Even for public data it would seem likely that the cost GETs is lower than the reward. What’s stopping someone, or lots of people, from uploading some files and then renting a bunch of cloud servers to download them over and over again?
On the clearweb there’s lots of scripts running and analysis being done to ban people who try similar things, i.e. set and website with some ads, then letting bots visit it. It’s difficult to do because of all the analysis being done of user behavior, ip adresses etc to detect bots.
So you’re not trying to sort out some kind of algorithm by which the network rewards GETs, PUTs, or some metric of attention based on the expectation that anything that makes the network grow at the beginning will continue to be beneficial to it and the people who use it for an arbitrarily long period of time?
The network includes features that support its growth and survival such as rewarding nodes for storing chunks, and possibly rewarding developers who create apps to run on the network.
Developers, publishers, creatives etc can build their own commercial mechanisms (micropayments, subscriptions, purchases etc) regardless.
No, we are discussing reward mechanisms to spur network growth… but your original statement about the original internet was an invalid comparison.
This isn’t a discussion about “if” PtD/PtP rewards should be given. It’s adiscussion about “how” they should be given if a decision is made to proceed with these reward mechanisms.
If you would like to have that discussion then create a new topic to voice your concerns. As far as the current thread goes, you’re pushing it off-topic.
Sorry @Warren but i made this very argument and it got debunked. The PtP or PtD is not a tax since the SNT are literally created fresh by the network when they are issued and destroyed when they are returned to the network in exchange for storage. The network does not track who owns what tokens nor does it coercively take tokens from x users wallet and distribute it to y users wallets. The concept of a central planning office doesn’t apply here. So no it’s not a tax. Literally speaking the closest analogy might be mild self correcting inflation since tokens are being issued to users on demand and being destroyed when used.
Consider you need to pay safecoin to set up each user account on the SAFE network. The cost might be negliable on an individual basis but if you want to set up a bot network to do what you’re proposing the cost may very well become prohibitive. Also a simple countermeasure would to incrementally increase the cost in safecoin for each account made by the user. So assume the average individual user has 10 safe network accounts to their name. So every time you create an account it’s the SNT starting at $0.01 and then the cost increases using the fibonacci sequence, which is totally mathamatical but a pretty reliable way of determining incremental growth. The first few bots might be doable but sooner or later it would get costly and after awhile it would get REALLY expensive for anyone to run a fleet of bots.
It assumes no such thing. Moreover since everything is encrypted and anoymous said publishing houses would be hard pressed to press any legal sanctions against anybody. And since the SAFE network is permanant by design you can’t just take stuff down because it breaks someone’s copyright or hurts their feelings. Which is part of the SAFE Network to begin with, to get rid of internet censorship.
I can understand needing to solve the bootstrapping of the network. I can’t understand some sort of permanent dividend for that. I and I don’t understand trying to solve the non problem of supporting a publisher class- we should be getting rid of that groups power not reinforcing it. It smells of the RIAA and MPAA.
It assumes there is this problem of having to pay rent seeking publishers who enclose everything and void the commons by putting a corporate welfare toll booths on everything (speech and attention of all things) and then claim to be special rights holders who must be paid above all else (for their contribution of theft) and copyright things for 75 years and whine about copyright infringement and DRM us and spy on us and jack up prices and claim fair use is anathema and put a sponsor filter on our representation in politics. I don’t give a damn about these people and wish we’d find a mechanism to prosecute them for screwing up society- I hate their greed is good religion or their complement in the group that thinks they’ve succeeded when all the information people think they have is wrong. I’d much rather have spotify fleecing creative people than fleecing the public- but I don’t even see the issue there, the rate Spotify charges is a fair rate relative to incomes in my opinion for what they provide- not sure its as fair on the other side but was it better under the RIAA? If you’re an artist or a creative type and your stuff doesn’t appeal enough to the masses or isn’t quality enough then advocate for a basic income. In my mind the network is about life and death and free speech not about stuff like paid prioritization/discrimination or setting up anti neutrality and creating artificial scarcity to try to make censorship and sponsorship pay by thieving people’s attention and creating a habitual right of interruption. It smells like supply side top down people trying to corrupt the network. How idiotic if the damn RIAA and their ilk were able to pervert this technology for their purposes- my hope is it works and its their death almost like a proof of concept.for the success of the network- we don’t need people getting rich of publishing- the network does that, the tech does and people have already paid for that…
As for employment/employer or the patron reference, yes I’d like us to address our core contradiction today which is people are enslaved- they aren’t free, they don’t live voluntary lives. Its not a radical observation, its not anything Victor Hugo, or John Lennon or MLK wouldn’t recognize. You don’t have to be a leftist to see this, it is damn obvious but we have a world where in the US for instance people are given sports to distract from their slavery- that’s bullsht and it only works because of their cultivated dumbed down state- akin to intentionally harming the brains of children so you can treat them as livestock as adults.
