Moral issues as regards PtP and PtD

As per Neo’s suggestion I’ve created this topic to discuss the moral (not legal or technical) issues of PtP and PtD

[ original post is here: Legal ramifications for PtD (Pay the Developer) feature in the SAFE protocol ]

Let’s consider child porn as an example.

Moral consideration for farmers IMO:

A farmer may host (and hence is paid to host) a fragment of an encrypted bit of child porn. Is this a moral issue? I think not as the porn itself (even if you hosted the full file) is ‘history’ and history good or bad isn’t in and of itself causing harm in any direct fashion. Farmers are not producers in any case. Hence morally speaking hosting child porn seems (to my mind) morally ambiguous.

Moral consideration for PtP and PtD:

A producer of child porn or a developer of an app that displays/serves child porn is being paid by the network for their efforts in creating such content. This would be considered by many potential users as a contract between those that support the network (and I use the term ‘support’ loosely to imply all kinds of support - including moral support) and the producers of the networks content - in this example child porn.


So as regards the moral consideration for a user of the network I can only speak for myself, but if, I as a potential user, know that the network will pay producers of child porn … and not merely act as a host for some bits of it; then I, and I suspect many users, may think thrice about using such a network.

This, as a moral argument is not FUD – this is honest truth about what PtP and PtD represents to many people on a moral level - we are being asked to support things that we do not like. And for many of us, this is fundamentally wrong and disrespectful of our feelings/morals. Disrespect of the individual and individual opinion.

The more I understand about the consequences of PtP and PtD … the more I think I will not be able to support the network if it goes live with these features and that makes me quite sad.


I have read many of your posts before and I have to say I’m surprised to hear this logic from you. I think the security of the network in and of itself is enough incentive for such things to be stored on it, never mind either farming or ptp. You can’t stop these sick people from doing sick things by taking either of those away and I honestly doubt you’re facilitating much more of it. We could stop using computers and the Internet all together and guess what, it’d still be happening because people are adaptive and clever. These people need help or (this will seem controversial) a virtual reality child porn app that is simply renderings of a child so they can keep their disgusting hands off from real, innocent, children! This is FUD my man you just feel bad you can’t stop it, we all do. But there will be solutions but this simple of one is definitely not the culprit


I don’t get what you are arguing here. Sorry. My points are fairly clear I think, if you want to break them down (my moral arguments) and explain then I’m happy to see what you come up with but what you just posted isn’t penetrating my admittedly thick skull.

No, it’s not FUD, it’s my opinion. And I’m truly concerned for the sake of the network – I rather that it not be forked.


It’s not your skull, it’s prolly my beer :smile:
There are just so many discussions on this. I have children and so obviously the idea of this severely shakes my core but from all the thinking I’ve done on it from an unbiased position possible, these kinds of changes won’t stop this anymore than I can keep my children from certain things in life without keeping them from having a life. I consider myself a moral person and these features could maybe be considered a moral sacrifice in a way when you think of them this way but whether these features exist or not the thing you have a problem with will continue. You might not feel guilty anymore but didn’t stop the action just the facilitation of random data that you can’t prove or not could have or could have not been data that was morally opposing to you. Hope you somewhat get what I’m blabbing about friend.


To be clear - I’m not opposed to farmers hosting the porn – I’m opposed to the network paying people who produce it – as it incentives it’s production. I don’t think hosting incentives production … maybe I’m wrong, but to me that is very nebulous/unclear. If however, the network pays producers then that’s giving resources to producers who can then use those resources to make more of it … and in the process to actually cause more harm to children.

I personally think that if PtP and PtD happen, then the bankster owned media will have a feeding frenzy attacking the SAFEnetwork – we don’t need to give them more ammunition to use against us. The fallout is that not nearly so many people will want to use the network.

And the fallout of that is that it will be forked … which will be a load of pain that I’d like to avoid.


I’m an artist and I’m very on the fence for ptp. Just like any other person the artists can find their ways. I think paying the devs is good so that people have less overhead to develop otherwise our network won’t attract many people and be less secure because of that. I definitely see your point, ptp could go by the way side if you ask me. It can be implemented app side anyways most likely


I believe that it will be easy to donate to any producer or developer in any case - IMO it will be far easier to donate on SAFEnet than on the existing net.

