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


#244

I hope this was an idea for user selected “temp” class uploads.

To have a recurring cost would be unneeded. If they want it past the temp class timeframe then its really permanent.

To have a recurring cost adds a lot of code to the core and requires a constant checking of billions pieces of data to see if rent should be paid. Plus the attack surface is increased because of the increased code and complexity.

And I still contend according to all I’ve explained above that there will be no need for deletions past the initial stages of the network. Storage is going to explode greater than the 10x in 5 years and bandwidth has been increasing at over 2 times per year and this is supported by the current trends, current research and current industry indications for decade(s)


#245

I follow this thread from the beginning and I am getting stronger and stronger feeling, you are just a troll. Sorry. I really appreciate neo’s patience with you and I would recommend him not to continue wasting his time.

Please read this thread again, all of your proposals were already considered. Before you start spamming again, please read following again. If the reason of Safenet existence is abilitiy to own your online data, pay once - own forever is the only solution. Otherweis you are just renting the data storage. Hough


#246

Well no people may not be able to afford full prices upfront even, and they might want to only have their data for an unbeknownst period of time to them, they don’t know how long they will need it, it could be something they need to host for 3 months for an upcoming event.

And it may be data that they may only value for a period of time. They may really liked a photo then after ten years be like, nah, i would rather just save it on my USB offline and get some safecoins etc. Who knows!


#247

I don’t think i have time for trolling, i’d much rather be doing something else trust me :slight_smile: And what do you mean my proposals were considered? Did you read how i simply said this can be a potential problem and I’m simply bringing this up for the community to think of ideas together?

Do people hold a negative view just because I’m bringing up potencial problems? So far my arguments haven’t been all defeated, the points I’m making are still valid. This pay once and service forever model is a brand new model and NEVER done in history, and hence questioning the sustainability of it is what everyone should be doing actually, not pointing fingers at people doing that and call them trolls. If you don’t leave your models open to discussions to the entire community, how can you improve?


#248

What do you think the community SHOULD be doing instead @lubinew? Just say Safenetwork is the best thing out there and buy maidsafetokens and no one sells so everyone will be rich?

Or critically thinking and helping improve the network and the technology?


#249

I really think your arguments were defeated. Anyway there is no absolute true so maybe your arguments are really valid and only stupid me assumes they are invalid.


#250

Well some may be, just the one where i said new data stored will still be a limiting factor to the networks growth. And the network will eventually die off with no new data. @neo said no new data mean no one using the network therefore it should die anyway, which i said is untrue, there could well be people just want to maintain access to their old data.

Also philosophically it is kinda strange for you to pay once and get benefit from other people’s payment, it’s like a ponzi not for money but for new data(which costs money in the form of safecoins). It needs NEW data stored constantly feeding it to help the old data survive. Yes, you can have people who farm even if they lose money, but never the less, if most for-profit farmers quit, it’ll significantly effect everyone’s data. It’s actually a serious issue that shouldn’t be overlooked, as the consequences of doing so is everyone losing their data on the network, or at least some people losing their data.


#251

Okay, I get your point and you are right that following statement is not true: “no new data mean no one using the network”. But let me say something that I think neo wanted to say: “If nobody is uploading means nobody is willing to pay means network is dead”. Which is true!

Now you normally say we should figure out how to ensure the access to old data for those who already uploaded if the eventuality where nobody is uploading happens. I think it’s not necessary, people will upload… :slight_smile:

Or you say we should figure out how to motivate people to upload… I thing it’s not necessary, there is a lot motivation already.

If you disagree with me, I would recommend you to go back to the beginning of this thread and read how much motivation is around to upload on the network in the long-term. A lot!


#252

Although people support the products they use. For instance those that use dropbox for their files are actually uploading files to it.

Also the quote was selective. The quote I was making is almost no new data AND was not instant dying, but dying off over time. And in the sense that human nature is such that if people are not storing data on a storage system then they are not going to use that storage system. WHY - because they are storing their data elsewhere and no longer using SAFE. They also will most likely move any previously uploaded data to their new preferred storage system so they don’t have to keep swapping between the two when wanting to retrieve their data.

And the exceptions to the normal situation only verifies the general rule of human nature.

Exactly. Also if we make things complex then people will ignore it.

Renting data storage is a lot more complex than just saying “pay to upload it and its there, no more to pay”

And if we say OH you have to pay for downloading data, or visiting web sites because its bandwidth usage and you have to pay to upload data and then you have to make sure you pay the rental for each chunk. Then considering each chunk will have different timestamps so the rental payment has to be done for each chunk at its exiry time. That is such a complex system that people will say “stuff it” I’ll just use dropbox and pay the monthly fee, even if its many times the cost.


#253

It is not a ponzi and you will earn little respect here by trying to suggest it is. For clarity, there is no unsustainable transfer of wealth from new to old users.

