FYI in this sense “watermarking” does not mean what you think it means.
It means each chunk that a person uploads publicly (and chooses to have watermarked) will have their wallet address hard-coded into the chunk. There’s no actual watermark per-se on the content. Just a wallet address irrevocably tied to the data.
The idea is to make it optional. So if you want to upload data tot eh network, you just do that. If you want to make some money on it, because you put in effort to make it, you could attach a wallet-address (even a new one for each file) so no one still has a clue who uploaded the data. If you want to go 1 step further, you could add you “username” to the data, so everyone could see who uploaded the file. Again, all optional.
I don’t mean to hijack this excellent response, but like I put earlier, if this is implemented at the chunk level, in what ways and to what extent would deduplication affect this system?
What happens is the wallet address is attached to the Put message and on seeing this as the first store, the network would remember this (stored with data manager state). Then this can be queried in the farming mechanism and the reward paid. So the network ultimately holds the watermark (probably a bad name).
So if I understand correctly, data managers look after data pointers as well as this payment address. (you’re right, watermark is a misleading name) Is there any other meta data that NAE (in this case specifically data) managers are responsible for holding on to? (this is a new concept for me)
No worries, only the name and where local copies are in that group (there is 2 copies per group and 3 groups) only primary chunks would have a wallet address in PtP. The DataManagers also calculate farming rates etc.
You know you don’t HAVE to make content public in order to upload it. You can have a private collection, and couldn’t you also watermark that private collection and share it with a group of associates? That way it gets distributed but only within a group of your choosing and at your particular standards. For those who aren’t trying to please the masses they don’t have to distribute to the masses. And if you aren’t trying to please the masses then why do you care if you make money off the masses or not? Your complaint doesn’t quite make sense to me as the whole point of mass distribution to the masses is either about putting your stuff out there OR about pleasing the masses in return for money. If you don’t care about public approval then what do you care if they don’t pay you for your work? If you want to go fishing for some millionaire stick with a private collection and just develop a public portfolio.
You don’t seem to get that PtP will increase upload costs for everyone. So if I upload a file that’s not meant for mass consumption (a niche product) I’m paying extra for that upload so that the network can reward hollywood celebrities and such, and I’ll never earn those extra costs back (because it’s a niche product). That’s my problem with this system. Every uploader has to pay 10% extra so that the network can redistribute those coins to those who uploaded the most popular files. That means if your files aren’t going to be above the average level of popularity of all public content, PtP will cost you money.
10% is not necessarily accurate. Just sayin’, your point stands (but we don’t know how the maths will work out and the final figure that will/would be used).
As for the difference, 10% more compared to what?:
EDIT: and we have no idea what the costs will work it to be on SAFEnetwork - if there are lots of farmers using spare resources it could be from very low, all the way up to somewhere near commercial rates, but almost certainly less.
You see, making arguments which focus on a part is unreliable, you have to look at the whole (or as much as possible) to improve the analysis, but in the end it will still be guess work.
I just see a lot of weak arguments about this that seem to be more about supporting a predisposition (not from you) , when I think we’d be better off imagining different mechanisms, doing some modelling, and then trying out the promising ideas.
I certainly don’t buy the, but it would cost more argument (yes, but so what). People object to this for various reasons, some ideological, some well meant but inadequately thought through IMO.
I’m not of the opinion this is solved, or even solvable. I’m of the opinion it’s a bloody good opportunity to have a go at solving it. Doing that requires us to approach this with a mindset that is looking for solutions.
Anime is a niche product. Do you have any idea how BIG anime is and how obsessed otokus can be with collecting anime stuff? So WHAT if you need to pay 10% more? Just being a niche market does not equate to being unpopular or a reduction in downloads.
(Arg this post is giving me lots of errors and taking forever to post!!
The increase will be microscopic
It is definitely not accurate and could only be considered close if ALL content was uploaded as public with PtP and all is accessed at least a certain amount of times. And each of those conditions are pretty obviously highly unlikely.
Our PUT payments are going towards a lot of things already and everyone thinks PtP is one too many. For instance some of the things PUT costs go towards are
TL;DR PUT payments does not just pay for one thing, its just that often its only thought of as being expressed in farming rewards. Remember that APP devs cause a lot PUTs in order for their APPs to run, content providers have to PUT their content, and a lot of PtP content will not earn more than 1/4 of the PUT cost. A lot of “copied” content will be done multiple times resulting in multiple PUTs for a set number of views. The number of views for the content is not increased by the number of uploads of copies. That viral video may get uploaded 10,000 times due to human nature.
The maths definitely does not support the assertion that it is 10% increase (maybe 4% or 1%). And in any case why are people not complaining that messaging is free and paid for by PUTs
Ideologically @Seneca has a point in that there is no need to pay the network to subsidize other people’s creativity. Which ultimately are their own opinions from their own point of view, which the uploader may not even support.
Yes, but as mentioned above, not 10%. And it will provide you with more choice. If we have a “SafeTube” App the number of uploaded videos will be way higher because people have an incentive to share. That’s far different from YouTube where only the real big fish can make money. Think about a some poor kids in India who like to make a documentary about their own town. Maybe they only share 1 computer with 5 but when they go a bit viral they get these same good Safecoin as you and I have. They don’t need to do crowdfunding or whatever, just put it online and directly earn reward from views.
Should be no problem to run a Vault for some extra time to earn these coins. It will be good for the network as a whole when you do.