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


In another post by @neo

Ok first, I just want to clarify, if you say the sustainability is independent of amount of NEW data, that is to say, even if there’s no new data FOREVER, the network will still be able to sustain it’s existing data as those factors are independent. I think even @dirvine would disagree with this, from how he explained new data gets coins returned to the network to pay the farmers.

And Neo also disagreed with this, he said even if there’s almost no new data, then the network dies. I disagree with him in that the network could still very well be used for people accessing their data, but farmers will slowly quit and hence die. So there’s a seeming contradiction between what you have said @neo, could you clarify?

This is also the same as saying - if Bitcoin has reached it’s coin limit of 21 million, and the only income is from transactions fees, and if say the total amount of transactions fees total halves every month as new transactions decrease, there will be no effect to the Bitcoin network. This is outright impossible. The miners pay a certain cost of electricity, if the supply they get keeps on halving, one of these 3 things must happen, or a combination of the 3, as a result of miners getting paid less Bitcoins.

  1. Miners finds more energy efficient machines that cost less to mine the Bitcoins. Some can find free electricity from solar panels and/or invent new ASICS or quantum computers that are hyper efficient.
  2. Bitcoin increases in value and to miners it does not matter if they get paid less Bitcoins as their value is the same or more.
  3. Some miners will quit mining and hence makes the Bitcoin network less secure as they no longer make a profit and make a loss(or they can choose to continue at a loss for philosophical or other reasons, but not many people will do that)

Contrast this to the safenetwork, if close to all 4.2 Billion safecoins are mined and only few remaining, no new coins gets returned to the network as and halve of the remaining few gets farmed monthly, directly contrasting to my previous 3 points, we have(and one or a combination of these things MUST happen)

  1. Farmers will have to find more efficient ways, like you have mentioned, this will definitely happen for some farmers, bandwidth can cost less, electricity can cost less which means storage will cost less, some can get free electricity from solar panels and/and have big farmers getting enterprise ISP deals for very cheap bandwidth.
  2. Safecoin increases in value and to farmers it does not matter if they get paid less Safecoins as their value is the same or more.
  3. Some farmers will quit farming and hence makes the Safenetwork less redundant and potentially lose a lot of data, as they no longer make a profit and make a loss(or they can choose to continue at a loss for philosophical or other reasons, but not many people will do that)

So I’d argue, with the current economical model of the safenetwork, it is definitely DEPENDENT on NEW data being stored. In fact, my proposals are aimed at making the safenetwork independent or MUCH LESS dependent on the need for NEW data to sustain the network. If you going to say it is independent you really have to have extremely good arguments backing it up, as from how @dirvine described to me about how coins gets returned to the network only by people storing (new) data on it, it’s very much so that it is definitely dependent on new data being stored on the network.

Isn’t it also (at least partly) the reason why @neo proposed the Pay the Producer model to incentivise people to upload new data to the network constantly?


Considering this is not what @mav or myself were referring to then this is a NEW question and requires a different answer to what you quoted.

What we were referring to is if farmers continued to farm then they will be paid and if SAFEcoin is worth something then that farming would be profitable. SAFEcoin if its worth something to people then as the farming rewards become more scarce then the price of SAFEcoin would increase and thus farming remains profitable.

Now the question of if farmers would continue then that is a complex one and many scenarios are possible. Some where it dies and some where it survives for a decade or two and beyond.

Personally I would be looking at the “people will support the network they use” scenario This is what we see in life. Community groups, clubs, charities, etc where people support that which they prefer/use. So if people are using SAFE by being farmers then they (in general) will also be using SAFE for their storage, social etc needs and thus uploading data. And for those who are using SAFE to store their data, social media etc will if they can be farming too.

So the scenario that SAFE is not being used to store data and farmers continue to farm will be contrary to observed human nature and thus is unlikely to occur. Either in general people will stop using SAFE (store & farm) or be using SAFE (store & farm) <---- not necessarily each and every person but in general sense or on average.

No its not because they are different beasts with different outcomes because of the difference between the two. Drawing a parallel this way doesn’t work.

