Let's fork the SAFE network

I don’t get it why nobody seems to get it: A cryptocurrency, if good enough, can fuel the entire network for free. Imagine millions of users having to deal with the mess of having enough safecoins to make sure their IoT devices work. Believe me, it won’t happen.

1 Like

The point is neither is free to run. If you want to seed stuff you need to run a node and that costs.
If I’m making money from running stuff for you and you pay me then sure, I’ll buy some storage to care of data storing requirements. But I’m not going to spend money to run either SAFE or BitTorrent for free.

4 Likes

Anyway, good luck forking.

1 Like

I consider it free when I just farm whenever my laptop is open already and I’m online.

2 Likes

So why are people mining Dogecoins? The answer is because the cryptocurrency itself generates the value. It’s not the Federal Reserve who pays for Dogecoins. Farming generates coins and if it’s a good coin people will farm a lot, especially since it’s easy. In fact, the farmers will earn more I think when the network is free to use, because the market cap will grow more with the increased network effect of a free usage.

It’d take 200K users with a 100GB contribution to create 4.3 PB of usable capacity. I don’t think enthusiasts will be enough.

Why not make the mining algo multiply random numbers by 0 in order to create coins? That’s be even easier.

Anyway, this topic is about forking the code. It won’t happen anytime soon.
Millions of dollars have been invested in development, and hundreds of thousands per year are needed to sustain.
It won’t happen with the freetard approach.
If anyone forks the network, it’ll probably be closed (for internal use) or commercial (similar to Symform). It sure as hell won’t be “free”.

3 Likes

Since when do we need 4.3 PB?

We will see. I predict that I will be able to tell you: I told you so. :smiley:

1 Like

Wrong topic, dude.

(If there’s less storage, it’s going to be even worse. I was being cautiously optimistic.)

It was a comment you made here so I think I’m in the right one.

I’m not seeing what would be wrong with a network without X amount of storage space. Why does it have to be a certain number?

People also mine coins to get the transactions costs. In SAFE we won’t have any. But I agree, if you purely look to a network with free PUT and GET where only farmers make coins, the coins could still have value. It’s all supply/demand. So where should the demand come from? Well, people that want to buy the coins. Just as simple as that. It worked for over 300 cryptocoins out there that just are used as coins and for nothing else. But I think Safecoin will still have more value when people need to pay to PUT.

Yeah it came up here, but the main capacity prediction discussion is in the other topic, there’s no need to discuss the same thing here I think.

I got this twice today, from you and elsewhere from Melvin.
Maybe I shouldn’t make new predictions for the rest of the day.

That would be very interesting. I was thinking along the similar lines when I made this thread.

However, I remain committed to Project SAFE (MaidSafe) until we get underway. I’ve invested in MAID and intend on seeing it through.

I think it would be easier to improve on what “worked” and tweak what “didn’t work” after the SAFE Network has some experience.


I Agree with…

Zero barrier to entry… which paves the path of least resistance and encourages mass adoption. But I’m not naive to potential problems that come with it. If the developer community really likes this Network, they will find ways to resolve those issues, should they arise.

100% payout to farmers… this compliments free upload/download. It is very likely there will be 80% consumers and 20% farmers.

No “pre-farming”… is a good idea because the amount of currency creation requires consumer demand. As the Network becomes popular, the currency supply naturally grows with it.

I Disagree with…

Flat inflation rate, and cap supply. This usually creates a low-hanging fruit situation, which leads to a slow down in productivity (farming).

Instead, I would make standard payout for “good” resources provided. I don’t like reducing payout to a farmer 5 years later, compared to a farmer at launch. If they provide 1TB of resources, they earn 1TB of reward coin. This allows the currency to inflate at the same rate of Network growth. The Network scales easily this way.

I realize people feel “early-adopters” should be rewarded more for taking risks on a new Network. But I prefer to build a Network for all future generations. Continuous growth should be the end result, not a boom bust.

Currency Purchasing Power

This is most interesting because a currency doesn’t always need an exclusive purpose. Obviously, it helps if you’re the petro dollar, and needed for taxation.

If a global recession unfolds, there will be a lot of unemployed people with very little fiat money. I suspect crypto currency valued in fiat terms will crash until governments (central banks) start hyper inflating.

This is one of the reasons I wanted a currency valued in resource terms. In this case: bandwith, storage, electricity, and processing. Everyone gets rewarded proportional to the resources provided. While they are looking for work, they can “easily” generate an alternative income.

