I think my grand grand grand childrens will die before that time will come. And at that time MaidSafe X will be released 
This is a projection from the project SAFE whitepaper:
It should be taken with a healthy grain of salt, but itās definitely possible that initial distribution of the 4.29 billion SafeCoin will near ācompletionā in 10-20 years. Maybe even sooner, if things donāt go as expected.
OK! You got me at that. But let me thinkā¦ Some minutes afterā¦:
Ok. The demand is high so lot of peoples are currently buying storage, result lot of coins got recycled. After that there is enough coins to distribute to the farmer and more farmer will come. Maybe more than enough coins (I still donāt know how much the algorithm will distribute. I guess we will see it during the next test if the recycle process is faster than farming.) I understand your concern and I look forward for the true success of MaidSafe.
I donāt know if this still valid Whitepapers/Project-Safe.md at master Ā· maidsafe/Whitepapers Ā· GitHub but at the P.O.R.(Proof of Work) section. If I understand correctly, we canāt store more than what is available. And node that lost data got punished. After that we need to buy again some P.O.R. from other or wait for trust before we can farm again at full capacity (That one is just speculation). Like I said I donāt know if itās still valid. Things change a lot from time to time. Itās confusing.
Perhaps off topic but what happens when nodes return after a while? For example, if thereās a power outage that cascades through a vulnerable power grid and thereās a couple of days without powerā¦ do nodes return as new, only to be reassessed or are they fully rebooted and lose their data?? Iām expecting that the data they hosted does remain and becomes useful once again. So, if a SAFE network becomes isolated it spawns redundancy that it can seeā¦ which then suggests perhaps a problem if a small element of the network cannot find space to action duplicates???
I apologize for necroposting, but the opening reply in this thread seems incomplete. The Network can increase reward only if the currency has value, which in the question @Dirk83 posed is gone. In other words, previous users of the Network left for greener pastures, so nobody is buying Safecoin, which lost all value as a result. Therefore potential farmers lost the incentive to farm.
1 Like
It is not about the $$$ value but the rate that safecoin is issued.
If the rate increases then people have incentive to farm and this would then counteract the isue of the $$$ value dropping.
Obviously if people are leaving because the network is no good then nothing can save it.
It is not necessary for all users to leave for the SAFE network economy to collapse. IMHO even under steady state conditions* - when the number of users is constant - the system is unsustainable, unless resources are supplied for free from the outside. One might argue that this is the case, because cost of hardware is constantly dropping. However, even if additional storage space was free, there is the cost of labor that needs to acquire the hardware, bring it on-line and maintain the nodes humming. In other words, the 2nd law of thermodynamics is unavoidable and the system will need āfuelā from the outside to maintain stability. I think the counter-entropy inflow should come from usage fees collected from the users. Pay for it (the data) or loose it.
- one day SAFE network will reach a quasi-steady state
Actually I doubt that if it is working as āstated on the boxā. And you certainly cannot make that claim as a certainty
Simply because disk drives will be upgraded (old one dies or pc upgrade) over time and so vaults will increase in size over time. That is just one area where things will be continually changing over time. Then link speeds increase. More IoT devices added for decades and so on.
IoT devices do not pay - only the agents with money can do so. At this point in time the agents are only people and the demographic trends indicate the Earth population will peak. Futurists might argue that the class of agents will over time include also AI entities, which will demand to be paid for their labor. It means, that the number of paying agents will continue to grow. But there are other factors, like exponential growth of data humans generate, the effort of big data companies to extract more consumer surplus value from sales (and therefore slow or stop price declines), etcā¦
So I doubt you or I can provide a definitive answer to the question, whether the inflow of revenue will cover the costs of maintain the network. I believe therefore a prudent move would be to introduce into the model a parameter representing potential account deficit and cover it with income from fees. If there is no deficit, nobody pays anything. If there is surplus, we all can have a party.
And why not. Any device can use a wallet and pay for their use. And in the near future even IoT devices can be vaults and earn their way. Obviously the IoT device will be funded by either the vault or user or a monitoring IoT device which itself could be funded by a vault.
And again you keep ignoring that technology will keep progressing and data being stored will keep increasing
If you are talking of extremem time in the future then SAFE will have been replaced by a improved system or the earth may not be.
I can provide one that is way more definitive than your quasi-steady state. Because you look at only one factor and ignore the data production increasing, storage systems increasing, link speeds increasing. The network will not reach a quasi-steady state before a new system replaces SAFE.
You might not have noticed, but I supported your argument when I mentioned the expanding class of paying agents. Anyway, AFAIK your position is not supported by a mathematical model and I believe that even if you had one, it would contain lots of uncertainty, indicating that a correction parameter should be introduced. If you do not agree, then show us the formula.
And what timeframe are you working on? This is a serious and very important question!
And as to mathematical, you have not added in all the variables. The IoT and autonomous machine market will exceed the humans within a decade and there is no signs of it reducing.
Yes I have considered this from a practical and mathematical aspects in the past.
Yes I did. I even wrote a simulation program to examine it.
What model are you using? By your words it does not encompass the scope of what the global internet will be in one to two decades.
1 Like
If you do this, you lose immutibilty, which is a key feature of the design. You also potentially lose a degree of anonymity, as the network will need to know who is storing what (which it doesnāt currently, by design).
You will have to be certain that regulat storage fees are absolutely necessary to even entertain introducing them. If the network has been shown to be unsustainable, sure letās explore it, but given data is always being created (I just created some more here!), it seems sustainable to me.
2 Likes
I strongly doubt there is a theory (model) that would with certainty answer the question whether the inflows of value into the SAFE ecosystem will outweigh the outflows. Of course one could argue, that it does not matter, because Safecoin will become a speculative asset like Bitcoin. I hope though, the SAFE network architects are aiming for a real, intrinsic value for the economy currency. Assuming that, I think we need to address the possibility, that the balance will be negative (if the SAFE network participants are not required to pay for their old data). IMHO ignoring this concern is just holding fingers crossed with the hope, that things will just cancel out the ārightā way. It might happen, but it also might not.
1 Like
Yes, the introduction of payments from users for their data might have architectural consequences, but that is a topic to be investigated once there is an agreement that the concern I am voicing deserves attention.
sorry - didnāt read all the comments Oo ā¦ but
if nobody wants safecoin and the value is 0 then the network has earned its right to die imo 
because then people seem to have found a cheaper/more reasonable way to store data and that would be even better =)
of if everything that needs to be said in human history was being said 
ā¦ then people should probably consider just to keep their nodes running to be sure that the knowledge doesnāt get lost again ā¦
1 Like
the quote makes much more sense if read in the context of the original question that started this thread. Anyways, I would recommend reading the whole conversation.
one false move and everything will be gone.
They will mostly upgrade everything to lessen the risk of losing everything.
From hardware to software.
Beyond SSD: How A Discovery At MIT May Lead To The Next Generation Of Data Storage