What is your proposition? If I understand what you propose is:
To offer a get you bid the amount you want to get?
To do a put you get the bid you want?
Edit: But how is that gonna help?
What is your proposition? If I understand what you propose is:
To offer a get you bid the amount you want to get?
To do a put you get the bid you want?
Edit: But how is that gonna help?
You were quick so hereâs a last response for the day
No, you donât understand. I proposed an uploader would offer a given amount they are willing to pay for a PUT for their chunk, section would pick N of M vault from the chunkâs close group with the smallest amounts asked to store that chunk if the sum of what those N vaults asked is smaller than what the uploader offered.
It would remove the burden of setting the price from the network core. It would eliminate a point of failure about something that, though you refuse to accept it, is most likely too complex for a simple balancing algo to get it right.
More importantly, we canât reliably ascertain if such an algo would do what we want until itâs too late, so it would be wise to leave it up for trial-and-error by many independent players, each of whom could fail without bringing the entire network down. This final point is the âwhyâ.
Omg⌠You are totally offline with what safe network is!!! I will edit with an explanation
do you know what you just proposed? a one time payment for put that is going directly to the vaults that will accept the data.
OMG 1. the data is always available and people pay bandwidth or rather have reliable access to the data FOR EVER.
so you propose that the vault that gets the data is paid once just for storing it.
that means that if a vault that gets the data goes offline or stays online doesnt matter.
wow just wow⌠please tell me you phrased your proposition in a wrong way and you dont propose a one time payment for storing data FOR EVER!
edit2: I mean the person who puts (uploads) will pay one time fee, but it should not go to those N vaults that accept it because:
the data will be always available and if the vaults paid goes offline the data go to other vaults which will offer the data FOR FREE for EVER! as in they will not get rewarded for storing and keeping the data accessible!
actually we could have a [delta-limiter] (so limiter for the rate of change) to have enough time to react when prices are escalating and include an upper/lower bound so weâd have more than enough time to fix a possible issue
but on the other hand ⌠based on the assumption that farming reward is purely given out on PUTs this idea has its merits reward should be smaller for younger nodes because otherwise there is no incentive to stay online (and one need to balance the storing a bit that not all chunks end up in one/some cheap vault ⌠then the balancing probably is a additional complexity/weak point âŚ)
ps: and tbh iâm not sure how the farming algorithm will work in the end so far i assumed it was based on GETs; but since this might come with its own problems this might not be the case (and i read something about puts somewhere too ⌠but not sure in which context)
I did answer about FRB, inflation and suffering in my latest reply to your comments. When I wrote that reply I got a feeling that I might not get a response on my arguments but instead some form of argumentation attack that did not in any way involv a response on the arguments I wrote about FRB, inflation or suffering.
If someone would tell me they had a minor degree in economics
and if they thought that it was in any way close or similar to example business/administration economic bachelor, I would be offended.
When reading your previous comments I get nothing that is even close to resemble what I learned at the university. to me I get a strong feeling that the argumentation comes from something similar as could be described as âalternative factsâ or maybe conspiracy theory, similar to what I have seen some of on youtube.
I donât have any interest in this discussion other than the feeling of obligation to warn people when I read arguments that is not correct based on economic theory and that resembles alternative facts or conspiracy theories. I have made a silent promise to a professor that askeds us to be defenders of logical/rational thinking based on facts from the best science currently known to humans.
I have now done my part and if I ever meet the professor again I could proudly look him in the eyes and tell him that I fulfilled my obliagtion to the best of my knowledge to defend facts/science based on logical and rational thinking.
If anyone is interested in forming an opinion about FRB, inflation and other economic topics I highly recommend to learn about the topics from example, Yale open courses on youtube or similar, before forming a opinion based on alternative fact or something similar to conspiracy theories.
Sorry, no more de-railing from me, but âstate monopoly capitalismâ" look at Takis Fotopoulous analysis of the entire history of markets, they do not self manage they require state intervention hence the âstateâ in state monopoly capitalism. Markets are more like fish aquariums than perma culture. Monopoly and oligopoly are externalities that require uncorrupted or less corrupted states to prevent and remove.
As for that other bit doing anything that would open the coin to any kind of speculative manipulation is just bs. Weâre stuck with formulas or we get speculators and fed boards.
I find it perversely entertaining that the moment I mention âfree marketâ some people just flip and predict the end of the Safe Network by the Evils of Capitalism⢠but at the same time have no issues when the corner store sets the price for their ice cream however the f*ck they please. Just, funny.
I find at least two things concerning:
it remains unclear that a dynamic enough algorithm could be designed to set price and reward in a manner that keeps pace with an ever evolving environment (especially when one considers Safecoinâs utility in exchange for assets beyond data storage/transmission)
to the degree that the mechanism by which price/reward is set must be updated, the governance model the SAFE Network will leverage to authorize changes is yet to be articulated
My 2 cents are that if you offer a GOOD incentive to farmers, word will spread and this project will take off quicker than hell.
I like the idea that farmers can set their own price, or within a range if that is possible, so likely what may end up happening is that those lower price ranges than end up being located in places where it is cheaper globally (potentially not first world countries) and then maybe youâll still have folks opting to pay for the higher priced storage which they can likely assume are in places like Eu or USA, Australia etc. So you end up with a bitcoin wallet fee type of situation where the user elects what fee they want to pay.
