While working towards a BFA in Interrelated Media from Massachusetts College of Art, Paige developed an interest in learning to program and a general fascination towards the complexity of natural systems. After graduation, Paige worked for mesh networking startup, Open Garden. This experience helped to map her interest in natural decentralized systems onto concepts within technology. She currently co-organizes the largest bitcoin meetup in the US in San Francisco and fills various roles at MaidSafe with a focus on community, communication and web development.
Topics discussed SAFEnetwork and the arts / Meshnetworks / Bill Hicks / safecoin / programming / rust / SAFEnetwork in 2020 / nature / maidsafe community /the highlands of Scotland and much more
Huge S/O to @ioptio and @optictopic for a really insightful inspiring conversation
When they talked about libertarianism it occurred to me that the SAFE network can become a new layer for that instead of being competing with the existing society.
“Libertarianism (Latin: liber, “free”) is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment.” – Libertarianism - Wikipedia
I like the idea of individual freedom but I also want a strong social safety net. And one can think of the SAFE network as a layer above the ordinary political systems. So SAFE will allow individual freedom while things like a basic income and free healthcare can be provided by the mainstream society.
No, because let’s say that the SAFE network becomes really massive a few years from now, then how many of the billions of people around the world will be able to be farmers and make enough income from that to cover the basic costs of living?
EDIT: And also, a basic income would make people really free to use the SAFE network, both for people who want earn safecoins like farmers and also for people who want to use it without the burden of having to think about earning money all the time. For example artists who produce things that are not for mass markets, they can produce art the way they want it instead of trying please some broad enough group of consumers.
I was thinking of the SAFE network as a layer above the mainstream society. So instead of the SAFE network trying to replace ordinary incomes etc, it will be an additional level free from the usual struggles in society. If many people want to earn a lot of safecoins by farming, great, that will build the SAFE network. But many, I predict most, people will not be farmers or app developers and that’s fine too because SAFE rests on top of the mainstream society as a foundation instead of being something trying to replace the existing economy. SAFE is economy 2.0.
Dude… We’re replacing Google, Facebook, eBay, Amazon, iTunes, YouTube, Paypal, Visa, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, (every bank), even theWorld Bank, Bitcoin, (every currency worldwide), etc etc I could name huge billion dollar companies across every industry…
SAFE replaces all those BILLION dollar companies across every sector of the economy… AND the economy will grow exponentially with the possibilities it opens…
…and it’s pouring ALL that money into everyone’s pockets through farming!!
…so what were you worrying about again?? Lololol but seriously… Scarcity?? What? I think not
Yikes, that’s a bigger vision than what I had in mind. But even if that would happen, only a small part of the users would be able to earn enough money through farming to make a living. My guess is that a pretty big farm is needed to earn any significant amounts of money. It will be much easier to farm safecoins than say mine for bitcoins, but still, the average Joe and soccer mom will not have large enough farming equipment to earn enough safecoins to put food on their families, I mean on the table.
…strongly. and my opinions come from having listened to like every talk from them on YouTube, and having read all I possibly can about the project on the internet.
The team is working very hard to make large server farms unnecessary, after we all saw what’s been going on with bitcoin centralization / ASICS etc. “You get a very nice SafeCoin return when you’re providing up to the network average, but when you try farming on a larger scale, you don’t get as much of a financial return.”
I wish I remembered the YouTube interview where @nicklambert said this. I’ll look for it. He was being interviewed by a guy from a podcast IDK it’s in the tip of my tongue I’m sure I’ll find it right now lemme look
So you are indirectly saying that storage on the SAFE network will be much, much more expensive than on Amazon and Google cloud services? How else can a single computer used for farming earn any significant amounts of money? In reality, the SAFE storage will be much cheaper I think than on storage clouds run by companies. And then a farmer needs a lot of computers in order to earn more than a few cents per day worth of safecoins.
We won’t really know the returns until we implement test safecoin, IMO it should be enough to obviously cover the farmers cost and provide some financial incentive, while still enabling the service costs to end users to be sufficiently cheaper than existing services. This is the balance we need to strike.
The reason safe storage could be cheaper than a server farm, and the reason that small farmers costs will be low enough for them to earn a small profit, is that SAFEnetwork favours small farmers and that includes lots of people, hopefully the majority, who don’t have to pay for dedicated farming equipment and power.
If a lot of needed capacity is served by people using already paid for resources (h/w, power & b/w), the cost will be low and they will still profit, although only small profit.
We want the rewards dispersed to a avoid centralisation (eg like bitcoin miners) which makes the network vulnerable. So we don’t want big server farms to be able to capture all the gains - they need to be relatively unprofitable.
As Nick points out, how it works in practice this remains to be seen, but that’s the big difference with both bitcoin and Google Drive et al.
Missing my point. Apparently you have a vision which you like very much, but no idea of a practical implementation. Basic income depends on protocols that ensure fair and equal distribution, because otherwise people turn into ego-mode and exploit the system. Social welfare runs on the idea of solidarity and you cannot have solidarity without unique identification models. Since unlike material identities, creating digital identities is so easy that you can even hand it over to a bot, social welfare will depend onto exclusive models. I personally don´t believe that in a digital environment basic income is senseful. What we may see is distribution based on level of trust, but that´s not comparable with basic income, since you will only receive if you have the capacity to promote yourself. Anyway, feel free to present your model.
before turning entirely megalomaniac…maybe “we” should first build a stable version.
To me it also seems you lack of economical understanding. To farm you need ressources, hard drives, technical infrastructure, energy, people who produce and take care for these ressources. If you have ressources, you will be able to invest into farming. However, it won´t be a magical money machine and it won´t distribute wealth. Much rather it will give those who already own ressources a higher potential to make money and those with less ressources will still be dependent on the structures. SAFE really cannot and will not change anything with regard to access to ressources. If it works and gets accept it will MAYBE shift the places where money is earned. As far as I see SAFE is about secure access not about “free beer for everyone”.