Sorry to be so negative but I detect some smooth talkers promoting some real bs. You kind of know when you hear paid prioritization where things are going (that’s making censorship and sponsorship and loss of democracy pay kind of crap.) If SAFE is better than the internet and more secure people will come but notice until is run off the hardware people own and the electricity they provide to those devices (maybe solar powered and battery backed) and by their own bandwidth (like line of sight optical) even if they pay a feed these damn dumb pipe
ISP will be thinking they have a right to exploit and extract and spy and preempt and block.
Look at that pay the producer not even pay the developer so already trying to set up that dame censorship (digital divide) publishing industry. If pay the developer is necessary to get to bootstrap stability safer because the network and its reputation as a technology is at risk
otherwise then that might make sense or it might make sense if it can support ad free sponsor free conflict of interest free media and search but not otherwise. Seems like a bunch of scammers might already be in the mix. Surely a lot of people perceive the threat this projects presents to their damn extractive exploitative frauds and like good scammers and opportunists they are preemptive.
You’re confusing big publishing houses with actual artists and developers. I can understand your frustration with big publishing houses. Most artists only see like 1% of the profit from publishing houses. But imagine if artists could easily publish directly to their fans without going through a middleman? So the artist or developer sticks it to the MPAA or RIAA or whatever and just publishes their content direct. That’s what this PtP/PtD offers. Creators don’t need the permission of the middleman publishers. They just upload their content and get issued SNT direct.
I didn’t read your example well enough, so I went back. I like the idea that the app developer and the app user that uploads data via the app both get rewarded. 50/50 split aside from initial upload honestly seems fair. What is an app without users or their data? As long as it’s profitable enough to not have to sell ads or require subscriptions/pay walls etc then I think that is pretty great.
I know the team is busy and mav has been more involved lately but I am curious what @mav, @oetyng, @dirvine think of @jlpell example above, if any of you have a spare mo to toss in some opinions.
This topic hasn’t received much attention and PtD is something that helped inspire me to want to produce an app or apps that are free to users with no ads or paywalls for the network.
There isn’t really any way to know whether those accounts belong to the same person though. They could be registered from different ip adresses, so if you wanted to know then if different accounts belong to the same person you’d have to implement some privacy breaking features to the network.
The example I gave is more like the following. Assume that PtD/PtP rewards are a fixed X% of the farming reward (FR) and that both Pay on Put (PoP) and Pay on Get(PoG) are implemented.
Person A develops an app called AwesomeApp. They pay Safe to PUT the app as public immutable data based on the current network condition. The chunks for the app reference A as their author/provider/owner.
Person B uploads data content and pay the PUT charges to Safe based on the current farming reward (most likely this rate is much different than in step 1 due to different network conditions). Let’s say it’s some type of multimedia content like a web page. The chunks for the content reference B as the author/provider/owner.
Person C downloads the AwesomeApp. Based on the latest farming reward rate, Person A receives X% of FR for provinding the app content and the farmers who had stored and provide the chunk receive FR amount of reward (PtF).
Person C now uses the AwesomeApp to GET and interact with the data uploaded by Person B in step 2. Farmers receive the current FR, Person B receives X/2% of FR and Person A receives X/2% of FR.
In this scenario, the safebrowser becomes very valuable…
I have skimmed this topic (been away for a few days and catching up) and have a few thoughts and things from the past.
Pay The **** were thought of to encourage usage of the network and provide some token for work done for the network. As opposed to farmers who are paid for storing data and performing the function of the network.
PtD specifically was for encouraging developers to write/create applications to run on the network increasing the usability and desirability of the network for the world.
As Far I remember there was never a specific set of rules on how the developer would be rewarded other than
wallet address provided
rewards occur according to the usage of the application
reward size is based on the algorithm deciding the current farming reward amt (& store cost)
This meant that there was never a set reward amount set by developers but dynamically determined by the usage of the network. Also meant that an Application that is little used receives little compared to an application that is used more often.
There was never specifics on what GETs would receive rewards
one line of thought was that only the GETs on the App code get rewards
another was that not only the GETs on the APP code but any GETs/PUTs the application performs.
Both could be gamed to some extent
Bloating the application would increase rewards on code GETs. But the general counter to that was that someone would copy or produce an APP with no bloat and thus get the usage and the bloated version dies.
Bloating the GETs/PUTs the application performs to get more rewards. This is gamable to the extent the user does not realise it. The counter is similar in that another APP will take over because they remove this bloat.
The way these would be found is watching the network activity from the Application and reports made by various groups watching for this and reviews of applications. Obviously some will never be found.
In the end the fundamental concept was to bring in a new way to compensate developers for their efforts in creating these Applications. The concept used the fundamental concept that the network was autonomous and to encourage usage by rewarding people who provided resources, desired Data, & applications.
This is an important point regarding the psychology of app selection and use. Most people download/install/use apps based on reviews or the reputation of the developer or curators. A few bad reviews from a respected group and the scammer is whacked. A repository or Safe Store of vetted apps will help here. In the case of apps that a client uses to create and PUT data, the client will be intimately aware if an app is creating excess PUTs and costing them too much to use. Since the app is creating their data, which the user owns, they can even check to see if the data is useless garbage. They will also see excessive GETs but it may not be as obvious.
