RFC: ImmutableData deletion support


#61

We will do nothing, but the network will charge you a fortune, pay it to the farmers and say thanks :wink:

Nice little redistribution of wealth from the state to the people :smiley: :smiley:


#62

No way, you mean these people would tell lies to their own staff, that is just not sporting, next thing they will tell them there are WMD’s in Iraq and stuff like that :smiley: :smiley: Good grief, next they will spend loads of bitcoin transactions and then uploading sites to amazon and google, they may even then start posting nonsense on twitter, controlling the media and … oh hang on.

Fortunately, we have a network to fix that, phew, I figured we were in trouble there :smiley: :smiley:


#63

Only one thing is going to implode here with your plan, and that is the currency of your government. Governments don’t print money for a reason. The central bank does. And you don’t need an army for spamming the network anyway


#64

Not to mention the hard disk manufacturers raking in the profits.

Nope we have discussed this quite a bit in the past.

Oh and history will tell you that governments don’t work that way. They could spam bitcoin day in and day out and make bitcoin useless and it’d cost them million times less to do so. So that is why they are doing it 365 days a year to bitcoin to stop the black market isn’t it. Everyone knows how bad the black market is with bitcoin and how illegal pics are in the blockchain.

Oh I guess its the invisible elephant and we just don’t see it being done. :wink:

I guess we wait and see and advise the drive manufacturers of potent need for large drives. Adding 10TB vaults by 10s of thousands of farmers (200 or more PB per day) should cover that and all paid for by the government. Nice way to solve the unemployment problem.


#65

This isn’t true. Subsequent PUTs are charged for as well as the initial PUT.


#66

Thanks for your replies to the above.
Traktion: There are no additional upload charges after the initial put payment per block used. It is this which I see as the fatal vulnerability of safenet as envisaged.
Nevel: If you understood how the economic/financial/political establishment (aka the Deep State or Swamp) works you would know that the “government” is nothing more than a public front for the central banks who actually dictate policy. And the central banks will hate Safecoin (because of its anonymity rather than mere pseudonimity) even more than Bitcoin, which they have gone to great lengths to sabotage and discredit.
Dirvine: As you know, since you designed the whole system, payment for Puts goes to safenet, not the farmers. They only get paid - by Safenet - when someone accesses the data they are hosting, and my team would not be accessing their garbage - and nor could anyone else (but who would want to?) since it is private.
You could keep the farmers sweet for a while by making huge Get payments on the stuff that others had uploaded and are accessing. This might even incentivise cloud storage companies to bcome farmers for a while, to cash in on the bonanza. You would certainly need them to do so, because in seven weeks we would have uploaded an Exabyte of garbage (x4 if it is to be all stored in 4 different locations) and without them, Safenet wouldn’t have enough storage space on the hard drives of personal computers.
Their work done (for now), my team would pack up and the Put payments would cease,
the cloud storage professionals would discontinue their patronage, and the S would HTF. I suppose Safenet could mitigate this by buying its own storage facilities (at a cost of only about $100,000, Neo) and thus recycling the money. But this would lead to centralisation, and where would it leave the farmers? Out of pocket: the rewards would not even pay for the electricity, since they’d still be hosting 99% never-accessed garbage, so only the libertarian ideologues would continue to participate. Perhaps my Team could fill the gap? Subverting PARSEC would then be easy-peasy.
I’m just playing the devil’s advocate here, the point being that the pay-once-for-eternal-storage model is fraught with dangers to the integrity and economics of Safenet. Even without the work of my team, and even with efforts at de-duplication, I do believe that the clutter of no-longer-accessed data would kill the project in the long run for economic reasons. In fact it’s a mathematical certainty, unless demand for new storage increases infinitely and forever, or the cost of storage (and the electricity to run it) actually falls to zero. Very offputting is the usual retort to this suggestion that “oh well, it’s just an experiment, and if it fails, somebody will come along with something better.” This is not what we want to hear. If it fails, it fails forever. Because any replacement will be a false front run by, you know, a Team.
It’s probably too complicated for me, but I don’t understand why if people were to rent their storage space, this would compromise anonymity. If a register is to be maintained - as it must be - of Safecoin ownership whilst maintaining anonymity of ownership, why cannot the same be done with tenancy of storage space? And is it a systemic necessity, or ideology - Artificial Stupidity - which decrees that Safenet can’t tell the time and doesn’t know what day it is? You should fix this. Then dates of expiry can be affixed to the tenancy register, which would be scanned at regular intervals so that people can be reminded via Safe email when their rent is due.
Sorry to go on so long, but you really do need to fix this.


#67

You’re wrong, sorry. If you plan on a drone army uploading terabytes, it will cost a fortune.

Edit: I see you mean to fund initial PUTs for petabytes, so I think we are on the same page now…

In that case it is a question of supply and demand. The more space you fill with junk, the more it will cost. As PUT price is also linked to GET price, farmers will get proportionately large payments for the data that actually is accessed.

So, you will spend your printed trillions on subsidising farmers. They will lap up the money and buy more disks to feed your habit - it is easy money after all!

Moreover, you would push up the demand for SAFECoin ever higher, as you would need them to buy PUTs. Speculators would move in to pump the price even higher, taking extra profit out of your pockets on the way; the more you spend, the more they will pump and profit.

Taken to the extreme, you may force a bubble in PUT prices, causing storage costs to be inflated. However, I suspect demand for SAFECoin would starve the market and choke off the attack long before the network became unviable; the market would regain sanity after you have given up too.

