Poll: Should MaidSafe implement PtP (Pay the Provider)?

What do you expect in the infancy of the network? Ways to “quickly aggregate such new content, thus make the copiers’ job a lot less profitable” apart from de-duplication? I don´t see how that is going to happen technically since the network is agnostic to content unless chunks are identical.

Sorry, but I don´t know which argument you refer to. Could you repeat?

Not really. The network cannot create a semantic relation between content quality and data that is between originator and uploader. Deduplication only works if the file remains exactly the same (excluding meta-data as far as I understand).

Well, if it wasn´t profitable I wonder why people stress it´s importance for creators. Of course, we do not know since there is no precise and calculable concept, however what we do know is that creators have expenses that are much higher than the expenses of a person who simply copies content. People on this said have argued that re-uploading costs money, true, but uploading does, too, so for someoone with a popular platform there is always surplus (the cost of the process of creation) to skim.

I never argued that there won´t be original content. Why would I? My whole (main) point was that people make money on the back of creators and Youtube is an obvious empirical evidence. The fact that Youtube now allows creators to monetize and original content creators take part in this process doesn´t change anything (there have been original content creators before that - again, that doesn´t make the point less valid). Actually, currently Youtube somewhat controls monetization of pirated content (following its very own agenda, of course), on the SAFEnetwork such control won´t take place, do you disagree?

I know the thread, but I don´t see your point here. This thread is about the question whether or not MaidSafe should implement PtP, right? So I filed a concern (not my main point though as I wrote) about doing so referring to reputation.

Also, I actually said in my post that there will be criticism anyway, however it won´t be the “same problem” as you suggest. The common defense has been, that the argument being made against SAFE would need to be leveled against ISPs in general as well - this is a fair point I guess. However, a network that not only allows to store heinous content, but also automatically rewards uploaders by the popularity of their content is a PR nightmare. SAFE can become very popular even if all mainstream users think of it as a “criminal tool”. Here I just pointed out how PtP could affect reputation. One doesn´t have to care for PR, in fact everyone has to decide the relevance of reputation on his*her own. To me it matters, to others it doesn´t.

Yes, and that clearly proves my point that most people have more interest in getting their content for free than to reward the creators (who cannot create without income). The decision to use a service is not based on “moral” (rewarding the original creator) but ease of use. I still don´t see why that would be different on SAFE. You refer to “the tendency is to go after the original” but where is the proof for that tendency? The reference to “the highest quality” is imho irrelevant, since an automatically generated copy that avoids de-duplication doesn´t necessarily mean loss of content quality (why would it?).

I agree: anyone can watermark copied content and it is up to the people to check whether it is “original” or not. That´s why I said “I prefer the content to be watermarked so users can decide whom to pay and to confirm the uploader individually instead of letting the network decide.”

Generally, I second what @cl0ck3d said about playing devils advocate. It´s astonishing what kind of reactions you can get in a thread that is about debating…

@Blindsite2k

I don´t feel encouraged to debate you on this one since your post is full of ad-hominem attacks. Your opinion has been heard, but I can´t see how it is a helpful contribution to a debate when your response is anything but ridiculing the sentiments of others. With “Enough! I want X” there is no way to have a conversation.

Hi @cl0ck3d

I’m sorry I mistakenly lumped you in with those who are opposed to PtP being tested, without being willing to provide analysis showing it is going to fail due to gaming.

That’s how your post appeared to me, but I accept you didn’t mean it that way. I saw it in the context of other posts and drew the wrong conclusion.

The PtP debate has run its course IMO, until we can test it just about everything has been said that can be said on both sides. :slight_smile:

1 Like

To avoid being “lumped in” as well. Who exactly on this thread is against testing?