This is like many decades for this situation to occur. So makes its impossibe to do this sort of comparison, the time scales is an additional factor in the comparison. It affects each differently

Again this is not what we were addressing but yet another issue. Your statement is a global view and still is wrong. The network can survive for decades with no new data if people are still using it significantly which means farmers are still paid for decades and the coin will follow the path of increasing in value due to the difficulty of getting any new coin. People would have to be hoarding it (not spending it back to the network) and changing hands at times. But this causes scarcity and price rises thus the smaller amount of coin farmers get in 2 decades time still is very profitable.

No that isn’t the direct reason and not the real direct purpose. The major reason is to get people to use the network. Oh it was David that proposed the PtP concept. When people use the network then they use (store and farm if possible/desire to) the network.


That’s the definition of being INDEPENDENT though, @neo… i don’t know how it is a new question. By saying it is independent, the case i described HAS to hold true. Otherwise the network’s sustainability is DEPENDANT on the amount of new data being stored. True @mav?


Because the process is not the traditional model and lack of understanding makes it seems that way but when you understand it you see that the question is actually different in scope and result.


There will always be new data. Imagine IoT connected to SAFE, or Tesla cars because the cars create gigabytes every few minutes, this isn’t to mention what if this conversation was on SAFE? We would have no shortage of new data because this thread has gone in a seemingly infinite loop. I’m only being cheeky (kind of). Anywho, not that I know much on the subject but this idea is borderline ludicrous. It’s a complete hypothetical that is basically infeasible. If there was no new data it’s because there is no one to put it there (human extinction) and therefore no need for the network. I just don’t see it happening. Here’s another hypothetical. Say the whole world uses SAFE to store their data and no one ever creates anymore data but everyone wants access to old data? Storage, and computation will be so cheap and abundant that SAFE will just run in the background still securing and serving up data unnoticed on the worlds devices. This goes without even bringing up the fact that the network can be upgraded and if there was an existential risk to the network we could solve it. Heck the team hasn’t even gotten to run simulations yet, not that this discussion shouldn’t happen but dear lord the splitting of hairs is unnerving.


Exactly and part of what I was saying about if people are using SAFE then they are going to use SAFE.


I think you have to zoom out here.

If someone uploads a popular video and lots if people view it, who his benefited? Largely, those who have enjoyed consuming it. Who have profited? The farmers who provided the data as they were awarded safecoin. Who is unhappy/cheated? Nobody, as everyone has had a positive trade.

Yes, there may money made through advertisement. Maybe some of this money goes to the person uploading the video. Again, who is winning and losing? Portal site gets money for providing a service and the producer gets some money for their efforts.

Proportionately, costs and profits will adjust. If the portal overheads drop, so will the barriers to entry. Maybe that means cheaper videos all around or maybe more competition, but either way, people are happy.

I think people get lost somewhere around data ownership of data. There seems to be a belief that the owner must pay proportionately for the data being accessed. Ask yourself why? If many people are getting value from reading the data, then why should only the uploadet pay? Moreover, why should farmers care which data is popular and who uploaded it, when they have no notion of what data they even served.

The bottom line is, the network should deliver data which people value. It doesn’t need to pick or choose why or base it on who uploaded it. The network is agnostic, it is neutral. The cost to store something just goes in the big pot and then pays out for the things people value most. This is a beautiful thing.


I’m tempted to post this to a new thread as this one will soon be long enough to reach Mars, but since some knowledgeable heads are around I’ll leave it here for now.

Can someone tell me if this description of the mechanics of farming, leaving aside the economics for a moment, is broadly correct?

  1. A GET (a request for a particular chunk of data) is posted to the network.
  2. All of the nodes (vaults) storing that chunk race to fulfil that order.
  3. The node that delivers the chunk quickest is rewarded with Safecoin, the rest get nothing.
  4. The factors that influence which node is likely to succeed are (in order):
    a. the node’s closeness to the requesting client (in XOR space);
    b. the number of copies of the chunk that are cached;
    c. the node’s closeness to the requesting client in physical space (because of latency);
    d. the node’s record of reliability and trustworthiness (node age);
  5. The payout to the successful node will depend on a variable called Farming Rate which is dynamically adjusted to maintain the optimum level of free space on the network.

