Safenetwork sustainability concerns - Bandwidth has an ongoing cost however Safenetwork is a pay once, benefit forever model

I think there’s a misunderstanding, I am a bit confused now, anyway I removed that part the argument still remains.

You know that’s not the case! That’s just one of my proposals, you got to stop assuming all these things about me, but anyway, at least it may explain a bit about why you were quite against me. My intention is simply to bring up the potencial issues and let community come up with some solutions. And the one i have come up indeed have those consequences, but that’s because I am not smart enough to come up with others OKAY? So please help contribute if you can too. I would like the network to be up and running forever and have minimal setbacks as much as you’d like to.

Ok you obviously didn’t read the part of what I said about all the other benefits…

So be it, since you really can’t seem to understand where I’m coming from and at least some of the essence behind my arguments, but at least understand that my intentions are simply to make the network better and try not argue against everything I say unconditionally(which you seem to be doing)

As you say, they are your assertions. You own them. Therefore, you need to provide arguments for them. In fact, I see a lot of arguing and repeating of your assertions, but I see little actual argument for your assertions. If you bring something to the table, expect people to interrogate the owner of them.

It is significant to the same degree as any lifeboat scenario. If you are not in or likely to be in a lifeboat squabbling over food/water, it is all academic though.

Or it could just be that we have thought about the problem for years, digested it, understood the technology and the approach chosen. Thus, we have concluded that your assertions have some validity, but there is no compelling argument for them occurring (you haven’t even presented one!).

What? If everyone did just that, there would be new data perpetually being added to the network!



So, Safe Net has become obsolete (uneconomic, unreliable)… rent will not save it. Just move your files to the new fancy pants network. You are hardly likely to start paying rent on an obsolete network, that you already thought you had persistent storage on. It just isn’t logical.

1 Like

If everyone did that IN DIFFERENT TIMES, if everyone did that at the SAME time then no. So this network then obviously relies on new people keep on doing that, we can never stop doing that otherwise all our data may be at stake.

Yes well could be so also, well said.

First, thank you :slight_smile:

Second, I’m a little confused, I’ve presented my philosophical arguments regarding how a network SHOULD be able to sustain itself when people are using it, and philosophically it shouldn’t be even POSSIBLE for people to use it while the network die at the same time. It does not make sense to me. Could you please help by maybe giving ME an EXAMPLE of a compelling argument that you said I should come up with?

So in that case though, what would make safecoins valuable? You’re then giving people FREE data storage? Both storing AND downloading? Why would safecoins be even needed? Isn’t that worse than the current one? Plus it makes safecoin no longer a store of value…

Compare with Bitcoin where the coins have value, not because huge miners are burning up massive amounts of electricity, but because of the service the system provides. I started a thread about this: Reducing Safecoin inflation over time

The prices we are talking here will be tiny. I pay for 100 GB for £1.59 a month with Google. I make that about £0.000016 per MB. Given a photo is about 3 MB, or about £0.000047. About 5p for 1000 photos! If Safe Net is in the same ball park as Google (reasonable to assume, IMO), the costs are super low. Not only that, but you will only pay for what you use with Safe Net, rather than what your total allocation is (which Google do well out of me on to - I use a fraction of it!).

A small one off fee to store all your photos forever would be appealing to many (me at least). I would also be happier storing more sensitive data, which I just don’t trust cloud providers with.

We will have to wait to see how the numbers pan out, but there is plenty of cause for optimism. This post would have cost about £0.00000002!

1 Like

Naturally… time is a dimension we have the luxury of enjoying.

Why on Earth would you expect everyone to upload everything at the same time?

You haven’t presented an argument as to why your assertions would both occur. You have just asserted that without new data, the network cannot sustain itself. Why would there be no new data, given a reliable and economic network?


I don’t think a rental model would do anything to help either and would be damaging to the network for all the reasons stated earlier and the fact that storage is cheap and storing old data becomes cheaper and cheaper with time, so I can’t really see any scenario where the actual storage costs are any issue at all.

If, however, at some point PUT costs rise to what many would feel is unreasonably high, if for example large amounts users download extreme amounts of data without uploading almost anything, then perhaps a subscription model could be added.

A subscription model would be a subscription for getting a certain amount of data, not for storing it, for example pay a certain amount of safecoins (would be decided by the network) so perhaps you’d pay the equivalent of 10$ a month to download up to 10 terabytes per month or whatever. There would be extra complexity to this though, the network would need some algorithm for calculating a subscription price, it would need to keep track of the number of GET requests each user do to ensure they don’t go over the limit. Paying per GET request might seem unreasonable for many users and they might feel that using SAFE would be too expensive, but paying a small amount every month is something people already do for broadband subscription, netflix etc. Since there’s currently no time concept in the network it could also be buying a data package, like you can do on mobiles, you can pay some amount for a certain amount of data. I think that the amount you’d have to pay would in any case be low enough that it wouldn’t be a problem. I think most people will in any case pay for using SAFE. Most likely extremely few would be using SAFE exclusively for read only access, much of normal usage of web apps include storing some data, like clicking like or favorite when reading something or whatever. I think if people would have to pay a miniscule amount for GET requests basically, it wouldn’t really change who’s paying, it would just make it so that people who are uploading lots of data will to a lesser degree subsidize people who are downloading lots of data without uploading that much.

