And there is an idea to negate this too. Make PtP work on a file level. Exactly how would have to be developed.
Also what you say is against APP rewards too.
Anyhow that what the poll is for to find out what everyone thinks.
I am against those too if itâs based on GETs and bandwidth. I donât know how the network will even differentiate between apps and data. If the answer is some kind of blessed app store or Launcher, then yuck.
3 Likes
No, the safebay should not be paid by the network for other artistâs work.
1 Like
And who are you or anyone else to decide the subjective value of what things are worth? Thatâs to be left up to the individual or no one which is why is should remain all equal.
1 Like
Who is the network to say what things are worth?
And How?
Because if the network fails to preserve itâs value and starts giving handouts based on some random criteria -it is hurting itself. I would argue that most measures that the network could use donât reflect value. Megabytes, downloads, etc. If you use the wrong measurement device you are going to pay for something that most likely doesnât matter â and likely incurs costsâŚ
3 Likes
How about pairing the ptp program with a reputation system to determine if content is in fact of value and if so by how much.
1 Like
My thought is that ptp should be a separate reputation based process⌠I wouldnât mind if the 10 percent was paid â it just needs to be paid intelligently, by some measure that matters⌠I like the idea of different communities having their own currency and the excess farming revenue buying at market and burn thus raising the values of the communities currencies. Artcoin, Medcoin, piratecoin, porncoin, musiccoin, makercoin etc. The farmers could decide what currencies they choose to subsidizeâŚ
It is better that the network preserve its value than to pay foolishly.
1 Like
Typical ânet neutralityâ proponent. In principle heâs for equality, but only after âappropriateâ discrimination by him has been fully implemented. More importantly, that primitive hick Joe Sixpack canât be expected to make the ârightâ decision here so someone must make it for him.
Every GET ought to be treated the same because thatâs (the delivery of chunks) useful work what consumes resources.
Hehe, true that. Related to this there are people here who argued that SAFE giveaways to âpoorâ people who can afford to own mobile phones and pay telco subscription are still desirable because âvideo downloads can get expensiveâ. 
Sponsoring access to 300KB ePub books would be too cruel. Everyone deserves multimedia education!
- PtP should not be implemented because it will lead to rewards gaming.
- Apps could create their own fee collection metrics in addition to traffic.
- Every GB should be treated the same because it is not possible to determine what the freaking files contain.
- Public and private PUTâs should cost the same for the same reason.
8 Likes
I am alll for net neutrality â but when you subsidize per megabyte that isnât really neutral â Not only that â it isnât even smart in its non-neutrality.
2 Likes
Heâs got a point there. Which is why I was against having any percentage of farming revenue go to anyone in particular in the first place. While devs are important giving them a percentage of farming is just raising them above everyone else as a special interest case, and moreover writing it into code is just another form of coercisve tax. Now with a PtP system at least you reward anyone who produces something however itâs still subsidizing producers over anyone else, thus subsidizing a special interest group. So the point still stands.
Moreover if weâre going to have altcoins for different things like porn, medicine, makers, art, etc then we should also have an altcoin for devs as well. So instead of having a percentage of farming go to farming people could just buy a share of devcoin or something which they could spend to buy things like new software or whatever.
3 Likes
Without content the farmers donât do too well either though⌠I am not terribly in favor of paying the farmers more than needed either â And I donât think it is that much⌠The excess ought to be redirected to causes that grows the network and itâs contentâŚ
We must realize that we are asking people who can publish elsewhere to come into our âwalled gardenâ and put their work before a much smaller audience â at least for a time. In most cases they just wonât bother⌠Youtube is already there. It already pays (poorly). Unless there is a significant stream of content, SAFE will not be adopted by a significant economy.
All for it. The network currency ought to be used to preserve the network. The network is a big enough experiment by itself without adding layers and layers of economic complexity to go wrong.
2 Likes
Just a thought here about devcoin but you could set it up so that devcoin could be used to buy shares in maidsafe. The more shares you get the more votes you get in decision making and such.
And so how would this work? Someone posts public content, watermarks it as theirs, and says âthis is insert type here and I want to be paid in insert altcoin here.â
In summary, you (and I think most everyone) donât know how much anything should cost, and thatâs normal.
What is not good is that this is not enough of a warning to most folks that pricing should be left to the market. Instead weâre are discussing how to do the impossible.
Here we are four (or more) months before the release and now there are even ideas to introduce a new coinâŚ
I was criticized for proposing to not charge anything for uploads until coin economics has been worked out. That increasingly looks like the one of less bad ideas in recent weeks.
1 Like
It would make sense on a project thatâs overdue to limit scope. Instead MaidSafe seems to be tackling everything except world peace. And someone will probably start a thread about addressing that one day. The more the scope of SAFE expands, the more likely: (1) the software will have awful bugs, (2) it will not perform its core functionality optimally, (3) development will be too costly and time consuming, (4) the network will have such a particular and idiosyncratic featureset that it will be useless except to the ~50 people who post here asking for features, (5) the project will be forked to remove most of the code and SAFEnet Lite is launched.
8 Likes
Please everyone, keep the comments here brief so others can follow your thoughts and have their thoughts on the Poll in question.
If you wish to discuss, rather than comment the merits of one way over another then do it in the threads that are listed, or if in another thread then tell me and I will list it in the OP. People were expected to avail themselves of the threads if they wished to research the matter, and your voices would be heard in those threads if you wish to continue extended discussions
If this thread turns into a drawn out discussion between a few then it limits the abilities of others to have their thoughts heard in a concise manner and their thoughts will be lost in a large discussion.
Thank you for understanding.
1 Like
I worry about this concept. If it can be gamed, it could fatally wound the network.
Moreover, the value question concerns me. Really, the producers need to set their price and consumers should decide whether it is worth accessing it. This is how value is derived in a free market, which should always be our guide.
The above being considered, I donât think I can support the proposal in its current form and I would rather a strong core network was concentrated on.
10 Likes
First off @zankfrappa I appreciate your comments, as you have had some incredibly insightful ones in the past, and I would very much like to have your input in the current and future debates. That being said, I am unable to view your posts as they are rescinded at this time.
Back to the OP - No. I do not believe that PtP should be implemented at the network level. This may very well be better suited to be dealt with at an APP level, but the network should not be the one to determine which (if any) content should be rewarded.
P.S. My thanks to the moderators (@system, @happybeing, @Melvin, @frabrunelle, @polpolrene, @jm5, @fergish, @Seneca, @neo) for keeping this strictly a polling thread. I am more than happy to either create a new thread with my comments/concerns or contribute to an existing one knowing that this thread is strictly for polling purposes only.
2 Likes
And âbriefâ comments on why one chose what they did if they wish, as this provides insight to the community views.
1 Like
This makes me feel a bit wary.
It all sounds great to have software developers and producers get paid for their content, but I`m affraid having these economic systems built into the core could cause serious side effects and have unforseen consequences.
How can the network give the right value to the content? If by quantity, it can be gambled or incentivize âspamâ and âclick baitsâ.
On the other hand it would be nice if e.g. music creators could get paid directly when people download their songs.
I´m on the fence with this one, but I´m leaning towards just having a basic core network without too much economics built inâŚ
6 Likes
The producers will be paid out of the network. So watching a videoclip is free, but both Farmer and producer make some money on it. I think thatâs a good thing. It makes the network pay out to creativity. And itâs optional, if you share a videoclip without your wallet-address you make no money on it.
1 Like