Good! Their failure to do so, if that is the way it turns out, would make me provisionally confident that my far less heinous activities would be attack-proof.
3 Likes
The expectation that has been set is Safe Access For Everyone.
3 Likes
By your logic taking a breath is intent to participate in a world that indiscriminately supports evil actors. Every breath you exhale contributes a tiny fraction to the air a criminal inhales. The money you pay in taxes is given to the government knowing that itâll eventually fall into the hands of a terrorist at some point. Government have knowingly given money to criminal organizations. Knowing this, we still participate in the economic system.
So many systems would be at risk of legal liability if your logic had merit. A building supporting your weight for instance can be argued as form positive environmental feedback. Supporting your ascension to the office you will possibly destroy. All of those who created and sanctioned the development of the building knew it could be used as a platform for terrorism and yet construction proceeded. Those who populate the building know that the building has the potential to support the weight of a person who would leverage the environment to carry out an attack.
Road makers know that a criminal will be psychically supported by the road during the transport of illegal goods or doing something illegal (smoking weed, running stop lights, hitting a pedestrian). This is especially true of high crime areas that regularly fill pot holes.
Guns are created knowing that some will be used for crimes. Am I held liable for purchasing a steel pot that will eventually be recycled and contribute a gram of steel to constitute the gun that was used to shoot up a school?
Recycling plants would have to be shut down immediately as they provide material to the community without regard as to how it will be used. What about 5 cent bottle refunds? Is it not possible to recycle and get paid for a bottle that held poison used to kill a person? Knowing this, why was this funding instituted?
State funded farmers feed everyone indiscriminately knowing statistically that some will reach criminals.
The welfare system funds people knowing their is a statistically high probability that a criminal will be funded. Are tax payers guilty of the crimes commited by these criminals?
You see where Iâm going with this. Think broadly. You really mean to tell me that a situation LIKE PtP or PtD is unprecedented? If you do then Iâd say your scope is fairly narrow. I know youâll nitpick but please answer the last question. Letâs not waste precious time scoring minuscule points.
1 Like
Along the lines of what Iâve been saying, hereâs how a lawyer puts it:
What if a DAO doesnât have human members or participants?
A court would look to see who designed the thing, and keep looking until it found a first mover, or a human hand. Whether or not a judgment is ultimately collectible, you can usually find someone holding the hot potato.
Source: (http://www.coindesk.com/how-to-sue-a-decentralized-autonomous-organization/)
While oneâs luck will depend on circumstances (maybe you wonât get sued, or you (DAO creator or shareholder) would be able to find a good crypto-lawyer, if you can afford one!), thereâs no doubt in my mind that non-anonymous DAOs can be sued.
2 Likes
Surely Bitcoin, PGP, Linux and a few other projects have been used to commit illegal acts. I know that PGP was a special case, being deemed for a while to be munitions. But who has been sued among the developers of those projects? If the SAFE developers have a similar degree of detachment from any illegal acts that their software is used for, then whatâs the difference?
1 Like
The OP explained where the issue lies when PtP is used:
There is no PtP in any of your examples, so I donât know what are you trying to compare.
None of those platforms can be used to PtP. At best Bitcoin miners can be compared with Safecoin farmers, but there is nothing comparable to PtP.
2 Likes
Yes, I overlooked that, the PtD aspect.
OK, a better example would be various Bittorrent clients⌠except that I canât find one that isnât free. None of them appear to request payment.
The typical business model with free-and-open-source software is that the developer earns fees (if at all) as a consultant to businesses who wish to use the software.
If it was me doing development of SAFE apps, and expecting payment, I would take the precaution of doing it pseudonymously, at least until a legal decision is made one way or the other. Or do so from a less litigious jurisdiction.
Right, but also note the theory that rewarding PtP on a network level (rather than users paying for the app) means tokens generated are generated by the entire network.
This method of paying the Producer (or Poster) for creating âdownloadâ traffic would make it appear as if those who buy tokens are indirectly financing all Producers/Posters. That is the tricky part.
Of course if youâre collecting payments for your own app, youâd also want to do that from a friendly or at least ignorant jurisdiction, although thatâs another topic.
1 Like
The key word there for me is ACCESS and not safe socialistic payments from the general pot for every bit of dog crap someone produces that someone else does a get request on be that PtP or PtD.
⌠sorry, but this whole PtP and PtD scheme just makes me spew everytime I see it ⌠I should just stay out of these topics from now on.
3 Likes
You really must not understand here,
Nobody has to pay to access the content. Everyone gets free access. Access isnât in Jeopardy at all
Payments come when people PUT their things on the very SAFE Network. Thatâs it.
1 Like
This has been discussed above.
Some claim because PtP payments are generated by the network, it doesnât take away from anyone. If you think that central banks printing cheap money for private banks doesnât take away from the savers, you are wrong.
We are talking about the PtP approach in this topic.
1 Like
Let the number of safecoins issued be N.
Let the rate of farming be r.
Let PtP reward be P.
Let the number of safecoin in existence be S.