Currently services such as Youtube don´t generate money. They are in place because people can make money out of your data. Once we don´t give the data there is no money to be made - BUT people will be able to PAY for a service that was “free” to use before. The great advantage will be: they can distribute the cost.
So you see, what changes is not the economy in general, but the economy with personal data. And it´s still to be seen whether that happens because it will cost people money, whereas now they receive it for free in exchange to their personal data. Aside, you appear to believe the enterprises you name will be replaced by mere technology. I can assure you that this is not going to happen because those companies run on MUCH more than on the technology. Some may fail but if there is in fact a change of use the market will follow and entprises change their model. As I said…before that happens SAFE needs to be a) completed and b) used by some sort of critical mass.
Basic income is something governments can use to manage the growing unemployment problem due to increasing automation. It has nothing to do with the SAFE network.
Here is a good interview about technological unemployment:
The economy depends on what the value of energy is of the petro-dollar, If the price of energy increases, company profit decreases and this filters through the economics of the whole population. people costs rises and consumption goes down. It does not matter if no one is working at the local maccas because no one can afford it because the price factory made food has increased.
The economic future are local economies of local manufacturing and food production with green smart technologies. with 3d printers large factories will no longer be needed to tool up a product.
At some point the world will have to deal with the industrial age mess is left in the environment.
Yeah, but please explain how we AREN’T a system that will replace Google, FB, World Bank (and all other fiat/cryptos) etc etc everything I said above and more, and gives 90% of all the money generated by all of those industries / megacompanies to farmers around the world and 10% to the App devs who code them?
I know what basic income is, in Germany we have basic supply for everyone and there are several discussions about conditionless basic income around for years. I pointed out that individual freedom and collective welfare doesn´t go well together. SAFE won´t change that, it´s a fundamental confolct.
Ehm…it´s not up to me to explain why something is NOT going to happen. It´s up to you to explain why it should take place. There is no rule that says SAFE will replace everything. First off, there needs to be SAFE at all(!), secondly there needs to be people who are willing to pay for privacy instead of selling it off as they do now.
Also, you are throwing together services that don´t have much in common. Facebook is a platform that needs to be sustained and developed. First there needs to be a competitor AT ALL (as I said, for now it´s only there in imagination), then it needs to be an attractive competitor (which is quite tough given that enterprises like Facebook pay an immense ammount of money for the development of a professional GUI) and eventually people need to willing to pay for it. It´s really not at all running by itself, it´s a question of adoption. You assume adoption is a logical cause, but it´s not and every technology on the market proves that.
The Wolrd Bank has a very different purpose. I don´t see why it existence should be affected by SAFE. The World Bank does not make money on transfers, it´s a steering institution that uses the distribution of ressources to do politics.
Again: if SAFE or a comparable service will ever exist it will give you the opportunity for privacy, not for welfare. Time will show if people are willing to pay with their money for a service such as Facebook. I don´t see why they should magically hop on the train. To me it sounds you put all the names of services of which you think they are “old fashioned” and asked me to explain how your megalomaniac conclusions are not true. This forum is really a bubble - in terms of convictions it has not much to do what people care and believe in the outside world. SAFE won´t cause a revolution - if there will be a revolution it will be made by people and those needs to be convicted first.
That’s why I suggested that SAFE will be a layer above the physical society. SAFE will be a digital information layer within which there is individual freedom.
And that’s pretty powerful, since the direction of technological progress is that more and more things, even physical, will become information technology. So there is enormous potential in a system like SAFE when used as a layer on top of the existing society instead of being in conflict with it.
A basic income or similar solutions will just be a temporary means for the “old” society to adjust to a new information society. There is exponential progress in price/performance of information technology. There is exponential progress in things like solar power. The acceleration of technology has followed a clear historical trend and as many people here probably know, some experts have predicted that this will lead to a technological singularity.
You don’t need to make money off farming directly. You just need to farm enough to meet your needs and then use the safecoin to participate in the SAFE economy. There are other things you can sell like your time, creativity, ideas, skills and so forth. Moreover SAFE is built by design to counteract megafarms anyway. It favors smaller nodes proportionately so that if you build a big farm you won’t nessesarily get a big return compared to a bunch of guys mining on their cell phones. SAFE wants to avoid centralization and big farms.
Why should there be a conflict between individual freedom and collective welfare? True collective welfare is deprived FROM individual freedoms and self sufficiency therefore there should be no conflict. Giving someone food does not truly promote their welfare in the long term. Teaching them and enabling them to produce their own food does. Giving someone a place to stay does not promote long term collective welfare. Building them a house, or better yet teaching them how to build their own house DOES promote promote their welfare because it promotes their self sufficiency. Giving someone power to run their electronics does not promote their welfare long term, but giving them or teaching them how to generate their own power does. Empowering people to be self sufficient empowers collective welfare and gives people skills to be more productive in the community. But enabling people to be self sufficient would be counterintutive to an economy and society based on dependency using centralized institutions of power.
Actually no he’s not. Let’s see Facebook and Google make money off ad revenue, censor data, they mine user data, and send user data to the gov’t. All corps mentioned use fiat debt based currency. Most if not all have a history of compromising user privacy. Amazon refused to process transactions for Wikileaks. eBay/Paypal deals in fiat and works with the banking cartel, same with Visa. Do I really have to get started on big wall street bankers like JP Morgan and the banking cartel? By the way the World Bank is PART of the banking cartel as is the IMF. And yes safecoin affects this because safecoin is not a debt based currency but rather a resource backed currency, and moreover it’s anonymous and secure.
I think not