I did not include one ad-hominem attack. Ad-hom is when one attacks the opposition’s character directly as opposed to the topic being discussed is it not? Please state how I directly attacked your, or anyone’s personal character. How am I “ridiculing the sentiments of others”? I’m exasperating with people debating century old arguments that have been debated ad nausium and proven to be pointless time and again by new emerging technologies which I cited in my post. I’m sorry if it offends you that your ego was bruised, maybe the priests and arristocracy felt the same when Gutenberg came along with this crazy and wildly disruptive technology called the printing press and printed out a bunch of identical Bibles. Suddenly there was this whole debate that there’d be no demand for books because no one could read but people learned. People adapted. My point is: You’re too concerned with whether my statement is “offensive” or not to get to the point of what I’m saying in it. These are not new debates. Information control is not new. We’ve been bandying these arguments back and forth for hundreds of years and it flares up every time a new technology occurs. So let’s take a lesson from history and realize that no new technology is not the end of the world and so what if there are pirates, pedophiles, and terrorists. Who cares! The printing of erotic fiction and smuggling it into France didn’t stop the printing press. Pirated radio didn’t stop the advent of radio. Porn, even child porn, didn’t stop television or the advent of the video camera. And once we had the internet nothing could pry it out of our grasp. Not terrorists, not pedophiles, not religious lunatics or psychopathic politicians. Nothing.

So why have we not learned from history? SAFE is not Kazzaa. SAFE is the internet 2.0! I say “Enough! I want my decentralized internet,” because debating bad press is like a couple of sled dogs debating fleas and the cold wind when their master is buying a snowmobile. It’s not a new argument. It’s no even a RELEVANT argument. It’s not relevant because for as many who complain there will be more who will be helped by a stable and functional network that rewards all 3 points of the triangle than those who might be offended or miffed about some moral delema caused by the network. SAFE is not an app, it’s like the printing press, the radio, the television, the internet, it’s a revolutionary new technological breakthrough.

If we are discussing PtP we should be focusing on engineering not whether some SJW gets their panties in a twist. Does it work? Does it do what it claims to do? Is everybody rewarded justly according to the resources they provide? Better mititations against gaming the system. Not whether the content people may or may not upload will meet some moral standard.

If you like we can discuss this on personal messages. I don´t feel this is the right place to discuss your points. Re ad-hominem: it is ad hominem to suggest people are intentionally making up arguments as an excuse (that is: not honestly discussing the issue). Also I´d like to point out that for someone who complains about “blathering” about the issue of content you are taking a lot of effort to bring the issue back into discussion. Read my comment to @joshuef above where I explain why I believe this to be a valid point in the discussion. I don´t ask you to support my opinion, but I´d be grateful not to be talked down with the argument to be outmoded, narrow-minded, a slave to political correctness or simply trying to find excuses. “If you don´t like my opinion, go elsewhere” to me is not a useful contribution to a debate but plain polemic talk.

1 Like

Free GETs aren’t going to fly.

So how could you possibly expect this to make the situation any better? No, you are all (dirvine included) asking for the total and utter destruction of the value of the Network before it’s even started.

Unless we scrap PtP and implement the Put Incentive Model.

The safecoin pool is a recycle bin, not a faucet.

Edit: Sooner or later you run out of other people’s money. Luckily enough, the Network can’t run on a deficit. It just dies. A horrific fiery death.

1 Like

Here:

Terrible post.

He who uploads the data initially isn’t concerned about paying the rent. That’s a capitalist doing that. He’s got capital. I’ll chalk that up to “appeal to emotion”

Also, you think that search provider isn’t using the exact same data mining that is done currently? He’s got profit options besides you devaluing your own coin. Unbelievable.

Hey, so if I GET data that I oppose - on a philosophical level or otherwise, I’m still inadvertently rewarding those who put that data up there?

Are you trying to encourage trolls, clickbait and advertising? Ridiculous.

I don´t agree on @smacz “ridicuous” part, but @Tim87 isn´t your point much more an argument for rewarding per like instead of per GET?

