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


I guess that would work to mean the viewer doesn’t ever pay.

My issues though would be

  • when the “GET” fund runs out what do you do? Charge the viewer or just not be able to access the content. Or a combination of those two?
  • Honestly do you think that many outside of big companies and people selling goods would put into those funds?
  • And then there is the complexity of the code to implement such a system.
  • And do we even need it? Using spare resources to provide free reading of data is not that expensive. The farmers who use their spare resources are paid for it and that will then provide coin that would eventually return to SAFE with people uploading their data.

Your idea is new from what I can remember, although personally I don’t think its necessary, but may solve some of the paying to view issue if it was implemented.

Not that I know of. Using the search feature or using google to search might be able to show topics that you are interested in. A lot of ideas and topics have been discussed over the years and there is a wealth of information here.


When/if the balance of the wallet associated at PUT time is depleted, GETs would be processed only if the viewer has provided a wallet and it has a sufficient balance.

It happens already in the form of hosting fees.


That probably depends on who you ask. I don’t personally believe free lunches are scalable and reliable so IMHO finding an efficient compensation model for consumption of resources is important. With operators of PUTs, community funds, and lastly readers of the resources being able to contribute funds, Safe could innovate on network resource compensation in interesting ways.

Would you be willing to hail David so he could comment on it?


what you dont realise farming happens when data is retrived not when data is putted.
think of it like this there is a large pool coins.Some assigned to user some isnt. when someone retrives data from network vaults take a chance at guessing a coin which isnt assigned to a user, if they find it they get a safecoin, if they dont its a failed attempt. So farmers are paid according to data they provide not the data stored on them!! if nobody puts data in to network and just hodls farmers will still farm because safe coins value will be too high, even with to low chance it will be profitable.
So there isnt a payment being made to farmers, because network pays them. The users pay to network.(All safe coins being assigned to someone is practically impossible)
therefore as long as there isnt a better bigger safe network, it will be fine

its only free if you grow your own food and its very scalable


Thinking about it, while the money supply is growing, no one needs to PUT anything, as rewards can come as new safecoin, rather than recycled safecoin.

It will be interesting to see how many new coins vs recycled coins are awarded. Either way, there is a disconnect between PUT paid and farmers being awarded for delivering a GET.


Just as an example for something unpredictable happens that reduced the amount of farmers. It doesn’t have to be that event specifically.

Well having a second option to do so can only be better. If they don’t want it they can simply not choose it. I don’t see how letting people choose if they want to pay less upfront but recurring or more for one time is going to be worse than only having one option of doing it one time.

You know what’s funny, when someone argued that charging people to update their status on social media I don’t see you making such arguments. You got to be a bit less biased towards specifically targeting my or other rental based proposals. You CANNOT charge people to post a snapchat or update a simple status on social media, but when I brought this up, the responses was like, oh but they can just leave their computer on and make so much more safe coins than they use! Well why don’t you also use the same argument here? If they leave their computer contributing to the network even if views are paid for people will still get it for free.

And yes, like @kellytk has said, you can also make the data uploaders themselves to pay for the views for the users, to account for the bandwidth usage. Many companies will be more than happy to do this as they’ll most likely spend a lot less money on bandwidth and security as bandwidth is mass contributed from unused ones and not centralised and hence cheaper. And they don’t need to pay high amounts for added server speed and security as safenetwork gets faster the more people that use it and is already very secure.

The current network model as is would basically ask companies like Google, who probably pays millions a month to their servers, for their bandwidth, reduancy and security, now pay $1 to have the same features. But who pays instead? Of course the farmers! This is stupid. I think @neo you are quite biased with your views supporting the current state of the network. Just like the post someone made here regarding “is safenetwork really a big deal”. Please TRY to view it from other perspectives.


Key word there. WHILE the money supply is growing. And you’re right. However this post is about long term sustainability so it doesn’t solve the problem. But I agree that new coins will help boost it get started even if there may a lack of money at the start to sustain it potentially because of the problems I brought up


Sometimes it’s not better.

I don’t understand why you’re so confident of your perspective.

