There’s no free lunch. You either pay directly for storage and bandwidth consumption - or you pay indirectly by what many dislike about the current web — ads.
With P2P and sharing some of your bandwidth and storage (which you pay for!) you can mitigate / minimize the cost of storing data redundantly in the network.
Yeah, exactly. And keep in mind tho, the current model of safenetwork gives free lunches - bandwidth. People don’t realise this… You can say it’s “indirectly” paid by people storing new data on the network, but yeah… Who knows how well that’ll work out long term.
And you have been proven wrong on this and given plenty of reasoning why this is a wrong concept of yours.
By your reasoning then keeping SAFE files on disk is a free lunch and people should announce in advance which files they want to read so the others can be removed.
Its a package deal and farming rewards DOES PAY FOR BANDWIDTH TOO as much as it pays for the farmer to keep the chunks on their disk waiting for retrieval. A package deal.
EDIT: the reward is paid on retrieval because this proves that they have been providing the other things too (like storage & bandwidth)
Ray Kurzweil has talked about how there will be both open source solutions and commercial solutions in the near future due to technological progress. The open source solutions will be free, including material goods when they become information technology.
The SAFE network is then a commercial solution in practice (it always costs to store data). That’s generally fine, but for a network for the future the current model is obsolete already before it has been launched. It’s possible to build commercial solutions on top of open source, but not the other way around for a network that is meant to be a foundation.
No its not. That is misinformation. You cannot construe it to be so.
Alright, call it pay-for solution then. It comes to the same thing as far as technological progress goes.
The original maidsafe concept was to have upload/download ratios so people could use it for free, as long as they contributed to the network. However, this limits flexibility for those who want to read or write in different ratios, so safecoin and the concept of farming was born.
You have to really torture the facts to say it is pay for use. To say it is commercial butchers the facts.
The core ratio concept is preserved, with safecoin acting as a proxy. If you don’t want to pay, then you will need to farm; a free lunch alternative isn’t sustainable.
No don’t call it other than an open-source project. Because that is what it is. Farmers get rewarded, but that is the network and there is no profits going to anyone. People pay for what they use and farmers are paid for supply the resources.
Look Anders you have said here and previously you do not want the SAFE that Maidsafe is building but different, different enough to spend 1000’s of posts over a year or two trying to get them to change to your version of what you want.
Then you come here trying and arguing and misrepresenting things to get support for your project, which is similar to what Maidsafe is building
But you don’t want to fork SAFE and modify it to your network for yourself.
So then when Maidsafe have finished then hire them to fork the network for you and make all the modifications you want so that its the network you want. And then see if anyone wants to use it.
It may be that my position is too extreme. We will see. At least I’m supportive of the main idea about the SAFE network. The Ethereum project I decided was crap already when I learned about it, haha.
Too much I’d say.
But you still state you will not use it unless they change it to your desires. This time free uploads/downloads. So yes you are still after Maidsafe to do your project and not the planned one. Why should they do your bidding just so you can have your network instead of theirs.
And we are now at post 70 in a topic that was shown dead in the water.
Here is an idea how about you write an APP that layers above the client code and implements the things you want.
I think the current model might work after all IF there is only costs for PUTs above 1 MB. To spam 1 TB of free storage will require over a million separate storage requests to the network. That might be a good enough spam protection. And for files larger than 1 MB there is a cost for PUTs.
Then safecoins are recycled and the current inflation model will be fine and no need for my proposal of modified inflation.
Considering even a 100K file requires 3 chunks for self encryption then its a Spam burden no matter the size of file. Also files are not actually stored by the network, the client self encrypts the file then asks the network to store the individual chunks one by one. So the network only sees the chunks and not files. It is up to the APP to add files names etc.
Also considering that while there is plenty of space that a PUT is very small amount of SAFEcoin I don’t see the need for the distinction.
Its only when the network starts to see the space filling up that it quickly starts rising the price of PUTs making it increasingly difficult for a SPAM attack to be effective. Once this happens the attacker starts to really run out of money.
tl;dr
The network doesn’t know the size of the file your client code is self encrypting. The network only sees the chunks being stored and they are all 1MB or less.
I was thinking that free data objects up to 1 MB would allow for a lot of open source development, without the need for the complicated burden and hassle to have to deal with safecoins. To always have to worry about having enough funds of safecoins on the app level and/or on the end user level is in many cases a pain in the neck.
For example an app developer can use the free storage of up to 1 MB objects to store meta data for an app without having to make sure that the app account continuously holds enough safecoins to continue to work.
