If you think paying recurring for storing data is bad that’s okay, come up with other potencial solutions instead of fully focusing your firepower against my arguments
Because my philosophy and argument is this : it’s actually a valid deductive argument -
Premise 1 - If people are actively using the network, then the network should be able to continue to exist and sustain itself.
Premise 2 - Only viewing existing data on the network without storing new data is considered using the network.
Conclusion - Therefore, if people only view existing data without storing new data, the network should be able to continue to exist and sustain itself.
However, the network with it’s current economical model cannot sustain itself(or would have great trouble doing so, as we’ve all previously agreed) if people only view existing data without storing new data. Hence this problem need to be considered.
I challenge you to falsify the premises, because if the premises are true, then by logic, the conclusion MUST be true. @neo
How dare you troll me back here after what I said. I have Much More than answered the claims you made in the above and shown why your logic is based on invalid assumptions. Go and reread them. That logic in your post is trying to apply 2 dimensions logic to a nth dimension model, cannot work and you refuse to accept that there is more than 2 dimensions to the SAFE system and try to reduce it to your farmer makes profits like other crypto does model you present.
No, I am not saying you are, you just think the logic does not apply to the ‘nth dimension’ safenetwork, which i think otherwise. There are no dimensions to logic.
Come on mate, you do see with logic… Plus, it’s not that i see despair, I think it could work, but that doesn’t mean there are no improvements that can be made to make it work better.
There solution designed meets my expectations already. It is you who is trying to argue for a change, so please justify it.
It can also be argued that Earth may get hit by a meteor, solar flares my lash against it, EMP may strike all electronics down. Fascinating life boat scenarios, I’m sure, but on the balance of probabilities, I am not going to waste my time discussing it.
You need to make a case for your suggestion or I will assume you can’t think of any.
My case are my arguments i’ve put forward. I can’t think of anything better yet to describe the situation more accurately. I’ve even updated the post. Try to understand and then perhaps defeat the arguments first as that is my case basically.
why youtube can sustain itself when safe network cant? It is only possible for youtube to sustain itself without upload if they operate on loss.
in same case safe network can sustain itself because farmers work for a loss?
see this part doesnt make any sense.
lets go by steps people dont upload because its not worth it. ok
farmers farm and generate safecoin.ok
there is more safecoin supply than before
safe coin becames 5 cent
storage becames cheaper
people upload(This is where we argue. why wouldnt you upload if its as cheap as it can be? do people have grudge against safe network?)
its all about demand and supply. if you say there is no demand at all why are we even here, why are we even arguing about this. See it can still be more expensive than cloud solutions because farmers also decrease because price decrease but privacy- security- freedom isnt worthless. if it was, there would be no point in developing the network in the first place
if safe network was actually cheaper than cloud solutions THAT WOULD BE WEİRD. Can you imagine hosting a terabyte worth of website with unlimited bandwith for 10 dollars for a lifetime? Safe network isnt trying to replace existing services its something different, something current internet cannot offer. Will it be worth billions? Who knows
In my point of view safe network isnt good for just a place to store your data. Where it shines is public data. An uncensorable place to share your opinions, a true mask for your thoughts alone and I am supporting that.
In developed countries that may not be problem but where I live this privacy is a big deal.
So, this is your whole fundament.
I’m happy to declare that the discussion can end.
For this entire reasoning to be valid (worth time) you should specify, under what circumstances, the condition in bold that said reasoning depend on, is likely to occur.
Everyone here are saying to you that it is an artificial condition; nothing empirical or logical supports the notion of that condition to occur. Yet you have repeated it even though the very beginning of this topic pinpointed it as an artificial situation.
The only possibility you have to claim any validity what so ever for your idea that there is a problem here, is to clarify why and how this condition is likely to occur. You would probably need to be quite elaborate with regards to the degree of likelihood, what you base it on etc… You then - possibly - have a case.
If you can not do that, then you might just as well be discussing the need to solve the problem of how to feed the world after everyone has died.
Ok, I used “valid” in a technical sense, to only mean that IF the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jvQrpVQaYM Here’s a video you can watch to further understand what I mean. Anyway just to clarify, valid doesn’t mean my argument is “right” or even “have any practical significance”
But anyway, this isn’t about likelihood of something happening though, I’ve already mentioned countless times I agree it’s unlikely people won’t use it to store data.
This is about:
The philosophy of the network doesn’t really make sense, aka even if people are using the network, it still can’t(may not be able to) sustain itself, which makes no sense. As outlined by the argument. That’s more philosophically significant than it’s practically.
Second(more practically significant one), is that by the design, even if the network can SURVIVE, it is limited by the storage of new data, it completely ignores the fact that another significant usage case of the network is the demand for people to maintain and access their data on demand. So to put it in argument terms again
Premise 1 - All significant usage cases of the network should be designed in a way that boosts the growth of the network, for the maximum network growth.
Premise 2 - Accessing the data already on the network would be a significant usage case.
Conclusion - Accessing the data already on the network should be designed in a way that boosts the growth of the network, for the maximum network growth. (So it can THRIVE and not just SURVIVE)
You have shifted focus in the topic. It’s OK
Anyhow by that we have now left the discussion of sustainability concerns, and gone into a desire to improve growth capability. Fair enough.
Mm, this is a so called “academic” point, based on the artificial situation.
Still, saying it would only “survive” is based on this artificial situation. (I.e.: If there is an unexplicably low ratio of new data stored.)
To continue to spin theories (draw conclusions) based on this condition, requires the background of the condition to be more solid. It is yet not. It seems you do not intend to make it so either. OK.
I see no problem in the desire to improve capability of network to grow. But to motivate the need with an artificial scenario without supporting the scenario with substantial empirical or logical reasoning, would not be one of the best ways to get engineers to pay attention. Let alone to rush to any solutions before even solidifying that fundamental part.