Instead, it is much closer to how state pensions are funded; they take the tax of today to pay the pensioners of today. If no one worked (created new data) then pensioners would starve (network would decay). However, there is always a steady stream of new borns growing up and then earning and paying taxes, which keeps the pensioners sheltered and fed.

Safe net has the added bonus that old data becomes less of a burden over time, to such an extent that decade old data is inconsequential.


How does state pensions compare with a ponzi scheme
#254

No its not. Do you understand how ponzi works?

Its pay once. No returns no profit, no nothing. The network can continue without further uploads if people are willing to run nodes with smaller farming rewards since the coins are being created without any being returned.

This is just going in circles and circles

This can be over many years since the network can still pay rewards (reducing) for a couple of decades


#255

6 posts were split to a new topic: How does state pensions compare with a ponzi scheme


How does state pensions compare with a ponzi scheme
#257

So Dropbox will die if no new customers?)(Obviously assuming existing customers don’t drop put to make it fair) I don’t think so


#258

Did I say it was a ponzi? I simply said it was like a ponzi for data…


#259

I received a pre paid account with my phone years ago. I still have the account and don’t pay a penny for it. It is brimmed with backups if photos and videos too. In short, I just paid once and have storage for as long as Dropbox allows it.


#260

Word games. Don’t say it if you don’t mean it.


#261

Um… No… There are profits in ponzi. Some people make good money with it. And the coin supply is limited my friend… Anyway, Look, Not the point. I think we should all try to think from the others perspective. Because I feel like you’re not even trying to understand this issue. Why don’t we do this, let’s switch positions, everyone who have been arguing against me try to come up with a few arguments for potential problems with the current model. While I and those who agree there may be a potential problem try to think of some ways of why the problem may not be a problem after all.

I’ll start first, cos I have been thinking actually about the future if it stays as is :

  1. Website owners can make money from other sources. Like for example you can have a Google or Facebook on the safenetwork making money with advertising. They(especially Facebook) will pay for people to share a status on the safenetwork.(because let’s face it, honestly no one will pay to share a status on social media)

  2. App developers such as game developers can also make money and pay for all the uploads to safenetwork for its users. 1 and 2 basically says that revenue can be from other sources such as advertising and sales rather than simply people wanting to store their data. Simply their usage of the network produces profits which then go back to helping and encouraging people to upload more data more subsidising all their cost.

  3. There will be some people to will pay no matter what the cost is to use the network for its features such as not being censored or shut down.

  4. People would use safe coin as store of value also which means value of it will go up, exciting more farmers to get on it even if they may make very little profits, break even, or loss during some months. If they believe that in the future safe coin will go up in value they would want to earn and hold it anyway.

  5. Something that may not be imagined would significantly help the network and make much more data being stored on it. This is like ethereum, most of its value is due to the Ico craze but no one predicted(or at least definitely not majority of people) that it’ll raise to $300 this quickly and icos will go this crazy raising $200 million per round!

Anyway. I challenge you guys to also come up with some arguments for the opposing side. So you can better understand it too.


#262

But with that said I also have another proposal. What if we gave an option when people store. One is they choose to pay 100% to store the data forever. Another one, is they pay 1% of the value they’d otherwise pay to store it, it can be forever as well, however, they pay that amount recurring monthly. As soon as payments stop, data gets deleted.

How many people do you think will choose the latter? I think quite a few! As they can probably leave their computer on continuously to make let’s say 10 safe coins per month, but that’s only enough to store let’s say 10GB. But they wanna store 100GB, so if they choose that option of paying monthly, which works perfectly for them, as they’ll be able to store 100 times as much data and for free too since they will be able to make the safe coins back every month, by contributing to the network every month. I think this way will also get more contributors to the network as people will try to look to store their data for free on the network. And those of you that want a data stored on their permanently won’t be affected. Both are available. Everyone is happy! :slight_smile: (oh and keep in mind those who are paying recurring can upgrade any time but their previous payments won’t count towards the payment, that way, we also will get more coins returned to the network in general)


#264

Paying monthly (weekly / daily / hourly) could cause problems, the bigger, the shorter the period is. Let’s say somebody paid one month and then let the data erase. On one hand, it surely creates free space after its erased, but on the other, there is the same upload work and additional extra erase work for a network . User paid 1% of the forever-cost, but caused costs which are higher than 1% of forever-cost. This is another possible attack vector. Doing uploads for a short periods in massive scale would be like tunelling the network


#265

Well exact costs can be worked out later but that’s just a suggestion. Also what do you mean by erase work? there isn’t really much erase work…

Also, the uploader of the data will not only pay for storage but pay for bandwidth to upload the data, surely, if that’s an attack vector all dropbox and google drive would be out of business… i’m sure there’s many people wanting to attack them…