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


Scraping the barrel there, why use PtP, because it does not harm the system, how is it going to bring down the system? The network will just keep running fine.

Are they going to deplete the coin supply? That is not going to ever happen with PtP,

Are they going to fill up the network, then they pay though the roof prices with rewards not matching those prices EVER, not even close

What are they going to do???

You make a statement of the sky falling with ZERO support for a doomsday event on the network. caused by PtP

Oh and if you are talking of diluting the price in fiat, then that shows it is your back pocket that you are referring to. BTW it won’t even do that if you actually think it through, all the coin given out in any reward, including Farming would do this if you think in otherCoin terms, but SAFEcoin will be spent back into the network and dilution dissipates.

Why don’t you attack farming which also can be gamed to increase profits to one person/group over the rest. If money is no object to the hacker then why not that. You should be equally attacking farming since that dilutes the coin’s worth too. More farming means more coin means less fiat worth by your arguments.

You are just making things up here which doesn’t even follow what has been said. [quote=“TungSvard, post:243, topic:5805”]
Producing garbage will always be easier than producing quality content.

easier But WAY MORE expensive (not cheaper as you claimed I assumed). thousands if not millions times more expensive if all the attackers uploads are unique

Assumption on your part and you missed that you said it would have to be done by a programmed system and history shows that the public quickly identifies this sort of trickery. So while it might work for a tiny while it drops of to insignificant very quickly

So, what does this have to do with the doomsday weapon that PtP will be “bringing down the system or making it inoperable.”

And still you do not explain how these “attacks” which help farmers to be rewarded, and help make the coin more active, and bring more coin back to be recycled will result in them “bringing down the system or making it inoperable.”

They could do it using 10000x better attacks than actually helping the system

You are really showing that there is no good argument against PtP when you bring in doomsday events as being the results of a reward that at best is a break even for any attack. Break even means that its not an attack but you elevate it to something that can bring down the system.

Wow if NSA used all the money they could just upload and upload and upload anything to fill the network with nothing but garbage, FAR BETTER attack than spending all that money for a break even attack.

Again with your back pocket. Yet you fail to account that the coin is returned to the network, you act as if once the coin is given out it remains out.[quote=“TungSvard, post:243, topic:5805”]
Who cares about the price?


Are going to be getting at least 25 times. And they get to do even more farming because of the increased content so they get even more rewards, Win-win.[quote=“TungSvard, post:243, topic:5805”]
This is why it’s important to separate content incentivization from the network.

Because it affects you perception of what your coin will be worth, without looking at the actual effects

And from here you sprout a lot of words in an attempt to compare apples with oranges. Hint, the roads don’t have a corresponding analogy for rewarding farmers either.

EDIT: look if you disagree because you don’t like it, then GREAT, and I accept that. And your “no” vote is/has been considered by David and the dev team.


So the Network is supposed to pay you more than you paid it? And why does this happen?

This happens because consumers are consuming operational value of the Network without the Network reciving income?

Think about the financial health of the Network, not the financial health of the users.

This is purely a pipe dream. What a foolish idea. Granted, not a foolish ideal but the implementation leaves much (namely rationality) to be desired.


And this will happen for any popular file uploaded, when the farmers are getting more coin for serving up that file than was use to PUT it. That is without PtP

So what is your point?

Not all PtP will get more than paid. Not all files PUT will end up paying more to farmers than the cost to PUT them


Not with caching. If a file is popular, and the LRU caching algorithm is optimized properly, then GETting that file will not generate farming attempts, but rather use the infrastructure of the Network without generating income for the Network or the farmers.


Oh you know that a cop out response :stuck_out_tongue: You can say the same for PtP to since they occur from the SAME gets. If a PtP file is popular then both farming/PtP come from cache

I am talking of not so popular that its got every 20 seconds or whatever time the caching needs to clear. Just reasonably popular across the network.

If PtP is going to cause problems then the farming rewards from that file which are 10 times more are going to be 10 times the problem

You and I know that these rewards costs are spread across the system and the network does not account for coin in --> coin out on a chunk by chunk basis, or file by file basis but on a global network basis.

The PUT coin in has a disconnect from the coin paid.

So your statement of [quote=“smacz, post:247, topic:5805”]
So the Network is supposed to pay you more than you paid it?

goes against the working of farming itself and so then you sould be complaining about those effects on farming too


This is a good job of “boiling down” the main points.

I’d sign up for the one with PtP :slight_smile:


This is really the best solution to this issue. If people don’t like it, ask yourself why? My reasoning is that they at least subconsciously understand that PtP and PtD as it stands reduces the value of their money - so they’d rather it was taken from everyone instead of just them.