This will not increase PUT costs. What increases PUT costs is massive amount of PUTs without increased vault space

Removing the notion that the network does not track you. Of necessity the network now has to keep tabs on you

The current proposal is simple and nicely keeps the benefits of SAFE. to have rental or subscription removes some of the benefits SAFE has worked so hard to incorporate inherently

I see what you mean now, thank you again, for clarifying. :slight_smile:

Ok, first, i can’t present any argument against why no new data will be generated, other than the end of the universe, or mankind at least.

However, new data being generated doesn’t necessarily affect the safenetwork, it’s new data being generated THEN people pay for those new data being stored on the safenetwork that’s more relevant, and I can present some arguments for why no new data will be stored on the Safenetwork specifically, a case would be that there are other better networks out, another case could be some bug/seriously security glitch happened where someone could generate an infinite amount of safecoins(like it happened with Bitcoin) and everyone stopped using it. It could also be that someone figured out how to filter safenetworks traffic specifically and block it, and maybe there are content on the safenetwork that’s bad enough that every ISP decided to block access to safenetwork.

Those scenarios are quite unlikely, of course, because they’re arguing for a scenario where no new data will ever be stored on the safenetwork after people have already used it for a period of time. But thing you should realise is, with the current model, there are several other scenarios that can affect the network.

  1. it can affect the network enough if simply the amount of new data being stored on the safenetwork suddenly surged then dropped or simply dropped rapidly, while the value of safecoin remained relatively constant or decreased, and bandwidth costs remained relatively constant or increased, during that same period.

Scenarios where this could happen : After people migrate the current existing data onto the safenetwork, if the marketing of safenetwork is done aggressively, events happening in the world, aka during Olympics, there may be several other events, causing people to suddenly store new data, then afterwards the demand suddenly drops. Value of safecoin increasing exponentially making the safenetwork gain huge traction then the safenetwork having a down fall because of a relatively large security breach of either the network or an exchange etc etc. Financial crisis, nuclear war, a much better network and marketed aggressively. (you can come up with scenarios yourself too)

How would this affect the network : This would affect the network because the farmers will end up quitting and affect the data redundancy of the network, hence perceived reliability of the network for future storers of data.

  1. it can also affect the network if the amount of new data being stored on the safenetwork dropped slowly, while the value of safecoin remained relatively constant or decreased, and bandwidth costs remained relatively constant or increased, during that same period.

Scenarios where this could happen : After people migrate the current existing data onto the safenetwork, if the marketing of safenetwork is done slowly. A better network came out, a declining population(could happen sometime in the future, as Earth can only sustain so many people), people not really caring about privacy, security or censorship as unhackable systems come out, or better encryption mechanisms come out, or as people like the government more, they may shift their perspectives towards these things. Safecoin value can also suddenly reduce due to pump and dumps.

How would this affect the network : This would affect the network because the farmers will end up quitting and affect the data redundancy and growth of the network.

Of course the exact same time would be impossible, I don’t expect that, I’m simply saying it to more explicitly highlight the potencial pitfall. Because while they won’t do it at the exact same time, the demand of storing new data onto the network can come in waves, even due to random chance, or other events happening in the world. You may have a lot of people storing a lot of data for a year, perhaps even as the value of safecoin increases and it gets more traction as I mentioned before etc followed by a prolonged bear market and loss of interest. The network isn’t too equipped to handle waves of new surge in demand for data then little demand for storage new data for a while.

And like i said, even if we assume the new data being stored on the network is consistent through time(this is unlikely BTW). there is still the problem of the networks growth aka farmers payments being only limited by the storage of new data, which only makes 1/2 out of the major usage scenarios of the network, the other one being, of course, accessing existing data on the network. Making a way to make the network grow as more people are using it is definitely a good way to go anyway, as it helps the network grow more steadily and reliably and more resistant to possible setbacks due to less or unstable demands in just one potencial usage of the network(aka storing new data), so that the people demanding and enjoying the other usage of the network(i.e. accessing existing data), can remain much less affected in such scenarios i outlined, and any other possible scenarios.

Currently, the network can only grow or remain relatively stable in two ways : demand of storing new data is consistent throughout(then let the decrease in the cost of storage and increase in the value of safecoins do the job) OR the demand for storing new data on the safenetwork is ALWAYS increasing, both of which i think is unlikely.

