SAFE Storage economics - one-time fee, forever service

No, that was rejected because it then allowed people to gain knowledge of what others have uploaded. While that knowledge is small it can still be damaging. Every bit of knowledge you allow to be gained from “meta” information can build profiles etc.

Thank you, dyamanaka,

I read through the thread, and it did not change my mind one bit. In fact, many posters who share my opinion on this topic came up with additional arguments that I had not yet fully considered. Anyway, if the cost to the user does not reflect the true cost to the network, then the network is doomed. It’s like price controls in old USSR: you can pretend that a stick of butter only costs 10 cents, but if it really costs $1 to produce, then there simply won’t be any butter for sale, and people will be spending their life standing in line in front of empty stores.

It’s a real shame that such a good concept be doomed in this way. It will take a fork, or a rewrite (maybe using something like Ethereum or Tendermint as a management and payment platform) to get it right…

1 Like

This is not entirely true and the beauty of the system. Some do not consider all the dynamics at once. I have done some pre-lim simulations many months ago that show that unlike fiat the system balances itself.

For instance one dynamic is that as coins are given for farming, they will find their way into 2 piles. One is “keep it for later” (hoarding) and the other is spending it on puts in the near future (even if it changes hands at an exchange).

Another is that not all puts ever result in more than one get. It could be shown that a good proportion of current immutable storage is backups, that is never accessed. Or private files rarely accessed. movies that are accessed often will end up having most accesses satisfied by caching (no vault gets). And who watches old movies, like Leslie Nelson’s “Forbidden Planet”, or any other old movie? Very few are really.

Another is dedup. That new popular video may get uploaded 100’s or 1000’s of times but only one store actually occurs, so that popular vid really made the network 100’s or 1000’s times the coins it would normally take to store that amount of data.

Another is that storage cost is halving every 18 months (actually 10 times in 5 years) for the last 3 decades. And solid state storage is about to make that doubling every year or so. And typically data becomes less used over time. So we have a reducing cost to pay out of each chunk stored.

Another is that the buffer the coin supply provides to allow time for coins farmed to be spent and for hoarded coins to be eventually used.

Another is that as issued coins increase so the coin issuance success rate reduces on farming attempts.

As farming attempts success rate drop so will the fiat value of the coin rise. So then does the value of the farmed coins. It is expected that this will at least make up for the reduced coin issuance but experience shows that typically the fiat value will rise faster than the farming scarcity does.

And a few more dynamics are there too.

As you can see it is a very dynamic economic system and a number of balancing effects occur that cannot/does not exist in that USSR example. Which BTW did not occur as simple as that. It still only cost the same to make as sold since everything else was keep the same, and not the real reason their economics failed.

Obviously the algorithms for putcost and farming rate have to reasonable, they don’t have to be perfect

3 Likes

do you by any chance know, what is going to happen if users send data to each other (as shown in the very early “lifestuff”-demo-video)?

Also lets not forget SAFE coin value :slight_smile:

If you want to send a video to a friend then you send the datamap (or link to the datamap) of the video. Cannot copy a file to another person’s account, the copy is the datamap, the chunks are not put again.

Messages use the SD objects for small messages and datamap to large data/messages. SDs cost nothing to rewrite.

Also I believe that archive nodes need to be figured out before we can claim long-term viability of the Network…

2 Likes

so, just to clarify this, practically giving someone access to a file won’t cost additional safecoins? neither the sender, nor the receiver.

1 Like

Only the very first time you send messages. And that is to create the messaging SD for your inbox/outbox.

It will cost 1 put value. Only need a coin if your account_balance of puts drop to zero.

So if you regularly send datamaps then typically it will cost no puts or coins. (only the first message ever)

Now if you bundled up a number of datamaps into a file and stored them you pay for the put cost of the chunks needed to do that and you send the datamap for that file for free.

Have I confused you further?

tl;dr send datamaps via messaging is free

2 Likes

How effective do you think that would end up being? (just looking for you to expand on what you’re thinking about here)

I am thinking of a library of say old movies I love. Or books, Or cat vids

And I didn’t want to spend the time to send 100 messages. It might cost 0.0001 dollars to make that library. Maybe only 1000th the cost too

1 Like

Convenience fee. Got it.

1 Like

But thinking about it, its really just a sub-directory rather than a file with a datamap of the subdirectory. I gather that is costing too to make directory structures. About the same as a file.

The advantage of the library of datamaps stored in a file is that I can share just the library without worrying if I added a file I don’t want to share with a friend.

But a disadvantage is that if it’s ImmutableData then you can’t remove one if it’s outdated or you otherwise don’t wish to share it in the future.

Also, I remember that @dirvine said that it would not cost anything to rearrange files in or out of a directory structure as long as they are on the Network already. He didn’t say how in technical terms, but that was the goal.

1 Like

I think we should throw out this argument and run any simulations without it. I grant that this has held true for some time - however for those of us who have studied the fiat game run by sociopathic banksters, it is very clear that rampant deflation is currently eroding and eventually going to destroy competition and create mega-monopolies … when this period of deflation is ended, mass price inflation will come into play and the new monopolies will not keep prices low, nor will they have any incentive to spend big bucks on R&D - as big-money entrepreneurs (future competition) will be almost non-existent for a decade or more after the crash. In short, I think it is more than likely that prices per TB will stagnate or even move dramatically higher within a decade (as priced in the fiat they are sold in).

2 Likes

This is a result of advancements in technology and not economic. It is not included in any simulations that I have attempted. But is just a fact of life/technology and factors into the cost to the farmer. Also the ability to store more next year than this year.

The foreseeable future has already had the majority of R&D spent. A lot is spent years before it is viable to sell. 1000x times the cost to discover the science and prove it then to produce it.

