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.
However here,
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
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).
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
Good! That’s a good point and may help with the networks expansion under current model. BUT, you still have tons of old data and they’re still occupying 8 times the space than the data itself, so the flip side of the story is, if safenetwork is to link all our unused space together, those unused spaces will be filled overtime with a lot of junk data that’s someone’s personal photos that no one else can access, and since they’re dead(assume a long time has passed) it’s completely useless, NO one can accesses it ever, and yet it remains there… it’s extremely inefficient in my opinion, waste of resources. If i have unused space at least someday i can use it, if someone stores a bunch of data and then died or forgot their password, it is PERPETUAL WASTE of network space.
Yes that’s part of the 3 things that i said at least one has to happen.
Higher doubt it…the reason why IPFS, Bittorrent is shit and not mainstream is BECAUSE contributors do not make profits. Farmers will quit when they spend more on electricity than they make safecoins, they can just use that money to buy safecoins instead. Anyway, imagine if Bittorrent paid people and had a good economical model, it’ll be much more popular and better! Right now downloading unpopular files basically takes forever, no matter the file size. Anyway…
Yeah, but not many will want to use the safenetwork to store if there are much cheaper solutions out there. Not everyone cares a whole lot about data security, even if they do, they might think keeping some physical copies on hard drives is secure enough for them.
Yes, that may need changing too, i proposed that people can have a small portion of their safecoins back when they delete data from the network.
Here are the answers that I received when I recommended the very same thing
I would say the fact that so much new data will inevitably need/want to be stored on SAFE is a sustaining factor rather than limiting one. SAFE does require users to want to upload new data. Luckily humans create data at exponentially increasing rates, so that’s cool, SAFE can be dependent on NEW data being stored. That situation does not cause me any concern at all. I’m as confident that we’ll want to store new data on there in ever increasing volumes as I am that the capacity of the network will also continue to grow for a long time.
If an animal fails to eat it will eventually die. Animals have an incentive to eat though and their natural environment provides for them (sustains rather than limits them). If you are worried about starvation then you need to explain how and why this natural environment will change so there will suddenly be no food. We all agree that no food = death, and limiting food limits growth. Why do you think there will be a shortage of food?
If they passed a long time ago, their data footprint will be insignificant. Assuming they died 10 years ago (not even that long, tbh), storage has increased about 50 fold (Digital Data Storage is Undergoing Mind-Boggling Growth - EE Times) - that’s 2% of the relative size compared to storage capacity. After 20 years, storage has increased by about 2500 fold, 0.04% relative size! It is in the weeds, in the noise. It will have little impact on anything. Why worry? Why burden the network with ugly features, to cope with something of such little impact (assuming the storage growth trend continues)?
But they are surviving… in the worst, most bleak times of Safe Net, this will be similar. Except, with Safe Net, there is a hope of some payment if - one day - someone PUTs some data (!) and they are picked to serve it!
So why would they pay rent either, if there are cheaper solutions out there?
I have said many times, i agree with that it’s unlikely people will stop adding new data, nevertheless it’s a limiting factor. Anyway lets say people do stop, as to answer your other question, paying ‘rent’ will resolve this situation by still make the farmers get paid so people’s existing stored data does not get affected.
A sustaining factor is also a limiting factor by definition. If water sustains you and keep you alive, no water will mean you’re out of the thing that’s keeping you alive. You’re not understanding my point. That’s ok though, not many people seem to do. Maybe I am wrong. I have no options left but to sit here helplessly at the moment, counting on the fact that the network in the future can be changed without compromising everyone’s data.
Sorry, but I’m not letting you get away with that weak answer! 
Rent is not a solution if the network is not economical (too expensive) compared to alternatives. If Safe Net is too expensive, people will rent elsewhere, as you said above:
If we are ruling out an economic issue, then what other issue will renting help to resolve? Will it help if the network is insecure or unreliable? Is it because people simply cease to generate new data?
If you are going to pitch a fundamental change to the network technology and its economic model, you need to at least present an argument about why it may happen. Otherwise, we may as well be debating life boat scenarios (pretty pointless).