I don’t think that farmers need 90% I suspect a much smaller amount would be adequate… Many P2P services run quite well with no payment at all.
But I do still stick with the analogy – You can pay to build a highway - but if you subsidize filling it with cars, the highway isn’t going to work very well.
I would much rather see alt-coins that are distributed by each community in accordance with member’s contributions… These could be used for karma within communities – transferring through up-votes, down-votes, Downloads, uploads etc… Each coin would have it’s own economy that would better match it’s real world worth… MusicCoin, ArtistCoin, PornCoin, VidCoin, SciCoin, etc. Coins could be exchanged in markets from one community to another or traded in for SAFEcoin…
The network SAFEcoin could focus on building and maintaining the freeway (infrastructure) , and the communities would focus on building and supporting themselves… If there are excess farming revenues the farmers could designate support for particular community coins, and those funds could be used to seed value into those communities…
I think that is the best of both worlds. Provide an avenue for artists to make money while separating the network currency from being too entangled in other transactions to be effective at maintaining the network. It would also make it so different media would be compensated more in line with their real world value rather than paying per GB or per download.
I think the consumer should always pay and not the farmer by being taxed.
If the maid safe team have to code a micro-payment system for streaming data that the an artist can display their product this would be fair.
Then user could choose to discontinue the download at free will without taxing the farmer.
Have an gas system that is renewable for the farmer for public data that is consumed.
I do not know why artist can not watermark their data and stamp it as preview copy like any other free software you can find on the internet even get some annoying advertisement directing to their website.
Then the user can choose a contract amount to stream the file by allowing access by using private keys.
Man you people are the artist can we become a little bit more creative then just taxing the farmer whom will be your consumer…
If we want to attract the best apps devs then I believe that an incentive definitely needs to be there. Someone could build a popular app that splits rewards with content creators. It makes sense to me that app devs should get more than 10 percent because the it’s the quality of the apps will ultimately determine the rate of adoption. I know the farmers provide functionality and security but whats the point having a functional and secure network if there are no app developers building on it. The average joe doesn’t want to hear about the potential or the technical side of things, they want access to a wide range innovative and user friendly apps that will transform the way they live. The safe network can only provide that by paying the people with the creative vision to make that happen (app creators).
We could have the network do it automatically but my guess is the content creators will want their content published on the most popular apps on the network. I also believe that the most popular apps on the safe network will be the ones that pay the highest rewards for content to creators.
I think that the app sharing it’s revenue with the content providers was an app that somebody planned… And that would be totally fine. Network99 was that app… http://www.n99.co/about.html
I also believe that that is where the rumor started that content would be paid… The devs have always talked about paying apps, but I have never seen anything too formal about paying content.
But we have gone over the reasons time and time again. Somebody needs to show sound math that it will work.
You don’t pay cars to get on the freeway… The freeways are a mess enough without bribing more and more traffic to pile on. You pay to build better freeways.
+1 for Network99. This is a great direction to go in lieu of being able have the network reward content creators.
If the network rewards the APPs, it’s the APPs responsibility to reward the content creators. And I have a feeling that reddit’s “imaginary internet points” won’t be so intangible for much longer…
I think the element you are not taking into account for your freeway metaphor is time and processor power. A computer has only so much processor power and space available to it. A user has only so much attention and time to spare. Therefore in order to use one app they must at some point STOP using another one. In order to adopt one app they must abandon another, or to stick with your metaphor in order for one car to get on the freeway another must get off. Granted some apps can run in the background but even so you only need so many instant messengers, email apps, newsfeed apps and so on. An app must serve a function for the user in order for it to be adopted AND it must not hog too many system resources otherwise they’ll just shut it off.
Moreover a user will only KEEP using an app and recommend it’s usage if it’s of high quality. That’s where the payment system comes in. We aren’t paying for content/apps simply to get on the highway. We’re paying for content/apps that will STAY on the highway and won’t get bumped off by other more in demand content/apps. On the physical highway your goal is to keep traffic congestion level relatively low but on the SAFE network the more information going through the pipe the better because that means more nodes and the stronger the network. So yes on SAFE you DO pay cars to drive on the freeway, but only if they’re in demand.