P = (N*r)/10
But at the same time.
Let the number of gets = G.
Let the number of computer resource = R
Let the amount of time the node has been active and developing possitive reputation be T.
r = GRT
We all know this. So P = [N(GRT)]/10
And we also know that resources on the network are influenced by the price of safecoin. If safecoin is cheap then thereâs less demand for farmers but also more uploading of content to the network. The more content the more demand for GETS and farmers. The more uploads the more the price in safecoin will rise again. Also the âdevaluationâ and fluctuations caused by PtP are miniscule when compared by massive uploads caused by cat videos and streaming sites. A millionaire could buy up safecoin, do some massive uploads and jack up the price and the network would simply raise farming rewards way up to compensate so that more people would farm and award the network more resources.
If they are minuscule, why are they necessary?
I already said this has elements of multilevel marketing, not to use a harsher word.
Why canât the farmers spend part of their own earnings to market SAFE to , since they portion is so minuscule?
1 Like
Well at least not the multi-level element 
It is a single level, and a gift for creating network activity. Not really multi-level marketing.
Prosecutor: You are being charged for financially supporting illegal content. (or something like that)
Farmer: I didnât do it!
Prosecutor: We think you did
Farmer: Prove it
The farmer could claim that no chunk retrieved (get) from his vault has ever resulted in safecoin being awarded to any illegal app or content. This may or may not be true. However, the burden of proof is on the State not the farmer. The State may have gained possession of a wallet attached to some illegal content receiving safecoin. I donât think it is possible to trace back what âgetâ produced the safecoin reward. Furthermore, I think it could be argued that the downloader that requested the chunk initiated the production of the safecoin, not the farmer.
In the US we have a program that issues food stamps to millions of needy families. Food stamps, unfortunately can be abused and have been used to purchase illegal drugs, underage prostitutes etc. I contribute to the economy that pays for food stamps. Should I be held accountable morally, ethically or criminally for other peopleâs behavior because I support food stamps? Should we just scrap the whole program? I think a moral argument could be made against NOT having PtP - PtD for depriving the innocent majority the opportunities that it will provide. Creating an economic model that pays producers directly for their work, eliminating the need for greedy middlemen is an altruistic goal and could have profound effects on the future economy even outside the SAFEnetwork.
3 Likes
it is irrelevant whether a telecom pays or not. the point is that they facilitate the downloading of illicit content, and yet are not held liable just as the post office is not held liable for delivery of illicit things.
furthermore, if an individual user makes a payment for something illicit of course they can be held accountable if there is evidence.
however, when âthe networkâ assigns credits to some account which produces illicit content then the individuals or organizations providing the network infrastructure are not held responsible, just like a winning bitcoin miner is not held responsible for processing a transaction for payment for illicit things.
lastly, telecoms charge money for their services, so when was the last time that you saw AT&T or whoever getting fined for profiting from the delivery or hosting of illicit content/things? NeverâŚ
2 Likes
Great point on two counts:
-
It challenges the argument that the issue lies in our financial contribution because we clearly contribute to food stamp albeit involuntarily.
-
It highlights the argument that PtP and PtD is a form of welfare because we clearly will be contributing to Pay the X albeit involuntarily.
1 Like
On the second count I look at it like paying to build roads and highways. It so benefits the economy that itâs worth it. The ROI will be good for all
2 Likes
Thatâs debatable but off - topic
Here is a link for anyone who wants to join in that fascinating conversation.
https://forum.autonomi.community/t/building-a-basic-income-into-safe-beyond-farming/6936
3 Likes
Actually the same can be said for people who have open WiFi and some criminal uses the WiFi for criminal activity. Now the person owns the WiFi, is responsible for it, and the common misconception is that the WiFi owner is able to be convicted for the crime. But that is not the case as proven in a number of trials
So if the owner of a network cannot be jailed if they are themselves legally using the WiFi network then even less so the users of a network they do not own. Having tokens and supplying resources does not equate ownership anymore than having a water tank means I jointly own the oceans/rivers/lakes of the world and responsible for criminals who use the water to commit crimes.
The people the OP forgot to mention is the criminals themselves. The prosecutor, to know that a crime has been committed using SAFE will also KNOW that there are actual criminals who did the crime and will obviously go after them. Not the farmers, not the uploaders of legal material who the courts have already shown they do not hold responsible. (see article)
Another case where some criminals used a popular âcloudâ storage for infringing copies of music/movies/other criminal material. The storage site was shut down, it was a business after all and possible to do. Anyhow my point is that they did not touch any of the users who paid to store legal material. And the same with safe, paying to store data does not make one an owner or responsible for the actions of the few.
No court has ever gone against centuries old precedents of the buy/sell âinformal contractâ where legal liability ends with the supply/remuneration/warranties of the transaction. SAFE does not provide a T&C that is required to be viewed before purchase of storage. So even if the user is aware of such a thing as PtD, there is no legal connection because of the purchase of storage. And the OP already makes the case that the farmer (who actually serves up the data) is not responsible.
Then who is responsible - the criminal of course.
2 Likes