Tell that to ISPs. Tell that to snapchat et al who sell user data. Tell that to advertising companies who buy the data. People pay handsomely to post their pictures and movies online, they just don’t zoom in to the ‘per post’ view.

I agree having a popup saying ‘do you want to pay to $x to post this’ every single time won’t work. But putting some money into an account and slowly dripping it away is fine. Everyone overpays for their internet now (who ever uses their full monthly data allowance? what if they also had data rollover, as safe will? what if it continually gets cheaper to post rather than more expensive, as it will with safe?)… yet nobody complains and everybody posts.

Your arguments would benefit a lot from stepping back and thinking about why you might not be right. I know you’ve claimed not to be technical, so maybe take some time to try to better understand the technical side because adding ‘features’ to track chunk rentals or timeouts or incremental payments may be possible, but if you don’t understand the technical aspect you aren’t really in a position to be saying it with such confidence.

I’d like to see an analysis (hopefully from you) of how simple or hard it is to add a rental feature to the network. Then maybe I’d be a little more convinced.


Yeah, you should also say that to paying for viewing the network.

Uh… But even if one potential solution I proposed is technically challenging, that isn’t a reason at all against how the current model is sustainable… Which is what the post is talking about…


Yes, may I also add every single website right now pays for people to be able to view them in the forms of hosting fees and server CPU/bandwidth/storage. On a recurring basis. So making them pay per view of their data would make no difference to them now and with the safenetwork, in fact, it’ll probably be much cheaper and they never have to worry about DDOS attacks or server hacks, or server scalability issues, or server being shut down or censored.

But no… the safenetwork with(potentially) the Pay the Producer model, not only not charging websites anything but paying the website for popular data. I just don’t know how well it’s going to sustain. I think my concerns are quite valid given how vastly different the model really is when you take time to think about it


Agreed. But you haven’t sufficiently argued that either a) the current model isn’t sustainable or b) the proposals are sustainable.

I have seen a lot of this sort of argument: “If miners stop mining bitcoin the bitcoin network would fail” or “if people stop sending bitcoin transactions the network will fail in the end”. Well, miners have stopped mining bitcoin at times in the past, but the network hasn’t failed. I’m not convinced about the sustainability concerns being raised. I agree it may be a concern to consider, but it may also not be. So far the argument for not being a concern seems to be far stronger.


Agreed as well, very good points BTW! Finally seeing a good debater :slight_smile: , although for a) it’s a little debatable, i’ve tried my best to outline the reasons why, how current website owners combined spend so much to maintain their servers and Safenetwork comes and basically make them spend nothing, this is in my previous post, along with all my other previous posts in this thread mainly commenting on the fact that it is DEPENDANT on NEW data and how that can be of concern, as only new data storers pay existing data storers and all data downloaders, it’s philosophically not really settling, as the whole network is dependant on the amount of new data coming in, which at some point could stop or significantly reduce(or just slowly reduce), and the demand for accessing existing data will only increase, so even if the amount of new data gets stores stays the same, but the demand to access existing data keeps on increasing over time, it may still be a problem. For b) the main concern has always been bandwidth and electricity costs of running ‘farms’, those have recurring fees, there’s no reason to argue against that isn’t sustainable, those are the models we have today, and they not only sustain but scale just fine. Only issues are data security, censorship and privacy.

You have to realise Bitcoin is fundamentally different as it has a difficulty adjustment mechanism that essentially ensures it has to have miners if Bitcoins were ever valued at even $0.001, and the amount of miners will be dependant on the value of the coin, and their mining efficiency and electricity cost, and also the amount of miners doesn’t really affect the network. You can have 99% less miners now and Bitcoin will still confirm in 10 minutes. (of course, if the miners dropped the network could be susceptible to 51% attacks which remain to this day, a concern, a big quantum computer if developer by a single cooperation could still do this attack and stuff up bitcoin, anyway, off-topic now)

The safenetwork does not have such mechanisms that adjust for adoption and sustainability as Bitcoin, hence why I am proposing, basically, the safenetwork needs to try to improve their current sustainability mechanisms. Either by changing their current econmical model, or change their adjustment mechanism when they start losing farmers and the network starts to be short on storage, charging more for storage will also make people reluctant to buy new storage on the safenetwork, which doesn’t mean farmers get paid more, contradictory to what @neo has previously said.


