I don't get it, why can't ad be run on the SAFEnetwork? It can be like Brave!


Not buying it mate.

See? It’s not in anyone’s “selfishly altruistic” interest to make the cobalt mining more expensive to at least pay the kids properly. We like our cellys cheap so we can boast what a fabulous world we have built for everyone (but a couple of kids in Congo). And put a celly on the pedestal of our great and ongoing innovation.

Someone has got to pay. Always.


Hmmmmm this sounds like something you would say if you life in “a forever-carefree utopia where nothing really matters anymore”.



Looking in from the outside:

Luhmann (1988) contains an analysis of economic phenomena - or rather economic communications - on the proposition that the function system= economy is one of several subsystems of society.

Solution paths of the Luhmann economy originating from an initial endowment to equilibrium (when the economy settles down).

A.1 Simple Luhmann Economy Model

  • A.1.1 Displays of Wealth (Show Off)
' Agents can perform displays of wealth called showoffs.
' Cheating, lying or misunderstandings (errors in information
' transfer) are not considered in the model. 

Sub showoff(n, m, g, pshowoff, ab, xy)
  Dim i, j, k, l, maxa As Integer
  For i = 1 To n
    For j = 1 To m
      If Rnd() < pshowoff Then
        maxa = 0
        l = 1
        For k = 1 To g
          If ab(i, j, k) maxa Then
            maxa = ab(i, j, k)
            l = k
          End If
        Next k
        xy(i, j, l) = maxa
      End If
    Next j
  Next i
End Sub


At the onset of this work there has been the idea to model what was called a simple Luhmann economy by an agent-based model. Studying the behaviour of the model showed conformity to Niklas Luhmann’s hypothesis, that the economy starts from and produces further inequality in order to continue (see Luhmann 1988, p. 112).

The model turned out to be too simple to show distinctive patterns of differentiaton although fuzzy clustering has proved to be an aid in the interactive search for types of sytem behaviour.

Link: http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/8/2/4.html


Not sure if I get this, but you probably meant to point out that the utopia I spoke so doubtfully about would be better or more humane than kids mining cobalt up to 16 hours a day for a single buck (yeah, that’s an incredible monthly pay of 30 bucks – if you work without (or with) a (single) day off).

In that case, I agree with you. But speaking for myself, I know I would suffer, although probably not as terribly as these folks. (Even though, when you look at them, they don’t really look like suffering. They’re all smiles. They have nothing and that’s all they know. Crazy.)


Hmmmmm this sounds like something you would say if you life in “a forever-carefree utopia where nothing really matters anymore”.

Buddy nothing really matters anymore, the SAFE Network virus will spread, some kids will understand it others won’t. Good that your here super ant, you get it :stuck_out_tongue:


What can or can’t be done on SAFEnetwork? The question implies a system of control, some kind of a switch available to few, some authority. In my understanding is against the nature of this project.
Say no to 1984.


What happens to the inequality when you introduce a secondary currency

Related to the OP :sweat_smile:


It needs to be implemented network wide and not with some app. @neo’s idea of the app is more than terrible and will cause people who do not want to see ads to suffer. Because basically, then, website owners will put up ads anyway the old banner style, there’s no centralised ad network so advertisers will simply contact the website owners. Note that currently, ad blockers only work because they can recognise which image is an ad due to centralised ad networks being in existence, if that doesn’t exist, then ad blockers won’t work. Website owners will always put up ads, that’s how they get income from their website.

PLEASE find me a popular site these days without ads… and when you can’t, please realise it’s a VERY bad idea to block/censor all ads, 95% of website owners/publishers would lose one of the major motivators to make the website, aka, for profit. And plus, you still won’t be able to censor them ANYWAY. Only now, even the people who DO NOT want to see ads would have no choice.

P.S. The pay the producer idea is great for incentivising content except you’re forgetting there’s no money in the first place. Once people stop using the network to store new data then it would collapse. (Safenetwork sustainability concerns - Bandwidth has an ongoing cost however Safenetwork is a pay once, benefit forever model) Revenue from other sources like advertising is one of the only ways for the network to sustain long term. I wonder how @dirvine and the team is addressing these serious issues regarding how can the economy of the whole network be sustained by the demand of storing new data alone?


Nope. Need to understand things and then you will see no need for core code to do this. Everything you see and do on the network is done through APPs and would be the same for viewing of Adverts

No need for this. You would turn the network into an advert network and that is NOT a goal of the network. Sorry but you have not shown any need to implement this in the core code. Your concept of what needs to be done suggests that you cannot see this working unless people are forced to watch adverts without opting out. (yes I know you claim to allow opting out, but your response negates this claim) I think you will find in general people think the adverts today is a broken model because of the invasiveness of it.

Anyhow write the code and make money, people have given you all the methods you need.


You have ad blockers, banner blindness, cost of bandwidth to users etc. Simply said, people don’t have to care about your website with ads, even brands won’t care about your website. With our solution brands can show ads and pay directly to users, without a publisher and without us taking a cut. Only way I see websites doing anything with brands is affiliate marketing, CPM and PPC success rate is down significantly.

Referrals is mostly b2b, but I see it more like everybody/thing (so even a self-driving car) can have a referral link.

Just because people are not aware of the cost of bandwidth that these popular sites create, with tracking all over the place etc. A visit to techcrunch.com and I get 99 requests including 69 ad request, if you think that people will care about you wasting their time and money, don’t be surprise to have no success.

