only a matter of time. The question is not if, it's when. If we can make the main network more desirable for most users that's the preferred outcome for service node stakers.

  • if we don't get adoption from free software people we are doomed to irrelevance. we need a diverse set of use cases not all revolving around this one blockchain in order to truly thrive. we cannot dictate what use cases can be done on the network because we can't think up everything that can be done. kee's model is more cognitiant of this.

The currency and blockchain are the incentive backbone of the Loki project. If we don't get the incentive structure right for use of lokinet (and other future network components) then we're pretty much going to have to start by copying this FAQ entry from Tor: Why is Tor so slow?.

Tor isn't slow anymore this isn't 2008. They managed to scale their network on hopes and dreams alone. We can do better with the right incentives yes but with the lack of trust agility that comes with using a blockchain for PKI management is something we need to be on top of from square one. That is probably another LIP entirely.

Now all of this said: I'm quite in favour of Kee's model. Building payments into the network makes a lot of sense; just take a look at the success of the payment+communication bundling of services like WeChat (yes, I know it's proprietary and Cc's everything to the Chinese government). I feel like I've been arguing again Kee's plan here, but I really haven't been: I don't see any contradiction between Simon's proposal and Kee's proposal. The fundamental issue here, as I argued in my earlier reply in this issue, is only one of priorities, not one of trade-offs.

-- You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/loki-project/loki-improvement-protocols/issues/5#issuecomment-468049348

Haafingar commented 5 years ago

I think that fusing lokid and lokinet any more than it is would be a massive mistake because it would kill any remaining trust agility that the protocol has in the future. but with the lack of trust agility that comes with using a blockchain for PKI management is something we need to be on top of from square one.

You may be right, this may be another discussion entirely, but the way I see it is that Lokinet, when attached to the Service Node network, is not very trust agile. Seeing as that is a core design choice of this project, I don't see how creating a single additional call to lokid (to ask for 'premium' validation) makes this any worse, or would be cause to suggest that it fundamentally damages Lokinet. You seem very emotionally opposed to something which to me already seems to be the case. I guess I'm just confused, and I'd like an explanation on this.

majestrate commented 5 years ago

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 03:33:49PM -0800, Haafingar wrote:

I think that fusing lokid and lokinet any more than it is would be a massive mistake because it would kill any remaining trust agility that the protocol has in the future. but with the lack of trust agility that comes with using a blockchain for PKI management is something we need to be on top of from square one.

You may be right, this may be another discussion entirely,

It probably is so let's not drag it on this specific issue.

but the way I see it is that Lokinet, when attached to the Service Node network, is not very trust agile. Seeing as that is a core design choice of this project, I don't see how creating a single additional call to lokid (to ask for 'premium' validation) makes this any worse, or would be cause to suggest that it fundamentally damages Lokinet. You seem very emotionally opposed to something which to me already seems to be the case. I guess I'm just confused, and I'd like an explanation on this.

-- You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/loki-project/loki-improvement-protocols/issues/5#issuecomment-468073970

neuroscr commented 5 years ago

I've really spent some time reflecting on this. I've attempted to "Steel man" each position and had Kee/Simon verify these are pretty much accurate:

My gut reaction was instant and very strong, as some many have noticed my earlier "Github reaction emojis". However over time and thought, I completely retracted my down vote on Josh's comment and realized there maybe some missing subtext to this whole discussion that Kee had only given me in person at BPASE about the survival of projects like this and our competition. And while that allowed me to see Simon's comments in a new light that directly affects my personal future, yet I've still left my emoji downvote.

I think competing with privacy coins is a red hearing, Loki is a privacy coin. The cats already out of the bag, we will always be in competition with other privacy coins. Other privacy coins can do what we've done, there's not secret sauce in it, however we are ahead and have demonstrated excellent execution ability.