Demand for storage of new data would likely come in waves due to reasons i described, and if you think the demand to store new data on the network is going to ALWAYS increase, you REALLY need to think again, it’s so likely that it’s not going to be true. It’s VERY common for any new or existing and even old technologies/companies, successful people, anything you can name, to experience pitfalls and setbacks, during which(in the case with the safenetwork) the demand to store new data onto the safenetwork will be set to a bear trend, during such trends, existing data could be seriously at stake, it will give a bad name to the safenetwork in general. It may be perceive to become less reliable than just having your own USB and putting it in Google drive, once a set back occurs and people reports they lost extremely important personal data, it’ll be on the media. Setting mechanisms in place to prevent these things from occurring i think is going to be a major contributor to the networks longevity and success.

You have no valid arguments.
You are repeating a statement that there is a problem, and repeated that your idea of a solution to it is needed, when several people have quite elaborately shown that it is not a problem (you have agreed that it was based on a highly unlikely scenario), and explained why the solution would not be good. You take no impression of this, and so you are effectively saying that you are right. You don’t need to play so naïve to not understand that.
You have also been flexible eventually, to your credit, but why do you keep clinging to a conclusion based on the unrealistic scenario?

That you are centre of world, no you did not use those words. It was a pointy remark to the general behavior of considering everyone that contradict you to be misunderstanding you. It is a very classical thing to do.
And so, yes, that is then a meta discussion. We inevitably get to it when someone is insisting on proclaiming the importance of something based on an unrealistic scenario, instead of moving the discussion on with reasoning and logic. I.e. when you keep repeating conclusions based on an artificial scenario.
You see, it raises the question what your motivation for doing this is.

So, “only bringing up some potential issues” for discussion? That is a very generous interpretation of “potential”. When the likelihood is so low, that it is only potential if imagining an unrealistic scenario, what do you wish to achieve by, not only bringing, but also keeping it up for discussion?

It is very close to spreading misinformation. That is why your behavior is being questioned generally, also after all your arguments have been thoroughly dissected. And that is why I’m intervening here.

There has been plenty of patience with it. But when it borders to spreading misinformation, well, then you are stretching the limits for what the forum is intended for.
Naturally, anyone doing this would be very squirming about it, constantly reassuring the good intentions, as to be allowed to keep spreading the misinformation.
Now, you have it all in your hands how you want the discussion to continue, if you want to research and contribute, or just keep proclaiming unsupported ideas.
You are putting a lot of energy and time into proclaiming something that you yourself is saying is not very likely.
I see it as either you are more concerned of spreading the idea that there is a problem, or you need to sort out your priorities. (I mean, why are you spending so much time with a non-question?).

And all of the above is the answer to this question below. Except, you do not need to act victim, because you are not being attacked as person. Plainly speaking: Your bs is called. What you do is seen and confronted. Totally different story, and you cannot hide behind playing a victim, because we are talking about your behavior here - which is always a valid subject when you are interacting with people. But naturally, you’d be squirming about it. I have not expected less.

You can still change how it is seen by simply not keeping to announce a problem based on an unrealistic scenario OR just detail why the scenario would not be unrealistic. Your choice really. It is completely normal stuff.

See there, clinging to “if everyone did this”. Again, is that likely? No. So what are we discussing?
We could, if that would make you happy, all say that: Yes, if the unrealistic scenario was realistic, then yes, the conclusion would be correct. Maybe this is all you are looking for?
Already in the first posts it was stated: The network will be used both for gets and puts (only being used for gets is not a realistic scenario) - and if not, then it is simply not being used. And yes, if the network is not being used it will be dead. It is a problem in the same way that if I am dead, I will be dead. Yep.


Hey, have a read of my last post. @traktion has helped me improve my arguments a bit

Well that’s better.
There are still a lot of unfounded assertions though. The jumps to the conclusions are really far. I do not have time to reply to it now.

But, generally, it is a really good thing that you are looking to find problems. It’s just, this important piece of filtering (it needs judgement), and concentrating on the things with higher probability, would really be a lot better.

Because not only is it waste of time to go too deep into the unrealistic scenarios, it is also bordering to spread misinformation about potentiality of problems.


So there’s the whole thing of safecoin inflation here that will pay for much of this and I’m not sure how much will be paid by that versus PUTs, but inflation plus the PUT cost is supposed to include the cost of downloading the file for all eternity. If, at some point, farmers have to start paying for bandwidth because ISPs get tired of a large number of people farming and sending lots of data and lots of people are downloading large amounts of data without paying anything, then couldn’t PUT costs potentially increase unfairly for some users as they would need to subsidize downloads?

It wouldn’t have to track anything other than the number of GET requests you do would it? It could be something like a counter for GET requests connected to your profile that the network would update unless it was just pay per GET which would just grab some safecoins from a specified wallet every time you send a GET request. I don’t see why paying for a GET request would necessarily imply any more tracking than paying for a PUT request would.