The SAFE NETWORK can be updated by core developers as needed. If issues arise on any level devs and the greater community will mull over potential solutions and implement them when agreed upon.

Please create a formal proposal that demonstrates a thorough understanding of the network protocol, design choices, and the impact (bandwidth overhead, code complexity, security, anonymity, etc) your proposal both negative and positive will have. We’ll go from there.

ATM you’re being orientated as you debate. Its exhausting for both spectators and participants of this thread. Be fair and do your due diligence. Return when you’re ready. Please don’t troll as would be the case if you continue prematurely.


Sure, although I’m mostly just bringing up this issue for discussion. My proposals are only basic ideas, and is up for improvement and discussion by the community.


Oh really? I am wondering, Once the real network has launched, can it still be updated without taking down the whole network first? I would like to know. Because if it can be updated as it goes without compromising everyone’s data, then I have no problem with the current model proceeding as is. As you can change it later anyway. I am only bringing it up now as I was afraid this won’t be the case.


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.


The debate is heading toward the safecoin distribution algorithm which is currently not designed, so both sides of the debate are currently theoretical. With that fairly large caveat aside, there seem to be a few points of misunderstanding.

I disagree. The sustainability is independant of new data.

Assume (dubiously) the worst case scenario where no new data is uploaded so no new coins will ever be made available for farming.

There will be some amount of coins available at that time. That amount of coins available will always be decreasing as new coins continue to be claimed via farming. But the amount available never increases because nobody is recycling the ones they have. This is something I think we both agree.

Coins from the pool of remaining coins is issued to farmers at a variable rate which adjusts intermittently, very much like the bitcoin mining difficulty rate. This is speculative, since the algorithm isn’t fully designed yet.

The wiki is old, but since the feature hasn’t been designed it’s still the most relevant info currently available. [Here’s the current idea]:

The earning rate also takes into account the rank of the Vault, a process whereby the network scores the usefulness of each node from 0 (being the worst) to 1 (the best). The safecoin farming rate is ultimately the result of the network rate, a balance of the demand and supply on the network, multiplied by the vault rank.

The network automatically increases farming rewards as space is required and reduces them as space becomes abundant.

So there is an adjustment mechanism for the rate the remaining coins are issued to farmers. This means that no matter how much the pool of available coins shrinks, there will always be some coins to farm for (even if they are almost impossible to obtain). Thus there should always be some incentive to farm (beside the obvious incentive that farming keeps your own data safe regardless of whether you’re economically rewarded or not).

This does pose a problem though: there’s no incentive for users to recycle coins (which increases the number available for farming). I think is this is the basis for your perspective that farmers depend on users spending their coins for farming to be sustainable. However, this is not true. Farmers only depend on users spending coins for the available supply of coins to increase, but that alone does not necessarily make farming unsustainable. Farming can be sustainable even if the supply of coins never increases. I would be keen to see proof of that being incorrect.

To return to a bitcoin analogy again: Newcomers to bitcoin argue the mining reward eventually being zero will kill the network since miners have no incentive to continue securing the network. The standard retort is transaction fees will sustain the network. The argument being proposed in this topic for the safe network is akin to saying ‘what if nobody transacts on the bitcoin network once it depends on transaction fees’. There’s a bigger problem than no transaction fees - ie there are no transactions! Not to say this isn’t a problem, but is it real? We can only speculate, never really know for sure, despite our best intentions.

See above for the safe network design that also has an adjustment mechanism (albeit currently not a particularly clear one).

I try to debate the ideas not the person, but the lack of understanding of this proposed mechanism really does make it hard. You need to read more about the network. The wiki article is a pretty obvious thing to have read when discussing safecoin mechanics at such length as this, so you can see why a lack of basic background work causes doubt of your intentions. If you really cared, you’d have read more.

Not true. The difficulty remains high until the next retarget. If 99% of miners have stopped mining then blocks will be extremely rare and retarget will take a very long time. What effect this has on users and the network, well, we can guess pretty well but until it happens we can’t say for sure. Just like with this topic.