Stopping scammers at the network level using features that are analogous to caching or some other mechanism is another interesting problem to brainstorm.
This sounds possible. I don’t have any insight if it’s a good idea or not.
On the topic of Pt* more generally, I’m a bit torn. Not sure if it’s a good idea or not.
A few things come to mind with how Pt* could be implemented.
We can code Pt* into the network itself and have elders put their stamp of approval on these transactions (using different verification logic from a normal peer-to-peer transaction). This is network-implemented-Pt*
We can have a more flexible and general transaction type (the normal phrase here is Smart Contracts), so instead of coding specific Pt* transaction logic into the network it gets encoded in a smart contract and is verified the same way as any ‘normal’ peer-to-peer transaction. This is transaction-implemented-Pt*
We can have Pt* clients that reserve their own pool of funds for the purpose of Pt* and people can submit their claims for reward to that client. The Pt* client will verify the submission and if it’s valid will initiate a peer-to-peer transfer to the recipient. The network sees this is a normal peer-to-peer transaction. All the logic for rewards is kept on the clients. This is client-implemented-Pt*
The last one is my preference, since it’s the most flexible for users and the most simple for the network. It seems to require trust (and to a degree it does) but clients can be distributed. It doesn’t have to be a single process running on a single machine with a single operator. There could be a whole group of people running the Pt* client code and they reach consensus between themselves to issue rewards. They can store their activities on SN for participation and auditing.
SN has a pretty well established pattern of pushing as much as possible to the client. The infrastructure equivalent of this idea is ‘dumb pipes’. So my guess is we’ll see a lot of reward mechanisms come and go and they’ll all be client-based.
There’s even a chance that network rewards will be implemented this way too.
To draw the string out even further, bitcoin can operate on SN in the exact same way.
bitcoin miners save new blocks to the network
bitcoin full nodes publish ‘their’ list of valid blocks for ‘their’ understanding of what is the current valid blockchain (eg safe://mav/btc-blockchain/block/684572)
bitcoin full nodes publish their blockchain root (eg safe://mav/btc-blockchain) to a list of peers, ie the list contains my blockchain, your blockchain, all the different blockchains being stored.
bitcoin full nodes watch the list of blockchains to decide which blockchain is the best and each full node updates their list as they see best
any new participant can look at the list of blockchains and decide which ones they think best represent the correct blockchain.
Any app could do a similar concept to enable client-centric group consensus for any type of reward system or verification logic.
You’re on to something here. After a shallow and superficial dive into the literature, I believe that this could be naturally managed via DBC. Consider focusing more brain power on concept #2, it could be a real winner and offer a lot of capability.
I don’t see how this could work from a network economics perspective. The network PUT price needs to account for all these rewards in order for Pt* to work (PUT_Rate - Total_Pt*_Rate = Network_Savings_ Rate). I don’t see this working based on some kind of client based pool. Elders will likely be the only ones capable of determining a good farming rate or other Pt* rates based on section dynamics and data dynamics and storage needs. Based on you description, option #3 looks like a form of collective tipping. I’d call it a client based tipping pool rather than Pt*.
A sane design of the Pt* system should be simple and straightforward and take advantage of the balance laws inherent in the DBC denomination transaction mechanisms. It should be unified such that all reward mechanisms, including farming rewards (PtF), are accounted for in the same way. Is this really feasible for option #3?
I like all of these for different reasons but this one
seems like it could really boost the smart contract/NAL space for DBCs in Safe Network, which will be highly desired sooner or later anyways.
I also like 1. at the network level personally so that it is just built in and respected as part of the network and it’s economic system but I sense contention amongst a lot of people I respect here.
This one certainly fits the autonomous network rewarding for things that help it grow. The others seem more like the users control the rewarding in some manner, which isn’t along those lines of the network being the autonomous network looking after itself.
In my mind once we move away from the network being in control of those rewards then we’ve moved away from the concept of the network Pt* to a different model.
Now I am not saying that we should have the network do it or have a different model of user pays/tips/whatever. But to me its a Pt* as in network does the rewards, or another system and maybe we should discuss which model we want and if its not the autonomous network rewarding then how. (as @mav was doing, just thought I’d suggest renaming to reflect autonomous network or other system for payments)
If every time a app is published, used or data is published through an app (the nice part of the smart contract would be that flexibility of what @jlpell was suggesting earlier) the network would still have to execute that smart contract transactionally, otherwise things are broken anyways if people can’t make transactions. So it still feels autonomous to me.
I would worry more about endless loops from poor smart contract logic or being too much work for the network and causing strain.
I think this is where mav’s third option makes a lot of semse, at least pertaining to network strain/work/etc. it would just be something done parallel to the network and more like the plug-in concept @Antifragile came up with where any service can be achieved but we are piggybacking off the network Elders reliability, node age, good standing to have them sign ops and come to consensus, although mav is mentioning clients doing this so maybe a bit different.
one