If this is correct, I am struggling to get my head around part 5. Does the value of Safecoin fluctuate according to the Farming Rate variable so that each successful delivery of a chunk is rewarded with one Safecoin no matter what, but that coin’s value is variable. Or does Safecoin’s value remain broadly stable, with Farming rewarded in fractions of Safecoin (ie fine-grained divisibility) so that one day delivery on a GET request might be worth 1 Safecoin, the next day 1.1 Safecoin? Or is it the case that not every successful delivery of a data chunk following a GET is rewarded, just a certain proportion of them as determined by the Farming Rate?


Yes, i agree to that, there wouldn’t be a shortage most likely, but non the less the sustainability of the network is DEPENDENT on that fact. Which is what i’m trying to change a bit, since I feel like the network shouldn’t have it set up in a way such that it is DEPENDENT on new data. I’d very much want the network to sustain even if no new data is being created or new data significantly reduces, cos who knows what will happen in the future. But in saying that, because how @neo has said the network can be changed anyway once it launches without the need to compromise existing data on the network, if that’s the case, I would be much more confident in everything and will definitely recommend this to more people and buy more Maidsafecoins myself :slight_smile:

AND the website who those people have went to to watch the hosted the video, due to advertising ETC, and the farmers get nothing out of the advertising profit by providing the network and making everything possible in the first place.

Well, because of sustainability as i’ve mentioned. Who WILL pay for the bandwidth costs then?

It is absolutely fabulous, don’t get me wrong, i’m simply bringing up some sustainability concerns for discussion. Although I’m not too worried now as I’m told that the network can be changed even after launch without compromising anything(Am i right in saying that @dirvine?)




Like i said there may well be new data forever, but that doesn’t support your argument at all of how the sustainability is INDEPENDENT of new data being stored.


Also i do want to mention, even Sia have monthly costs and download bandwidth cost, so does every company that ever existed. you can check their cost in fact on (scroll down)

Safenetwork doesn’t charge anything. And everyone here is expecting it to somehow sustain and not have issues? I think everyone need to take a step back and realise how hard it is.

I think one of two things will happen, at first storage will be cheap enough that everyone will start storing on it, then the network space starts running out, then there will come a point where the cost of storage will hit a point where many people are not willing to pay that high to store any longer, but will of course continue accessing their stored data, farmers will realise slowly the safecoins they’re being paid is just too little to bother, maybe $0.03 per month isn’t worth the time for someone to have their computer on 24/7 and their internet speed throttled when viewing videos.

Anyway, then as the farmers leave, the cost will be even higher and the safenetwork will slowly lose storers of data as well as farmers, and it will hit a point where there’s a number of people who who pay any amount to store data on there, powered by some farmers who would have the hard drives up and running even if they do not profit. And the network would be sustained by that, just like BitTorrent, it just won’t hit mainstream adoption unfortunately with the current model, just like how there isn’t many BitTorrent seeders and it takes ages to download small files, safe won’t have the exact same problem, but rapid initial expansion followed by farmers quitting can cause network redundancy issues.


The website is hosted by the safe network too - it goes into the same pool of data, which people glean value from when they retrieve it from the farmers, who in turn are paid to provide the data.

Advertising and its profits are tangential. A successful portal site will need to curate good content. To get good content, a portal site needs to remunerate content producers. Therefore, this is a relationship between the portal site, the viewers and the content producers. It has nothing to do with the infrastructure costs, as these are externalised - the content producers have paid the network to host their videos, the portal site has paid the network to host their site, which has then subsidised the users to view the videos.

The bandwidth costs have been internalised, by the farmers, as part of the costs of running a vault. As has been pointed out, underutilised storage/CPU/memory/bandwidth will make this super cheap for many. However, the cost of a PUT will encompass all of these data points.

Of course - the network technology will evolve over time (adding compute, fixing bugs, improving performance, etc). Data chains will help here too, as it allows the network to easily be ‘rebooted’ (or have a catastrophic failure), while retaining data.