Since a currency is based on what it can buy, a good place to start is by providing Network services, making use of that currency. I have several ideas on that, but I don’t want to flood your thread.

1 Like

Sorry I’m late to the party :grinning: ! Been a busy bee…buzz buzz as Conan so humorously put it.

An idea on the topic:

Couldn’t we just compromise and create a dual storage system? SAFE could reserve 40% (arbitrarily chosen atm. Could be a variable based on demand. Permanent being the priority) for permanent safecoin purchased storage while the rest could be reserved for temporary popularity based persistence similar to Freenet’s implementation. That way, malicious entities would have to continue to access their uploaded material to retain its presence on the network. Impractical to say the least.

Users of temporary storage (PUTs) will in cases of low remaining storage capacity be forced in into a queue. Upload caps can also be enforced. In the case of popular content, SAFE could migrate temporary data to permanent storage once a VERY high popularity threshold is reached. Farmers role and rewards remain unchanged. Safecoin prices still abide to the current supply based price fluctuation for the reserved 40% permanent storage. Does this seem reasonable? This is a great community of problem solvers, so I look forward to seeing solutions (if any) to any detected flaws.

1 Like

I don’t think that can be easily made to work. I think the network - unlike bitcoin - has no ledger so whatever node out there doesn’t know what the user accessing it did before. Maybe you just created a ton of free files somewhere, and maybe you created your account 10 seconds ago - there’s no way to know.

Also regarding the reserve approach, you’d have to be able to delete data (or somehow mark unpaid chunks to be “special”, and then possibly ignore those blocks during churn/rebuild, so that they ultimately disappear from the network, etc.).

The ability to delete chunks that match specific criteria would give us more flexibility for brainstorming. Without it I think it’s quite hard to come up with some new approach.

2 Likes

I suggested a similar solution (Free Temporary, Pay for Permanent) on my thread. But some members mentioned it would be annoying (broken links, missing data), and gameable. I’m inclined to agree.

After some consideration, I think it more friendly not to hassle people with restrictions, or conditions. It does open the door to potential problems, which is a trade off for mass adoption.

But I like that we are looking for alternative ways to address them.

You mean with farming coins? There’s no chicken/egg problem. The farmers will start to earn coins from the beginning.

Oops! I meant dynamically adjusted upload speed caps based on temporary storage availability. Lower available space = lower upload speeds globally for all temp space users.

Instead of a queue, all users attempting to upload to temp space will have to wait n (amount of time) based on available resources (enforced by the close group). A user could also be restricted to 100MB (TBD) per account per 24 hours. The temp space allotment per user could be cumulative to no more than 1GB after which no more is accumulated until used (awareness of their presence and usage is maintained by “last seen xx [ MB available xx]” variables in a manager group). Maybe some sort of cryptographic validation scheme could be used to avoid time stamping.

Yup, SAFE over time deletes temporary data to make room for permanent data. Think of it as two partitions. One is slowly consumed to accommodate the ever expanding one. As more space is added to the network, temporary space is slowly replenished until greater demand for permanence occurs. A partition system recognizable only to managers and groups could make this easier. The data chunks themselves remain indistinguishable to everyone else.

Thanx for the feedback!

Have you considered it is you who doesn’t get it? There are at least some indications, like asking people to provide solutions…

…while remaining absolutely vague, yourself:

Your model only works once spamming cost exceeds the use and as long as there is abundance of storage connected to the network. The reason I see why you don’t calculate your own model, is, because it’s hard to do it properly. Spammers may have very differrent intentions. Initially I’d suppose to have few malicious spammers and many people who will just dump their stuff. Gb over Gb. To prevent collapsing you’d have 4 times more Gb streaming in with every(!) upload.

If it goes beyond that, which I wouldn’t expect, at some point fun spammers will join the party and eventually people who want to sabotage the network. Calculate that and show the math. Until now you seem to have an idea that you really like and want others to make sense of it. Not cool. Not convincing.

2 Likes

Storage abundance will be there when it’s popular enough to farm. And the spamming cost is essentially time and bandwidth. But there is also a question of incentive. It takes around 24 hours to upload a single 1 TB file with an upload speed of 100 Mbit/s. Who would want to upload a lot of files just to spam the network? Spammers generally want to make profit. And with zero profit I don’t see much of an incentive.