The issue was some who did not think it was good and thought it would either reduce their farming, increase their PUT cost OR didn’t like the idea of earning based on what they uploaded. It of course only pays a small amount based on how popular that content is, and the uploader paid in the first place to put it there
Yeah, I meant like possible to accomplish a fully working PtP system in the wild. I’m not aware of any big flaws or fundamental problems (haven’t delved into it either), but we’ve never had an autonomous network, and never had one with PtP. It’s a new thing so there’s no guarantee that it will happen. I really hope it does, because of the strength it would give the network.
ok but I still don’t see why they need to code in a “store.” Why am I more enticed to share content when it is hard coded in to the network vs if I just have pay walls and donate buttons other then it now feels like the central authority of the safe network controls it which is not really actually that enticing to a person who believes in decentralization?
Who is talking of that?
farming rewards is not a store
app devs rewards is not a store and
ptp rewards is not a store
Remember also the network is its own authority, it is to operate autonomously as programmed and rewards are done according to the network needs. And content for people to get is a need. We need people to use the network to view or download or else the network dies.
PtP is an enticement, it is not an arbitrator of desirability. It is the people who get the data who become the arbitrators of the quality and if the provider deserves anything. Also remember that the provider gets nothing just for uploading the files, its the users who get it that triggers PtP rewards based on their (overall) GETs
Poor content gets virtually no PtP rewards as only people peaking at the content cause that tiny bit. But good content gets a reasonable amount because people hear about it and lot more people look at all the file. And if it goes viral then the provider may get his/her upload costs refunded over time via ptp rewards
Problem with PtP is how does one ensure its not being abused by bot views etc. If I was trying to take advantage of the network, whats to stop me from getting a bot army to sit there like zombies doing GETs to my resource. I am sure this has probably popped up in discussion and I am curious if any viable solutions to prevent spam of that nature have been solved. Potentially some form of source to desto trace by an arbitrary id showing its a dup users hitting it over and over again mindlessly? In an anonymous network I would think stopping PtP fraud would be crazy hard.
Caching. And so what are you going to do pay heaps for a bot to earn pennies. Only a true global interest in the file will gain any amount of rewards worth looking at
This has all been discussed before and there really wasn’t a definite way to game it. We need to test it, and that will help expose any downside not already discussed in the PtP topic
I suggest takihng anymore discussions to that topic
EDIT: Yes @jeremyjpj0916 the exact same argument you made is equally valid for app dev rewards and farming rewards. Just some people think PtP is paying for nothing. No PtP is paying for the most valuable commodity of the network DATA/Files But only when people want to see that data
Lets discuss here
Depending on cost to upload, I currently have about 14TB on my servers to upload as a backup. As time goes on and confidence grows, I will start replacing that data as space offered to the network and the network will become primary holder. My “can not lose this” stuff will still live on both until extreme confidence is achieved.
Sorry guys for the question but why u will be uploading backups on the network instead of keeping them into an external HDD?
They should be more safe, easier to access and no more checking good condition of HDD.
Same reason the SAFE network will be better then servers. Sure an external HDD or some kind of cloud storage is better then no back up. What if there is a fire at your house or the data center though? Then its lost. With the SAFE network there won’t be one location that can get hit by lightning and destroy everything. To lose you data on the safe network many specific places would have to be hit by lighting (and all at once before it had time to recover)
I have 1-2 TB I’d like to upload. I think much I’d just upload as published data. I miss the file sharing of the past where people would share their whole hard-drive or at least make a public section of their drive to share. Now all that data is mostly locked up (perhaps deleted even). SAFE could bring so many files out of hiding. For example I have lots of tracker module files laying around and if I look at the various demoscene archive sites, I see that many are not on any websites now.
I wonder if I could still get data out of my old QIC-80 tapes and floppy disks to upload.
Just don’t upload the whole tape once maybe it will overheat?
I plan on holding every coin I earn for ~ 3 to 5 years. If fluctuations show no major rise in value I will use them to help migrate large data from the clear. Personal data is about 2TB.
For me, it really depends on where the pricing settles down at. I don’t want to give up more than ~1000 Safecoin, so, whatever that would translate to in storage. I’m hoping that will get me at least 5TB.
This desired price point has some interesting implications
5 TB is 5242880 chunks
If that costs 1000 safecoin it’s a price of 0.000190735 (=1000/5242880) safecoin per PUT, which is not possible with the temporary StoreCost algorithm proposed in RFC-0057, which has a minimum of around 0.005 safecoin per PUT.
Using AWS S3 pricing of $0.023 per GB
5 TB would cost $117.76 to put on S3
If this were equivalent to 1000 safecoin that gives a price of 0.11776 (=117.76/1000) USD/safecoin
I’m gonna guess 5 TB for 1000 safecoin won’t be possible in testnets because of the temporary StoreCost algorithm.
I’m gonna guess the USD price will be higher than 0.1176 usd/safecoin at launch, so will probably be more expensive than S3.
Sorry Let’s hope storecost gets a revision which would fix both pricing problems.
Thanks for giving the numbers though, it’s really fascinating to see pricing expectations/desires laid out clearly like this.
why dont they make storage very cheap from the start? so people can upload like 5TB for a 1USD and then pay vaults with the money that people paid to upload those TBs
There is plan that after revision of test SafeCoin they will change StoreCost algorithm. It is not hard to add 1/1000 multiplier to even proposal one as it is RFC only.
Maidsafe don’t sell cloud storage, so they don’t control the price. The price will fluctuate according to supply and demand (storage provided by vaults and usage of disk space).
Also, dont expect this price level. Uploading 5TB will use more storage than that because of data duplication. 1USD won’t be an enough incentive for vault operators.
But he said, he do not want use more than 1000 SafeCoin which might be worth $1000+ soon. The RFC 57 has low StoreCost only with no full nodes. So with 100k+ nodes and 0 full nodes you have StoreCost bellow 0,000 01.
Yes, this was my concern. At launch, I don’t think it is unfeasible that we see $1/coin. In fact, I think that estimate is pretty conservative. If we can’t get 5TB from ~$1000/USD, that is a problem that needs to be addressed. Trying to sell people on something more than $200/TB, even for permanent storage (aka, as long as the network exists), would be quite difficult for the mainstream, and I believe would be seen as a network failure.