Because I was not addressing that but the issue of your charging people to simply browse. You talk of others debating better, then you had better also rise to the occasion and not use cheap tricks to dismiss someone trying to educate you about the network.
Once they are updating *anything* then they have a SAFE account and have at least bought one coin’s worth of resource. With that one coin they can update facesuck pretty much as many times they want for the next decade or two.
They are already paying their internet provider to access the internet and if they want to upload (or update facesucky) then they know it will cost.
So browsing being free covers the billion or more of people who never upload anything, never write to social media or write to forums. Which is BTW one of the stated goals of the network to provide FREE information to the world. As opposed to the millions (maybe billion) who “write” to some part of the internet.
Again though for those who do “write” to the internet how many are just/mostly doing their banking, the odd update to social media, and emailing??? I suggest that most are only doing that and the one coin to set up their account will last them for years to decades.
So its on a different level to having to set up an account just to browse and the overheads for the code and farmers with this will be higher than the simple pay once forever store which is the cheapest method.
That doesn’t even hold true for too much else. For everything it depends on what the second option is and the effects of it.
Town water. Oh lets allow a second government department (your rental system) to supply town water. This will allow them to charge by a different model and to do so they have to install infrastructure (More code and then procesing) and process the water liter by liter (check each chunk for deletion each 1/30th period) and then lay separate pipe to each house to give them the option to choose.
Now this outlandish second option is not better is it. Everyone would end up paying more in taxes and water charges. So your rental has some parallels with this in that extra code, extra processing that every farmer has to pay to run because of the higher cpu usage and disk usage. Its that miniscule amount increasing and over the whole world results in higher costs and farmer rewards would have to be just that bit higher.
Then the cost of lost data because some (many? most?) people WILL forget at some time to pay the rental on some of their data. The network is no longer seen as secure and reliable, usage will drop off. Then after they have uploaded their photos a number of times then they will be spending a lot of time just sitting there clicking to pay the rentals at the right time. Since the photo sets were uploaded at different times in the month this sitting could be 5 or 10 times for a few hours each time for every month.
Well they are going to be paying the right amount to upload from the start. THAT is what the upload cost amount/rate is ALL ABOUT. Yes I suggested it might be an idea when I read his proposal, but in reality the upload cost is all about charging enough to meet the download costs (on average over decades). While it is not a direct upload payments pay farmers, it does reduce scarcity which increases farmers rewards - in other words its a complex linkage and not a pay to upload to pay farmers. More like put your cup of water in the lake and the farmers use their cup to get water when allowed - but yes more complex and not direct linkage/parallel
I think you still don’t understand this at all. REALLY I don’t think you understand the model. You compare apples and oranges then come up with a conclusion and claim others don’t look at this from another perspective.
Its like you look at something through dark glasses and then say everyone else is not seeing it right because they use clear glasses.
Its a new model, it does not follow the dying economic model in use today. Google is sucking money out of *you* because they shape *you* through advertising and channel *you* into certain sellers, certain economic models, way of thinking. All of this makes people buy more from more expensive people and they skim off the top through the charges for advertising.
There has been considerations and as I told @foreverjoyful the discussions are somewhere in this forum. One aspect is the increased payments to farmers when resources start to drop off. And if it gets worse the payments grow and grow fast as it gets more necessary. Human nature kicks in there. But obviously if it got as bad as losing data then rental or paying to browse is not going to help much and is likely to contribute to the speed of the demise because people give up quicker the more they have to pay.
Yes of course. The network will gain future features through such a mechanism, and David even mentioned this as a priority for the upcoming alpha/test networks.