Final few points about PtP

YouTube has never made money. All the “free” services on the current internet are funded by exploiting the personal information and attention of users. SAFEnetwork can’t be compared so superficially with the existing internet because it is an alternative to what exists.

PtP may be feasible, it may not. We need to find out, and I think we should try hard to make it work before dropping it: first by design, second by trial and evolution.

3 Likes

Without PtP, they won’t, because they need to capture your personal information and target you with advertising, and SAFEnetwork makes tracking impossible without consent, and we know most people don’t like it, even though they put up with it.

With an effective PtP, it could be argued it is in their interests to PUT their content on SAFEnetwork, and earn the PtP rewards - because if they don’t, someone else surely will! :smile:

2 Likes

Hmmmm…So, in regard to Google/Youtube/Reddit using Safe

OK…

…and with PtP they very well might? The thing is - it’s not their information - it’s their users content. Would you not be massively rewarding an aggregator unnecessarily? Is this not yhe opposite of the desired goal?

So isn’t it therefore logical to not attract Youtube/Google/Reddit by way of PtP and just let the someone else surely do it?

Why do we want to attract such people then by incentivising them with PtP? :smiley:

The network is just not the right entity to be held responsible for facilitating these outcomes though. One exasperating point that needs to be recognized:

“Eliminating the middleman” has been lauded by PtP supporters - if you want to eliminate the middleman, don’t make the network the middleman!

  1. Content direct from creators to consumers
  2. Payment direct from consumers to creators

They question is how to do this. I strongly believe that walletmarking is the key. APP integration to facilitate this as well.

3 Likes

If the cost increase is marginal, so will be the rewards for the vast majority of uploaders, which in turns indicates that it can’t possibly become a big incentive.

4 Likes

Like I had said earlier…

2 Likes

I think we may be talking past one another.

There could exist a third party - like YouTube - who could pay for your put, but as a result they would own the file and can profit from it. In short, just like YouTube does now.

You could pay for the put yourself, but then you have to find a way to profit from it. This is the job that the likes of YouTube do for you to make the hosting of your file ‘free’.

Therefore, the main difference is that you get the opportunity to easily host your own data and plan how to profit from it on safe net. It doesn’t prevent traditional Internet business models though.

3 Likes

I’d say that anybody should be able to NOT have an address for PtP or “walletmark”

My browser example was that 20 different addresses exist and the person wants to tip only 15, the other 5 were sick (to them). So there has to be a method to discriminate

1 Like

Do you mean that in your example there are 20 different pieces of content and only 15 of them that the user wants to donate to?

EDIT: Because you “liked” this, I’ll assume that means yes, and finish my comment here @neo

Because if that is the case - and ultimately this would be up to the APP dev - there should (in any reasonable implementation) be the ability to reward every piece of content separately.

There may be APPs that facilitate a “reward_all_shown” function, but I would assume in the beginning, it’ll just be wading through each piece of content one-by-one and upvoting/tipping/rewarding - however that is done by the APP.

There’s only one other way to construe your point, and that is that “not all content needs to include a walletmark”. And I agree there as well. The walletmark should by no means be manditory (I’m a fan of mandating the exact minimum and no more).

1 Like

Our biggest thread has over 400+ posts (content from different users). Yet we have no problem “liking” them individually.

Overlay Icons
Assume each post comes with a :heart: icon by default and it’s up to the viewer to click it or not. Think of the heart as a walletmark address super imposed over the blog post area. The plug-in makes a heart show up on the website. You should be able to “like” each post independently. A little tricky but doable.

Lists per File (Data Map Hash)
I currently use a video plug-in that lists every stream I activate (GET). In the (pop-up window) there is a list organized from most recent to oldest. I can click which one I want to download. Instead of clicking “download” I click :heart: or TIP and enter an amount.

Just a Rant
I never said it had to be mandatory, just offered a “reason” for it to be default. Sometimes you guys take me too seriously. I don’t know why I bother offering so many solutions when I have to constantly fight, explain, and negotiate. I’m starting to realize how exhausting this has been for @dirvine.

