All-encompassing PtP solution

PtP is the hottest topic right now and I really care about it and wanted to draw up what I found to be the best solution I’ve read so far:

I don’t know how to make a real RFC so i’m making this my little unnoficial RFC by tagging the team @dirvine @nicklambert @ioptio @Peter_Jankuliak @qi_ma @Fraser @Viv @BenMS because it’s all I know how to do!


This way, popular content producers get some type of income guaranteed by default, and tipping can be extra gravy on top :slight_smile:


Does anyone have any thoughts? :stuck_out_tongue:

I think most people are burned out on PtP discussions. My concerns are about the fundamentals of the concept, so these implementation differences don’t change my mind.


Dang it… Right when we were getting to some great solutions…

First you have to have a problem.

I haven’t seen any solutions with mathematical models behind them.

I am always skeptical when somebody says that something ought to be paid for that is plenty abundant without payment.

People want to get paid for doing things they want to do, but for some reason the market isn’t paying for their wares, so it is very appealing to make a machine that will pay them blindly without prejudice…

But then that machine has to pay everybody, and you know – everybody is a lot of people, and there is only so much money. They will most likely wind up right back where they started.


The issue came from “how to attract content makers so that people will want to use the network”

No “valuable” content that the masses want to view/read/etc then why will they come?

Yes torrent users might, yes might, convert.

So the problem WAS defined initially

@dirvine considered this issue and thought that extending the concept of paying APP devs and having a PtP would be major set forward in encouraging artists, etc to upload their media to SAFE. It also provided a way to cut out the middle man and set the stage that the artists can promote their wares directly to the public.

And as has been said they can sell (or ask for donations) for their art, and they can upload a heap of supporting material, like “the making of xyz”, unique images, behind the scenes vids, etc etc if they wish to and maybe then PtP will provide a more significant amount for their art. A simple uploader does not have access to this material and once its uploaded then the public generally prefers the real deal and since it doesn’t cost them any more why go to doggy brothers copied content for the real content?

Additional Thought
I don’t know if anyone saw it this way, Resource supply to the system

  • Farmers provide physical disk/cpu/bandwidth to the system
  • APP devs provide programs to use on the network and methods to access the data (apart from simple disk style access)
  • Content providers provide content that people want to see. Could be argued that it matters not if copied or original.

Farmers are recognised as providing the greatest contribution to build the network so they get 10x what the other resource suppliers get. Without APPs or content then there is little for the masses apart from their personal information, and this would mean a very small network since people can do that without SAFE and do it securely.

We need all 3 to have a well rounded system that is both functional and desirable to use by the masses. Thus it can be argued that by not paying the content providers) SAFE will not survive (no adoption by the masses), the farmers will earn very little.

Unless there is some absolutely Killer APP the masses are drawn by.


The main problem is not having content providers, but the for the masses is the cost of put’s onto the network. The masses will have to go through hoops to farm for safe-coin to just upload their personal data.
My point is people will suffer some adds and do it for free on facebook, so why would any want to pay the safe network if they want to share there holiday snaps with mum and dad.
So farming needs to have enough income to be used as a free network.
Solve this and I am all for the PtP solution…

1 Like

What is there to solve, the dynamic calculations do this. If I supply XGB of vault space then the system on average should provide enough income to store XGB. I cannot tell you over what time frame, although I’d estimate that I can store XGB a few times a year paid for by the farming rewards. If anything the only drawback will be the length of time farming rewards will return the required amount of time to PUT those XGB

Without the content & APPS though the network attracts few people and farming will still pay the equivalent PUTs a few times a year, there will be little to farm, the network remains small


Still against it.

100 percent should go to the farmers.

Still waiting on the math equation.


The issue to solve for me, If I provide 1 gigabyte of farming space to the network. I should be able to get an equal share of storage space on the network as a user because it has cost my hard drive space, broadband usage and electricity.
If the maid safe is the ultimate social network the pods and the maid safe foundation should be open sourcing apps for people to easy create their own wall space like a twitter page or a Facebook page. Where people can go and share content of videos and images publicly at zero cost to the user.

One of my many arguments about this system was just conveniently summed up by @Traktion in regards to implementing a network “tipping” mechanism:

There is a constant murmer about how this should be based on user’s input. If so, why are we asking the network to subsidize this? The network is autonomous. It should not, and really cannot do what you are requesting of it. This needs to be left up to the users, and they need to talk with their own money.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.


You do realize that it isn’t a percentage per se but rather a relative ratio.

So it’s not that a content creator receives a smaller percentage of a fixed amount of distributed coin but rather that a content creator receives a smaller amount of safecoin for a relatively lower valued resource contribution to the network that is valued at approximately 1:9 subjectively to that of farming. If however the need for this resource goes up relative to farming then so does their allocation of safecoin from the network accordingly.


@whiteoutmashups Okay what exactly IS this plan? Can you please describe it on words or equations? I’m a bit confused as while your infographic is very pretty it lacks details as to how things would actually work.

1 Like

Thx for calling it pretty lol

Described here:

I think the privacy, security and reliability of the network are enough to make plenty of people use the network. Besides, unless my analysis on the vault routing burden is completely off, we’re (at least initially) far better off with a network that’s mostly used for cold storage.

1 Like

I think the intention with installers etc is to make this as simple / user friendly as possible. A ‘hoop-free’ experience, if you will. And so if it’s just opening another ‘app’, and then you see SAFE start to trickle in. Then that’s it. Sure I’ll put my stuff on this safe, secure, basically free dropbox… And what!?? I can get more money for people viewing my stuff. COOL. And on rolls the SAFE revolution :smiley: .

1 Like

Very true.

It would still only be a certain segment of people. Those who want an easy way to gain the privacy, security and reliability will join the network. But they do have other suitable options. So I can see the need for content providers, at least at some stage in the network’s growth to encompass the masses.

1 Like

This is the core of the matter, and if you can’t see why people would use SAFEnetwork with content rewards I’d be interested to hear why you think people would choose SAFEnetwork without them.

The implication seems to be on price, but 1) I don’t think price is an important enough motivator to drive mass adoption of SAFEnetwork, or hinder it, and 2) I don’t believe SAFE storage is likely to be more expensive than alternatives without it. Sure, if you pretend it’s free to use facebook, Google Drive etc you can say they are cheaper, but people who don’t care about the real cost of “free” (privacy, adverts, security etc) won’t be using a service like SAFE anyway.

The whole point of SAFEnetwork is to provide an alternative to the model you describe.