Sigh…can you trace the money please? As YOU have just outlined yourself, the pool of money the farmers get paid from IS MADE UP of safecoins that came from people storing new data and new safecoins. And once new safecoins run out, farmers will only get paid from the pool of money that’s generated from people paying safecoins to store new data…
Safenetwork sustainability concerns - Bandwidth has an ongoing cost however Safenetwork is a pay once, benefit forever model
Sigh all you like, but Safecoin are paid to farmers irrespective of whether anyone has uploaded anything. The (current draft) Safecoin distribution algorithm tends towards zero after many decades and even then it will be a small supply, not no supply… even if not a soul uploads one byte of data.
If you wish to discuss the long term minting, let’s have it out - perhaps minting should tend to zero over a millennia instead of decades, to avoid any concerns of farming payments?
I’m not worried because it’s a non issue. Questions were answered yet not acknowledged I think @foreverjoyful is just seeking validation. No offense but that is the conclusion I come to at this juncture.
Interesting thought… On the one hand you could say nature routinely deletes stuff (death); on the other hand energy can be transformed but never created or destroyed So, I guess I don’t know that nature has a definitive POV on this one…
How often does a person create a website and never update it? I could be off base here, but it seems like your picture of new data creation/uploading mirrors that of a static museum–all the exhibits are put in place once, and no one touches it again. Even this we know to be untrue. While many museums have exhibits that do not change, every museum brings in new, fresh, rotating exhibits to keep things interesting and (re)attract the audience.
On a global scale, we are increasingly creating excess data storage capacity with every passing moment, so running out of storage space isn’t a concern. It’s more a question of distribution and allocation. Now, I could be reading too much in between the lines, but one could say your concern is less about the sustainability and more about profitability. That is to say, will farming SAFE prove as profitable to farmers as mining Bitcoin, for example, is to miners.
On that note A) I think the SAFE developers are more concerned with viability than profitability. If equilibria for the network leaves a razor thin margin (or 0% margin), well then, one might say supply and demand are in perfect balance with no consumer/producer surplus or deadweight loss. However, to the extent that an old microeconomics professor of mine is correct in stating that “economics is about learning how to exploit people for private gain” then “price is never based on worth but rather willingness to pay.” One of the things that intrigues me most about Bitcoin is that it shows how decentralization (and anarchy) are (as of yet) unsustainable because the supplier’s (or in this case, miner’s) drive to leverage economics as a tool of exploitation will lead to increasing centralization. One could say that another name for Smith’s invisible hand is “greed,” and consumers fall for it every time, which brings me to…
B) I think the network is (being) designed to function in such a way that farmers will not farm if they do not find it profitable (enough) to do so, nor will users participate if they do not perceive they are receiving enough value to justify the expense. In light of that assertion, I think the network (and external exchanges) will modify the price such that farmers are willing to farm and users are willing to participate (even if that results in price > marginal cost or a state of consumer surplus). On that note, the current let’s-turn-everything-into-a-subscription pricing model is a perfect example of economics as willfully applied and willingly accepted exploitation. From software (e.g., adobe) to cars (ride-sharing), we are seeing ownership devolve into renting. Why? Not because price skims so close to marginal cost that suppliers must do so in orders to stay afloat, but rather because it is an easy way to guarantee that profitability moves up and to the right (and why we think that an already highly profitable business must always be increasing in profitability is something I’ve never been able to understand except for to chalk it up to some shade of greed. For example, what’s wrong with maintaining a 30% margin in-perpetuity?). The thought that we must continually pay for data storage (rather than pay once; store forever) is to fall prey to the notion that the subscription model is both natural and structurally necessary.
TL;DR-I think the network will be dynamic enough to keep price at such a level that farming remains sustainable so long as users feel that there is inherent value in (and therefore use) SAFE. Subscription pricing models are not definitively natural or structurally necessary, so pay once/store forever is not inherently unviable.
Do you understand that’s not the point? I am not saying that absolutely zero safe coins will be paid. But I’m saying the amount of new uploads will affect HOW MUCH farmers get paid, hence if no one uploads, each farmer will get paid so little that no one will want to farm, hence it limits the expandability and if people quit it’ll reduce the networks redundancy hence limit the sustainability. Hence the amount of NEW data uploaded directly affects the network’s expandability and sustainability(or indirectly, whatever you call it). This is the main point I was trying to make. Just like if bitcoin network gets so difficult that it only pays 0.00001 per block. Either people work out more efficient ways to mine, or bitcoin value increases or some will mine at a loss and quit mining. Just like the three things I listed. Do you understand now? There will be some, very little coins paying the farmers for days but do you think that’ll attract many farmers? If there are more farmers each will only get paid less from the available pool. Hence the number of farmers WILL BE LIMITED to the amount of new safe coins and amount of new data being stored on the network. And I’m saying MAYBE it should be limited by how many existing people use the network to store their data. Which makes more sense.
It is hard to understand what your point is. One minute you are making false assertions, the next minute you are telling me they don’t matter anyway.
Any model has its limits. The disconnect between storage fee and farming reward helps to smooth out fallow periods. If no one is using the network to store data due to it being ineconomical, renting isn’t going to solve this - the underlying cost is the same.
Let me put it in short straightforward terms.
1.New data uploaded is a significant factor directly or indirectly contributes to farmers total combined income. In a way such that more new data uploaded = more farmers can make. No new data uploaded = no farmer income eventually.
2. Total Farmers income directly affects the maximum amount of farmers that will be farming, as more farmers farm, each farmer will be paid less, to the point where no new farmers will come on board, or they’ll come on board as fast as existing farmers quit. And total number of farmers is directly proportional to the networks total storage space. Hence the total farmers income affects/limits the total network capacity.
3. The total network capacity is the same thing as how big the network is, which basically means that how big the network will be, is affected by the total farmers income which is affected by how much new data gets uploaded.
My proposal again is introducing new significant factors that would help the network expand and acquire more farmers than simply having new data uploads being a significant factor.
If the last bitcoin is mined and nobody makes transactions, miners quit, Bitcoin dies.same theory same possibility. So Do you also think we should pay taxes to miners for every coin we hold? That is what all banks do.
This is not needed in bitcoin network because:
miners have another constant flux of revenues with block rewards and transaction fees
the blockchain is only 140 GB in size after 9 years, which is easily secured by a few nodes without needing supplementary fees.
Yes, that is by design. However, eventually could be decades or hundreds of years away, depending on the rate of minting defined.
Yes, that is by design. If there is excess free space, the reward will be low, implying a low storage fee.
The bit in bold is equilibrium, where the market has found the price of storage.
Yes, that is by design:
More spare capacity => lower farming rewards => lower storage cost.
Less spare capacity => higher farming rewards => higher storage cost
It (rental) also removes the concept of full data ownership and full persistence, endangering a core tenant of Safe Net. It also adds complexity to track who is renting what, how much longer they have access, removing access and/or the data when expired, etc. This could result in a degraded user experience, as people will forget to pay their rent and they will have their data evicted. This will also have severe knock on affects for other users, who will no longer be able to read this data either, causing data holes on forums, comments, blogs, documents, etc.
Moreover, if in the run up to this ‘no new data’ event, people were happily storing new data, the question has to be asked - why have they stopped? Would rental help this? I cannot see how, so maybe you could elaborate (does it impact Safe Net only, is it a general phenomenon, is it temporary or permanent, etc?)
If no body makes transactions = no one is using the network.
no one stores NEW data doesn’t mean no one is using the network as i have mentioned before. People may well still be using it to access existing data they’ve stored.
And in the case of less and less transactions are done and total miners income in Bitcoins are getting lower and lower, one or more of the three events i described earlier will have to happen.
Anyway, Since bitcoin miners make the network more secure, you can say the overall security of the network does depend to an extend on how many transactions the network have, and that SHOULD be the case. As transactions = usage. And more people use it the more secure it is, makes sense. BUT storing NEW data does NOT = usage. Viewing existing data AND storing new data = total usage. This economical model is ignoring one crucial part and not many people seem to understand it. You can well have many people downloading and viewing their existing data many times over without storing any new ones, they’re using the network, but at the same time draining the network slowly. Which makes no sense. Usage should boost the network and not slowly kill it, in any network or good economical model.
Miners get rewarded for gets, it has only a little relation to puts.
Look when a miner successfuly delivers on get request he gets a chance to mine safecoin. For miners to mine only the last coin they by possibly need to deliver 4.5 billion megabytes(4.5 Peta bytes) of get BEFORE somebody puts another data. So being out of coins is not really possible.
So let me guess your next argument will be "4.5 billions megabayts of data isn’t worth it miners will not mine it"
But you see if the network becomes THAT BIG which I honestly think will never happen. That single safecoin will be worth at least a million dollar.
And this is without nobody putting data in which is nearly impossible.
BTW if nobody is getting data nobody is using the network. There is no point in uploading something you will not get.
Though network will still die if everybody by some black magic make an oath to never upload data. Because if nobody uploads data, number of safecoin increase, uploading became cheaper, but people still don’t upload because of black magic and sell their safe coins, black magic effects everyone so nobody buys safecoin, miners can’t sell safecoin so they stop mining. Networks original data became bigger than total mining, network dies.
you can argue about how valuable safecoin will be but to network to die completely, either encryption techniques are breached or humanity collectively decide safe network shouldn’t exist.
I can’t believe this argument is still going.
I can personally guarantee that someone will continue to upload new data to the network as long as it functions… me!
I am desperately keen to start using the network for my own data, I hope to store ALL of my new data from then on and I have enough coin for myself and my family for the rest of our lives. There is no point at which I might find I have run out of data to upload - since I will continue to take photos, have communications, consume digital media etc.
There is no rational argument here really. New data will NEVER cease to be created and there will always be a desire to store fresh data securely. It would defy the logic of the network design to backtrack away from perpetual data, which is a necessary characteristic of ‘ownership’ - i.e. it’s yours forever and no one can take it away from you (including the network).
Yeah he is right but the possibility of that happening and fixing it now is nothing short of saying
"+" sign could be multiplication on alien languages so we should find telepathy
It has every relation to puts, if there’s no puts, overtime there’s no reward for miners when they perform gets. Puts is what gives gets the reward…
The argument is again, not disagreeing with the fact no new data will be created, but 1. they may not be stored on safenetwork and 2, even if they are, the amount of NEW data being stored on the network will be a significant limiting factor to the network growth.
Anyway, if you can’t understand where i’m coming from that’s fine. Also with the network being able to change without everyone losing their data I guess it won’t end that bad even if this model doesn’t work as well and we want to change it after we realise it, and if it doesn’t ever become a problem, that’s great also, it’ll make history too.
We are not disagreeing the fact network dies if no new data enters it.
We are saying
- This is nearly impossible
- There isnt a network that can survive without new data being put. It’s impossible
That may be the case, but it is still extremely unlikely, unless there are more fundamental flaws in Safe Net itself (too expensive, too unreliable, etc).
- Studies show old data gets viewed less and less frequently after it is initially stored (it is old news, in many cases).
- Storage becomes cheaper and denser over time, leading to old data being less of a burden.
- Farmers are unlikely to abandon Safe Net farming, even if it generates little/no income, especially if just using spare resources. Other protocols have shown this to be true (IPFS, Bittorrent, Freenet, etc).
- The entire history of data storage shows consistently growing demand, with no let up. The fear is of insufficient storage to cope, not insufficient data to fill said storage.
Yes, it is theoretically possible that everyone ceases adding data to Safe Net, but if they were happy adding data before, what would be the cause? Everyone globally decides to stop being creating, sharing their news, photos, videos, music, research, software, data? Everyone still likes being creative, but has taken a terminal dislike to Safe Net? Why would this be and how would paying rent resolve this, when people have already either stopped being creative or have decided to squirt their creative juices elsewhere?
It’s not that the network will die if no data enters it, it’s true but not important, the important part is the AMOUNT of new data will be a limiting factor to the networks growth, and i think the existing data in the network should also be a significant factor.
Also, as for surviving without new data, I’m pretty sure all cloud storage services right now can do just fine without new data as they have recurring fees. If users now ONLY want to access their existing data whenever they please forever and no one uploads anymore NEW data, they can do just that, but they can’t with the safenetwork.
Yep if you have a data that you will only access in the next month and don’t care about your privacy, it will probably be cheaper to do on existing cloud model. Just like it isn’t really plausible for game servers to be on safe network because of latency; It isn’t good for using it just as a cloud drive
You should also complain about the fact that in cloud you can delete a file and replace it with no extra cost but in safe network if you want to update your files you pay the same cost again