This means the network would not be autonomous and decentralized so I doubt this path will be taken. But for sure, it’s possible that human intervention may happen at some point, I just think it’s against the ideals of the network for this to happen. (Is that a political shitstorm I see approaching?!)

Safenetwork expandability concerns - Economical effects of redundancy mechanisms - farmers make 8 times less!

There is currently the RFC that I have relied on and the stated goals by David and some others. These I have used for my basis.

Yes I agree with this. Although there are effects that flow though

Actually wouldn’t the current RFC be a better source.

The White paper suggests that this payment of farmers could continue for decades with the reward success reducing as the available coin becomes more scarce.

Of course as we see elsewhere that the more scarce the available coin to farm (mine) then the more valuable the coin/item becomes assuming people want it in the first place.

So as you said the more farming is done and the reward success reduces then those few coins farmed in a decade or two are worth a lot more then the many coins farmed today

I disagree autonomy does not rule out the owners turning off their part of the network. Autonomy does not rule out control of this sort or manual intervention.

You could say we people (as a “machine”) are autonomous. A person could grow their own food and look after themselves and decide for themselves within the bounds of their environment how to live. Even in a city we (as a “mechanism”) have what can be called autonomy and rely on others to provide things we consume.

The network relies on people to provide the machines, keep the electricity connected and the links supplied. And still be considered an autonomous network.

Then like people sometimes need intervention (surgery) so too the network will require such intervention. But we still consider that autonomy.

The process of upgrade initially will be people stopping their nodes & upgrading while the network still runs autonomously and if enough people do this then the network will be upgraded. David has suggested that eventually the network will be able to test for itself the new upgrade and if found suitable the network nodes will upgrade themselves. Will that happen, well it will if David can work out how to do it.


Indeed, good point.

0004 - Farm Attempt as posted already by me in post #8 of this very same thread

This result [of the farm attempt algorithm] is then modulo divided by the farming rate (FR).

0012 - Safecoin Implementation also in post #8

the farming rate is defined as

I admit these documents are difficult for non-technical users, but that means more reading is needed, not less.


Wait wait wait, how is this apples to oranges? So right now YouTube makes money by ads and they pay for their servers and for giving free bandwidth to people to view their videos. As well as server security, data security/backup, server maintenance and DDOS protection etc etc etc. Now, with the safenetwork, all of those issues do not have to be paid for, and they can still benefit from advertising if so they want to. But those bandwidth costs will still be paid by farmers, as now if they want to view a video a billion times, they do not strain YouTube server’s bandwidth, they use the farmers bandwidth, which cost money, and in return, if there’s an ad in front of the videos, YouTube, using the safenetwork, will still be paid money, while not having any ongoing server costs, just one time upload fee, but they will get paid on an ongoing basis because people are using the farmers bandwidth and viewing the video.

From what i describe above, you don’t think that’s draining money out of the farmers?

If it charges enough for decades, then it’s probably a bit too much than what people are willing to pay for, hence a optional rental model will definitely be a more attractive option anyway.

Ok, but WHERE do the payments come from?

That’s the most soothing thing i’ve heard so far. I made a wrong assumption at the start and that is i thought once the network launched, it has to work(that’s why they’re taking a long time), this is what i have heard from the host of a meet up I have been to, hence why i got this assumption that the network once launched, it needs to work and can’t be changed. if it can be changed i guess I’m not in a huge hurry to propose a change. We can see how it goes first. Nevertheless i do think adding a secondary option of a rental model will not damage the existing model in any way, it will only benefit it. (although TECHNICALLY i am not sure, if it need much more resources/bandwidth to keep in track of the data expiry, i am only talking about it in the broad economical model sense, it doesn’t do any damage so far from what i can think of)


this is how

If you don’t understand why, then read all that has been said to you above and in the other thread.

Well yes from what you wrote I guess it might. But that doesn’t mean what you wrote is correct.

It uses the *forever* model in that one respect and we see this in other offerings by companies.

Burial plots
Lifetime memberships
and so on I will not waste time here, its all been said now.

The algorithm would need to pay more and make rewards more scarce more quickly, thus speeding up the demise.