PEP-29 Pocket Lint (RECINDED)

[shane]

Thanks for the response @poktblade.

@poktblade

From what I understand, it derives latency by measuring real relays too from RTT portal → pocket node → relay chain not just from a pure height call. Can someone confirm?

Yes, you are indeed correct. Latency is also constantly checked through out a session and the active calls being used by the app in that session are being used.

While latency is constantly checked through the existing traffic, the Portal is also constantly using block height on it’s own to also determine if a node should get relays or not. Block height calls are the first calls that the Portal submits to nodes, so if your node doesn’t answer block height, it won’t get any relays at all. POKT Lint is simply represents the first calls the Portal already does to check health and latency.

@poktblade

I stand by the fact a simple lightweight RPC latency tester is nearly identical to a ping test. It is not indicative of real load.

You are correct that POKT Lint is a lightweight RPC latency tester, and not a stress tester. I respect your opinion on the value of POKT Lint. I may disagree, but thank-you for bringing it to the conversation.

@poktblade

It really should’ve fit in the NP’s budget since it tailors to your userbase use case a lot more than someone who has basic programmatic skills to whip up some latency testing scripts

Indeed, someone with programming skills can create their own latency testing scripts and deploy them in the sames regions as the Portal, similar to POKT Lint. We thought streamlining this for all level of users would be helpful.

I don’t agree that projects should be grafted into past proposals if they may be useful to a similar audiences. Happy to agree to disagree on this one.

@poktblade

I would feel more comfortable revisiting this with a lower amount and as well with the PNF public approval that this is the right direction we should be taking.

This would be the first time that PNF would be called to make official statements regarding a contributor proposal. This has never been the role of PNF with the DAO. It’s actually the other way around… the reason PNF regularly submits proposals is because it acts on behalf of the DAO. The POKT Constitution structures the DAO as an independent agency that provide guidence to the Foundation, not the other way around.

The DAO signals directions for the ecosystem (like with RFP-7 & RFP-8). Feel free to look back at all PEP proposals and you won’t find PNF giving any official statements. PNF members may give personal statements on the forum, or on community calls (as I linked before), but those are their individual opinions and should not be considered official PNF backing.

As a voter, regardless of this proposal, I would caution restructuring the balance of power by putting PNF in the position to officially back proposals.