I was really just asking to explore the situation since its a browser without programmed actions. Using the plugin to supply a tip icon seems reasonable. Unfortunately as an engineer I tend to explore things a bit too much which often appears as nit picking.

2 Likes

Heh, that’s funny. 'Cos all I see here are farmers complaining they aren’t getting the whole pie. (which is itself an arbitrary hypothetical allocation at this stage).

Point being is that the current net has adverts and middlemen. We can have a net that doesn’t have any of that. The SAFE net. Directly paying for viewed content – whatever it is, however popular that is – frictionlessly.

Wouldn’t that be lovely?


I think something a lot of the anti-PtPs are missing is that the current internet is based on ads. And those ads track you. That’s how ad value is derived. Without the ads, a lot of the internet as it is wouldn’t exist. There would be much less content, much less data.

As @whiteoutmashups is saying: without data, there’s nothing to farm.

But another point is that without some basic rate of PtP there will be ads. (yes there may be ads anyway, but let’s try and avoid that). This ads will be more annoying and of lower quality as there can be no tracking. Which will lead to a much worse user experience than the current internet, which in turn will lead to less people using the network and so forth. So again, less things to farm.

If you think ads aren’t a problem, then just check if you have an ad-blocker enabled.
(and you can google what it ‘costs’ publishers eg: https://blog.pagefair.com/2015/ad-blocking-report/).

As a consequence of that we’re all now being harassed and harangued and ‘popped up at’ to encourage de-ad-blocking or subscribing or yes: paying! :open_mouth:

Which conceptually isn’t bad, but IMO pop ups are the bane of the internets. I hate them and any site hijacking my reading gets closed. FAST.


Tipping: it doesn’t have to be a huge amount. In fact something insignificant might be better and this rate allows for simple ‘Tipping’ on top of it. But the point could be that even without ads, if someone writes something, makes a video etc and it explodes and becomes mega popular, they are justly rewarded for all of those views. Maybe they get tipping on top, maybe they just get the safe equivalent of $100 for 26 million views (an amount I would call: far too little). But that’s still better than nothing. And it requires no user action.

Yes we can tip on top of this. Perhaps it will work. If culturally we can get that to be the norm. With frictionless apps (always pay 1 safe per view). All of this depends on how generous viewers are. But the seamless nature of it would be key (I think).

But for the ‘pay per like’ crowd of PtP rewards: I personally think everyone is overestimating how many users will take such action.

Example: A two year, pay-what-you-want (incidentally very good) book: Butterick’s Practical Typography, where only ~ 1/1000 people donated.

1 Like

The thing is, farmers should end up getting the same either way. The economics of it will drive down the cost of PUTs to as low as the farmers hosting them will bare.

Therefore, this is about PUT costs increasing. The higher PUT cost is what I am worried about (and the gaming and defined value elements) as it makes it more expensive for users - they are paying farmers and content creators.

I understand that this cost is already paid for on the current net, either through charity (content uploads for free), through advertising, through subscriptions, etc. However, safe net with PtP would increase PUT costs instead.

4 Likes

From the safecoin RFC we see that farming rate is unaffected by any APP, PtP, core dev incentives. Depends on Total Primary Chunks and Total Sacrificial chunks FR=TP(TP-TS)

From the safecoin RFC we see that PUT cost (storecost) uses Total Primary Chunks and Total Sacrificial chunks as factors. Nothing about APP, PtP, core dev incentives. Storecost = (TP * NC)/( ( TP - TS ) * GROUP_SIZE) Where NC is number clients actively storing data

The White paper also reflects this thinking.

Recycling is the key. More coins means more PUTs (with some delay) Yes it is a little more complex in the interactions.

1 Like

Economically, I don’t see how this can be true.

PUT cost = farming cost + PtP cost

Farming cost will fall to the lowest the market will bare with or without PtP. The PtP reward has to be funded from somewhere, which must be the PUT fee (as it is the only fee).

Whether this is obscured through recycling or not, there is only one monetary cost which must pay for all rewards.

1 Like

It’s funny, because all I see is people who pretend that uploaders can be paid at no loss for farmers and others who argue that this is essentially impossible. You’re probably the first of the advocates of paying uploaders who admits that farmers don’t get the whole pie.