I understand it's question of how we market ourselves determines how we frame who is our competition and what niche we want to fight for. But first, distinction of features, while important, doesn't override the fact that all of this is built on a blockchain. If we're not aiming to be a leader in the blockchain, we should be using someone else's blockchain. After thinking about our technology as Josh points out, we are unique in that we have an existing Service Node architecture unlike any one currently in privacy coin space. However that differentiation won't last long.

We're a software developer first, a blockchain 2nd, onion router developer 3rd, and consumer app developer 4th. That's our stack and we need to realize how cutting edge the blockchain we're using is, and as my experience at BPASE19 shown me, it is more fragile than most realize. Then there's the source base code quality, so even if everyone's got the theory right, we have to make sure it's implemented right. New exploits and attacks are introduced all the time and there is only so many software patches before the whole system design breaks down. A fault in our blockchain affects the LokiNet and all snapps, so it's the most critical to our function. We have to push forward to make sure our foundation is strong.

However that said, I don't share Kee's concern about other currencies being use on top of our products. I think our products are in a unique place to deliver the best UX for usage over others.

Kee doesn't directly say it but drawing on the broader privacy/cryptography/research communities is the absolute key to our long term success.

You both fear we're not competitive enough because we're not. However only Kee's plan addresses a direct fix to this.

Like Jeff highlights, we need buy-in, and we're not just a product pusher, we're part of a movement that decouples property rights from potentially corrupt centralization organization into a potentially level playing field for any organization to easy participate in. We are a participant in a controversial political movement, not a traditional company selling products. We should be hosting our own events, not focusing on participating in the traditional media channels. That's what the other community alt coins are doing to stay alive but we have funding and strong execution, I think if we were to combine the two, we'd be more competitive with other privacy coins.

Simon feels the products are going to create a store of value. Kee's comment doesn't address how he see the store of value or even network effects. So I agree with Jeff's comments about talking past each other. Our survival depends on creating a store of value. So there are multiple issues brought up in this discussion.

There's no reason we can't do both, it's really a question of how should we allocate resources. Taking resources away only delays the other products and Simon connects the products to our store of value (and potentially our survival indirectly).

While Simon is really interested in exploring potential value creating features. I think the real problem that needs to be addressed is only relying on in-house products with freemium features. I'm not sure if we're have enough resources to be effective in creating network efforts for multiple products. And thinking this though I do have a proposal but I'll create a proper LRC or LIP for it to not bog down this thread too much.

I think our large core product/vision/identity is privacy software. We're competing with a world of messengers (eventually including non-privacy ones). It's going to take more than just privacy features to gain marketshare, as not everyone is paying attention to consequences of their digital footprint. And we will need marketshare to gain network efforts and store of value. That's a battle in itself and we're planning to fight out on the browser and onion routing landscape too. That's like 4 fights our marketing department has to manage.

While we do need to focus to be effective, I don't think we should say we're not in-competition when we will clearly always be. We have to acknowledge that we are, so we can properly address the whole picture.

necro-nemesis commented 5 years ago

I suggest you step back and take a look at what has the greatest impact on your strategic objectives in this market. A strengths and weaknesses analysis might be a valid exercise at this time. It's one thing to be at the top of your game in a certain regard but if that doesn't further your overall objectives it's largely an exercise in satisfying ones ego.

Haafingar commented 5 years ago

While we do need to focus to be effective, I don't think we should say we're not in-competition when we will clearly always be. We have to acknowledge that we are, so we can properly address the whole picture.

Well... as it stands, we are not in competition. No one uses Loki for payments. Hopefully that changes, but with such a thin market (not to drag liquidity into the discussion) and a very saturated landscape, Loki could be the world's best option for private crypto payments and I still don't think it would be very successful next to Zcash, Monero, etc.

I am becoming increasingly convinced that Loki Messenger, when complete on all operating systems and platforms and with sufficient time to optimize and audit, can become the leading secure messaging app on today's market. I say that because I look to our competitors in this market and we have very solid unique selling points. We incorporate a perfect blend of offline/peer to peer capability whilst also protecting data at the transport layer (something that no other app provides) and distance the user from their phone number.