There is more to the network than just storing data. It’s the total package to run your app (dns, storage, anti-ddos, instant transactions etc) without the need of a company or permission from someone. The SAFE Network is like Amazon AWS, but a lot better.

If you want to serve people ads, first start by asking if they want to see ads (most likely the answer will be no) if yes? serve up only relevant ads by asking the user.

#adidas #yeezy


I’ve just explained, people won’t even be able to opt out of seeing ads if it is not implemented on a network level.


The approach is not to block ads, though I’m sure that will also remain an option (see below).

The key IMO is to provide alternatives, such as for example PtP / PtD. These will be easier to deploy than ads (just a checkbox) and preferable to most devs, website owners and users because ads have negative impact on several things.

It only leaves revenue as the motivation for pushing ads, and let’s see how well ad sponsored revenue stands up when there are lots of sites and apps around which don’t have ads, and when users can easily switch from one app to another without losing access to data.

I expect there to be a battle for users between ad sponsored apps which will try to capture user data, and apps which don’t try to capture user data but which try to attract and keep users by doing better stuff with open and user owned data.

Blockers will have to work differently, but anyone creating an ad sponsoring network is going to have to serve ads from identifiable sources, and it will remain possible to block those sources.


Optimize play. And 20 characters.


Wikipedia (5th largest on net)

Ohhps I am stuck now :smiley: :smiley:

Seriously these binary arguments are a bit offending to the listener. People will always advertise, it’s the way we work. Large advertising companies are another matter, that is all being conflated here. It is not a binary thing at all, it is very granular.

Advertising and attempted brianwashing are different ends of the spectrum, creepy targetting and manipulation of people is dangerous and possibly as dangerous as a nuclear war in many ways.

Well, we have been addressing that for many years, our plan is this … When people stop creating information it just won’t matter. Phew, the serious ones are indeed the toughest :wink:

You are right it would be a serious issue indeed, it could be because there is a better solution that SAFE and that is great, or … for some reason we all went dark and stopped interacting (tl;dr dead, extinct, no more etc …)

Perhaps continually bringing up old threads just bored the whole world to death, who knows :smiley: :smiley:


No you didn’t actually. I already explained above a way for it to happen.

Also people will do what you suggest even if you bake in adverts into SAFE core code. Just because you bake in adverts into the core code doesn’t stop companies advertising outside of your baked in system. So you solved nothing by your uneducated claims it has to be baked in to the core code.

Also as David said its not a binary system On/off, there are numerous ways to supply adverts. Even the simplest way of having a safesite have hard coded an advert in the html page itself. Or videos that have the advert as part of the video.

So no you cannot stop adverts by some magic (yes it would be magic) code in the core code. Obviously if you made some company vet every safesite before it could be displayed then you might, but that would mean the safe network is useless for real situations.


Relevant stuff from the DWeb Summit:

Brewster Kahle: “The original sin of the web was advertising … If there was a wish of the next generation web, lets make it so you can publish something on the net and make money from it [without the need for middlemen]”


Not true at all. Even if site owners embed ads directly as ordinary HTML images on the site that ad blockers can’t detect, people will ALWAYS have a way to opt out: Exiting out of the bloody tab!

And they will. People hate ads being shoved in their faces.

Remember, the SAFE Network rewards the site owner/developer in Safecoin as their site/app is used. The more users you can get on your site, the more $$ you earn.

Now consider this: Site A serves embedded, undetectable ads. Great for them.

Site B, their competitor, knows that people hate ads. So they serve none. Users will LEAVE Site A, and go to Site B. Site B becomes more popular than Site A.

Site B earns more developer rewards than Site A, because they have more users, because the users want content not ads.

A website will be more profitable on the SAFE Network without ads. It’s a free market phenomenon that will finally kill digital advertising (thank god), even if undetectable ads are still theoretically possible to implement. (And as @neo said, they will still be possible to implement in your SAFE grand advertising vision, so not even your own proposal solves your “problem”)


So Wikipedia is a not-for-profit organisation. Maybe a better question would be, how many not-for-profit sites are there among the top 10,000 most popular sites? If it is like 1%, Safenetwork is in some big trouble. Because either people are going to use it only for illegal sites or it won’t be any/much good sites at all, because all for-profit website owners(which is at least 95%+ of them) will not have the motivation to build a site.


Gotta to love your either/or theology there. That was not very good logic there at all.

You know there are a lot of for-profit sites that do not need adverts to make their money. EG shopping sites. PtD will provide plenty of incentives too. Now thats only 2 things out of multitudes that blows your attempt to justify changing the core code. YAATCTCC Yet Another Attempt To Change The Core Code because you do not agree with the direction of the development team.


I understand it like this, Wikipedia has to pay for the servers and thus needs donations and possibly lobbyists if it costs a lot, on the SAFE network however they’d be paid for views (if they have an app) while not having to pay for a server.

Not to mention that is it quite a bit easier to compete with things like youtube for the same reason, no need to buy servers to handle the load.

Though granted, there will probably be apps with ads, maybe even a lot since it does allow you to hire more developers, but think of all the projects throughout the years trying to throw one of those mega corporations off of their thrown, only to be incapable of keeping up the servers.

Then again, since I’m fairly new here I could be entirely wrong, hope not though.