You could buy all the food in the world and cause everyone to starve. You could buy all the oil and prevent anyone from traveling to work, causing economic chaos. You could buy all the hard disks being produced and collapse the cloud. Yes… but it will cost more money than the goal would ever justify and it would just result in a huge transfer of wealth from you to anyone else who had an interest in your behaviour.


#68

Could we spare dev threads for dev stuff please… There’s an entire category for conspiracies and the like.


#69

A couple of additional remarks.
If a party adds a big % of the total new data in an effort to sabotage the Safe Network, I think it will be very difficult to keep its identity and goal hidden. This will cause the necessary reaction, like media attention and possible counter measures .
You need to buy a lot of Safecoins to store that data, so you increase the value a lot. Much of this value increase will be invested to improve the network.
Sucht investment could be used, if really necessary, to implement delete functionality, like chunks not read or payed (could be a very little and/or 1 time) for, x time after implementation of the read/pay tracking.


#70

I am afraid this does not happen, thank God. Safecoin is anonymous and free.

Actual Intelligence :wink: If you check the universe and all of the natural things within it, then you will see not many things that need to tell the time to work :smiley: TCP/IP cannot either etc. is that also a stupid design, what about http, those crazy people, databases, oh my it goes on :wink:


#71

That is good to do, but only if you take into account the various aspects presented in response.

  • A large uploader trying to fill the network storage needs a lot of coins and will be noticed because of that
  • as the network passes 50 or 60% full the price per PUT will be noticably increasing
  • As the PUT price is increasing so is the reward amount given to farmers farming other (non-attack) chunks.
  • As the attacker is buying so much coin the price of safecoin in $$$ will also rise due to less coins available.
    • farmers can buy more disk
    • attacker paying increasing amounts per coin.

Tying these together, more media attention (@draw) as they are tipped off by sellers of coins, more cost per coin, more PUT cost per chunk. And these add up to bankrupting any entity trying to fill the SAFE network.

Oh I guess the drive manufacturers could benefit from such an attack :rofl: but even they will run out of timely resources to manufacture drives fast enough.

Do not underestimate the effect of rising $$$ cost per coin and the PUT cost approaching small fractions of a coin for each chunk. This is a squared effect. For example it might cost 1$ for 100k PUTs when you start. At 60% full that is going to be like 9$ for 100k and at 70% full its likely to be 81$ per 100k and at 75% its likely to be ~6500$ per 100k and at 80% its likely to be ~43 million dollars per 100k Puts and at 85% its likely to be 1000 million million per 100K

The reason is that

  • early on you the price of a safecoin is (estimate) 3$ per coin and 300K PUTs per coin.
  • As you buy coin the market jumps to 9$ per coin as coin becomes scarce. And by this time the network is at say 60% full and charging at a rate of 100K puts per coin. This is 9$ for 100k
  • As you buy more coin the market keeps jumping and its 27$ per coin (low estimate of jump) And by this time the network is 70% full and charging at a rate of 33,333 PUTs per coin. This is 81$ per 100k PUTs
  • and so on.

Lets try a real conservative example (remember inverse law for PUT cost increase)

  • <60% full --> 1$ per 1M PUTs (1$/coin 1M PUTs/coin)
  • ~60% full --> 4$ per 1M PUTs (2$/coin 500K PUTs/coin)
  • ~70% full --> 16$ per 1M PUTs (4$/coin 250K PUTs/coin)
  • ~75% full --> 80$ per 1M PUTs (10$/coin 125KPUTs/coin) coin is really scarce too
  • ~78% full --> 833$ per 1M PUTs (50$/coin 60K PUTs/coin) coin is hard to find now
  • ~80% full --> 10K$ per 1M PUTs (200$ per coin 20K PUTs/coin) coin difficult to find
  • ~82% full --> 200K$ per 1M PUTs (1000$ per coin 5K PUTs/coin) attacker has to wait for a farmer to sell coins.
  • and so on till its astronomical amounts at 90% for the attacker

If you want to use better figures then do so. But at any starting point the price is going to rise in a squared fashion since the market will react dramatically to any fast rate of buying coins and the network is also reacting dramatically to filling up. Also the rate of increase in PUT price is an inverse law so it rises extremely fast as you go over 80% full and in the end it will be cost one coin per PUT and the network is still not full. And the attacker will be paying big $$$ per coin because they need ever so much coin to keep attacking. And all this time the farmers supplying normal chunks to those requesting it will be earning maybe 1 coin per 10 gets and getting huge $$$ per coin, so they can buy a lot of disk and pay for extra connections to their house. Also datacentre farming is profitable then too. Are you still reading this analysis? This is one very good reason why your so called death of safenetwork attack cannot work and will not work.


#72

Thank you Neo for taking the time and effort to refute my evil plan.
Dirvine: I had thought that the network had to know I possessed a Safecoin in order for me to spend it. I got this impression by reading the official explanations. But having done some further reading, I guess it’s like having coins in my pocket - nobody but me knows I’ve got them unless and until I tender them for payment.
Obviously I know nothing. I wish you all, and the project, every success.


#73

You possess a coin when you are the owner, that is the owner ID of the MD is your ID that you have the private key.

The network doesn’t need to keep separate tabs on who owns what coins, it knows you own it because of that private key you use to sign the spend request.

It is possible for people to query a safecoin MD and find the owner ID. But unless they know who has the private key to that ID then they do not know the owner, kinda like bitcoin addresses. But unlike bitcoin addresses there is no history kept. To query all 2^32 addresses is what makes knowing what coins belong to what ID a difficult task.

We’ve had a few discussions on this attack. On the surface it is a good attack, but when digging deeper it isn’t such a good one. Another analogy is to consider digging to the other side of the earth, the deeper you go the exponentially harder it gets. Easy enough at first but then …