How will the 10% app dev farming reward work ? The Dropbox example

Let’s say I download an open source app that is the equivalent of Dropbox, one that sync a folder onto the SAFE Network by hashing them in chunks and uploading them.

Will creator of that app forever receive farming attempts every time I upload a file ?

How trivial will it be for someone to change the code so that they are the one receiving the app dev farming attempt ?

My understanding is that every time an app (assuming they can get at the code…) is accessed for use on the network, the app dev will be rewarded with Safecoin provided they have coded in a payment address[quote=“Cryptor, post:1, topic:8501”]
How trivial will it be for someone to change the code so that they are the one receiving the app dev farming attempt ?

Again, if someone clones your app and switches the payment address, my understanding is that it is the best app that wins…they will be able to swap out the payment address if they can get the available code for your app, and at that point the Darwin awards take over…however if your app has data that is already present on the network, you will still receive coin if that data is accessed since you are the original owner of said data and the network will go to lengths to de-duplicate data so only the original owner will be compensated…

I may have missed some safeguards against this, but if so, please fill me in fellow Safers…


The reward is not built into the application but its an address stored in SAFE’s metadata for that APP.

As @mvanzyl said you can copy the APP and supply your own APP reward address to SAFE as you upload your APP.

But if you simply copy it then network Dedup will result in the system not storing your copy and thus you will not have your reward address stored. You would have to change the APP so that the chunks are different in order to have your reward address stored.


So a trivial change would result in a different file hash and the owner of the trivial fork would then receive payment. What would mitigate such an “attack”?

why is it an attack?

Its the way open source works. Unless the license disallows it then I guess legal action would then be required.

If we have two APPs providing a drop box solution then why is it an attack. If we have a thousand?

May get a little confusing but it still is not an attack on the network is it?


I put “attack” in quotation marks, denoting that it is not an attack in the usual sense.

However, the difference with open-source in general is that SAFE apps are a source of revenue for the developer. So although it is not an attack on the network, it is certainly an attack on the particular developer, by diverting a part of his hard-won income.


Its something that all APP developers will have to be aware of, for sure.

But lets take your example of the drop box APP.

Joe bloggs has been using Jane Doe’s drop box APP for the last period of time. How is he going to even know of the copied version. He will just fire up the drop box APP as he always does and Jane’s APP runs as normal

So the copy then has to present itself to the world as the better drop box APP.

But wait people get on decorum and gossip about the copy-cat who “stole” the drop box APP.

How much do you think the copied version will get used? Everywhere still has the pointer to Jane’s APP and the copy finds a hard time with reviews on APP stores etc.

So while the copy may take away some business its certainly not going to get half or even close.

NOW if someone makes a bigger and better drop box APP then thats a different story


This is the critical point. Nice one. If somebody can do better they should but they cannot steal from an existing app dev. They must create their own market. IF it means better apps we all win.

If somebody is just good at “skinning” an app to look better they prob lack skills to improve the code and algorithms the original dev made, so collaboration may happen. Then we get better apps and everyone gets a slice of the payment (I hope)


Kewl, @neo comes through again! :slight_smile:

I was thinking along those lines too: reputation, first-comer, network effect, and “brand name” secured by the DNS, all would play a part.


collaboration + monetization = success- that alone will be one of the SAFE killer Apps


I hope so too. Labor in Freedom folks!

  1. I’ll just create an APP to PUT everything I want to.

If you’re just talking about PUTting your CD collection up and getting rewarded for it, hell, I’ll probably be the first one to do that. Seems like a good idea to me. And if it’s good enough to compete with LiteStuff (or other spin-offs) by all means go for it! (a little marketing goes a long way)

But are you going to create an interface for every APP that you use? Not likely. Are End-Users going to be using it too? Not if it’s bad. What if it’s good? Then either you got yourself your own killer APP, or you merge into the bigger APP (whose funds you started siphoning anyways) and the combination of the two services can provide more revenue than either could alone. (if they split up the community and therefore the reward pool)

smacz - Put Incentive Model - 2015

I wasn’t talking about hijacking someone’s software and pretending I made it.

I was talking about a simple program that change the dev address in all software people run so that it’s the end-user that get the 10%.

Because you know, a software that I fork so it pays me the 10% is the “better” software to me.

The dev address will be in the software, so what is downloaded from a known location (so hash). The program you talk of would need to decompile the code and alter it. I am not sure folks would really want that to be happening, but a few may want to do that or take the risk. I suppose we will see though.

The process would actually be simpler if people got the code and created their own app and uploaded it. I don’t think we have thought of protection against that apart from hassle. I think it may be possible, in a similar way to download the brave browser and alter their code in terms of ad revenues perhaps?

[edit] I should add though devs with apps used by millions may make money, but a single user is going to struggle a lot. You would also need to become a great many users really.

This moves from piracy against the middlemen and straight to taking from the app devs, so may be seen as a moral issue as well. I Think it will be possible though, without thinking of ways around it anyway.

1 Like

Also, any upgrade to the app would mean that you would have to retrieve it from the Network, change and re-compile it, and upload it to the Network.

And if that last step is necessary, then the costs to upload it may be more than the 10% that you receive by using it.

EDIT: this may apply for app dev keys mentioned below

You seems to think that’s a big deal, Anyway I thought the goal was to have people run code locally that they can read and review.

Code run locally, no upload needed

1 Like

Not a big deal at all :wink: , if OSS you can create from scratch easier.

When you upload the code it will set the app devs key at the data manager where the hash is maintained. This allows the network to confirm it is a valid app.

You would need to upload to the network and redownload, but that’s not relevant.

What is relevant is this is the exact same as create the app yourself. You are still a single entity. So it’s back to the script based malicious app scenario really. That is a better attack. A single user app dev will not get very much at all in return for this change.


I have not seen anything on the forums to indicate that the PtD/PtP paradigms being discussed would function in the real world of scarce safecoins and abundant data.

Decompiling and rehashing with trivial changes is a dealbreaker for attempting to set up a gatekeeper model to incentivize software development. It essentially ensures that the best marketer wins.

I sincerely doubt there is any way around this; farming is functional because hard drive space is scarce, but software, as data, can never be scarce, so attempting to treat it as such is doomed to failure.

In my opinion, all efforts currently going toward PtD should instead go toward building platforms that make it easy for users to donate and subscribe to the producers they support - in the face of abundant produce, only a patronage model will suffice.

Let’s not try to shove the already-dysfunctional digital protection scheme square peg into our new, fair, secure, open network.