-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 409
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
HIP 54: H3Dex-based PoC Targeting #347
Comments
When will this be implemented? Clodpi devices in India are sending 1 beacon or no beacons in a day as against the 3 beacons a day standard. |
Curious if this is going to solve the issue of hotspots witnessing other hotspot that are to close over and over again. If there is a min distance already implemented why allow hotspots to even talk to those hotspots at all - seems inefficient and wasting time and energy. |
For someone who is not into the subject matter, the example picture is not self-explanatory at all. What are we seeing here? To me, this looks just like a part of the hotspot map showing a few hexes occupied with one hotspot and one massively overcrowded hex. That is probably not the intended interpretation.
So maybe
or
Or is it too late to change the HIP as voting has started - even regarding adding purely explanatory sentences? |
The proposal text isn't describing how a hotspot will be determined "inactive". I think there is a current mechanism that removes the a hotspot after 30days from counting against Transmit Scale. I've seen my hot spot's Transmit scale fluctuate from .65 -> .55 -> .60 -> .51 but the inactive hotspots remain on the map. Changes to deal with this I think are going to be positive if not overdue. Though some details would be helpful regarding "inactive" (as other commenters have also noted). My hotspot also doesn't beacon anything close to 3 per/day (3 weeks since change its been 1.5/day average). But it may me consider if does their "3 per/day" mean we should average 3 a day or just that at most you'll see 3 per day and doesn't mean that's what you would average? Either way my interpretation is that both 54 and 55 should help make beaconing more fair and reduce the data load on the network. |
The HIP has been approved via heliumvote, with 99.34% voting For HIP 54. On behalf of the DeWi, the HIP Editors, and the wider Helium community, I am marking this proposal as |
This HIP has been deployed and is now closed! |
HIP 54: H3Dex-based PoC Targeting
@vihu, @abhay (hashc0de), et al
Summary
This HIP serves as both an explanation of the current Proof-of-Coverage (PoC)
targeting behaviour as well as a proposal for a more scalable replacement using
an H3-based index. We are proposing it as a HIP to communicate and acknowledge
that this is a change to the current implementation but we believe it still
falls within the original intent of PoC.
Rendered view
https://github.com/helium/HIP/blob/main/0054-h3dex-targeting.md
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: