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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
- 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.
- 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.
- 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?