Without years of research, Loki will not be the leading anonymous cryptocurrency. We can not seriously expect to significantly outperform Monero without groundbreaking research that 1. we have not started and have no idea on where to begin and 2. if it is great, will not be merged by Monero anyway.

I'm not even too obsessed with the freemium concept as a whole, I'm just concerned that by shifting resources away from the messenger and the Lokinet browser, we would be losing out on a major opportunity to fast track products that have real world potential regardless of the state of the overall cryptocurrency market environment. I still think giving Loki an element of utility by having it engaged in a premium model is helpful to the long term sustainability of the project.

necro-nemesis commented 5 years ago

On the currency front there are what I consider high yield returns for a low amounts of effort. Some of what I suggest is the only reason other projects have distinguished themselves from other currencies. In fact from a blockchain development perspective some have invested the least blockchain development effort in opting to be a token. If we look at pure payment automation i.e. payment terminals, simply porting android development over to a payment terminal would offer a purpose built point of sale acceptance system. We can see in places like Venezuela where systems have taken on a major role demonstrating the validity of crypto for payment. This could be pressing ahead on the latest generation payment terminal's marketplaces that freely offer Android SDK based development suites in attempt to broaden their hardware applications. It also could be based on purpose built low cost Android payment terminals which have NFC capability etc. Having payment acceptance available on proper purpose built hardware could lead into future consideration for developing atomic swaps for high liquidity currencies i.e. BTC and would allow for better appreciation of whether the effort is warranted based on actual usage. For the sake of effort porting over and tweaking something already being developed I do believe this should be given consideration particularly when factoring the intended transaction speed and privacy aspects of Blink. I see currency use as a two pronged approach; online payment and brick and mortar. Loki wallet integration into the online eco-system is one element. Payment terminal for brick and mortar the other. Again I say this in light of what I consider to be minimal effort to expand into this area from where Loki presently stands and what is forthcoming with Blink.

necro-nemesis commented 5 years ago

On the fintech side of the house I can see Lokient providing a solution to problem with blockchain transaction accountability that I haven't witnessed anyone providing a viable solution for. We've seen smart contracts attempt to set conditional agreements in place but ultimately I don't see blockchains as the place to attempt to enforce an agreement. It is simply a mechanism to carry out the mechanics of a transaction and in Loki's case privately. Utilizing Lokinet I see those transacting; if they so elect, able to create a private record of the transaction occurring which is only obtainable by the persons it pertains to.. Every transaction has a coordination element to it which generally in the absence of Lokinet occurs over an unsecure means thereby compromising the transactions security. If you break down a transaction on the blockchain there is a coordination phase, an authorization phase and a settlement phase. Coordination phase in the case of Lokinet could be a digitally signed agreement which is only accessible or possibly obtainable from encrypted database on Lokinet to which only the parties involved have access to. When an agreement is made and upon approval the transaction particulars are encrypted, stored and sent for authorization through the SN for payment in concert with the transaction being submitted to the blockchain for settlement. In the event of a dispute the parties involved and only the parties involved can produce a digitally signed copy of the agreement showing the terms under which the agreement was made and indicating that payment was sent for the agreed upon amount.

neuroscr commented 5 years ago

No one uses Loki for payments.

Your whole argument is that we need to make sure there's a store of value. I could be wrong but while indirect, I think these parallel each other. My understanding both plan eventually want Loki to be a useful currency.

we have very solid unique selling points.

Agreed, we have a wealth of them. Also end to end encryption isn't something a US-based messaging provider can effectively provide under the law due to recent FOSTA bs.

Without years of research, Loki will not be the leading anonymous cryptocurrency. We can not seriously expect to significantly outperform Monero without groundbreaking research that 1. we have not started and have no idea on where to begin and 2. if it is great, will not be merged by Monero anyway.

