That 1% is not at the heart of the code, as I understand it, but would have to do with the Foundation licensing the software for certain commercial applications. I actually don’t know where this fits in the longrun scheme, but I think the idea is passe at the moment. Maybe @nicklambert can shed some light on this for us.
Lol…I’m not. The same would apply if Maidsafe operated the “tax” system. I know it can be hard to understand but…lol. We are arguing about what the “product” should be, nobody is coerced into using the product as you correctly pointed out but the same applies in either case.
Please think of my use of the word “tax” in a more general way, that would include the farming “tax”
This is an important point, though I think it would be accepted by most as an improvement or tweak, rather than a fundamental change - I recognise this is arguable. Negative consequences could include selling coin etc, but I think if explained well, the benefits would be worth it.
Consider the alternative - do you think my model is worse or better - thay are the only real considerations. If more people think it is better, then it is more likely the system will be forked for the reasons I have already given.
The only other non -disruptive course of action I can see is for Maidsafe itself to run a parallel system at a later date to allay investor complaints. The coins on both Networks would have to be inter-changeable and I have absolutely no idea how this would work technically.
If they do, then they do and we go with option A) and its attendant issues, if I can make a strong enough case, then maybe, just maybe I can swing an upset and we go with option B) and all its attendant issues. I am still a strong advocate- nothing has changed. I’m saying let Democracy decide the issue. This may essentially be a decision for Maidsafe, but I have my own ideas of how the Network should function and will try to argue my case for implementing it, without coercing anybody -fair enough?
The problem I see with a fork is that if it is going to happen, it will happen for this reason, by people of a similar outlook to myself. I would rather look at ways that would preclude any realistic, competing forks not done by Maidsafe itself.
You are probably right that most on here would disagree, but I feel I have to at least try,.
The way I see it SafeCOIN is scrip money for buying and selling network resources. Infrastructure costs related to the network are reasonable - all networks have fees related to their use so that the network more useful and usable – But a “Social Safety net” is way outside the scope of relevance. Because “Social safety nets” are not hard drives or bandwidth, which is what the Scrip money is useful for exchanging in.
This is an argument for A), not a rebuttal to the more fundamental question of whether this boils down to a choice of 2 different political positions - both equally valid positions to hold. One side claims we would be adding something, the other (me…lol) claiming we are currently leaving some important function out that cannot be put in later. I’m as unhappy as the next person about this, but feel it is important to raise the issue…
I think there is some confusion here. The MaidSafe Foundation is not funded directly in safecoins, the Foundation is the largest majority shareholder in MaidSafe the company. As the company makes a profit and the board decide to issue dividends, this dividend flows into and funds the Foundation.
MaidSafe the company receives 5% of safecoins (I would imagine as they are generated although this has still to be implemented). Hopefully quickly, the remote developer pods will start to compete for this 5% and in time this will facilitate and fund an entirely decentralised core dev team. I believe more efficient that funding development through a members organisation.
Everyone is entitled to their view, but I don’t agree with the suggestions both here and in other threads about the maintenance fee being a tax. A tax is charge levied by government and punishable by the local law. Basically, you either pay or go to jail. If users decide they don’t want to pay here that’s OK, freedom to choose is a brilliant thing! They can vote with their feet and either continue to use the existing web (which they pay for with their privacy and security) or fork the network and run their own platform.
I don’t either, I’m personally using the term loosely to define a Pot of Money used to provide infra-structure and provide welfare - there is no coercion involved or penalties to be paid.
Thanks for clearing up where the Foundation fits in.
I see, thanks for the clarification. I guess their will be a lot of discussion about this when it’s time to show the details of its implementation, I’ll keep an eye out for it.
Then you need to find another word to use than “tax” because coercion, or at least onerousness, is implicit in the term. I know you like to argue and ruffle feathers, but let’s not do it on that score any more. Okay?
You use the infrastructure you pay a toll.
You provide infrastructure and you are paid a toll.
Tolls pay for infrastructure, not extraneous causes.
Can you suggest another word for non-onerous tax?..lol.
It is actually voluntary as nobody is coerced into joining the Network - nothing has changed in that regard from option A to B.
I promise to everybody on the forum, that I am not just arguing a theoretical toss here…honest. I am deadly serious in what I am saying.
At the end of the day, I’ve said what I want to say, proposed a solution to a concern that I have and expressed my concerns to the community. I am happy leaving it there for the community to discuss/ignore whatever, but please don’t think I’m not serious.
PS JReighley - you just keep making arguments for A)
No, because it’s part of the meaning of the word. If you continue to use the term, I’ll have to doubt your wish to actually communicate, rather than be needlessly provocative. How about, as @jreighley suggests, “toll”?
I don’t exactly disbelieve you on this, but I can say that it would be easier to believe except for all the lol’s and the like, which often have the flavor of being derisive and belittling.
I don’t know how to do smiley faces, I forgot how to, otherwise I would have.
Ok, I can’t really understand why you would infer from that that I’m not trying to actually communicate or be needlessly provocative, but you are entitled to your opinion.
TBH I was becoming conscious I was doing it too much and it might sound a bit daft, but I didn’t consider the derisive element. So how do you do smiley faces then and I will endeavour to not say lol anymore. I will also endeavour to avoid sounding derisive or be-littling. I take on board the things you say.
