Could watermarking data fix it all?

Features
21

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
22

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.

23

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

24

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
25

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
26

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

1 Like
27

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

28

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

1 Like
29

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.

30

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
31

Why non-anonymous?

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

1 Like
32

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
33

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.

34

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
35

Maybe using a SD to hold that info and see if the devs can write in a way for public data to have the SD associated. Then you can do very much more at the APP level.

If the network can link a SD to the public file then that solves impersonation and people being able to link SDs to existing files they did not create/upload.

Then anonymous uploads would sign with an “anonymous ID” and non-anon would be signed with the public ID of the client. That way the SD is securely linked to the file and no changes to the chunking and storing of the file, just an additional function to link the SD and sign it.

36

I’ll leave the implementation for another thread. But I will certainly mull this idea over. (Shameless plug) It seems like it would fit well in my PUT Incentive Model RFC. (/Shameless plug)

2 Likes
37

Remember there is no file meta data. Only a datamap

Stored chunks have a small metadata area for each chunk.

So I guess you would have to propose a data structure to be used for public file “metadata” and a SD would suit this well. Give it a unique SD-type for this purpose and propose it to be signed and linked when a public file is uploaded that has extra meta data to be stored such as payment address. (EDIT: see my post further up for an example of the data it could contain)

1 Like
38

I still don’t know. My download is like 7MB/sec. at max and my upload is 2MB/sec. We have quite good speeds here in Holland and ISP’s won’t bother you with datalimits for the most part. So I could upload a 10 hour video (don’t click link!) to SAFE, attach my own wallet-address to it and play it in a loop for days without hurting my Vaults. That’s way I could maybe trick the system and make some money.

That’s the idea. The Chunks stays the same but has it’s own meta-data. It could be empty (not wallet-address or digital sign) or used for the idea.

Haha, I got that question before. It’s hypothetical. Maybe i should write > an RFC could be introduced.

I think it should be optional. So only people that do attach an address make money, but it shouldn’t be forced.

Nope, just a random wallet-address to people. On could automatically create a new address for each file. Only when people do a digital sign an attach their public name it could be traceable on purpose.

I think it should be 25% of the farming. It wouldn’t hurt Farmers that much, because there’s a lot of other data without a wallet-address attached.

Because you now have a wallet-address of Satoshi, he makes a little money on Farming but you could actually tip his file!

I think it will be less than 10%. No watermarking possible on private data, not all data will have a watermark etc. So when only 50% of all data requested has a watermark, upload prices would only be 5% higher I think.

1 Like
39

Two files, both alike in dignity
In fair SAFE Network, where we lay our scene
From legacy code breaks the new malady
Where civil PUTs makes civil GETs unclean.
From forth the average minds of these two Joe’s
These pair of star cross’d content creators spend their life
Whose avaricious watermarking overthrows
Do with their deduplication bury their Network right.

EDIT: Seriously!!! No love for (or answer to) this? Damn…

For the non-native english speakers (or the uneducated) this is a reference to Shakespeare’s opening to Romeo and Juliet. What I’m attempting to ask is what if two files have a similar deduplicated chunk with each deserving of the watermark?

…I absolutely lost it when I wrote “Where civil PUTs makes civil GETs unclean.” C’mon you guys. This is good stuff!

2 Likes
40

I’m against watermarking, and I am an artist. I really hate it, and is completely distracting.

I would download the video, and remove the watermark, then reupload it for people who hate watermarks.

Edited:

If it is build in, then torrent users may not partake with safe unless they like the idea. Based on torrent users, they are favor of no watermarking, no ads, and none of other things that distract users.

1 Like