We don't have to lead we just have to compete and survive (which I know this LRC is about). We don't need groundbreaking research, I don't see Kee's proposal is about making core our unique selling point. Also I don't think it's fair to say we don't know where to start. Monero not merging, is on them, has nothing to do with us (beyond strengthening our project).

we would be losing out on a major opportunity to fast track products

This is a great summary I think. While I understand some of the urgency, I don't understand the urgency to where it's higher than that of core. If you look at the reverse, a fault in core versus a delay in key product releases, I'll take the delay. Maybe that's not a fair way to contextualize it (Kee proposal easily causes more faults too but at least it would put us in a better defensive position) but that's what my limited understanding is from reading both proposals.

jagerman commented 5 years ago

I'm writing this now both as a Loki community member, but also as one of the 5 Loki Foundation directors (I think it's important to point that out since ultimately it is the Foundation that has the deciding say on allocation of resources).

One of the issues that I think is making it hard to decide on a specific direction is that both of these schools of thought are in some ways too vague.

I think I take disagreement with something in both schools of thought: both are talking about focusing on the foundation of the system (Kee: Blink, "new and novel cryptographic methods"; Simon: lokinet) as if these are the end-points of the system: but these are tools and it is rather what these tools allow that will ultimately drive value in the system and where Loki should be focusing.

For example, Blink has the potential to open up loki as a means of payment (as distinct from transfer). I realize, of course, that everyone here already knows that, but I think it's a good example to illustrate that the importance of the development isn't Blink, it's instant payments, and Blink is just the way that we get to instant payments.

Lokinet is similar: it isn't important by itself; it's just a tool that we need to enable private, anonymous communications because once we have that we can explore the potential that such a system involves. Messenger is one such application (though I think in the long run it will be a fairly minor one in the long run potential of the Loki ecosystem).

My main point here is that it would be very easy to get enticed into creating the perfect mousetrap, but at the end of the day we need tools that are good enough rather than a small number of perfect tools. This is an easy and common trap to fall into in any software project, and no reason to think Loki is different.

So I'd like to reframe this discussion a bit with a request to @KeeJef and @Haafingar to restate their thinking on this issue for the rest of us here with a slightly different focus:

How does an increased focus now on one of these rather than the other:

help with the Loki of the future in 1 or 2 or 5 years? What do you foresee that 1 or 2 or 5 year future Loki being if Loki goes with your focus? And what do you foresee happening if Loki goes with the other choice?

necro-nemesis commented 5 years ago

I believe it's a case of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts. I also believe that there should be near term development objectives that provide users with incremental benefits. For example Blink development facilitates instant payments while additionally bootstraps the basis for the creation of future transaction services which builds upon the initial instant payment offering already put into service.

I can envision where Lokinet plays a major part in transactions given it's privacy features and the ability to host a myriad of hidden services, That's not to say Lokinet is a prerequisite for Loki use or required for Blink but offers a high degree of flexibility for an improved eco-system with more detailed and automated transactions through hidden services and Messenger. Whether by virtue of services of the network or services offered within the network by it's participants, the network offerings assist in driving the demand to utilize the currency and establish a value through the privacy and convenience as a decentralized payment method. I believe the required level of privacy with respect to transactions for the most part to be simply ensuring they aren't accessible to anyone but those who have an absolute requirement to have access to them. A public ledger is non-starter for many wishing to use crypto as an alternative payment method as this overly compromising even when compared to present centralized solutions. Loki and Lokinet present a solution to this outstanding problem while offering the level of convenience anticipated in using current payment systems.

The economy within the Loki eco-system can be initiated from a desire to seek a decentralized method to transact without pushing transactions to public ledger. Additionally the collective attributes the privacy service offers forms the basis to bootstrap transactions outside of the system itself and utilize the currency on the basis of the currencies own set of attributes.

gea0 commented 5 years ago

Suggestion: Inject value by burning coins for premium features, but only where it adds utility.

The thing that got me engaged with Loki: There was a clear problem (Sybil attacks in mixnets), where a blockchain-based consensus method seemed like a surprisingly fitting solution. With most "cryptos" out there, it feels the other way around: They look for a remotely plausible use-case, add a blockchain to their implementation, and then go grab the cash. This gives Loki a huge sympathy bonus, importantly from the perspective of the free software crowd.

