Could watermarking data fix it all?

I have been thinking safe network is too decentralized, my understanding is that any content data file is broken up into chunks and spread out onto the network in 4 copies.
Why can not have an option where one copy is store locally on safe network drive and have 3-4 copies spread out on the safe network.
Then the content creator could watermark there data and have a one in four chance collecting the farming rewards.
I think this would be possible my data could be transferred to straight a public folder on the safe network, where I could make changes to it and then have the file broadcast to the whole network.
So if a local community page had one copy on your peer, the network could cache the data locally in your area.

The idea that we can give a 10 percent rebate back to the unloaders via a popularity lottery system and people expect to make a living off of that is a joke.

Mostly it is a a false hype. I just think people are so excited about the idea, they don’t really think about the math. And then they are so attached to the idea that they want to engineer it in this way or that way, and fight over it tooth and nail, even though it really is pennies.

The network is very ignorant by design . It is a lousy judge of value - and there are way better ways to pay content than trying to engineer a 10 percent rebate.

Ummm I thought I implied that and said it will not fund things

Only if people keep saying its meant to make a living off for most uploaders

Lets test it and then the proof will be in the pudding, which ever way it happens.

For the few lines that @dirvine says it will take, its no skin off our noses to try it out in the testing phase

This can also be good, in that no one group discriminates against another.

And this has never been denied, and many including myself have said that having other methods does not preclude PtP and they can work together. At least the artist gets something when others link to the public file separate to any APPs tipping or otherwise.

2 Likes

Maybe if there was no cost involved. But these rewards will have to be paid for by 10% higher upload prices. That’s 10% extra incentive to not upload files as well. Content uploaders that don’t aim to please the masses are going to be worse off under this system, they’re not going to earn back that extra 10% they paid. PtP is a wealth redistribution scheme among uploaders, so there are going to be plenty of losers as well.

3 Likes

Agreed.

But wouldn’t it be wise to test it during test phase since @dirvine believes it to be just a few lines of code. Then we all can see evidence of expected costs and impact. Not perfect but should see some trends

Although saying 10% may be incorrect.

  • it could be a little too low if a massive amount of public data with watermarking is popular
  • it could be right on
  • it could be significantly too high if the ratio of GETs from public data with watermarking to GETs from other public data and private data is not that great.

Looking at successful farming GETs i.e. non cached
NOTE: this does not consider the fact that much of the public & private data will be rarely read, thus the PUT cost for that data would be an additional factor reducing the costs of PtP & PUTs in general

  • Let A == #GETs from public data with a PtP address watermark
  • Let B == #GETs from public data without watermark
  • Let C == #GETs from private data

And taking all other factors for PUT cost being the same when considering the ratios

Additional cost for PUTs is based on the ratio of PtP GETs to non PtP is

A / ( A + B + C )

Thus if PtP is 10% of the value of framing then the additional cost to support PtP has to be multiplied by the above ratio.

So if we have at the lower end where GETs for PtP data is equal to all other GETs then A == B + C then the additional %age is 5% extra and if its like A == 4 * (B+C) then the %age is 8% extra

Essentially it is never 10% extra unless all data GETs is PtP data.

2 Likes

Interesting idea!
All public data is watermarked by default. This removes one more speed bump for uploaders. This incentive encourages to me use the Network, even thought I have to pay to PUT.

One Condition
I think human feedback is necessary to assist the Network in determining rewards. The network can easily measure traffic, but doesn’t know if that traffic is (support or curiosity) by consumer.

One example could be a popular song that WILL get modified (to steal original uploader’s position) and re-uploaded to an aggregator where high traffic already exists… Basically a copy cat clone.


A (LIKE) Farming system could help distinguish the difference between the copy cat clone and the original. But if the people support the changes made (lyrics added), then they LIKE the copy cat clone and show their support.

Here’s how I see this working…
When a consumer “likes” a video or blog or whatever, they are sending a “+1 like” to the watermark address. Is this possible? If so, then each LIKE initiates a farming attempt for the watermark address, not the chunk. Regardless of the file size, the reward is determined by actual support.

Obviously, we must prevent/mitigate spamming from the same person. Otherwise the uploader would spam their watermark content for free farming attempts. I’m still working on possible solutions to prevent LIKE spamming. See below…

Q & A
What about multiple account creations?
It costs 1SC to “activate” an account, because LIKING is a PUT request. Keep in mind the LIKE is only a farm attempt, not a guaranteed payout.

What about disconnecting and reconnecting, getting a new XOR address?
If the LIKE is associated with my accounts ID, then XOR address doesn’t matter. This means I can only LIKE a watermark content once. Repeat likes would get deduplicated.

