RFC: Safecoin Implementation


If the idea is to allow farmer boostrapping, then it’s sure that some testnet data will make it to mainnet.

Yes, but with (for example) a captcha that is known to work makes the extent of exploits smaller compared to completely open access to anyone.

It’d make freeloading more costly, but it’s also going to be costly for “honest” testers who may need to re-upload their data every time the network is reset.


Well that will happen no matter if there is a free upload amount given or not

Still possible and more so if money is involved so that is why [quote=“neo, post:61, topic:5826”]
THAT IS why it is an equivalent amount of storage which is not transferable and will not continue into the live system.
And [quote=“neo, post:61, topic:5826”]
Also if the system is being exploited to an unacceptable amount then its a minutes effort to take out/change that line of code that gives the free space on account creation and restart the network with a blank slate and go live (relying on presale coins for bootstrapping).


From the RFC: “The application developer rewards are seen as a good start to pay creators of applications on the app popularity, measured via its use. This design incorrectly identifies the measure of use as the number of GET requests the app carries out. A better solution should be found for this measure.”

Would it be possible to make PUTs of small amounts of data free? And remove the app reward? Apps often have lots of meta data even when the bulk content is stored as users’ own data. The meta data belongs to the app not to the users. So when the app updates small database records, indexes and logs etc there is no need for the app to have its own safecoins to make sure the PUTs can be paid. Or is there still too much spam or attack risk with such solution?


If there’s no limit how many PUTs can be put, there’s no difference whether just small or all PUTs are free.

So if you want free storage space on SAFE, create or buy an “app” (that will sell for $0.99 or even be free) and use your client to upload your data to SAFE.
Then the client side app will chunk it into very small PUTs to ensure you don’t have to pay anything


Substitute “capitalism” with “private data black market” and the article makes much more sense, no?

If that’s the case, then aren’t all of the really successful, useful apps making money off of the data that their customers PUT onto their servers? It’s like they’re - indirectly - being Paid for PUTs.

That’s the better solution. Pay per PUT.


I forgot, even large files are stored as small chunks. I was thinking that small PUTs had a lot of overhead and that spam attacks would be limited that way.


Those PirateBay guys never made sense to me with constant demands on others (especially the government, to “do more”), so even now after reading what this guy has to say, I don’t understand a freaking thing. This is the only thing I understood:

Well, yeah, I totally agree with that. I’m a socialist. I know Marx and communism did not work before, but I think in the future you have the possibility of having total communism and equal access to everything for everybody

And after having understood that, there’s no need to read the rest.

Back to Pay per PUT: does that mean GETs will be provided by free (and they’d earn only when populating their vaults)? In that case it’d make sense to constantly let your vault fill up, kill it off, and start a new one again.


It means that App rewards are not linked with farming attempts in any way.

An App is rewarded when a user uses the App to PUT data. The biggest concern with it is that this will cause App devs to attempt to “charm” users into PUTting more data than is strictly necessary.


Ah, I see.

Yeah, request stuffing would be a clear incentive for devs (or even users, who might want to create their own Web-drive type of apps and get around the middlemen (app owner)).

I don’t want to ask more questions because I kind of know you’ve probably already answered them elsewhere :smile:
If I find time I’ll check out earlier posts to better understand how farming would work in that scenario.


I gotta plug it now!

  1. @bcndanos introduces it
  2. @polpolrene’s proposal (@DavidMtl’s posts are the ones to focus on here)
  3. My RFC draft (more rationale than code)

EDIT: RE: Farming

Where does the content reward money come from?

Maybe I’m biased here but if I develop an app for the SAFE network I would want it to be able to run without me having to worry about paying for PUTs. I’m not interested in being paid for PUTs. I want to develop apps that require basically zero maintenance, ha ha. I don’t even want getting paid for GETs. If I want safecoins I set up a farm. If I want my apps to earn safecoins I add a donate button.


Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
– Abraham Lincoln


Don’t be such a coward. Out with it! :smiley:


Lucky for everyone here none of us seem to practice that approach. We read the stuff of people we fundamentally disagree with, even when we’ve been around this or that issue ten times before. And I know you do too. And this is valuable for several reasons, which I think are as diverse as the rich and contradictory positions we all hold (if we dare to look inside) even inside a Marxist!

I expect there’s a mini Marxist in each of us, maybe bound and gagged by an inner dictator? We’re multi-faceted, complex, self contradictory, and nobody is smart enough to be completely wrong. Not even me! Though I do try :laughing: Which is why we’re all worth listening to, though not necessarily all the time :smile:


My point is, Marxists are known for their negation of private property and generally people who spend (and often destroy) other people’s property, not create their own.

It’s not a fair comparison (they weren’t funded, etc.), but as an example:

  • MaidSafe builds something new. People chose to invest (or donate, doesn’t matter) their money to developers to create something (and then give it away as GPL-licensed OSS)
  • PirateBay Marxists: didn’t create anything, spent years doing what anyone (including content creators) can do - posting stuff online. Plus they keep complaining about ways others (telcos and others mentioned in that interview) use their own property (a good reminder that we should be thankful they not able to do more than complain).

Again, this may not be a very appropriate comparison, but in short there’s nothing I can or want to learn from them.


The latter clause (“want”) may well be true, I won’t say “is true” because none of us know ourselves sufficiently to be certain about such things (remember your bound and gagged inner Marxist! :wink:)

Not even you can know the former (“can”) is true. My experience is that human beings are amazing, and I can learn from all of them including, in fact sometimes the most useful things, from those I have least in common with (in any respect).

Please don’t think I’m not hearing you - I do understand what you are saying. As I’ve said before, I believe we share some characteristics. There’s a difference between you (or me) and what you (or I) believe. We just forget that much of the time.


I have seen concerns about abuse with the test network…why not just make the test network invite only?

This seems that it would allow for testing and curtail abuse of user accounts/data/etc…


I think we should welcome abuse of the test network! Do your worst everyone :smile:


I think this is a fundamental and perpetual conflict that is reflected in many aspects of the Human condition, in this case, how we organise ourselves politically. We can see this in actionon the forum as many different Left/Right arguments - the debate between Libertarian, individualist ideas in opposition to those that are more concerned about the welfare of the larger group, the “selfish Ant”,or the colony perspective, Capitalism or Communism etc.
I know this is a bit of an over-simplification, but taking the last case as an example, each lacks something the other has; Communism would appear more equitable, but lacks incentives and dulls apspirations perhaps - whereas the failing societal safety nets of Capitalism and rampant greed are causing their structures to crumble, just as Communism’s has in the past. The large Communist systems now recognise the “incentive” problem and have adapted their systems to take on board aspects of Capitalism. Capitalism is now failing because it no longer looks after the interests of the larger group - wealth is concentrated in the top 1%.
As I said, a massive (maybe wrong) over-simplification, but I’d say that Russia/China etc now have the upper hand - their systems have adapted, ours are about to collapse. This is why a “middle way” that addresses the satisfies the Human competitive drive, but also functions as a group caring for one another - just Capitalism with a cap on what people can reasonably “own” would probably do it, along with sorting out corporate tax avoidance - it would eventually have a similar effect to a guaranteed minimum income I believe, only actually puts the horse before the cart.
Sorry…waffled on a bit… :smile:


The only way to do this is to - in each and every situation - enable the individual to enhance themselves while they simultaneously enhance the community.

Several respected philosophers have argued that globally achieving these two goals is mutually exclusive. All I know is that I have not seen it come to pass in reality, in nature.