Introducing arbitrary limitations, like making emojis a premium feature, or capping the maximum group size in Loki messenger without necessity, feels strongly contrary to this. And will cost sympathy points.

The proposed Loki Name System, on the other hand, feels like the real spirit again. It ) solves the inflation problem by burning coins ) AND does this for a good reason, since it solves an additional problem, namely the de-central assignment of domain names.

So i suggest to look for things that usually don't work in anonymous P2P situations, but where introducing financial cost is a solution.

Look for limited resources, and use the burning of Loki coins as a trustless, permission-less yet abuse-resistant way of distributing them.

Bandwidth and storage on service nodes is an obvious example here. I'm thinking of load balancing as a premium feature for really demanding SNApps, but it seems premature to discuss this.

Namespaces are probably a better avenue. Domain names, unique user-names, chat channel names... but there is surely more. Maybe differentiate between cheap and expensive names, like by string length, or by different TLDs.

And, also, identity management and status signalling. It would be great to be able to place a public key together with an username on the chain, for a fee. With a nice API, this could be used for cross-SNApp accounts. Add the option to publicly prove that a certain amount of coins has been burned or staked for a period of time, and attach this proof to an username. I think this could be a really strong feature.

Loki Messenger could use this to show virtual badges, or different username colours depending on how much coins were burned/staked. People want to signal their financial status, or just want their profile to look different. Lets give them this ability.

In the anonymous communication context, this can also be a useful sign of commitment: That your communication partner is not just a cheap sock-puppet account, but someone who has committed/staked actual money to his identity.

I agree with the positions above, that it is of great importance to gain support from open source people and power users. Even very low payments for basic features would be a big deterrent, as it introduces the additional steps of acquiring digital currency, handling wallets etc. And more importantly, it makes the project feel "commercial".

Look for how burning coins can do something really useful.

Further reflections on Namecoin: It exists for a long time, yet has kinda failed because of low usage. Things will probably turn out much better for the Loki Name System, as there won't be additional barriers to adoption, and it benefits from the integration with Lokinet. Take a step back, and imagine what would have happened if Namecoin had really taken off, and what use-cases can be built on it.

Haafingar commented 5 years ago

There is no doubt that LNS is one of the clearest monetisation features available. This is very much a feature that people will want, especially in the context of the messenger, and so I don't want to speak for Kee directly but it seems like it will be bumped up the development pipeline for one of the next things that the loki-core team works on after Checkpointing is finished.

natedagger commented 5 years ago

crypto n00b here. Here’s my take: LOKI should use the node checkpointing feature to protect other coins’ blockchains from 51% attacks. They pay an insurance fee to LOKI for protecting their network. The nodes would need more memory, and probably more of every spec, but it would absolutely increase the value of LOKI. Whether we burn LOKI or whatever, those are small, voted on decisions. My proposal isn’t about the details - it’s a 10,000 foot view: -Small coins are under threat from 51% attacks. -LOKI has a system whereby they pay for protection. LOKI Halo. -with 500 nodes, not every blockchain would have to be on every node. In fact, nodes would only need to be upgraded if there was sufficient demand for the service. And if there was sufficient demand, then there would be sufficient value and LOKI would rise in price. -LOKI would have an incredible viral marketing boost and a ton of good will in the crypto space.

The con: Kee said Komodo already does this.

But if it was pervasive, then why hasn’t LOKI been using Komodo already? We don’t need to Halo every coin, but surely some of these coins could use this: www.crypto51.app

LOKI doesn’t need to dominate the space, it doesn’t need to stop doing other things, it doesn’t need a major pivot. But if it can grab some value from doing this, it would be a huge step.

Go easy on me if this idea sucks. Aplogies in advance if I wasted a couple minutes of your lives.

KeeJef commented 5 years ago

There was a discussion in the Loki improvement proposals discord channel which prompted the creation of this plan. This plan is a very rough idea of how we would go about moving more into school of thought 1.