1 Like

Have you never used bittorent before? Have you never checked out the pirate bay or downloaded anything? Have you done no pirating at all? If you have not then how can you argue against pirating if you know nothing about it?

Pirating 101. A clone of a file is spotted pretty fast. One clue is the download count. Popular files are downloaded A LOT. If the file is only downloaded by a few people its either really obscure or of low quality. Second clue would be the filename, which would be much more relevant on the SAFE network. You can get a dozen copies of the same thing by just changing the file name, combine this with popularity count and you get a better reading. There’s also user reviews. Not every tracker and file curator has them but they can be really handy. Then there’s also the guess, check and if nessesary trash method. If you don’t know you download a file or part of a file, open and look at it. If it’s what you expect you keep it, if it’s not you delete it. On SAFE that would mean unlinking yourself to it and thus reducing it’s popularity. If people just offer the same product as the guy beside them they’ll be less popular. Why watch the same music video over again with a different file name? Got it, seen it, got it, got it, seen it, download it, download it, junk junk, got it, seen it… etc.

So? People upload material to youtube, either their own or pirated. And youtube monetizes this content via ads. What’s your point? That making money off of content curration is bad or immoral? Even if PtP didn’t get immplimented there would be no way to stop such a thing from happening. In fact it would probably happen more.

First “heinous content” is entirely subjective as I pointed out. Second anyone with any marketing skills would point out that SAFE would reward ANY uploader. That includes poor starving artists, scientists, educators, businessmen posting on their websites, EVERYONE. Imagine running a business and getting paid just to maintain the website. The more content you post and the more hits you get the more money you make. JUST from PtP, nevermind your salary on top of that. Also imagine if a web developer walletmarked all the websites he made for various businesses. All their hits for all their content would result in PtP revenue for him. Yeah caching would kick in but if they keep him on and have him run maintainance he can keep walletmarking content. Which gets into blogging, artists and music creation. Point is you could turn that “PR nightmare” into a dreamland pretty fast.

I suggested and said nothing of the sort. I simply refuted the point. Drama queen much?

Lol I’m not the one who got into a snit about some misconstrued implication that you didn’t have the manners to ask about first before jumping to conclusions and accusing me of ad hominum concerning a rather whimiscal, bit sarcastic and GENERALLY, not specifically, addressed post. Yes I quoted you. I quoted you because you’re the most recent one bitching about the antiquated subject matter.

But it IS outmoded, narrow minded, and to use it is to be a slave to political correctness and it is just an excuse. I’m sorry your highness but it is. Now I can get into the knitty gritty and tear apart your points piece by piece but when I threw down that post I was just feeling rather exasperating and the whole thing was “Oh really? This again? Do I really need to get into it?” I was willing to let the whole thing slide as human beings just being completely idiotic like they tend to be sometimes but hey if you want to throw down the gauntlet and have me take your points apart so be it. The truth is IP is outmoded. When the printing press was invented ideas became decentralized. That’s when they created copyright. And it worked fine for awhile. But then along came the internet which totally fubared copyright with pirating and massive global decentralization. NOW with SAFE even more decentralization and freedom of information is being implimented and that’s scary as hell for someone used to the idea of controlling the flow of information in order to make a living. Just like the priests of old were threatened by the printing press. This is a useful contribution because it takes history into account. And you might call it “polemic” but it’s addressing the real issues.

1 Like

How would you know if my whole argument is only an excuse? Your point of view seem to be ideological, so (as I repeatedly said) I don´t see why you join a debate since you already know the answers. And yes, alleging that a person is only using an argument as an excuse (for another shady intention) instead of tackling the persons argument is ad hominem. Same as “drama-queen” is ad hominem.

@Artiscience i didn’t see where you answered @Blindsite2k 's question:

Have you never used bittorent before? Have you never checked out the pirate bay or downloaded anything? Have you done no pirating at all? If you have not then how can you argue against pirating if you know nothing about it?