1 Like

Sorry to hear that mate!

But there will definitely be others, myself included, to use it and farm, upload data etc

I’m very excited for it

So you think that PtP and PtD will be implemented? At least with PtP around of third of the community (by poll) are against it and a large number are undecided depending on implementation … do you think the MAIDSAFE devs will implement something that is so highly contested?

My view is that if these features are added, the network will be forked (because so many are opposed). Seems more workable to me if the network forked with additional features not fewer – plus the network would be up sooner with less code.

There is a difference between being opposed and being willing to jump ship and move to an opposing network that maybe a 1/3 would go to if all who opposed went there. And they may only mildly oppose it, almost “who cares”. Of course some who agree maybe “lets see” so there is a range of opinions and not polarised. Only the hard against may be willing in my opinion to move to a fork.

I doubt very much that all who oppose would move to a forked network. Then the question arises how many of those who are willing to move to a fork will also fork it again because they disagree with something else in the forked network.

tl;dr People may oppose something but not willing to leave the main network for a fork that has an uncertain future.

Additionally if they are willing to move to a forked version, then they are likely to be willing to move to another fork because of some disagreement with the original fork’s implementation.


I’m amongst those who are uncommitted and skeptical of PtP. I doubt it will be implemented.

PtD, however, is a key and core part of the incentive structure, I think.

Might I recommend my article Net Neutrality and the SAFE Network?

The network structure is designed to store and pass data, with no consideration as to its meaning. Apps are part of the mechanics of doing that. Developers enable that usage. The bulk of the usage will be positive or, at worst, benign–unless we consider that people in general are more inclined to evil when more free.

The value of content, on the other hand, is a very subjective matter. Whether the producer/originator of that content should be rewarded by default for it being consumed is another matter altogether.


Yes, funding apps and content should be voluntary, not coerced which is what PtD and PtP does. Being concerned about the consequences of PtD and PtP is not FUD because it forcibly prevents freedom of choice. That’s what I thought a big part of SAFE was about – freedom.


I skimmed your article on net neutrality, but didn’t see a reference to PtD … I don’t understand how PtD helps here either … but I’m possibly missing something. I thought that PtD was for any developer who put’s their account info into the app … then the network automatically pays the developer when people use their app. Is this generally or technically wrong?

If that is the case then I’m failing to see how this supports the network. It seems to me it might have good and bad incentives for users. I’m really not understanding how it is any different from PtP - a developer is just another producer in the end. But again, maybe I’m not understanding some fundamental difference between the two. Please help enlighten me if I’m missing something here.


1 Like

The traditional economy means that nefarious types get paid for their nefarious efforts. Let’s shut that down? I don’t see any difference here…

Bitcoin too:

That aside, as @Nigel notes. The inherent security of SAFE means that it would be used for nefarious ends anyway. PtP or PtD or not.

You say morally we must abandon all PtP because it could be misused (although by the nature of the network, we’ll never know how).

Child pornographers could setup a farm with ease and make money that way… We’ll know just as much about it, but the network would support them with 10x the coin.


Hehe, you got this almost right at the start (almost, because you set out to specifically discuss the morality of such content, but didn’t prove or even show why would it be immoral).
Secondly, in this quoted text you strayed off the road. Whether someone gets paid (or not) has no bearing on the morality of the act. It’s not okay to kill people just because you do it for free. And the existence of a contract is even less important.

The more I understand about the consequences of PtP and PtD … the more I think I will not be able to support the network if it goes live with these features and that makes me quite sad

Your position has to do with values and not with morals.

Non-capitalists are handicapped when it comes to reasoning about these issues because they simply don’t understand the concept of private property and natural law.

I don’t think you really understand these problems, so it’s pointless to argue with you about this (if you are interested why, you should spend some time at But since the conclusions you reached are your opinion, that’s fine.
It won’t impact anything because most people will play along, which is what likely bothers you (it seems you’d like us to follow your example, but you feel powerless because there’s nothing you can do about it).

We’ll do our thing, you’ll do yours.


