You seem very certain of the negative. I feel fairly certain of the positive.
We will have to wait and see.
6 Likes
I am extremely positive and the reality exists. Every crypto project I know has a copy. This is the reality. Safe will have copies.
Farmers in one Safe Network will be able to be farmers in another Safe Network. The different Safe networks will try to lure farmers into their network. This is how evolution works. The best network will survive. I want this to be ours Safe Network 
1 Like
The only problem I see with forks of “our” SAFE Network is that those of us who have invested in MAID early will lose their money. Well, boo-hoo. There is so much more at stake here! Money is nice, and all that, but to me the network in development is about saving humanity from corporate/state surveillance. Whether the original SAFE or a fork of it accomplishes this goal is really not that important. I don’t need five Lamborghinis and a golden toilet. Although I would like a new little fishing boat…
This is how evolution works. May the best Network win.
5 Likes
The success of the network will not be determined by the number of farmers but by the number of users.
And there will be users if the network has data and apps that are useful.
And if there are users there will be always farmers who won’t risk leaving the network, massively as is mandatory in a fork, without clients.
3 Likes
You confuse success with what can kill the network. The network can be super successful with many users and a lot of data, but if there is a successful vampire attack to kill it.
Does anyone know what percentage outflow of farmers can withstand the network before it dies?
1 Like
How? A successful network will always have new farmers willing to replace those who leave.
Successful for users means a lot of information. Successful for farmers means good profits.
There are two different types of success.
Imagine that you are a farmer. There is a second Safe Network in which you can make twice as much money, isn’t it rational for you as a farmer to click one .exe and earn twice as much?
This seems incorrect to me. Safecoin wallets will not be available on the regular internet, they will only exist on the Safe Network.
That’s a pretty big assumption! And I feel the conclusions you draw because of this assumption are not strong.
There seems to be an assumption that being connected to existing decentralized infrastructure is a certain positive thing. But maybe there are cases where it may be damaging? You seem certain that we need this connection but are not really demonstrating it. Maybe it’s too obvious to need demonstration, but I don’t find it obvious.
Like any one of the many bitcoin clones (oh wait none of them pay more than bitcoin). Or the many ethereum clones … again none pays more.
First mover doesn’t guarantee dominance, but it’s a pretty good indicator if history is anything to go by.
I find it hard to see a network that would actually pay more. When you work through the logic of supply vs demand and inflation etc, it would be hard to pay more than the original network.
Bit of a strawman, isn’t it?
Are you saying we must design the network to be able to sustain through such a situation? It’s good to have parameters on how much stress to be able to survive. I appreciate you putting at least some estimate on it here.
Would it be more than what Safe Network pays? I can see maybe yes for a little while it might be. So maybe there is a threat here from short term high payment networks.
Can you point to any where the copy is more successful than the original? Genuine question because I don’t know of any.
Depends on the amount of spare space on the remaining nodes. If there’s a bunch of massive nodes then it could survive a long time, but if all nodes have only a little spare then the slack will be consumed quickly and the network may die.
It’s rational to click the exe but is it rational to think there will suddenly be a network where you can make twice as much money? I am struggling to see how this could work for any meaningful amount of time before the vampire runs out of rewards to pay double with. You could set up a network that pays twice as much but where do those rewards come from?
5 Likes
I hope you are right and I am wrong.
In any case, I have said what I think and everyone can vote as they see fit when the time comes to support or not the attempts of third parties to include us in the ETH DEXs ecosystem.
It is very simple.
Demand (User who upload file) is more important.
Because if not, storj or sia or any other project give more coins to farmer already success.
But well, there is no successfully storage coins now, why? because user dont use that protocol.
1 Like
Your example does not really only imply demand is more important.
Supply without demand = wasted resources
Demand without supply = no product
Demand at which price? Price is dependant on supply - if supply is low, price is sky-high, is there any real demand left? Saying demand is more important is not sufficient on a deeper level.
1 Like
But are farmers rational?
Also, they may also have several motivations for farming, and only one of them being earning money. I personally have money as one motivation, but also a will to further the common good that Safe Network brings.