A priori reasoning is only of use in the absence of empirical evidence, but in the case of bittorrent there’s a vast community.

We need a few seasoned pirateers in this discussion. I’ve used it from time to time to acquire learning materials, or to check out movies and tv shows without paying them. @Blindsite2k is evidently more experienced.

Also experience from NNTP (news servers) can help to. I know that people seek out the original clean uploads of files and quickly learn to ignore all the copies others upload.

I think most people when challenged have agreed that we should test, or have at least stopped saying PtP should be dropped now. But if you look back, there are numerous comments from people saying PtP should have been dropped already etc. I’m not going to go through and create a list of names.

If you don’t agree this has been the case, that’s fair enough, but I am not going to single anyone out in order to prove my point - we can just disagree. It really doesn’t matter because the point of my post was to say there is no point people just posting opinions when we cannot resolve this just with talk, and that we should test.

If we’re in agreement that this should be tested out, then there’s really no more to say IMO so let’s leave it until then.

1 Like

First off, I don´t have to answer anyone´s question and I clearly explained why I didn´t go into a lengthy discussion. Also, following up to the ad hominem series, being framed as unexperienced is just another irrelevant point in the debate. @Blindsite2k suggested I don´t have experience, you too, but in fact you don´t know anything about me and my use of bittorrents. It´s also none of your business and imho irrelevant to the discussion.

@Blindsite2k argument is basically abouit crowd intelligence, however not about genuinity and it´s kind of simplistic imho. Popularity and reviews are important indicators for users, however they are (A) not necessarily reliable and (B) don´t say anytthing about originality. The impact of platforms is crucial. A torrent file put on my personal webpage and the same file on the Pirate Bay affects the popularity massively. Of course, it is possible that people flag content where the uploader is not the creator, however, the question (I thought) we discussed was, whether most people care. How does piracy demonstrate people would? People are interested in whether the content is what the label is, whether the files are free from viruses and trojans, point taken, but where is proof for the interest in rewarding the original creators. I only see speculations that this will matter and guide the behaviour of the majority of users. I still don´t see why I should expect that other than mere wishful thinking.

And to finish this post: referencing to experience is also anything but a fallacy ad verecundiam that imho doesn´t belong to a proper debate (particularly if you have any idea whether it is true or false…)

Uhm…there is a difference between being “against testing” and thinking “that this should be tested”, isn´t it? I personally don´t mind if it´s tested, it´s also neither my nor your business, but MaidSafes business since they are doing the work, so my opinion doesn´t matter.

I personally think there is still a lot to say and I hope I have been clear on the reasons even if you disagree with my judgement. If the moderators think this thread should be closed they should close it and I will have to deal with that. As long as that isn´t the case I don´t see why I shouldn´t put down my arguments since they are supposed to be part in the reflection of pros and cons.

1 Like

It is hardly an appeal to authority if he cites the reasons in detail, which you can easily cross-check by searching around.

Asking your level of experience is necessary to calibrate the discussion, so as not to over or under-explain. It is highly relevant.

Argument by analogy to in-some-ways similar real-world examples, such as bittorrent, is also highly relevant to the discussion.

1 Like

I don’t know how PtP economics could be tested at non-scale. It is a exponential scale catastrophe - and in small scale tests there is only so far that the simulation can reach. Also many of the behaviors that could trigger the catastrophe are illegal, thus difficult to test. (Upload a leaked copy of the Star Wars 8 prior to theater release for example)

2 Likes

You’re joking, right? If it works with a handful of nodes then it works. “It” being an implementation of XOR space.

In response to the question implied by “I don’t know” - by looking at similar examples, most notable being Bitcoin, which grew out of a geek toy with cypherpunks doing as much destructive testing as they could until its robustness was established after 8 months or so. For its first year it was almost worthless, until someone paid for a pizza with some thousands of it, as a lark, and it was off to the races.