Farming Rewards, free space for new users, and processing power rewards

Features
82

Yes, very good question.
There are basically 3 separate entities as I see it;

1). The autonomous Safe Network
2). Maidsafe - the private company
3). Safecoin Foundation – the charity

What you are suggesting - and I agree - is that 1) cannot be preferentially treating 2) or 3) over other users. This would not be the case in the plan I outlined in the above few threads though. An amount has been set aside I believe to fund the free storage idea and seed the network. This along with donations, helped by having donate buttons on apps (maybe just Maidsafe “kitemarked” apps) would fund the Foundation. It will also be possible to apply for certain grants from various funds.
The effect I believe would be that we are seeding the network in the third world (where we want to help most), rather than the West. This would be consistent with the Safe network’s stated mission of “Secure Access For Everyone”.
A further suggestion would be to further distinguish the network from the charity by maybe having a separate mission statement of Secure Access For Education

We want to avoid doing anything similar to the Bitcoin foundation – just read the criticisms.

PS my rough calculation is that any free storage should not exceed around 50 mb, which I think could be given as a general free amount, just to give some elbow room. Hopefully, by the time a lot of people have got used to system and used various apps, they may have soon earned enough safecoin to buy more space.

1 Like
83

The point is in the first sentence.

If I want to do good with other people’s money, I first have to take it away from them.

Forced welfare is welfare that is forced upon recipients. It has nothing to do with theft (explained in the first sentence of the video).

84

Don’t forget that the network detects the instant a copy goes offline and replaces it with a new love [edit: er “live” ;-)] copy, so scenario you describe here is designed out.

85

I agree it does, but the state changes aren’t that instant.
I asked (I think that was in discussion about disk migration (link below)) about time required for a copy to be declared dead and was told it’s going to be more than several hours.

Will the network spin the 5th copy within 90 min and cancel it if any of the missing copies recover? I doubt, because it’s not free to do that. I think it’ll wait until each of the downed copies can be declared dead.
The scenario I describe isn’t highly likely, but very small percentage of users (I admit, I didn’t calculate the odds) could come across it.

86

This is because you can hold a dead copy and the networks OK with that :slight_smile: as you may come back on line. So there are 4 live and up to 16 dead copies of chunks. It depends how many other copies of chunk X are dead after a period, if its more than 16 and you are at the end of the (sorted) dead list then you lose the data. So it can be hours for that part, but the net reconfigures very fast on you going down in the first place to make copies.

Hope thats a wee bit better.

3 Likes
87

@janitor How Much of the Internet is Actually for Porn

the whole internet is not porn

unless you were to consider this porn also: Mount Shasta - Wikipedia

1 Like
88

Unfortunately you are right.
I used that just as an example of what some here may deem as useless content that does not contribute to the goals of the Project.

2 Likes
89

I would use it for messaging

90

HAHAHAHA

1 Like
91

Hey don’t diss the porn! Do you have any idea how many technological advances have been motivated by porn? The internet wouldn’t be where it is if it wasn’t for the porn industry.

92

Hello,

I’m a newbie here, and this is my first post, so please feel free to redirect me to another thread if this has already been answered. But isn’t one of the underlying premises of MaidSafe, that we, collectively, the internet users have an underutilized resource in the form of hard drives which are always or frequently connected to the internet?
By definition an underutilized resource represents costs that the person involved has already sunk into the initial use of the resource. Therefore, maximizing the use of the resource doesn’t cost the person anything additional.

Obviously you will have farmers who are motivated by the desire to earn more money, but if the price of entry is a vault on my desktop, which is always on, and is always connected to the internet, then I don’t care, because to me those are sunk costs anyway.

Are there not enough people like me to make the network viable?

2 Likes
93

That is correct.

or is there something else you were trying to find out with this post?

94

I think the general consensus is that there is enough hard disk space for a 50/50 (disregarding redundancy) relationship. If I have a harddrive, I share it and I get space in return.

The second discussion is when I need more than I’m willing to share, what happens when I want to buy additional space from someone who has more than they need?

And then the third question, which ignited the discussion here, is should the network reserve a little bit of space for new users who aren’t contributing storage at all. Should a user with 0 disk space allocated for the safe network be allowed 1mb, 1gb, 10gb, etc.