There will be rules governing what changes are deemed acceptable by other nodes and so forth, but it is a bit different from blockchains. As the data is distributed across the network, rather than just duplicated, there is no concept of the longest chain as a single source of truth. Instead, there will be a network with mixed capabilities at times, but a node must still provide the appropriate data when requested or it will not be rewarded (and will potentially be downgraded if deemed malicious). This is a whole other thread of debate in itself though.


That’s a nice story, but there is little fact to anchor it to. In fact, it seems more like a smear or FUD.

People have patiently explained the relationship between PUTs and their costs, along with GETs and the rewards to farmers. Saying that “Safenetwork doesn’t change anything” is clearly false. The rest is conjecture, based on this flawed premise. What are you trying to achieve here?

Your argument boils down to people will only want to rent, rather than buy. The market says otherwise in innumerable examples. The safe net approach is to facilitate people buying persistent storage - to give them full ownership of their data in perpetuity. There are plenty of other examples out there where people prefer to own instead of rent, so why do you keep presenting this argument?


My argument is that, buying something that have recurring costs to others, while those costs are being paid by others buying the same thing that you’re buying, may have sustainability concerns.

I’m trying to get people looking at the bigger picture, ignoring the technical aspects of it, as no matter how technical it is and how the algorithm works at the moment, it boils down to the fact that new money(the very source, aka new money after tracing back all the way i mean) comes in are by people storing new data, and this money obviously supports the existing network, and this honestly, if you can just look at every other company, isn’t how it has worked since forever. Not saying it wouldn’t work, I’m simply saying it might not. Also, if a valid point raises some FUD then I don’t think I’m spreading smear or FUD intentionally per say, just discussing the potencial problems of the network. Would you say if someone discuss that Bitcoin could be susceptible to a 51% attack, that they’re just spreading FUD?


Supply of coins for farming depends on user spending (among other things). Using an arrow notation ‘supply → spending’

Farmer income depends on the supply of coins for farming (among other things). In arrow notation, ‘income → supply’

The flaw is to think ‘income → supply → spending’ can be simplified to ‘income → spending’.

Even further flawed is to think sustainability → income. I’d agree income is a factor in sustainability, probably a significant factor, but it’s just one of many. To claim dependency is too big of a claim.

The reason has been explained at length in this thread. Please read it carefully. If you don’t understand definitely keep asking questions, but try to stop incorrectly stating ‘facts of dependency’ that are not facts.


Well, you just said it yourself… it is a factor - that LITERALLY MEANS it is dependent!

Ok, maybe you’re understanding dependant a bit differently than the way I understand dependent, which explains why I was a little confused. I understood it from the word dependent in experiments, when you have dependent variables. Lets say I’m testing how old someone is vs how far they can throw a basketball, so I gather people of different ages(ages becomes an independent variable, but don’t confused “independent” with the “independent” used in this thread) then get them to throw and measure their distance(the distance is the dependent variable). Of course you can say, whether they are a girl/boy, how high they are, the wind direction, the weight of the basketball, their mood that day, are all factors affecting how far they threw the basketball, although those other factors I’m not testing yet still affect the dependent variable are called extraneous factors, and you try to reduce them as much as possible in experiments, nevertheless, if all extraneous factors are kept the same throughout, and you only getting the independent variable affecting the dependent variable and nothing else, and if there’s an effect, you then can say at least in your experiment(or strictly a correlation study), you’ve found a correlation between someone’s age and how far they can throw a basketball.

Now back to the safenetwork, if the sustainability of the network is being affect by new data, then I thought i was right to say it’s dependent on that, that is not to say that’s the there aren’t any other “extraneous factor” affecting the sustainability. As i’ve outlined, in fact, 2-3 more factors already, I mean… if bandwidth and electricity were free then of course then safenetwork will not have any sustainability issues, the amount of new data even, if its 1mb per month basically will probably not even matter.

But unfortunately, above three scenarios will have to happen once all the coins have been reached and amount of newly stored data decreases. Do you agree?