PtP and PtD is just socialism in action. People love the idea of socialism because they don’t understand how it hinders the economic development of the whole. Simply put it reduces the value that people have stored in their accounts, and it does so without their consent. Any time you do something without the consent of the individual you alienate the individual and they withdraw from the community instead of participating in it.

We can’t automate personal choice and personal decisions and still claim to respect the individual.


SAFEnet and SAFEcoin are potentially the seeds for much more than yet another content network - it could be the seed for our entire global economy.

The existing gobal economy is rife with people who ‘print’ money and redirect the funds into sectors that they think are going to be good for them (or us as a whole) … but BIAS@!!! Such views are themselves subjective.

I don’t doubt your belief here - but I humbly suggest that your understanding may be limited. If you understand how economies are weakened through counterfeiting (taking away the choice of consumers by reducing the value of the money that they hold in their accounts), then you can understand how networks that do a similar thing to counterfeiting are weakening their network.

I (and the other half of those who voted against this) would presumably choose the network that doesn’t use PtP and PtD.

Stocks are not diluted without advance notification, and in some jurisdictions the permission, of the stockholders. But yes, when they are diluted it does cause a loss in value.

While not technically robbery in the case of PtP it amounts to a ‘tax’ on those who decide to use/support the network. Hence I’d choose to use the network that does not tax me and hence allows me to choose how I will spend the value I have – in other words I will choose to use/support the network that respects my choices as an individual.


This is pretty much what I’ve been trying to say. If you hardcode redistribution in for everybody it amounts to devaluation of the currency and a tax whether it’s taken directly out of one’s wallet or not.


And you are “taxed” to pay for the farmers as well.

Like you are taxed when you buy the pack of gum. To pay the transport company that delivered it, even though you might hate the transport company, you are being forced to support it by your purchase.

there is no direct link from put cost to farmer rewards or any other. The put cost is returned to the reserve, you have to apples-oranges arguments to get tax.

And as far as devaluation. How? by dilution?

Those arguments (tax, devaluation) make the same sense if you apply them to farming, PtP or PtD. Each has its purpose and each is a tax as you call it and each devalues the coin already existing. BUT they are false arguments. Why?

The coin is in motion, it is given out, people do things with the coin and its then returns to the reserve because people put it.

Your arguments only make sense if the coin is issued and thats it. Just like other coins, once its mined it there forever. So any increase in coin devalues it. BUT that is not how SAFEcoin works. Every coin is returned to the network at some stage. The dilution effect is so minimal that David sneezing would have more effect on teh price. So don’t worry your profits/backpocket is safe if PtP or farmer or PtD rewards are introduced. Your profits will still occur.


Ok. That’s fair.

Well, it’s not like it was an original idea to criticize farming in this way:

Were there several solutions that chipped away at these problems? Yes. Didn’t most of those solutions involve mass adoption and an abundance of PUTs? Yes. So the question we need to solve is “what compels an abundance of PUTs?”

I understand the stance that PtP encourages PUTs with the promise of the potential that content will become popular - and it is not altogether untrue. However, let’s look at the other systems that implement this and how they allow for an abundance of PUTs.

How are rewards earned in the respective systems? Farming rewards are earned by the disk space and bandwidth consumed by farmers. App rewards are based on the initial development and maintenance of the apps. Contrarily, isn’t PtP based only on the initial work to create the content?

Well, what’s different about PtP? Farming and development both require ongoing work/cost. PtP does not. So isn’t passive income only present in PtP?

Why is passive income different? Well, farming and development require reinvesting the Coins rewarded to continue to receive rewards. PtP does not require such a flow of currency. Once the content is produced, the producer requires no further expenditures of the Coin to continue the passive income. Isn’t this different to farming and development which require further expenses to maintain that stream of income?

But why would the Network care about passive income? It’s true that the farmer’s cost for bandwidth, or the developer’s cost of development resources (hardware, bandwidth, time, etc) are not all directly PUTs. However, they both require that the Coins they received be circulated (sold/traded) to fund their enterprise to ensure ongoing income. And isn’t Coin the “oil of the Network”, which is only effective if circulated?

But don’t popular content creators need to keep creating content too? Take Satoshi’s Bitcoin Whitepaper. As per your definition of popular content, I would say that it is popular. In a Network environment, wouldn’t that paper still be producing income today even though his content creation ceased long ago?

Ok, but how do their operating costs effect PUT abundance? Farmer’s income goes to providing space and infrastructure for PUTs. App development rewards go towards maintenance that enables the ability to PUT. These are directly related to the consumers’ ability to PUT data onto the Network. Alternatively, content only provides a reason to PUT additional data onto the Network by consumers, and is not necessary for new PUTs. So isn’t it that the two systems with operating costs influence the amount of PUTs moreso than the system that doesn’t?