I've broken this plan down as a calendar of events although please note that most of these dates will be inaccurate, this calendar also only focuses on work related to Loki Core, the team who works on the core Loki cryptocurrency.

This plan is unlikely to affect the development of Lokinet which will continue with the current Lokinet developers, however this plan will push back the delivery dates on Auxiliary services like Loki messenger for mobile devices, Loki browser, In browser Loki wallets, and additional Loki services, in the best case this delay would last for 6-9 months and in the worst case these services could be delayed for over a year.

Early 2019

Mid 2019

Late 2019 - Early 2020

2020 +

Haafingar commented 5 years ago

School of thought #2.

After a month of deliberation I now strongly oppose the reallocation of Lokinet/Loki Messenger resources to core. After having travelled overseas and having spoken with a number of key stakeholders in Loki, it seems like most of us, and especially myself, are excited by the potential of the Loki Services, in particular Loki Messenger.

Instead, I’ve taken Kee’s calendar and adjusted it to what I think should be the case:

Early 2019

After the Loki messenger application is completed for desktop users the existing Loki messenger team (Currently 3 people) is kept on to improve the experience, and assist the mobile team in getting it deployed on iOS and Android. 1 of the messenger team transitions to the mobile application, the other two work a split between improving swarms/group messaging/lokinet integration until ~August Hire 2-3 additional Mobile engineers to expedite the development timeline of Loki Messenger as a modern competitor to existing chat apps.

Mid 2019

Late 2019

Deploy Loki Messenger on Mobile platforms Begin work on Loki Browser and Wallet integrations into the messenger/etc. Execute go-to-market strategy and attempt to build a very large user base for Loki Messenger Begin research to move from Mining to full PoS

While there are less items on the list, I think the major thing to note here is that if we really want Loki Messenger and Lokinet to really be able to compete in their respective sectors, they are up against codebases that have had years of optimisiation and development. We can not expect to simply trundle along and gain adoption if we do not make a very active push to get these apps out there, crash tested, and rapidly improved.

It is my belief that Loki is more like any other traditional tech startup at this stage than we had initially believed. We are creating consumer apps at the end of the day, and so we should treat our development pipeline as such. Monetisation, while an important thing to consider, is a moot point if there are no users. So even though the list of ‘premium’ features at this stage is fairly limited, with a large enough user base, that stops mattering. Further, as we move further up the adoption cycle, we will begin to understand what features users want that don't already exist, and may be able to leverage that to extend the list of premium features available.

In this discussion we’ve been having here, the major barrier for embracing a freemium model is defining what would be included in such a model. Here are the things that stand out so far:

Loki Name Service

This is one we would do anyway, but still fits into the model. With LNS you can name just about anything on the blockchain, be it your Service Node, SNApp address, messenger pubkey, or public wallet address. In fact, there’s no reason you couldn't map multiple address types to the one name, and interpret them contextually, for instance:

I can buy Simon.loki and submit a transaction to the blockchain registering my messenger pubkey and my wallet address to it. At a later stage, I can then provide a signature from my account allowing me to update said mapping or add new address types, like my personal website as a SNApp, Simon.loki

In fact, now with the potential for the deployment of the user hosted group chat scheme we plan to implement before MLS becomes available, this makes even more sense. This would enable the creation of large chat rooms using LNS names, such as loki-community.loki or chess-enthusiasts.loki which can simply be abstracted to loki-community and chess-enthusiasts in the application.

I can envisage a very large percentage of Messenger users getting a LNS name for their account. Being able to tell someone your Messenger address in person is going to be a major UX improvement on exchanging public keys.

Here’s a fun bit of maths: If there are 1,000,000 messenger users, and 20% of them buy a $10 LNS name, that’s $2,000,000 injected into the network that can’t be withdrawn. Based on today's prices, that's well over 10,000,000 Loki permanently deleted. We can argue about the pricing or the variables or the exact model, but it demonstrates the point: even a moderately successful chat app could attract a lot of value through LNS.