But Iâm shit at math so donât listen to me, I just know that communists and socialists are losers (speaking as an ex commy).
W could have someone like Cathy OâNeil from OâNeil Risk Consulting & Algorithmic Auditing. The review algorithms and incentives for secondary and tertiary effects.
" Want to prove your business is fair? Audit your algorithm
Companies and organizations have been increasingly using mathematical models to streamline important decisions, and these new decision-making processes have been largely unaudited. Indeed, they have been assumed to be fair and objective simply by dint of their mathematical nature.
We at ORCAA call this the âauthority of the inscrutable.â Itâs real. But itâs an undeserved authority that is being increasingly questioned. Lawsuits are being filed against the use of dubious algorithms like personality tests used for hiring as well as recidivism risk models used for sentencing, parole, and bail.
ORCAAâs mission is two-fold. First, it is to help companies and organizations that rely on time and cost-saving algorithms to get ahead of this wave, to understand and plan for their litigation and reputation risk, and most importantly to use algorithms fairly.
The second half of ORCAAâs mission is this: to develop rigorous methodology and tools, and to set rigorous standards for the new field of algorithmic auditing."
Here is a great interview with her. I think we should have someone like this look over the project to see if she as any recommendations.
It makes perfect sense. Your entire discussion and N of M proposal for pricing PUTs and GETs, which then led to this thread, is based on a (self-imposed) limited view of network operations and a complete refusal to consider the work performed by the network in facilitating the exchange of resources. There are always three parties involved with regard to a transaction : Buyer, Seller, and Network. The algorithmic approach takes into account all three parties, your approach does not.
The algorithmic approach is a search procedure that fosters efficient price discovery given network objectives and constraints while minimizing costs for all those involved. All participants (Buyer, Seller, Network) are free to walk away or come back to the table at any time depending on how a particular price suits them. In itâs role, the network is no more a central planner than is an auctioneer on Ebay with a reserve price set for her favorite collection of Downton Abbey DVDs. Also, no one ever said that there only needed to be one algorithm. There could be different algorithms, each acting like a different network persona. Vault operators or clients could choose which persona they interact with.
You almost saw the light there⌠but quickly closed your eyes and covered your ears.
Perhaps a metaphor will get through to you: Farmer George has a lot of carrots he needs to sell, but no truck to transport them to market. Grocer Paul wants to buy carrots for his store, but also has no way to transport them. Ned the transporter has lots of trucks, plenty of fuel, and maintains the roads needed to move both the produce and payment back and forth. Regardless of the price Farmer George and Grocer Paul might like to agree upon, it really doesnât matter until they find out what Ned will charge to facilitate the trade. If either one of them piss off Ned, then theyâll starve. If Ned becomes too greedy then heâll starve. However, Ned is very transparent about all of his company costs and gross margins, he is well known for doing everything possible to minimize transportation costs for his customers regardless of day to day uncertainties. Farmer George and Grocer Paul donât always trust each other when in comes to making a deal, but in Ned they trust.
Surely your trolling?
Are you suggesting we not have folks like this look at the project? What is your issue with her firm? Or why wouldnât you hire a firm like this to look at what we are doing from an outside perspective?
Iâm not interested in anything a social justice warrior has to say. But I listened to some of it and as usual within a few minutes sheâs talking about politics, power structures, unfairness Bla Bla Bla Zzzzzzz. She may as well be wearing a purple pussy hat and a T-shirt that says down with men. Please.
Whoa! You should go by her skills and successes rather than judging her politics.
Sheâs a mathematician, not a social justice warrior. Sheâs concerned about how algorithms can be bad for the humans that live around them. She cites several examples. Go to her companyâs page and look over her work and bio. I donât what her politics are.
We still should have a firm, or several, like hers look over what we are doing. It does not need to be her if you donât like her personally although you donât know her. I was interested in her math and analysis skills. I do not what her politics are. If you can find someone who does this without concerning themselves with the effects of algorithms have on humanity Iâm open to having them look at it too. Itâs important to look at how the incentives for free market or central planning effect us as a society.
Was that the article where the two academics from Canada introduced the revolutionary idea in the late 1970s that âprofitâ or skimmiming by non-contributing something-for-essentially-nothing or less than nothing rent seekers should be the âbottom lineâ?
And then we in the US we got all the idiotic psychophantic âleaderâ and âleadershipâ worship. In the US we always hear about the âleadership team.â It is this belief that the highest destiny of almost everyone is to become sheep for the slaughter of the glorified rent seeker (leader class.) A class which should not exist because its nonsense. Almost no human has a clue and a human that has one couldnât communicate it to those that donât in any reliable way! No one can take your journey for you, so we canât have a society based on glorified back seat drivers.
I am looking forward to the reinstatement of the model from the Golden Bough where the leaders every time and as a cultural requirement are quite quickly tossed into the volcano where they belong. To me if some oneâs destiny is to tell others what to do then cell and the pit of the volcano await with irresistable pull.
The dirty words: sponsorship, leader, boss, profit.
Sanders just proposed what turns out to be a correction on distribution that goes beyond taxing profit to taxing high end assets or holdings, which to me sounds like a return of justice and getting beyond glorifying the useless.