History is a great teacher and its is unlikely to fail in the foreseeable near future of a few years.

If we take the view of collapse then are we going to lose the internet before SAFE takes off???

You have to assume a level of technology will still exist and grow.

tl;dr none of my simulations have used the cheaper space. Because that is more for the farmer costs which is considered/targeted at the spare capacity use model and so cannot be a cost input to the models.

Also this “collapse” has been coming for every decade of my >1/2 century of life

3 Likes

I fail to see how you can separate the two.

Granted, but the implemetation of that research doesn’t have to follow … and it won’t unless there is competition - history is a great teacher here too.

This view makes no sense to me … the internet is established technology. Certainly it will become unaffordable for many during collapse and for some time after, but to think that the internet will be lost? I don’t understand.

Why? Looking at moore’s law with regard to processing speed we can see that this doesn’t hold true … there are limits in our physical world. As you move from a triangle to a circle the wheel gets better and better … but the return on investment into rounder wheels has limits … so does research into processor power and also with storage density.

That’s good to hear. I hope that this fixed storage cost is workable without this assumption. How did you do your sims and are they available somewhere?

It’s a matter of interest rates and the Basel banking regs which are affecting the money supply in the consumer economy and the ongoing mass transfer of real property from the poor to the elite (e.g. loan defaults, lack of credit). This process has been deliberately slow so as to prevent people from understanding what is going on and how they are being screwed to the wall. History is a good guide though and you can lookup real honest historical inflation data ( I suggest http://www.shadowstats.com/ ) to gain a good understanding of how things are moving along. You can also study the consolidation of the mega-industries to see how that is progressing. Lastly you may study how banks are moving toward negative interest rates soon and from that you’ll be able to see that they are working to restructure economies in dramatic fashion now as people generally have lost the economic means to fight against them. Japan is leading the way here.

I am very hopefull that the SAFEnetwork and SAFEcoin can give people an new way forward as the banksters continue to pillage society and industry alike. It’s going to be an uphill battle IMO as we will have to educate many people.

Oh well then don’t worry because I don’t use it in my simulations anyhow

As to the internet, without technology advances, and these more complex than disk storage, the internet will fail under the ever increasing load. Literally it will fall over itself. When you load up the links to 100% capacity the normal error rate on packets mount up and slow everything down.

The traffic is increasing faster than disk storage increase and without very expensive R&D the advancements will not come and the internet will have to have severe limits on users bandwidths as the load causes lag to go through the roof and error rates to increase causing further delays.

So if what you say happens then forget SAFE which absolutely needs bandwidth.

ISPs need the disk space for normal operations so they will suffer if disk sizes don’t increase.

The world data systems will overload without the increase in disk space capacity, every company that relies on any disk space will suffer without disk space increasing to cater for the ever increasing demand for storage.

If anything the remaining R&D budgets for so many projects would be diverted to bandwidth and storage R&D because they are the 2 R&D areas that are the most essential for the ever increasing needs of data storage and communications, which the world now relies on for its existence.

TL;DR
kill R&D for disk storage and watch the world grind to a halt, literally

As to physical limits there is a few decades yet before we reach that then there will be technology to overcome those physical limits because of the new science/physics used. I have been in this industry for 4 decades now.

1 Like

I don’t understand how this affects or improves the long-term viability of the network.

I don’t understand how this affects or improves the long-term viability of the network. It might reduce the cost of GET’s, but not the cost of storing the data in the first place. If my old hard drive is dying, I will need to spend money and replace it, even if nobody has done a GET against that data in the last 20 years.

Unless I am missing some insane technological advance here, the “dedup” argument is missing the fact that many videos are uploaded in ways that result in an almost identical experience for the viewer, but there are still differences in the resulting file. If my video deletes the first 0.5 seconds of the original, it is no longer the same file, and dedup probably won’t recognize the overlapping areas as being identical. Especially once that file is cut into chunks. By the way, how does dedup scale as the number of files on the network keeps increasing? A dedup is essentially a search for a matching file through the distributed database that is the SAFE network. This may work with a thousand, a million or even a billion stored files (although I am having my doubts at billion), but what about trillions? Just attempting to dedup each new PUT would quickly overwhelm the bandwidth of the network.

Some people here have already brought up objections to this argument. Another one would be that it isn’t enough that storage costs decrease on average. They would need to decrease at a pretty continuous rate for this to be beneficial to the network. Otherwise, a sudden decrease in cost would result in over-capacity and a drop in storage price, which would lead to that storage being filled up rather quickly, and then the benefit to the network will be negated for the period of technological stagnation that followed that sudden advance.

I don’t understand how this affects or improves the long-term viability of the network.

If the value of coins rises, then this will just make using the SAFE network more expensive, which is exactly what I predict will happen in the long run, as the network finds itself dragging along all that stale (garbage) data.

The production cost in Roubles may have been lower than the resale value in Roubles, since both were government mandated, but the personal cost in time and effort to the worker was more than their reward for producing the good, which is why they did not produce much, and the store shelves were empty. An oversimplification, obviously, but this is what analogies typically are…

the point here is that the cost of carrying around the old garbage data that nobody needs will either have to be carried by the new/current users, who will probably just defect to another network instead, or by the farmers, who will stop farming once the cost of farming meets or exceeds the profits (except for a few altruists, maybe).

1 Like

Yes, but supply and demand … if things get bad demand will drop off as ISP and providers will have to put up prices. Personally I can’t see how the internet would go down … I do see that many will have to due with less or even none of it during and for some time after the collapse. Higher costs and lower demand will cause many providers to choke and die too, but major one’s will continue I think - they have lots of money – e.g. ebay, paypal, google.

EDIT: and given lower usage, bandwidth will not go up price much if at all given existing infrastructure. So IMO SafeNet should be fine for those who can afford a connection.