So what factors necessarily lead to more PUTs? Two things. First of all, circulating Coins. This is necessarily present in farming and development, but not in content production. Secondly, providing the consumers with an ability to PUT in the first place. Content provides a reason to PUT, but not the base ability to PUT. Isn’t it true that an ability to act must be present before the reason of the action can be considered?

How does this fit into a free market? In a free market, all entities must be concerned about their own welfare - no one should act contrary to their own benefit. If farming and development can guarantee the advancement of the Network’s welfare, then the Network should take steps to encourage this behavior. However, if content creation cannot guarantee the advancement of the Network’s welfare, then it has no reason to encourage this behavior. So aren’t farming and development directly related to the economic advancement of the Network?

Without PtP doesn’t it seem like the Network dissuades people from PUTting at all? From a purely economic point of view that we just covered, yes. However, the motivation to create content is outside of the scope of the Network, whereas motivation to farm and develop are contained only inside of the Network. So isn’t the ability to PUT data onto the Network important to the Network, while the reason for the data PUT on the Network is not?

Yes. Therefore the motivation that the Network would give to content creators with PtP is not important from the Network’s point of view.

P.S. This ended up being way longer than I thought it was going to be initially. But it does outline almost the entirety of my point of view on PtP and of the PUT Incentive Model (as it relates to the rationale of why developers should be rewarded by the Network).

P.P.S. There’s no need to quote my rhetorical questions.


And I guess all I can say is that is why safecoin will be tested first (incl farming & ?)

I understand much of the issues and some think farming rewards is immune to the arguments made against PtP or PtD.

It will be interesting to see how the different factors will affect how people contribute h/w b/w to the network.


What Farmers provide is the backbone of the network – a relatively OBJECTIVE need that we can almost all agree is vital for the network to exist. Take a poll on that if you want, but I don’t think you’ll find that many disagree with paying farmers being a near requirement.

Come on now … I choose to buy the gum - I’m not choosing to pay every producer and developer out there. Your arguments here are not very good in my estimation.

yes of course. The network holds a huge amount of safecoin in reserve. every bit that get’s given out dilutes the value of what everyone has - this is simple math, that you’d question it at all makes me think you are playing ignorance in hope that no one else gets it - a form of sophistry if so and not conducive to honest debate.

Again, take a poll if you want with regards to paying farmers. Do you understand the difference between objective (a fact that most people can agree on) and subjective (facts that people have wildly differing views on)? The value gained to the network, let alone the value of any particular producer/developer work is highly subjective.

This is just untrue. if the coin is in the general economy for any period of time it floats around in trade how quickly it moves and how long it stays in the general economy has to do with what is called monetary ‘velocity’ – you might wish to look that up in a textbook. Depending on innumerable decisions by unknown quantities of people, dilution occurs and you have know way of knowing how that will play out – ever. You can make estimations at any point in time, but you can’t predict the future and it’s incredible hubris of you to indicate you know what is best here.

Again, much hubris.

I wonder, if the network is going to test with PtP and PtD over a period of time; if it will also be tested WITHOUT these mechanisms for a period of time as a control. Else you can’t know anything about what occurs with such testing.

My views come from a point of principle - respect the individual right to choose. Don’t assume that subjective ideas are going to work. Follow the K.I.S. engineering principle - Keep It Simple. If people are keen to have this as a feature, then fork the network and add it in. Don’t make it more complicated than what most everyone agrees it needs to be.


But the arguments you use are just as same when applied to Farming. Just you are willing to accept that “tax”

The network will exist even if farmers are not paid, just not the same extent. Paying farmers is not a requirement for the network to work and exist.

Same for PtP

Good, now realise that YOU choose to download that content and are not forced to.
And the dev or artist is not paid when you don’t download. Same for gum.

AND you ignore the operation of the system as a whole

of course you can deny something works if you do that

Dilution, the worse is that there is a delay but then dilution does not increase.

You argue in terms that the safecoin is like the other coins and does not incorporate the recycling. No wonder you worry about dilution hurting your back pocket and what you can get for the coin you own.[quote=“TylerAbeoJordan, post:259, topic:5805”]
it at all makes me think you are playing ignorance in hope that no one else gets it - a form of sophistry if so and not conducive to honest debate.

Actually you are doing this because you argue one side of the coin cycle and hope people forget about the other side. The side that REDUCES dilution.[quote=“TylerAbeoJordan, post:259, topic:5805”]
but you can’t predict the future and it’s incredible hubris of you to indicate you know what is best here.

And you are not doing this with your predictions based on the economics of other coins that are diluted when extra coin is issued because they are never recycled.