What about user collusion?
Yes, a group of users could agree to “like” each others content. They can even upload multiple 1MB content to generate more artificial LIKES (farming attempts). There are a few ways to mitigate it. See below…


Most ideal solution?
LIKING would cost 1 Safecoin. The SC gets recycled back into the Network, adding to its revenue. Spamming LIKES on your own content would result in a net loss, because you only get a farming attempt.

One drawback of this solution is when SC becomes more valuable (i.e. worth more $$$). Then 1 click liking becomes expensive. Divisibility would be required as well as a way to decrease how much SC it costs to submit a LIKE.

Why can’t a LIKE pay 1 SC directly to the content owner (watermark address)?
Because then the owner could LIKE their own content for free, making it look like it’s popular when it is not.

3 Likes

I thought this was going to be a configuration in the client so that one could automatically watermark their public uploads.

So then the user only has to insert their pay address into their client and its done automatically.

Others who may wish to chop and change pay address (or have none) can do so on a upload by upload basis

It was already the case if one wanted it. Unless I misunderstood something.

1 Like

Yes, but the network cannot help but discriminate itself. It can only measure content by size. It will always pay Porn vids more than white papers. Not much way of getting around that.

And neither party is going to be made or broken by what they get.

I didn’t know that. That would be great to have a ON/OFF watermark toggle for public uploads.

Or is it possible at the APP level to introduce a special public data.

  • These works are linked to the SD not the datamap and the App/Lib processes it from there
  • it is uploaded with PtP pay address to get even the linked references incentive amount and to allow anonymous public data that gets at least the PtP incentive.
  • The author signs a SD with their private key and checked by using their public key to prevent impersonination
  • The SD contains the Author info, very brief description of the uploaded work
  • The SD contains the “tipping”, “payment” address allowing people to tip &/or donate
  • The SD contains the datamap or “ptr” to datamap depending on size of datamap
  • Being signed the APP (or library that many APPs use) will read the Author’s Identification and decode the SD using the public key for that author. Thus confirming it is the author and prevents impersonation.
  • From there the App/Lib accesses the public data as if the public data was accessed directly.
  • Could even upload the file as private data since the SD has a copy of the datamap.

This could even be incorporated in a utility for scanning public files.

Results of this idea

  • PtP incentives as small as they are remain to give incentive for anon public files
  • Further giving/paying the author is in the hands of the user accessing said data.
  • Public files can be signed by the author to prove who uploaded it

It may require an APP to assist in the upload to prevent claiming an existing stored public file as your own. Copying could still occur but we are talking here of signing a particular file and copies are their own files.

1 Like

I think we should explore all possible solutions and thrash them out to see which one works best.

Yes, there may be inefficiencies in the economics.
However, as a consumer (non-farmer), I’m more driven to use a system that rewards me for uploading, assuming I bring value to the community. This is why we need to incorporate some kind of human feedback.

1 Like

Maybe we could have a series of threads exploring each. You could take your idea and make a new thread.

1 Like

I do wonder if its possible for a SD to be tied to a public file (if the author wishes) at the network level so that problems of ensuring a 1:1 link cannot be subverted

The proposed solutions may become more complex and requires more development. Maybe it’s better to develop later?

1 Like

Make watermarking as an assets plugin, making the water mark have an value.
Then one could watermark there content 10X for example and 10 times the income.
So the user wants to put on data onto to the network would use the same system we have now.
To make your data more unique and more value attached more watermark asset to the data.
The people using the network could use a like button to generate new watermarks, eg. 1000 likes equals one watermark.
The watermark could be sold on safex or attached to your next art/content piece.

One of my (many) issues with anything of this sort is that GETting content does not pay the network. The network does not recieve any counter-balance to the reward that it issues.

I do support a wallet address for any non-anonymous (onymous) public data. This would enable a tipping protocol to be easily built into any APP without much hacking. However, it should not be the network that chooses to reward that piece of data, it should be the user’s choice to tip or not to tip.

2 Likes

Why non-anonymous?

People could upload wiki-leaks (anonymous example) style with a PtP address and still be anonymous.

1 Like

If that is the case, then OK. The distinction was only to preserve anonymity.

If a wallet address can be attached and be proven to not break the anonymity of the user, then I have no qualms about it.

2 Likes

Yes the pay address is processed when framing reward attempt is made. It is not passed with the data

And when the person wishes to cash out they only need to transfer the coins to another coin address they have and the link to the PtP pay address will be lost when they transfer it again or pay someone.

That’s not what I support though.

I support a wallet address (in the meta data?) to be included in the file. (not chunks - they can be legitimately de-duped with two or more valid wallet addresses) That way accessing the correct wallet for tipping purposes is easier to code into any given APP. (or pull from the file without even having an APP)

What I do not support is a app or content reward tied to a farming attempt.

So, yes, I am twisting the meaning of what has been proposed to fit my own scheme. I do not support any reward (other than farming) to be based on GETs.

1 Like