I don’t see why NOT paying the uploader would turn SAFE into a network of middlemen. Actually quite thw contrary would be the case as @smacz has pointed out. “[I]f you want to eliminate the middleman, don’t make the network the middleman!”.

…less data? Doesn´t sound like the worst thing to me. However, facts are quite different: there wouldn´t necessarily be less data: people would be empowered to pay for the services that they are actually using. SAFE isn´t more expensive due to lack of tracking - users are just paying differently.

The argument is pointless: data is already there - existing data doesn´t have to be invented and new data will be created whether SAFE exists or not. Safe and distributed data - that´s what the network provides and it is served by farmers, not by uploaders. Your argument is like paying car owners to use highways…

Asides from that, there is absolutely 0 garantee that there won´t be ads on SAFE. The only reason why I don´t expect ads on SAFE in the first years is because it doesn´t pay out (too few [commercial] users, too focused peer group).

Last not least (I keep repeating that, but so do people here): not producers would be paid in the proposal of some of you - only uploaders, since the network cannot discriminate producers/creators from uploaders.

1 Like

I am doing a WIP modeling using the safecoin RFC (& whitepaper) and from that the PUT cost is dependent on Total Primary Chunks, Total Sacrificial Cunks, Number Clients and Group_size. And my preliminary modeling suggests that this will work. I showed some of the WIP further up in this thread,

The keys to it working are the recycling of the coin. The more coins given out result in more PUTs back into the network later on, and how the scarcity of the coin reduces coin issuance and increases value of coin.

Frankly the network can afford to do incentives without requiring extra PUT costs. Instead the dynamics change, more recycling (after delays), scarcity occurs slightly quicker with the corresponding boost to value of coin in $$

Its only after considering some situations in light of the whitepaper, RFC and effects of scarcity in coin issuance when successful farming attempt, that this became clearer.

PS. If coin is (over/extremely) hoarded then doesn’t matter the system used for storecost, the system will eventually run out of coin. So if we take the view that that will not happen then extra coin issued results in extra PUTs (coin recycled) and the network grows.

1 Like

There’s a balance to be struck. Farming rewards will be what farming rewards are. They are not intrinsically linked to GET rewards, which is something extra. There’s nothing anywhere that sez everything the network pays out has to go to farmers. This is an assumption that people make based on the old ‘miner’ paradigm for cyrpto-currencies.

And (as I imagine), if GET rewards are really low ‘now’, they would increase relatively over time as the cost of storage goes down over time (which it historically does). So there’s no way that Farming rewards, whatever arbitray pie size it is, is something that will remain constant. GET rewards would not affect what the farmer’s take home.

I don’t see this empowerment in a SAFE without PtP/CC/Uploader/whathaveyou.

We have apps / sites that do this ‘tipping’ now and it doesn’t work well enough (as in: it’s not common, there’s setup to be done, etc). So to presume SAFE would be any different doesn’t make any sense to me.

1 Like

The only reason Youtube and other popular commercial websites exist is because there large investments can be built on the back of users paying with their data and profiles. Distributing this cost is empowerment. If you don´t see it as empowerment you probably don´t see or cherish the crucial merit of SAFE. There´s aint no thing as a free lunch. And certainly no free privacy.

It was pointed out ages ago that farmers don’t.

But then also many do not factor in recycling. They treat the 100% of farming to the farmers as if there is a limited amount they can ever get.

Now the model has been defined to be 100% for farmers, 10% for APPs, 10% for PtP (if implemented) (AND more not considered here). But the argument has been that means farmers are only getting 100/120 of the pie. Thats true if the pie is static and recycling does not occur.

BUT the 120% is recycled and available to be paid out again later on. So where is the contradiction.

The farmers get the same no matter if the incentives are given out or not. And as the coin gets more scarce then the scarcity causes its own boost to the $$ value, so the farmers still get the same value. (Obviously its not exactly the same as markets have plenty of variability, but this occurs either way).

NOTE: hoarders will hoard if its only farmers getting 100% or farmers getting 100/120.

1 Like