Yes, but consider the average Joe and soccer mom users. First they need to get hold of safecoins, and even if they get some for free when signing up for an account, there’s a big hurdle and hassle for ordinary users to have to deal with safecoins even when the storage is dirt cheap.

Also consider how cheap it is to store photos on the cloud today which means that many storage providers will likely in a near future offer lots of free storage, enough for most cases of storing all personal data.

It’s really difficult to make people change their habits, and especially if they have to switch from a free service to another service where they have to pay for the storage.

1 Like

We don’t need everyone to store stuff on safe net. It just needs a value proposition to convince those with sufficient understanding to make a choice.

For new users, inviting your friends and gifting them a pound/dollar of safecoin would probably help the network grow, without spam issues, etc.

Seems like a good time to line some ducks up in a row rather than run in circles chasing a single goose (ie chasing the idea that farming income and thus network growth is limited by new data and only new data).

What factors will farmers look at when deciding to join / stay / leave the network?

  • Safecoin Supply

    The current supply of safecoin, as well as the change in supply over time will be a significant factor. This is affected by

    • PUTs of new data requires users to spend their safecoin, increasing the supply of available safecoins.

    • GETs and Farming Rate determines the rate at which coins are claimed by farmers, decreasing the supply of available safecoins.

  • Exchange Rate

    The ability of the safecoin reward for farming to be exchanged for the costs depends on

    • the exchange rate of safecoin as measured in the currency of the bills

    • exchange infrastructure being accessible and not censored etc.

    Less safecoin is needed to pay for costs if the exchange rate is high. But the reward may not cover the fees if the exchange rate is low and farming becomes unviable. The only option farmes have is to lower their costs. This may possibly be as extreme as stopping farming altogether, but improving inefficiency in existing farming operations might be adequate.

  • Initial Costs

    The cost of equipment to get started with farming, such as a computer, internet connection, storage space, etc. This may be upfront (eg owning a computer) or ongoing (eg renting a virtual machine in the cloud).

    There’s also the initial cost of learning how to do farming. This is not trivial! Even though the action to download and start the vault software to begin farming is simple enough, actually going from not-knowing-farming-exists to being-a-farmer takes a lot of reading and effort before farming income even begins.

  • Ongoing Costs

    The cost of electricity and internet connection is an ongoing cost.

    If computer equipment is rented (eg cloud vm), this is another ongoing cost.

    Expanding storage space may be another, ie growth of the farming operation.

    Ongoing time commitment to upgrading, continued learning, making informed decisions, improving efficiency, etc.

    Inconvenience may be another ongoing cost. For example if your vault experiences heavy churn while you’re trying to stream a video on the youtube, this could cause a lot of buffering or lowering of resolution etc, which is a cost (but not directly economical).

  • Externalities

    Farmers will make the decision to farm (or not) based on how useful they find the network, both to themselves and to others. Factors in this judgement include

    • the performance of the network (does downloading a picture take too long?)

    • the durability of the network (do files ever go missing?)

    • the political situation of competing networks and data storage, eg privacy

    • the ecosystem built on top of the safe network

    • the number of other people they can collaborate with using the network, ie the network effect. The simplicity of the user experience is a major factor in the growth of this variable.

    The non-economic value of the network is a major contributor to farmer participation, but can be extremely variable between individual farmers and as time progresses.

These factors will be different for every farmer. Sustainability of farming is not an absolute. Sometimes it will be sustainable for one farmer but not another. It’s great to try to maximise the sustainability, but this can’t be done without a decent understanding of how the system incentives interact with each other. Focusing on a single incentive is the opposite of sustainable design.

@foreverjoyful, I think the onus is on you to demonstrate why these other factors would not act in the reverse direction and increase the sustainability of the network to the point where it can sustain itself.

Of the listed variables, I would say there are two that strongly argue against a rental model: performance of the network, and the simplicity of the user experience (ie the number of other people using the network). But this is merely conjecture (as is the original argument) so can’t be proven or disproven.


Sorry I was only thinking of network costs and not $$$.

But AU ISPs have already been through the P2P bandwidth issue and learnt to live with extremely high P2P usage upto 75% in some cases and are again increasingly offering unlimited quota AGAIN.

Thats a lot in and of itself. But Microsoft tried the subscribe to the internet thing (MSN) in the mid 90’s and it failed and failed badly. Paying to browse (the “web”) has not worked and I doubt it could ever.

Actually, it may well act in the reverse direction. But again that’s not the point I’m trying to make. I have outlined in my previous post, that the safenetwork with current design needs these factors to ALWAYS act in the reverse direction, boosting its sustainability for it to not have problems. If those factors act in the other direction once in a lifetime, then the network will potentially have problems.