Cool. As I said, I really do think you’re sincere, just style has been received as a bit abrasive. So I appreciate your response.
If you just put a space and a colon, the forum software will give you some emoticon options from which to chose. There are a whole slew of them which @chrisfostertv accesses which I’m sure you’d have fun with, but I’m not sure how to access them myself. Perhaps he’ll educate us.
I’ll be honest with you Fergish, I’m beginning to recognise this. I’m really still learning social skills (ridiculous as it sounds). I’ve spent a large portion of my life as an Alcoholic (with the generally associated MH issues and social skills… yeay) . I therefore didn’t really start learning until about 10 years or so ago.
I’m not making excuses, just explaining this is a weak area for me and a steep learning curve…I’m also naturally an arrogant bastard though I think with massive issues with authority figures.
Thanks for the help.
Same here. This is why we probably butt heads so well. What else are two (or more) authoritative anti-authoritarians gonna do?
H, so… this is a political question, and to my mind one for a future day. However, it doesn’t mean it’s not an interesting question to already ask today. I have three short disclaimers before I reply
- this reflects my personal opinions, not any official MaidSafe company/Foundation point of view.
- such a societal discussion should, in my mind, be debated and decided upon by the whole SAFE users-community
- before the SAFE network has a real reflection on social issues, the SAFE network both needs to expand to a massive user base - cross countries and it would not recognize nation boundaries - and importantly SAFE network works with MAID accounts, not with Proof-of-unique-humans as such yet. See long running thread here
That being said, in my wild social fantasy I would imagine that the SAFE network provides a basic income for human beings. Whether that is feasible? No comment, for now. I do strongly believe on the very short term the proposal for a basic income is an important societal discussion - for reasons I’m not expanding on here. To avoid discussions on definitions, let’s use Wikipedia’s definition for arguments sake. However, when thinking about this, I cannot see how a nation state is able to make the transition to such a societal organization. Hence my wild fantasy whether something like a SAFE network, or future evolutions of it, can. Do not ask me whether they can, because I don’t know (yet); but at least it seems it would require this proof-of-unique-human to be resolved as that is a concept used in the definition of the basic income.
So I would reply to your questions:
a) Was it technically impossible? at this point, yes, because there is no relation between humans (which make up society) and MAIDs (which make up the SAFE network). Maybe even more important, I don’t think it is up to MaidSafe the company, or MaidSafe the foundation to answer such questions.
b) the current model is not only restrained by the limitation mentioned above in a), it is also the most natural. Society, I feel, can and should impose measures on economic systems, but I would argue that they are not an inherent part of the system.
c) no, I don’t believe the network can be re-booted, but changes can be made to the network gradually.
d) you can try
Your welcome @DavidMtl, we’ll obviously keep everyone in the loop as we progress and make decisions based on logic and community debate.
Thinking about it, at this point (before launch) the Ball’s in Maidsafe’s Court to decide and from Nick’s comments regarding forking, I’m understanding the original model is to be followed. I’m not complaining or anything about this, as it’s not our decision. The relationship between Maidsafe and its investors currently forms a small society, however until Launch, the larger community cannot be formed or Network decisions made - Maidsafe has met its responsibilities/duty as far as the community is concerned just by creating the Network as advertised.
This is where we differ and where my argument comes into play; Is a totally free market economy the most Natural system, or a free market economy that cares for the vulnerable? Are you saying it’s more Natural for society not to care?
You will probably answer something like “of course not, we have free choice to donate to charity”. I’m saying that this is a Right/Left thing.The point is, that it is arguable and will be split down political lines.
I really wish I had defined “tax” as I meant it to mean, which would be “Tax” without any coercion, penalties etc and that the individual is empowered to choose where it goes - I was proposing a more “free market” non-coercive tax system that never gets spent on things you don’t want it to.
Anyway, I’ll leave it there, rather than repeat myself and maybe if people read back through my arguments with the new clearer definition of tax, it might all make more sense.
My larger concern is that a political decision is (inadvertently) being made with the intention to create a fairer society. I’m saying that the idea that a totally free market is a desirable thing is mis-guided, in that it creates a Right leaning system, not an apolitical one. By assuaging some of the concerns of the Right leaning, option B) seems to be the correct choice to make.
I’m further worried that the current plan will preclude any true B) society ever evolving in a fundamental way, which would not be the same the other way round.
Your C and D only confirm this fear.
I will also continue to make all my decisions based on logic and believe my argument is a logical one.
I can paint it, roller it or hang paper on it, but not fork it, nor would I want to. However due to my politics/beliefs, unfortunately I would use whoever provided option B - if possible, I
No, it’s you confusing coercion with goodness.
Voluntarism doesn’t call for carelessness, it just denies your claim that care for the vulnerable justifies coercion of the whole society.
Voluntarists do not argue that the vulnerable should be ignored. They argue that the State should not be one to care for them, because it can’t accomplish that without coercion.
Where is the coercion - I mean literally, where is it?
There may be some general confusion I think, due to the fact that I recently argued why the “real” tax system is not coercion, theft etc. I have taken on board the arguments against and changed how it works in order to make it equitable and de-centralise consensus to each individual member of society.
To argue for or against tax is just an argument between A) and B) models - we would just go round in circles.