One side believes that both access and contribution to information should be entirely free and have no barriers. And believe that this should be extended to contributing to the network. Note, the network is already planned to be accessible by everyone for consumption. Just not necessarily for addition. Messaging services become a bit murky.

Others believe that allowing users free space opens up the network to sybil attacks, or could be a vector in other types of attacks, and goes against the free market aspect of the network (one that makes Bitcoin so powerful).

I believe the free-everything model derives from the antiquated hacker belief that “all information should be free.” I believe that the disk space has value and thus it’s value should be determined by a market of sorts. I believe that offering free space opens up the network to abuse.

I also think that sending data should cost money, no matter how small, to prevent abuse.

6 Likes
95

I think I was trying to clarify whether the free space is a necessary element of the network or a morally desirable one. After @russell’s post, I think I understand the argument a little better.

It just seemed that several people were saying that for some reason, not giving people free space would make the network non viable, either because of a forked free version, or because of cost’s to entry. That didn’t make sense to me because I thought that the network was viable because of the underutilized resource point.

I suppose in a larger sense, I’m not sure why the people that think free space is a good idea, want it to be done right away. Why not let the network mature, and then at a future point, (like say when the network is established enough that benefits of early adoption start to fade), then look at offering free space. As an aside this would have the advantage of giving the debate hard numbers in terms of how much space the network could handle.

Another idea derived from that concept is that if the network as a whole has a surplus, then designate that space as free, and open up free sign-ups until that space is taken by free accounts. Again, once we are dealing with quantified numbers, this is something that could be coded into the network, so that when the network knows that its robust enough, it can automatically open sign-ups and close them when the space is full. While this doesn’t deal with the problem of bots taking all the accounts in question, it would go to the question of whether this would open up the network to attacks of some kind.

2 Likes
96

I also think that sending data should cost money, no matter how small, to prevent abuse.

I agree, and would apply that logic to messaging, precisely because of the spamming concern.

1 Like
97

I’m going off the road with this one. Hopefully people will be able to follow. This is for those who already have a general understanding of Network routing. I’ve watered down the technical descriptions to stay on point. Some of my knowledge may be outdated. I’ve been away for awhile.

Stage 1 Infrastructure
The SAFE Network identifies 2 types of node connections.

  • Non-Client Node = a node that is part of the Network infrastructure. Uses more resources like a server.
  • Client Node = a node that is not part of the Network infrastructure. Uses minimal resources like a browser.

Stage 2 User Behavior

  • A user runs the MaidSafe API in “non-client mode” to contribute resources (CPU, storage, bandwith, online time) to the Network.
  • A user runs the MaidSafe API in “client mode” to consume resources from the Network without burdening their own resources.

Based on typical behavior, we can see the supply/demand roles between Non-Client and Client users.

  • Non-Client users provide all resources and Safecoin is paid on GET requests. They will most-likely be computers with lots of hard drive space and strong internet connections.
  • Client users consume resources but only pay Safecoin for PUT requests. This will most-likely be mobile devices.

Issue #1
Too many Client users consuming all resources except storage space will overburden the Non-Client users. Example: users only downloading from the SAFE Network. This means users only initiate GET requests because it costs nothing.

Issue #2
If the cost of storage is too high, the amount of content providers will diminish. This means users avoid PUT requests because it’s too expensive. They can easily upload their content on a hundred other servers from the regular internet. Many of them are already free.

Issue #3
I believe users are able to operate in Non-Client mode while also initiating GET requests. This may put a drag on their bandwith while simultaneously surfing the Network. It may be better to have the 2 modes focus on their operations exclusively. Non-Client operates like a server only, while Client mode operates like a browser only. If possible, it should be 2 programs running instead of one.

Rebalancing Solution?
This is not an easy problem. We’ve been hashing over it for several months. Keep in mind, nothing is set in stone. I’m just offering another idea that may lead to a working eco system.

IMHO, I believe majority of Network consumption will be from GET requests. If we want people to transfer from traditional internet to the SAFE Network, we need a very strong incentive. That means, new content, applications, uncensored information, everything the current internet offers and more. One barrier I see is the cost to PUT data on the SAFE Network. I am aware of the DOS attack scenarios and possible abuses from multiple accounts, etc. Until we solve this, I will keep looking for a solution… see below.