I’ve learned 3 things reading these posts:

  1. I’m in my 60’s and would dearly love the energy @foreverjoyful has, well meaning in its direction we have to accept it as being. Frustrating maybe a touch but it’s still good to see in people…to a point,

But thanks for contributing to a in parts interesting discussion.

  1. Neo - Respect, nuff said :fist:

  2. Mav - nice to hear one of the really bright minds swing into gear

You guys won’t clearly agree on everything but thanks for putting the posts out there for us to dissect :slight_smile:

Time for a beer and some sleep (maybe for this topic too if there’s no more new questions :wink:)


I am bowing out of these 2 topics.

Its now a case of repeating myself too many times and then being accused of not being able to subjectively look at the alternatives. It these 2 topics has not been looking and examining the ins and outs then I don’t what it has been.

Really I’ve tried to have the discussion and treat each of the suggestions and claims with due diligence and talk, examine and reason each of them. Just because an idea has merit does not make it a good idea to implement. Breeding programs have merit if you wish to improve the gene pool, maybe good for some animal species, but it is a bad idea for others and humans and has always been a bad idea for humans. Rental is an interesting idea, but has been found lacking. Bandwidth charging to the user browsing is an interesting idea but also has its flaws. Both are solutions where the cure will be worse than the supposed problem. Any who wish to draw me back into the discussion, I can only say read my hundred or whatever posts explaining, teaching, reasoning I have already done. I may not be as concise as @mav or to the point but I am pretty sure I’ve been on the money. And my hat off to @mav, I enjoy your posts.

As to the claims stated as fact (I hope due to misunderstandings) are getting too many for my available time and frankly the lack of movement or willingness to learn is too much for me. My grandkids are coming over for visits in a day and that will be a better use of my time. I am still floored at that research paper relied on which is on a different subject altogether (sigh). I will not go into any more but there was a topic presented about 2 years ago by a fellow aussie that explains it I think. (Word to the wise)

Have fun fellows in this SAFE journey for these two topics. Never fear I will be helping out as normal elsewhere and just following this topic for moderation purposes now. This post is simply to let people understand why I stop relying in these two topics.

And please don’t respond to this, I am not looking for support or criticism. Really I am not and I feel tempted to delete any such replies. (but to do so would not be in line with the forum guidelines so no fear of me doing it)


Your concerns appear unwarranted, considering payments are made to farmers, even if no new uploads are made. Moreover, the chance of no uploads being made is highly unlikely, due to historic precedence.

You may be trying to get people to see the bigger picture, but what you are achieving is demonstrating your own inability to see it.

The cost for a PUT and the reward for a GET are disconnected from new money entering the ecosystem - new money enters when Safecoin are purchased, not spent. This gives value to what farmers can sell GET rewards for. However, new value is added to the network whenever useful content is published (PUTs), which then encourages GETs from others in the future. So, the correlation is not direct on any of these fronts; the market price for Safecoin vs when Safecoin are spent (PUT) vs when farmers are awarded (GET) are only indirectly linked. In short, you can’t say “new money comes in by people storing new data”, as new data may have no correlation to the Safecoin price. Once again, using a flawed premise to then beat Safe Net with is a straw man argument (FUD).

You say there is no business model which is sustained by people selling new data? Nonsense. Artists, engineers, scientists, etc, all create new data which is valuable every day. Moreover, there are myriad people who indirectly make a living from this process, adding value as they do (project managers, company directors, producers, support staff, sales teams, etc). Moreover, this data is not temporal; it is persistent. Any of the data produced is likely to be savoured, saved, built upon, re-discovered, ultimately knitting the tapestry of our history.

To invert your question, why should a musician who creates a song once, then pay a rent to have it digitally saved somewhere? Why wouldn’t he record it once, store it once, just as a sculptor creates a statue and then stores it persistently in their garden? What is this obsession with refusing to acknowledge that people like to have ownership of something, rather than relinquishing ownership and having to pay rent on it? People wanted their own hard drives, disks, USB sticks, etc, long before cloud storage came along and I am sure many feel far more comfortable with this model too.