The SAFE network is open source. You can freely view, modify, and fork the code. That doesn’t mean that the resources needed to run the network are free. To put this another way nature is open source. You can freely copy DNA, break resources down and make them into new things. You can plant seeds, breed animals, observe nature in all it’s glory. Water will always be H2O. Molecular structures are not going to change because someone wants to slap a brand sticker on them. And the iceberg doesn’t care what politician is in power or what the bottom line is of some corporation. Ice melts at 0*C. Politics doesn’t change physics. You can observe nature for free. You can grow food for free, or more accurately you can grow food for the resources REQUIRED by the plants to grow. Same difference with the safe network. Just like plants REQUIRE sun + water + nutrient rich soil and the right tempetures to live so too does the safe network REQUIRE certain conditions in order for it to function. The SAFE network is not making profit off the resources given to it by farmers. Just like a plant it is converting those digital resources into space needed by those consuming those resources on the network and measures those resources in safecoin that it meters out to farmers.
Do you think the air you are breathing right now is free? It’s not. It’s paid for every day by plants that convert CO2 into oxygen. Did you think your food is free? Even if you didn’t have to pay money for it and grew it yourself you’d still be thanking plants and animals for all that energy you were consuming on a daily basis. And what is really remarkable is the wasted nutrients in biowaste we flush down the toilet but now I’m going all uber agricultural on you with a compost rant.
Point is nature wastes nothing. Everything eats something else. So in one sense of the word nothing is free. But then nature doesn’t charge interest or seek extra profit on anything so in another sense of the word EVERYTHING is free. SAFE is much the same. You pay direct cost of what it requires the network to store your data at any given time. If there are lots of resources, that is if it’s a time of plenty, the cost will be cheap. If there are few resources, that is a time of famine, the cost will be greater. Just like nature.
If SAFE were commercial then it would be charging interest or trying to make a profit ON TOP of the resources required to run the network. And then the question would be where would that profit be going to? Who’s raking in that cut? And how would they do it if the software is open source? I mean someone would notice the digital paper trail wouldn’t they?
Seriously @Anders have you grown or built anything in your life? Stuff takes resources to produce. Raw materials, dirt, sun, water, biomatter, wood, steel, that kind of thing. I don’t care if you’re growing a garden or building a house or whatever but if you’re producing anything you need raw materials to make it. Those materials aren’t free and need to come from somewhere. Same for digital networks. If we want a decentralized encrypted internet then the space to do that in needs to come from someplace. It isn’t free even if we don’t get charged extra for it.
What whackjob taught this kid economics? He needs to go back to school and do basic math. You don’t get something from nothing. Go build a birdhouse or something. Plant some flowers. See if they manifest out of thin air or if you have to start with some soil and seeds first and maybe add sun and water.
Yes, but technological progress will soon, historically speaking, make things like artificial intelligence and robotics produce stuff for free. Evolution is exponential and we are now entering a phase on that exponential curve where we can’t just extrapolate linearly from the past into the future. In the future, even death and taxes become obsolete. It’s a whole new way of thinking that’s needed.
“The jobless economy: a fully automated, engineered, robotic system that doesn’t need YOU, or me either. Anything we can do, machines can do better – surgery, warfare, farming, finance. What’s to do: shall we smash the machines, or go to the beach, or finally learn to play the piano?” – The End of Work | Open Source with Christopher Lydon
A universal basic income is no long term solution and just a tool for more smoothly transition into a jobless future. We will still be able to work of course, and will probably work a lot with what we want to do, but not because of having to “earn” a living as today.
To say the statement “safenetwork gives free lunch on bandwidth” is wrong is to say that bandwidth on the safenetwork is not free, hence it is paid. However you don’t pay to download a file or view the network with the current model, hence bandwidth is free. Hence the statement “safenetwork gives free lunch on bandwidth” has not been proven wrong and is absolutely correct.
Sigh.
Take what I say out of context and you’ll be able to say almost anything.
You know that the farmers are paid to for that bandwidth they use. Why do you repetitively misquote or take out of context what is said.
For the user to pay to browse in SAFE is double dipping and against the law for companies to double dip so why should SAFE do it too.
uploaders paying for future downloads and then users browsing also paying is double dipping. But I guess you want to make real profit from farming don’t you - most likely reason for your misinformation, “errors” and constant demand for many times the upload payments to be made through rental, and then double dipping
I think that will work because the farmers earn safecoins for those GETs and so will continue to deliver files. It’s proof of resource instead of proof of work or proof of stake. The value of a cryptocurrency is in the service it provides.
What are you talking about? Bandwidth is free. Regardless of if farmers get paid newly generated coins, the statement “safenetwork gives free bandwidth” isn’t wrong. As bandwidth is free.