Great, but at least argue from the network as a whole and teh life cycle of the coin, and not argue dilution by examining only the issuance of the coin.

Actually from an engineering point of view PtP and PtD is very elegant method to help the smaller dev/creator while not limiting their ability to receive earnings by other means. The PtP & PtD use the same code as farmer and the same logic. So to call them over complicated is to call farming over complicated.

How about showing why dilution will occur and will dangerous to the health of the Network. Don’t use unsupported catch phrases, but actually show why the issuance and recycling will not work and cause the price to fall so far people will suffer and/or cause the network to fail.


I’m finding it very hard to follow this @smacz - both what you’re saying here, and what points you are making, which is a shame because you’ve said it covers most of your thoughts about the issue.

What I do pick up on more readily in this and other posts, is a lot of rationalisation in support of a position, and this tends to be mixed up with assumptions based on existing positions. Free markets good, free markets require actors to be only self interested for example. Also references to socialism etc.

These kind of remarks are not givens, not facts accepted by all, and so don’t advance the debate here.

What I crave is a simpler apolitical debate that remains concise while describing mechanisms we can grasp, their effects, and why we think those effects will happen. Hopefully well enough explained and reasoned to allow enough consensus to be gained around these, to begin to pull together an overall picture that includes all the different cogs and wheels, and we all begin to see more of the “whole elephant”. Currently there are a group of us who think it’s a trunk, and another who think it’s a leg! (See the story of the blind men and the elephant, anyone who is not familiar with my allusion).

Currently I’m just getting lost by those gathered around the trunk. I can’t follow the arguments against, let alone tell if I can see flaws in them. They are not convincing to me, whereas the arguments for do seem to be accepted by the majority (see the poll if nothing else), while those who don’t accept them tend to respond by saying they will have bad side effects or could destroy the network. But I am baffled by the arguments or forward to support those beliefs. This all serves to strengthen my belief that PtP/PtD do need to be taken seriously.

I don’t want them to go ahead if they are not worth the risk they involve, but I’m not at all convinced by the arguments of those against.


The following new post demonstrates why I’d like us to get our heads together and do our best to find a PtP solution.

This guy illustrates the problem perfectly, and there will be many more coming here with exactly the same questions. Imagine if we had a solid answer to this, rather than the “maybe PtP would help” that I’ve given:


I dealt with this directly below what you’re quoting.

Heh. fair enough. My suggestion is that given the options, you won’t get any content there, so the network fails be default (no farming, no rewards, no coin value).

I understand your view is that the PtP network would fail. I don’t see this yet. I’ll give a read around your deflationary economical suggestions this evening hopefully (though if you have some links lying around to get me started that would be appreciated).

Not true.

You could easily make an app and just leave it there. You don’t have to maintain it. Maybe it’s really simple and just ‘done’. Equally your PtP content might require further development. Maybe you’re writing a trilogy and you need to finance the new books. Adding books is analogous to adding a new feature set to an app.

Unless it’s an app that facilitates GETs…

Your novelist needs to eat, so would circulate coins to this end.


I’ve already outlined my rationale. Sift through it with that brain that I’ve seen in action many times before and point out my assumptions and then we can dig even deeper.

Let’s start with free markets. An easy one. And not “are free markets good”, but something a bit more specific:

In a free market, must all entities must concerned about their own welfare? Should no one should act contrary to their own benefit?

Edited the hell outta this post because I didn’t take time to think through what I was saying versus what I needed to say.


I recently attended an AMA of Eric S. Raymond’s. You know the NTP? That synchronizes the clocks on the internet? You’d think that’d be done already, but no. There’s still constant work being done (by him) on one of the most obscure, simple, solid codebases in use today.

The measure of FOSS projects are how well they are maintained and supported. So yes, it does necessarily require additional development, whereas content does not require additional anything.

The PUT Incentive model does not reward apps for PUTs - and the Network will never do such a thing. RTFM.

The application developer rewards are seen as a good start to pay creators of applications on the app popularity, measured via its use. This design incorrectly identifies the measure of use as the number of GET requests the app carries out. A better solution should be found for this measure.

And my entire argument is that the Network doesn’t need that. The motivation to PUT content is external to the Network - where the motivation to farm and to develop are entirely internal to the Network.


Which I countered with a few examples… So your entire argument doesn’t hold water as far as I’m concerned.

No. Your example requires additional development. This is not a rule. Repeating the claim doesn’t make it more true.

As far as I’m aware PUT incentive model is just a suggestion. And the very thing you quote just says [quote=“smacz, post:265, topic:5805”]
A better solution should be found for this measure.

That does not imply that GETs requests cant be a useful part of that solution, just that they are not the whole story.

This is also to do with APP development rewards which is something separate to PtP.