Contrary to your reasoning, I believe in this analogy the highways are the APPs, and the content is the cars.
The quote could then be read as:
You don’t pay [content] to get on the [APP]. The [APP]s are a mess enough without bribing more and more [content] to pile on. You pay to build better [APP]s.
This is the “If you build it, they will come” argument.
You don’t need apps to post content to SAFE. In fact given the nature of SAFE what you’ll need to share data is pretty minimal. You could share several full sized videos using a text file with the proper addresses. If an app is a road so is a book as both are a way to convey information.
I would assert that browsers on the existing internet are analogous to APPs on the SAFE Network.[1]
You can do the same (share ${stuff}) over the regular internet using FTP, Bittorrent and other protocols. However, browser usage surpasses all others by far. EDIT: Especially where end-users are concerned.
[1] I know that many applications that work on the internet have other ways of delivering content - e.g. pandora and slack both have desktop clients - but they are primarily accessible through a browser.
EDIT2: Reminds me of RMS:
I usually fetch web pages from other sites by sending mail to a program (see git://git.gnu.org/womb/hacks.git) that fetches them, much like wget, and then mails them back to me. Then I look at them using a web browser, unless it is easy to see the text in the HTML page directly. I usually try lynx first, then a graphical browser if the page needs it (using konqueror, which won’t fetch from other sites in such a situation)
So why hasn’t friendica become mainstream? Why hasn’t mediagoblin replaced youtube? Why are people still using Windows en mass instead of switching to Linux despite the fact there are so many glitchs and viruses in Windows and the fact there are backdoors in the operating system? There are plenty of good apps out there that people never even hear about simply because the community doesn’t get built and no content gets driven to them.
There’s your answer. I didn’t say that the “if you build it, they will come” argument was corrent nor foolproof. But it is a valid argument, and the part of your response that I quoted is the valid counter-argument. Neither can be 100% correct.
Lol on RMS’s caveman approach to reading!
As they say, there’s an app for that (RSS reader, for example).
He could send GPG-encrypted URLs to a typist in the Philippines who would use snail mail to type and mail him the contents, together with completely ASCII art-iefied images. What a sad lunatic that man is.
Now that’s something I can get behind. I totally agree that this 9/1 split seems absurd. And unless it’s a ratio that will change over time: as resources become cheaper the split should change to reflect that.
For what it’s worth I think rewards are less to do with the initial PUT cost and more to do with GETs, so popular content is not limited by the initial upload cost.
The roads analogy is really being laboured here. But it doesn’t work. SAFE development is funded elsewhere. SAFE is your roads. If anything your ‘apps’ are like bars along the road. Maybe you don’t want to go in there to meet people. Maybe that’s not your scene. Maybe you want to meet your friends at home…
That’s not what’s happening at all here. Farming rewards are just that. It’s not a given that they should get any SAFEcoin. And what would they get if if there was nothing on the network?
Actually I think a sad fact would be the amount of movies uploaded will affect rate of adoption. All you need is a link to SAFE to see that. No app needed.
Which is not to detract from the fact that content creators in all forms should get paid inherently. If we can make frictionless micro contributions work. We should (imo).
Quality of content is the most important thing. IMO. Apps are sugar. You can make a great youtube clone all you want. Without videos. All you have is an empty homepage.
Why would you assert that? You have no idea what APPs are going to be on the network? Also all major browsers are free to use… Also, you’ll be able to access SAFE from those existing browsers (well… the ones that offer extensions).
I feel like everyone is forgetting that all you need to make a site is a plain text editor. Which exist already in great numbers, and which are generally free / open source / labours of love from their devs.*
I made an HTML page. That is an app. Every single reference ‘app’ / site above has been written in an HTML page. Tell me where you’re going to draw the line. When is my page an ‘APP’?
*which, imagine if they got paid for people using it… just like… imagine if a newspaper could get paid for people reading it as opposed to being beholder to the need to sell ads.