Assuming Issue #3 separates the 2 modes of operation.

Amusement Park Model

Non Client Users

  • Earn Safecoin while connected to the Network.
  • Total Safecoin payout is based on total resources provided (CPU, storage, bandwith, online time). Even if they aren’t running a vault, they could still earn Safecoin from data relay requests.

Network Rate is average of the total Safecoin Payout per Day divided by the total number of Clients. (Total Safecoin Payout) / (Total Clients) The specific formula can be adjusted. I just want to put out the general idea. The Network averages the total costs from GET requests with the amount of users who initiate those requests, which are the Clients.

Client Users

  • Pay Safecoin based on the daily Network Rate, upon connection. The payment is per 24hrs or 1 month? This is debatable. Some people don’t want to hassle with paying everyday.
  • PUT limit is based on the Network Average as @dirvine suggested from other posts. Multiple account abuses are mitigated by the fact that every Client account has to pay the daily Network Rate and are also capped by the Network Average.
  • They still have the option to buy additional storage with Safecoin as normal.
  • GET request are unlimited but still accounted for by the Network.

Example.

A new user wants to try out the SAFE Network and creates an account. They run the MaidSafe API in Client mode. They will be greeted by the Network Rate screen first as if they are at the gates to Disney Land.

They have the option to acquire Safecoin, or switch their API into Non-Client mode to earn Safecoin. Once they satisfy payment, they can upload the PUT cap, or download unlimited GET.

Because the Network pays Non-Clients based on GET requests, more usage increases the Network Rate unless there are more Clients added which averages out the total costs. The amusement park model should self adjust based on supply and demand now.

Q: Doesn’t this remove the free storage idea?

A: Yes. If this model attracts more Non-Client users, the costs of storage will go down to almost free. But the value of Safecoin should remain stable or increase due to consumption demand. It is no longer affected by decreasing storage costs.

Q: If Clients have to pay Safecoin per 24hrs, why have a PUT cap?

A: We don’t know if the Network can handle and overwhelming amount of uploads during the early stages. It is best to put a cap in order to protect it from hitting over capacity. After it has been established, we can revisit the PUT cap and adjust it or remove it.

Q: Isn’t the current plan to pay for storage, cheaper than the one you are proposing?

A: Yes, I’m hoping we can switch away from paying for storage all together. Paying for GET consumption equates real costs better than PUT storage. If I upload a game file, I pay only once. But over the course of months or years of playing, I would have costs the Non-Client user a lot more than I originally paid. We NEED to make sure Non-Client users stay with the Network and continue to grow in population. Also if we remove the cost to PUT data on the Network, then new content and mass adoption should take hold very quickly.

98

I don’t think end users should have to pay anything, except for resources beyond the free quota. End users contribute a lot of value to the network. There is exponential progress of price/performance of disk space, CPU and bandwidth, while user attention remains a constant valuable resource.

Let’s say 1 GB of free disk space. Botnets would hardly bother integrating lots of user accounts for that amount of storage. Better yet, the network can automatically and dynamically determine the free quota if an algorithm for that could be developed.

1 Like
99

I came to think of a more radical approach: let the botnets grab all the free quota they want. :smiley: The reasoning is that LOTS of people will become farmers. Heck, if I had an extra computer I would set it up as a farming equipment and let it run 24/7 earning safecoins.

So there will be huge amounts of resources available in the network almost from the get go. Botnets would be more profitable as farmers than as messy integrations of user accounts.

100

I’m really confused about why people keeping saying that it’d be hard to aggregate accounts. Why can’t I just write a piece of software that generates user accounts locally, and makes millions of them?

I could make millions of bitcoin keypairs right now on my laptop. If each bitcoin address came with 1 satoshi, I could make a healthy profit. And I could create a wallet that manages all of those addresses and makes it appear as one single store of value.

I don’t quite see what prevents me from doing that on the Safe Network, and I haven’t received an adequate answer. So unless there’s a pretty solid way to prevent that, I say don’t even bother allowing it. I’d much rather have a steeper cost in adoption than a deeply dysfunctional foundation.

2 Likes
101

You would need millions of UDP connections. And then you would need to integrate the data from all the separate accounts. Seems quite costly and messy to me.

2 Likes