And then I have the motivation to support this spesific Safe Network being developed by Maidsafe, just because I like this one, and I like the folks here etc. This project has emotional meaning to me, which is diffcult to weigh in money. (Heck, my reason for owning MAID may be much more the fact that I like this project, than all those calculations how rich I’m gonna become*). I think that I could change for another network, but it would feel like betraying this project, my own beliefs (or my sense of inner integrity), the folks here etc. I would need to be really in a corner before I would do so. The feeling of loss, quilt and shame would not be worth the money.
I think that peoples selfish motives are not so prevalent and dominant we often believe. Yes, we have self-interests, but we also have strong interests for well-being of others. It often feels bad when you act in a selfish way and it feels good when you help others or some more general cause. The work of Maidsafe and the way David talks about has a strong emphasis for common good and I think that is infectious.
Now of course at some point there may be a copycat network, marketed to people who have never heard of the first one, so they may not have any emotional or moral hindrances to participating in that one. But I tend to think that the first one has enough edge in concuering peoples hearts first. I think that when spreadig the news of Safe Network being here, it would be good idea to tell how “You can easily join us in the work for a better digital Word” than trying to sell the opportunity to “make few bucks by renting your hardrive”. I mean, how boring is that?
“Ask not what your Internet can do for you – ask what you can do for your Internet.”
*) just on a side note, when I dream of becoming rich, I often dream about the possibility to give (a big part) of that money for poorer people, projects in need etc. You may think that this is naive, or that I would like to give just in order to feel superior to poorer, or to feel good about myself. But I argue that the will to give is at least as “natural” and self-evident as the will to take and gain. We want to give.
6 Likes
Good one!
Screw people who think that. I’m with you all the way. Maybe there is still hope (toivo) for humanity. 
3 Likes
If you count on the good will of people to support the network it will fail. Such an approach is naive and childish. It must be economical profitable for people to become a farmer. The advantage in bitcoin is that those who invest capital to earn fees or block reward have “skin in the game” and will do anything they can to become better and improve the technology that supports the network. If this incentive doesn’t exist in Safe I don’t see how the network will evolve. First thing is to acknowledge human nature and not ignore it.
2 Likes
I wonder that’s sort of half right… people have to value the network to ensure its future. Skin in the game is a good thought but one flavour of that will be data in the network. There are better motives than just profit in money and whatever is to be sustainable cannot just pander to one kind of interest… its a fine balance but utility is a powerful attractor.
5 Likes
This much is true, very true and should be tattooed on everyone’s inner eyelids at birth but for nowsheer naked greed is extraordinarily compelling. We would be wise not to ignore this
3 Likes
@Dimitar, still hoping for some info on this, I am genuinely interested in this but don’t know much about it myself. Do you have any examples that I can look further into?
Remaining mindful of human nature is critical in any product or policy design. The incentives must be aligned to the desired outcomes. In this way, designing for the super-user (e.g. the highly idealistic sort that gravitates to this forum) should deliver superior privacy, security and equitability that is also optimized for realistic consumption by the many. In other words, it’s better to be pragmatic than lost in the ivory tower.
Most simply put, a successful safe network will appropriately align supply and demand through the mechanism of price. Nevertheless, it’s a bit difficult to understand how this would be efficiently done in an automatic way given the complexity of the safe network and the utility of safecoin beyond just rewarding PUTs.
On another note, one wonders if before we worry too much about competing safe networks we should focus on launching one…
9 Likes
Sorry, I thought it was a sarcastic question because the second largest cryptocurrency in the world is a fork and everyone knows it…
I also don’t understand why we need to compare the end result - we are not a blockchain - it can survive with 99% of the miners leaving, we can’t. As I asked you in the Second network attack - discussion thread, we need to look at the movement of resources at the time of the attack, not the end result:
On November 10th, 2017, we have seen sudden growth of Bitcoin Cash (Bcash) price, which led to many miners and whole pools moving to mine on Bcash blockchain with promise of greater returns. This phase, during which Bcash gained more hash rate than Bitcoin, lasted for about 53 hours
That can be interesting to analyze too:
Bitcoin Cash vs. Bitcoin SV
Bitcoin vs. Bitcoin Cash
Ethereum vs. Ethereum Classic
2 Likes
There are projects in the world that are supported for free by people who believe in them. Personally, I can easily imagine how Wikipedia is transferred to its own copy of the Safe Network without currency, which is maintained free of charge by people 
I can also imagine small local Safe networks that are used by cities and maintained free of charge by the local people and municipalities for the needs of the specific small community…
3 Likes