IPv6 & Exit Ranges

Currently one of the big pitfalls of using a VPN or Onion Routing service is that it’s very easy to detect that you are using that service. Websites often keep a record of a list of ipv4 addresses that are known to be associated with VPNs or the Tor network, for example. This is likely to quickly become the case with Lokinet once exit functionality launches.

This can be very difficult for certain use cases as websites often restrict the kinds of interactions you can have with it because of the apparent usage of these services. To get around this, exit nodes on Lokinet could be forced to supply an IPv6 range which users can use. If an exit node has an IPv6 range available, this greatly reduces the ability of a website to blacklist or restrict that exit node without blacklisting the entire range. By default, users would have their connection pushed through the IPv4 address that the exit node uses, but if they have a ‘premium’ token associated with their pubkey on the blockchain, they would be able to establish an IPv6 path, and exit nodes would assign them a random IPv6 address within their own range. Depending on the size of range available, this would be one of millions of addresses within that range, which makes restricting that exit node more difficult than traditional blacklisting, and so the actions of past users of that exit node would be less likely to impact this given user.

For this to work properly, the path would have to be built in such a way that the premium token could be ‘proven’ without revealing which client identity is using it at the exit node, otherwise the user will be effectively deanonymised. Zero Knowledge proofs would be the ideal way to do this, but there is also probably a less excotic method to do this that would be less intensive on development resources.

This feature is definitely something that existing anonymity solutions do not offer, and if it really makes a difference to the user in question, they would be the type of user that might actually want to pay for it.

Conclusion

With time, I envisage we will be able to expand upon this list in significant ways. If the community is amicable to the idea of some opt-in centralisation into the Loki user experience, the list of possible monetisation strategies greatly expands, but once again, even that is contingent on a large user base existing.

I propose that we direct as much resources as we can without sacrificing efficiency at Loki Messenger and Lokinet, especially on the mobile front, and target a simple monetisation strategy through LNS, which I would like to see moved next to the top of the pipeline beneath Checkpointing on the core team. By the end of the year, with this strong directive, I believe we can go-to-market with a competitive chat app that offers degrees of privacy not yet available to the public.

Skelaton4 commented 5 years ago

As someone who has been an avid follower of the Loki project from the beginning and will likely be close to your target audience for both coin usage and messanger usage; I would like to say that I support Simon's proposal.

From my perspective it is not the privacy of the coin that draws me to Loki it is the multiple use cases of the Lokinet network that have created my excitement. If I were purely looking for a private coin it would make more sense for me to move to one of the larger private coin projects.

Lokinet is the key feature that makes this project separate, it is your unique selling proposition to the market. I am not saying to abandon the privacy coin aspect obviously, that is important but the best way to market penetration in my opinion is Lokinet first, coin second.

When I mention to people IRL the idea behind a Loki "ecosystem" (browser, messanger, anonymous browsering) their ears perk and if this can be seemlessly integrated into an experience for their daily use then they will adopt it. When I mention the privacy coin features, they generally just say "why use that when I have venmo" obviously, this is one specific instance from one person but the vibe I get is that the Lokinet can appeal to the masses more so then the privacy coin.

Just my 2 cents. Cheers.

KeeJef commented 5 years ago

After much discussion from the community and face to face discussion between both sides of the arguments we have decided to make a compromise and incorporate elements of both schools of thought, this has been enabled by increased hiring on the Loki Messenger team and some new hiring prospects on Loki core.

As a test case for School of Thought 2 we have decided to develop Loki Name System (a Loki core tool) as we think it will provide the clearest path to monetisation of Lokinet without significantly impacting user experience.

Early 2019

Mid 2019

Late 2019

We will leave this LRC open for comment on this joint plan, we would appreciate feedback on the ordering of tasks, this LRC will close once broad consensus has been reached.

KeeJef commented 5 years ago

LRC-1 is now resolved, we have developed a rough plan, which represents a comprise, will close for now