I see. But a link is a very small piece of data, so they would need to be mega-aggregators indeed if that’s all they do, to make it worthwhile.
But then they get the following clever idea, which Google actually does right now: They parse the search terms so as to provide a snippet from the linked site that answers the user’s search without the user having to go anywhere other than the search engine. Some people don’t like that, of course. I imagine that Google is restrained in how far they can take this by legalities such as “fair use.” But SAFE-oogle might serve up a (long) clip of Taylor Swift rather than a mere link.
I’m not sure how pricing will be done, to be honest, but I think it will be the same regardless of size for SDs, and they can be modified for free after the initial PUT. In effect, index pieces (e.g. “Taylor’s new videos”) will only have a one-time cost but an indefinite lifespan, unlike in the case of “actual” content, when you will need to upload (and pay for) new content again and again.
I really don’t know who much would be paid for GETs via PtP; isn’t it part of the vault’s reward?
But again, the real issue is the asymmetry between the cost of indexing (one time, indefinite lifespan) and hosting (repeat for all new content, costs more, and also riskier because the same content is already online, possibly in better quality.)
Your doubt is simply an opinion, but it contradicts the whole trend of what we’re discussing. The elite (I mean the 5,000 or so people at the very top, not the technocrats lower down) produce nothing except grief. So what are they “better at” exactly that they should inevitably be paid for doing it? Predation, perhaps. They are kept in their privileged position by inheritance and cunning, and if SAFE achieves World Domination™ then it surely will undermine that.
My opinion (well, the part that goes beyond the “wealth by excellence” aspect) is based on the idea that societal problems can’t be solved by technology, something that I firmly believe in. The same kind of people who found ways to exploit the current system will find ways to exploit whatever else you give them. Yea, let’s try to make it harder for them, I’m all in for that, just let’s not fool ourselves thinking we can get rid of all evil and greed by creating a Magic Network
Most importantly, let’s not try to get rid of super useful features just because we can be sure somebody will misuse them; those somebodies would misuse anything else, too, but life will be much better for most if we refuse to listen to those fears.
EDIT: Interestingly, one of the most over-governed societies of the West, the United States, is also one with the hugest inequality ratings. Just a hint for how much trying to solve problems help: the more the rules there are to protect the majority, the more ways there are for the minority to game the system. Just my theory, don’t trust it too much
So you don’t think it’s “a dream,” meaning totally wrong-headed, but rather that it is at least partially achievable. You would not be all in for something that is pointless.
Now hold that thought! I propose (a la Sam Goldwyn) that a trend will continue unless something stops it. And the trend is for disintermediation to continue (i.e., for intermediation to be continually reduced), between producers and consumers, and in any other kind of mutually agreeable association between people.
EDIT: “Media” and “disintermediation” are words well worth pondering. Media, in the human context, pragmatically means a mixture of helpful people (your grocer, intermediating between the farmer and you), and the likes of bankers and movie studios. The latter kind of media are going to find it harder and harder to make a living.
Let’s say we have two SAFENET forks. One has PtP, one doesn’t. Since PtP money comes from the farmers, the farmers will get more money from the non-PtP network. So how are you going to convince people to farm on the PtP network for less money? And without farming, how can you sustain the PtP network?
To stick to the context of this thread: I don’t believe getting rid of PtP to make life harder for the leeches would justify rendering numerous useful (if not critical) applications impossible.
Let’s not mix those two. Paying for movies is a voluntary act: you either buy that ticket (or disc or stream), or you don’t. Paying bankers is compulsory: whenever a “too big to fail” institution fails, society pays to bail it out (bankers don’t return their bonuses just because they crashed the boat.)
And that’s what I’ll keep doubting; we need more than a well designed Magic Network: real life problems need real life solutions. Incidentally, the people with the power to implement the solutions are the ones who really don’t have an incentive to do so But this is OoS for PtP.
In case you hadn’t noticed, the purpose of Hollywood (as evidenced by what they continually produce) is to serves the interests of the ruling elite, which happens to include bankers. They are in the business of moulding us to be better fodder for their machine.
Paying for mainstream movies is a foolish act, in that it strengthens ones enemies.
Seriously, the historical “knowledge” of many people does not extend beyond movies and television. For example, they know the Holocaust™ occurred because it was all there in a movie.
That however is like saying asking for your money (Hollywood) is the same as taking it from you by force (the banking industry, by courtesy of your government)…
For this you have to assume there’s a separate race of people called “Farmers” who only farm, so PtP is completely irrelevant to their financial well being.
I believe people will use the network more naturally: they will store stuff on it, upload stuff to share them with a few friends (without expecting any PtP rewards), upload stuff they made (not expecting much in terms of PtP), and maybe upload stuff specifically to gain rewards from PtP. All the same time, most of these people will also operate one or more vaults (probably forgotten they even exists) as part of using the network on their different devices.
No, because the money is used to build and maintain a coercive structure, which in turn benefits the people who own the movie studios and their allies.
EDIT: To be precise, the money produces propaganda that gets people to vote in certain ways, make certain consumer choices, and to marginalize and destroy people who don’t accept the narrative.
I’m sorry, but there’s no way you can convince me (or my grandma or my aunt or … anybody I know) that asking for something is the same as taking it from you by force. It’s that simple. No “but that money you gave is used like this or that” can change this.
There is still that chasm between the “you can” and the “you must” that makes those two things very different.
Well, there’s no “I must” about paying for their excrement.
This is where part ways from libertarians. If a slimy propagandist or seducer “asks” me to accept his proferred candybar of rat poison, I’m inclined to, ah… initiate the use of force, shall we say, and I care not for your hair-splitting.
No “exactly”. It amounts to the same thing, even if by extra steps: bankers lobby for a currency monopoly. Hollywood lobbies for social policies enforced at gunpoint.
I´m sure in the future we will find a way to handle the massive waste humans are producing, so in the meantime let´s forget about the environment, someone else will come up with a solution. I don´t see how we can have a conversation based on such far fetched “visions”.
There are always fanatics that want to have their product on day one, the vast majority only cares for a smooth handling of their requests and a neat interface.
To me a large part of the argument pro Pay the Promoter/Uploader doesn´t seem to be based on common sense. I also don´t see why simple watermarking isn´t enough if people are truly willing to pay their creators.
I’m talking about obvious use cases for which I expect solutions pretty much right away, in the infancy of the network. Getting rid of the PtP idea would make a lot of useful applications hard or unfeasible to implement just to avoid a possible bad side; I can’t subscribe to that.
What is your argument against the search engine scenario I outlined above? I.e. the fact that it’s practically impossible to do without a way to reclaim the costs of providing the service, and that people are unlikely to be willing to pay for basic services (e.g. search) any more than they are willing to pay for air?
Wrong! It was @dirvine 's idea! Sorry sir but I’m tagging you, you don’t have to say anything, because I know you prefer to steer clear of PtP talks because they get pretty heated on this forum, but misinformation is being spread so I’m retaliating against that
I responded that way because PtP is a crucial part of MaidSafe and has been from the beginning and they just want to test it out and see how it can work best.
These other guys like you, on the other hand, always try to shoot it down pre-emptively #before
anything has even been tested yet.
That’s what boils my blood more than anything. We haven’t even gotten to the tests yet and people are freaking out. This is the part of the forums that’s gotten me livid inside for as long as I remember
