This is very true, I briefly forgot about the hardware requirements for filecoin.
We have a lot more to offer and perhaps the appetite for what filecoin is offering is a good sign, instead of reason to worry.
3 Likes
Only to the extent that they are direct substitutes. The thing is, Filecoin and Safe aren’t direct substitutes. Technically, Safe has no direct competitor, but would rather make redundant or greatly improve the vast majority of DLT/crypto projects.
Add to that the potential for:
At the end of the day, so long as the Safe Network delivers on a host of effectively marketed capabilities, I don’t think being (perceived as) a “second” mover in data storage is an issue.
11 Likes
That way would have to be Very subtle. Torrents are a red flag for many who don’t understand the legal uses. (This is, of course, obvious to most here.)
2 Likes
I think magic wormhole has a good concept but needs a cleaner ux to be more successful. Magic wormhole is very temporary though - tagline is “get things from one computer to another, safely” - so not sure how much crossover the existing/potential audience would have with permanent safe network storage. Still, a good entry point for legal-on-the-surface-but-possibly-illegal-in-reality file sharing.
1 Like
"We have been hijacked by large scale (chinese-cartel) miners, no one here is even trying to help the community after hunderds of discussions and reported issues.
All sub <500TiB miners are struggeling with getting messages through, and if they manage to it will cost them WAY more than they earn. It’s getting worse day by day and PL is not comming with statements or solutions. I’ve actually got a response that sounded like “If we solved this, the chinese will split the chain, and we will all be f*cked”.
Long story short, Filecoin is owned by the chinese now. Cheers."
https://old.reddit.com/r/filecoin/comments/k604a1/anyone_from_pl_is_going_to_solve_the_basefee/
4 Likes
If the Chinese did this on Safe Network and they decided to ‘split’, do you reckon they would be able to take all the data with them? Seems much less likely than with blockchain.
With 4 (?) redundant copies they’d need to have 25% (?) of the storage to be confident of retaining at least 1 copy of each chunk and successfully forking. Anyone got some good maths for these numbers?
Who here has 500 TiB ready for deployment on Safe Network? To think this is considered a small operator! I am continually impressed by the scale of filecoin.
5 Likes
I guess that they were big worries that this can happen so there are build or planning to build several steps to protect Safe network.
The thing is with so many changes I am not sure what all is going to be implemented, and what was just idea.
Important is that these miners are not there to destroy network, but for profit.
2 Likes
You can build 500 TB box for something like $12k, that is not an extreme amount of money, expensive but doable even for individuals.
Protect how or from what? You mean guarantee profit? It is all connected, but the risks are different for a vault opereator and for network as a whole.
We need to encourage home users.
Also if I read correctly the node file storage size will not make the difference since its the data stored that makes the node size significant. And it seems that that is being set by the section also.
Having 500TB is meaningless if the section is using only 2 TB. What they have to do is split their 500 TB storage and have many nodes of around the average node size. This may introduce additional issues with network setup and computers to run all the nodes.
Also the Safe Network does not favour the super large node storage size and the person with average storage size will gain as much data to store as the super large node storage size. This forces the super large to have many nodes in their setup.
To me the main solution is to encourage home users to overwhelm the big players.
10 Likes
And don’t forget the capital costs that have to be paid for by anyone wanting to build large infrastructure in order to profit.
Home users and anyone just clicking “earn” when they sign up has little or no need to cover costs, which drives the rewards down making it harder for “professional” farmers to cover costs or make sufficient profit to justify investment.
It’ll be an interesting situation!
8 Likes
I’ve said it before - no one cares about the data. What is this unique super valuable data that only exists in the Safe Network and cannot be easily uploaded to another Safe Network?
The attacks will be against the value of the coin, not against the data. Maybe sometime after 10 years, when there is unique data on Safe, we will see attacks against the data itself, but in the first years, when there are only copies of what exists on the old Internet, no one will move a finger to steal this useless copy data.
But they will certainly try to steal our farmers and destroy competition…
I was thinking that if access to the source code was delayed by 6 months our farmers would be always running the latest version of the network. What would be the incentive to leave?
Copycats would have do work and actually code to stay more attractive as the original Safe Network running more advance code. 6 months in technology is along time maybe we shorten it. Or maybe only do this for a short period of time.
It was just a thought.
Or maybe consider how to be the most economically competitive in the market. We have all the advantages:
- we are the first.
- we will soon have access to the Ethereum ecosystem where all the money are.
What we do not have is a mechanism to increase payments outside the Safe Network during vampire attacks on our farmers. Such a mechanism may be sponsored by the Foundation, but unfortunately, as David said, the Foundation can only do things specified by law…
2 Likes
If they had lots of storage available, I think their easiest route may be to try to get one elder in each section. AFAIK elders know all of the chunks held by the section, so they could archive everything if they had the storage for it.
Doesn’t routinely and randomly relocating elders solve for this? What about periodic de-aging?
1 Like
Would be interested in a bill of materials for this. Not that I doubt the claim, just it would be interesting. 500 TiB is a lot of drives. Multiple motherboards and PSUs.
They care about their tokens, which are data.
Tokens.
Also the increased audience and content uploading that comes from network effects.
You’re missing the forest for the trees by reducing everything to the coin.
Not a direct reply to you @Sotros25 but the original point I was trying to make was not ‘we have a problem to solve’, but more along the lines of ‘filecoin is trivially forked, whereas safe network needs at least some difficult considerations by the hostile entity before forking’. We’ve already ‘solved’ this, or at least made it an order of magnitude more difficult to do a fork compared to blockchains.
4 Likes
We live in a world where people don’t care about trees. The masses of people are more than ok to pay with their personal data for the use of the old internet.
What the mass of people are interested in is money. Yes, one day the “forest” will be more valuable, but that will be ahead in the future when the technology is proven and people really believe that the network works. Until then, it will be just speculation. And a new copy network is a new opportunity for speculation and making easy money.
There are continuous discussions in this forum about whether people will adopt something like this or not. Some think it be a big hit and take off, once proven, very quickly. Others think if adoption occurs it will take time to build up. I’ve only seen you predict that the network is going to be forked a million times to suite people’s needs, mainly economic, with no true point of difference. For that to occur, there will need to be people who fully believe in the original network, have it take off and then decide they will be able to lure people over, presumably to a more susceptible forked network for no good reason other then economic. My opinion is worth very little but it almost seems like you have day dreams of how many forks there will be and it almost feels maniacal as if you have some grand Plan because otherwise it realistically makes no sense for that to happen. At the end of the day some absurd amount of forking will only end with those networks probably dying and not am catching on.
4 Likes
This is exactly what I expect to happen. Mass explosion of Safe networks speculating with the economic model and the level of control / decentralization. Followed by mass deaths on most networks until a few remained.
So is there anything wrong with discussing how we can improve the economic model of our network to be competitive with others?
No, not at all but I think discussing it to some extent doesn’t need to be addressed because the economic value comes in two phases. First to move and first to sustain including point of difference. Perhaps someone smarter then me can answer this as well, when did the first bitcoin fork take place and what was the purpose of it?