But what do they do with that mutable data?
If they want to store the exact same file then fine, they could chose to sell ownership of it. But if they want to store something different I that same 1 MB, then they need to pony up the current rate in SNTs.
Do you mean that updating mutable data incurs exactly the same cost as uploading immutable data?
New chunk, new hash, new charge AFAIAA
That explains a few things. Though it is a bit concerning, because I think there needs to be an incentive for uploading mutable data, but that’s a topic for a different thread.
What is way too much? This point is will be different for different users and data. Something is worth storing for whoterever it costs, something for $1 maximum, something not even for $0,01.
Assuming Safe has reasonable prices for uploads (because it will, unless something goes truly horribly wrong), then can you give any scenario where someone would change their mind about an upload if the price went up 10%? Sure, there will be edge cases like crypto mining, but for the most part people just upload without thinking twice.
A scenario: an archival company pays $10M in January for data storage. They see the price go up 10% at the start of February but expect it to reduce to previous levels again by mid February, so they will save $1M by waiting two weeks, which they can do because their data is not time sensitive.
What would be the purpose of an archival company, when the Safe network exists?
But yes, some people with huge amounts of data to archive (like future telescope projects maybe?) might delay things in the short term.
We should reach out to CERN.
No more mutable data its append data. To mutate data, there is data appended (and paid for) to that and the data appended becomes the latest version of that data.
So the first person spent the SNT and the second person will spend more SNT to “mutate” the data