It’s not clear at all, you are completely misunderstanding the whole thing,

By definition you cannot know what people store, so how can you (also @TungSvard who has very good understanding of almost all issues) demand that you know what you pay for? That is the nature of the network: it’s private, so you will never be able to not pay for only the stuff you like or condone.
There is no coercion, since you don’t have to use SAFE (classic).

You could have your own SAFE (fork), but what then, when you can’t know what people store on it and whether something is “illegal”.
Photo of a topless 17 year old on a beach. Illegal porn or not? Depends where you live.

So to solve this (non) issue you’d have to know the identity of all participants, their nationality, place of residence, be able to see all content on your SAFE fork (including private), and be able to apply force (directly or by proxy (like that Stasi wannabe goindeep)) to censor the network, punish the offenders and not go bankrupt while doing that, which implies some form of government that also implies taxation.

That is exactly what the fascists have in mind for us today, so I think I’d go with SAFE Classic.


This topic isn’t for discussion of the legal or technical aspects – there are other threads for that already.

I don’t think I said ‘we must’ I do recall saying that ‘I wouldn’t’ and that ‘others wouldn’t’ either … which leads me to the conclusion that the network will be forked with PtP and PtD.

I don’t understand your arguments – I’ve laid out clear moral arguments - please take them as a starting point and argue against them if you like.

Arrg … just realized you posted twice in a row so now editing to reply to your first post above my first reply to your second post. Seriously Janitor you must know how this forum works by now.

Morality is relative … I just posted my opinion, I didn’t say you had to agree with it … but I suspect most non-child-pornographers would.

You just don’t get it. I’m not arguing about the morality of child pornography. I’m arguing about the morality of the network paying child-pornographers to produce child pornography. It’s all my moral opinion - call it values if you want, it amounts to the same thing. However socially, I think most people are against it and share my moral values. Maybe I’m wrong.

Hmmm, it’s you who doesn’t understand my argument. I didn’t say it was coercive … the point of this thread is to discuss the moral dimension and the implications.

And maybe you might reread the OP. I’m not concerned morally or otherwise with what people (farmers) are paid to store. I’m concerned morally with what people (producers and developers) are paid (by all of us) to produce.

Frankly, I don’t have any clue why you’d be supporting PtP or PtD given the other things you’ve posted as these payment programs (handouts), unlike farming, do not clearly support/sustain the network (so far as I can see - and nobody seems able to prove otherwise) … hence this appears to me to be socialism … which I thought you’d be against.

Again, you failed to read the OP. I’m not debating and I don’t care about the legality and this topic is ONLY for the discussion of the moral dimension and it’s implications/consequences for the network.

My point in creating this topic is that I don’t want the network to be forked - I’d like it if we could come to an understanding about the consequences here with regard to the long term vitality of the network. Maybe that’s not possible as maybe people are too far divergent on their beliefs about reality … in that case the network will probably be forked sooner rather than later.

1 Like

So you are against PtP (as I read it…) as it supports Child Pornographers.

My point is that farming can support Child Pornographers better than PtP. Just as visibly (aka: there’s no way to know how much support they would get, as with PtP, but farming rewards are higher).

My point is: if you cannot support a PtP network for moral reasons, you cannot support SAFE at all (because of farming rewards) for those same reasons. As SAFEcoin could be used to fund…ANYTHING!!

So let’s talk about that; the morality of untraceable currency? Or your goal was just to try and cast aspersions on a feature you don’t like? this time with morals?

I’m not arguing against your morals. Morals are subjective. I’m pointing out the flawed nature in your drawing them up against PtP like this. (although @janitor did a pretty solid job)

One cannot know who or what is using a network (in the broadest sense). Be it SAFE, bitcoin, stock markets. There’s always bad actors. It’s not a helpful conversation. And making your point using child porn, an emotionally charged, but largely unassailable moral goal is more unhelpful. (But none of that matters as you don’t know what the content is.)

We can’t have PtP: Think Of The Children!

Which is a good thing, right? I love loving in largely socialist societies. They’re great.

1 Like

simple question… is it morally wrong for a bitcoin miners to confirm the transaction of stolen bitcoins?