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


OMG @Secretariat415 How can you NOT see the other side of this argument??? It’s like you’re soooo close but totally miss the other side to this coin!!! Let me spell it out for you:

Visa versa of your question:
“What about the fork without PtP?? If there’s no rewards for uploading cool new data, WHY WOULD ANYONE PAY TO PUT IT ON THERE?? Everyone would only put their public data on the one with PtP, so then NOBODY would have interesting things to watch / download from non-PtP fork, so NO GETS are made, and ZERO FARMER REWARDS!!”

Like @neo said, it’s a triangle and you NEED ALL 3 sides to be rewarded to get a healthy long-term network!!! Listen!!


I don’t even care about being rude anymore, I’ve been arguing this against these people --who want to stomp it out wayyy before we’ve even gotten to test it-- for years now and I don’t care. I’m mad at these guys, and I won’t apologize. I’m going to keep pointing out these things and defending PtP and I won’t apologize for doing so


Yes this is huge! Please see that, @Artiscience


there is no way the network could identify "original uploaders

This applies for content first uploaded onto safe: there is Watermarking of content is built in to the network and there is deduplication of content. So it’s entirely possible.

So the question is, will the small PtP rewards be enough to make copying, modifying, and then promoting content, (after the original has been uploaded and already is out there, itself promoted etc ) ,be profitable?

I don’t think so and this is not how the idea is intended, so we’re it to be so it could be tweaked. If you can prove profitability then please show it, as it would help this thread no end and we can move to tackle it.

On the other hand there is empirical evidence that the vast majority consumes without care to the artists

What is this evidence? Your YouTube example runs counter to this claim in my experience… (where original author owned content is available alongside pirated content).

I’m not sure what empirical evidence you are referring to. Can you provide a link?


It is foreseeable that the network will become labled as host of child pornography, terrorist files and pirated content. Combining this with the possibility to make automated, advertisement-free profits subsidized by all users of the network makes things way worse.

You have the same problem from profiting from storing all of this too. So this is moot in terms of PtP and a safe network general question.

There’s a thread dedicated to it which I can’t find on my phone right now. But that’s a better place to thrash out your concerns about network reputation.


Following up what @whiteoutmashups has said,its worth pointing out that PtP does not reduce farming rewards nor does it come from farmers.

A) Without PtP a farmer gets 10 safecoin.
B) With PtP a farmer gets 10 safecoin. The uploaders gets 1.

(illustrative numbers)

The actual value of the coin is based on the worth of a safecoin.

Network Bs farmers reward worth is not actually reduced by the 1 given to creators of content. It’s (as I see it) going to be worth more as theres more network activity and adoption on that network. (which is just another way of saying what @whiteoutmashups said).


Let’s revisit a few segments of my original post:

"What on earth am I missing here that this idea isn’t…?

…Someone correct my bad logic here, but what’s going …"

I’m not spreading misinformation. I simply played devils advocate. Not for any other reason, but to recieve correction.[quote=“whiteoutmashups, post:365, topic:5805”]
These other guys like you, on the other hand, always try to shoot it down pre-emptively

I am not apart of “these other guys” my post was simply playing devils advocate and ASKING for correction.

I’m sorry, but I think you and @happybeing completely missed me here. I wasn’t being divisive or “censoring” anyone or trying to shout down any ideas. I think anyone that calms down and go revisits my original post will realize it doesn’t merit these kinds of accusations. When in my original post i’m literally ASKING for correction.

Besides the fact that @neo brought me up to speed and I don’t share that same sentiment that I had when I wrote my original post. So this is all moot at this point anyways.


Because now, they cannot get the original for free, but on youtube they can. Also the original artists get nothing if they put up their content on the current web. So even teh original artists put it on youtube and get the micro pennies from you tube for each hit.

PtP will allow them to put their own safesite and get the micro pennies from the network, rather than youtube


That is incorrect. The farmers lose nothing. The only way the fork would give farmers more is that they change the algorithms for the farmer. Otherwise the algorithms give the same to farmers if PtP was there OR not there


So anyone can watermark their copied content.

Again the network won’t know.

The answer is that PEOPLE will know and the tendency is to go after the original, especially if it is the highest quality and copies are of near equal or less quality. Obviously if the original is of such poor quality then better quality copies will get the traffic. So original artists don’t need to corrupt their work with a digital watermark (or DRM), but they only need the PtP watermark that goes in the meta data for the chunks


This is what I was talking about 2 years ago, original content producers, rights holders whatever need to be more careful than ever to protect their master copies. If they say had a 4k (or whatever) master copy of a movie in the can they could be the first uploader of a public version of that master at say 1080p and as pirates start to clone and slighty modify to gain reward, they can do staggered releases with a bump in quality and promote such at each release.

So make as high a quality master of your digital content, that is possible within budget, stagger quality releases and be better at presenting the content.

It’s a simple argument to say pirates will benefit, but if you hold the master…then it’s up to you to milk it’s value for all it’s worth by having better quality, better presentation, adding value to that content, being social…the possibilities now become wide open with SAFE.

Pirates actually have less of an advantage with SAFE, because it’s a platform for everyone and is seamless…there is no stigma to being a pirate or a downloader anymore…it’s open competition.

And old content? Public Domain. You make content, do your best to get rewarded and move on…it’s value becomes public domain after x years in the current system. That protection afforded by time no longer exists, so again you’d better be good at maximizing a return on your work.

Were going to see a wad of public domain stuff get a new lease of life on SAFE as folk find ways to utilize it, just because it’s will become discoverable once search is sorted.


ok ok maybe I was being oversensitive and reacted too quickly.

But that kind of thing is definitely going on

If you aren’t a part of it, then awesome, and I apologize


Are you people still blathering on about the fear of bad press? Seriously this argument was raised before when the printing press came out, again when the radio was invented, again when we came up with TV and AGAIN when the internet was created. And each time the benefits of the technology outweighed the bad press. Enough with trying to control information for the sake of some stuffy asshat elitists be they some anal retentive religious nut, a politician or a publishing house or artist. I don’t care. This is NOT new problem. Anyone who examines history will find that we’ve been discussing this same problem in one form or another for the last few CENTURIES. Enough! I want my bloody decentralized internet already! And I’m sick to death of hearing about bad press and political correctness being used as an excuse for information control. If you’re “offended” by the SAFE network don’t use it. Go clone it and create your own and compete, see which one wins out both in usage and technical capability. But I guarentee you that if you start monitoring people that you’ll sacrifice security and I also guarentee you that you’ll get more people using a system that pays them to participate. PtP/PtC/PtD whatever will win out because it balances financial reward with security. Pedophobia is both subjective and is mainly symptomatic of the western world it’s not a GLOBAL phoenomnon. Not everyone the world over is afraid of pedophiles and certainly not so much they’d sacrifice their information security. Not everyone is afraid of terrorists or is so obsessed with their religion that they’d give up an income source or information liberty. The fear of being offended or offending is not so great that it outweighs freedom, security and privacy. The only people who would cry foul of that are those who are already against freedom, security and privacy and those are the ones whom SAFE is designed to divest of power in the first place and grant unto the masses. And it’s the masses the SAFE network is designed for, not the power elites, so what’s the problem?


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…


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:


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.


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.




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.