EDIT: after a long discussion with several people, I’ve come up with a shorter and simpler way to summarise the concern:
Basically my philosophy and argument simplified is this : it’s actually a valid^ deductive argument -
(^I used “valid” in a technical sense, to only mean that IF the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. CRITICAL THINKING - Fundamentals: Deductive Arguments - YouTube Here’s a video you can watch to further understand what I mean. Anyway just to clarify, valid doesn’t mean my argument is “right” or even “have any practical significance”)
Premise 1 - If people are actively using the network, then the network should be able to continue to exist and sustain itself.
Premise 2 - Only viewing existing data on the network without storing new data is considered using the network.
Conclusion - Therefore, if people only view existing data without storing new data, the network should be able to continue to exist and sustain itself.
However, the network with it’s current economical model cannot sustain itself(or would have great trouble doing so, as we’ve all previously agreed) if people only view existing data without storing new data. Hence this problem need to be considered.
I challenge anyone to falsify the premises, because if the premises are true, then by logic, the conclusion MUST be true.
LONGER VERSION of the story below: (original post )
I have a concern for the sustainability of the network as bandwidth isn’t free… so basically, the whole economy of the safenetwork i guess would depend on how much NEW data gets stored on there. But imagine if all data in the world is stored on the safenetwork and NO MORE new data is stored on there(this probably will never happen but let’s just say in a hypothetical scenario to illustrate the point that I think data on there should be able to sustain even without any new data coming in. That is, it shouldn’t have to DEPEND on people storing new data)
And, in order for farmers to continue running vaults, they’d still need to pay for bandwidth, but since safecoins only is paid when someone stores NEW data and not when data is accessed by the person who stored it(which to the farmers cost money as the farmers would have to dedicate their bandwidth, how would it be sustainable? I guess farmers will have to voluntarily donate their bandwidth even if they would lose money? Because a certain site can be as popular as YouTube on the safenetwork, not only will it require a significant amount of data storage but also bandwidth to access exisiting data.
i mean, even if new data DOES get stored on there everyday, as soon as we store everything on safenetwork lets say, the amount of new data would significantly reduce(or lets just say any event has happened that resulted in the amount of new data stored to lower significantly). Then, farmers will get paid less because less safecoins will go to the farmers, as the only come from people who want to store new data, hence increasing the cost of storing data, hence it will discourage the storing of new data further, this positive feedback loop is very dangerous for the network.
In the case with YouTube right now, it’s POSSIBLE for it to sustain if no new videos gets uploaded. But it’s IMPOSSIBLE(at least from my understanding of it so far) for the safenetwork to sustain if they had a similar website however no new videos gets uploaded.
What does maidsafe team think of this issue, and how would we address this issue?
I hope everyone genuinely understand my concerns and not treat me as if I’m trying to challenge the team. I am genuinely trying to help by discussing potentially very important issues."