Down to the nuts and bolts, it would need a very clear case on why a specific action is necessary. (And then we often land in measurements by probabilities.)
The desire to improve, that you express in your latest post, is a potentially interesting seed for discussion. But it is still only a seed, without growing in details there will be no fruit coming out of it.
And we, just as plants, come up with plenty of seeds, but very few actually become anything.
Since your conclusion is based on this artificial situation, yet to be supported by logic etc., I would suggest a different formulation, in form of a question:
How can we increase network growth rate by modifying current reward algorithms?
(We assume that we can always, somehow, increase the growth rate)
We would need to know more about what growth rate the algos in their current stage of evolution, would result in. (I.e. read up on them, know them inside out, are you there?) And these are not yet finalized, so it would be all we have to work with.
We would also need to know the cost of every increase from this level. Is it motivated?
Mind you, we are not yet deciding on any solutions.
From what we know today, if at all possible to answer this question now, it is quite a task altogether. The number of unknowns actually make the question weak to start with. But it can be tried. And you have just scratched the surface.
There is one situation where that might happen and that is if most people have migrated to a new network that’s much better/cheaper/faster/safer, while lots of old data hasn’t been migrated yet, so people would use SAFE to access data that isn’t available on the new network yet, but would have no reason to upload anything new to SAFE.
The other argument in this thread that is that bandwidth cost might become an issue and the argument against it is that bandwidth will be practically free as farmers will mainly be home users who has already paid for their bandwidth through their broadband subscription.
If you sign up for a cloud service like Amazon Web Services the price for storing 1 GB for a month is a bit less than downloading 1 GB. If 1000 people in a month download a file on a regular cloud service, that would then cost more than 1000 times more than storing the file for a month. Bandwidth there is quite expensive.
Is there enough free bandwidth around to serve SAFE? If a large number of people suddenly started uploading much more data because they were farming, would ISPs get strained as they don’t actually have enough capacity for a large amount of customers utilizing their bandwidth 100% lots of the time? think there would need to be something like a few hundred million farmers before ISPs potentially would potentially find it a problem though.
This is also interesting in terms of whether high bandwidth costs will makes it unsustainable for many commercial farmers, ensuring SAFE stays decentralized.
Wouldn’t putting a payment model around storing data be disadvantageous.
In an ideal scenario would be is no penalties for uploading; and incentives for storing.
Consumers store; which is primarily what the network needs, providers upload, that’s what the consumers need to make this network appealing. If it isn’t advantages to provide then no-one will have anything to consume.
Let’s say a commercial entity wanted to utilize the network for distributing large amounts of data (videos for instance). Could this network enable this commercial entity be incentivised by this network without the use of ads? If that is possible then BAM! But as i see it, is providers of information are just as disadvantaged (financially) as in a centralized environment.
Is it possible to have a scenario as described, or does it go against all the fundamentals of economics, well I don’t have the answers… but it sure would be pretty interesting.
Especially if you are an early adopter, imagine being penalized for providing content to better and increase the appeal of the network.
How? It’s more likely that you understood it another way before. I think what I was trying to say is relatively consistent throughout. That network is sustained by the amount of new data. Which may be a problem. Even if it’s not a problem, it’s still not good as it’s the only major contributing factor to the networks growth, and a contributing factor is also a limiting factor. I think it’s good if the network has more major contributing factors for its growth. That’s all.
What do you mean? It’s perfectly illustrated. The network is Limited by the amount of new data basically.
Ok, so you can’t form a single argument to support your assertions, beyond the ones I have already highlighted, where rent does not help. That’s fine, but don’t expect me to make your arguments for you - I am happy with the current design.
All good points and I agree. However, I don’t see how adding a rental model is going to change this. Either the network is economical and reliable and people use it or it isn’t and they don’t.
Sure, we could provide an escape route for people abandoning the network, but fundamentally changing the design to achieve this? That is a compromise too far, IMO - people are going to leave with or without a rental model.
The amount of bandwidth required could be an issue, but that should be priced into the PUT costs. So, unless people stop creating new data (which we have established is highly unlikely), bandwidth issues would likely be a symptom of a dying network (unreliable, uneconomical, etc). Would a rental model prevent this? Possibly, as their fees could support the network in this state, but would they be cheaper than alternatives (given people must be storing their data elsewhere…)? Would the network be heading for the grave at this point anyway?
The assertion is that with no new data the network will decay, therefore a rental model should be established. I am not convinced rental will make the network any more viable and it will require significant compromises to enable it. On balance, persistent ownership of data is more compelling for me than providing rental.
Ah, yes. This classical one. It is more likely that all here are not seeing straight, and you are right. Isn’t it so? After all you are the centre in your world, how could it possibly be otherwise? So sure about being right, and all arguments falling off as drops of water on a goose. Most of all that proves an intention other than actually understanding and contributing.
You shifted focus. From serious concerns of sustainability, to admitting that the fundamental condition you base the concern on, is highly unlikely, and therefore you only wish to improve the capability of network to grow (and still without even knowing about current capability, i.e. wanting to change what is not understood).
You seem most of all concerned with repeating the unsupported statement that the network current design is not good.
Like this line below: your serious concerns about network sustainability is now merely a statement that the network is “limited”. To what degree? Is the limitation of any importance? When I walk, I am limited by the air. Is it of importance for my movement forward? If not, and I keep announcing it in high voice, what is my reason for doing that?
No it is not perfectly illustrated. But yes, the conclusions are many times repeated. You repeatedly, over and over, base your conclusions on an artificial situation that you are yourself admitting to is highly unlikely, and of little practical importance. And for that reason you seem not to intend to make the background of it more solid.
This (in bold):
If you are both a farmer and a user, it should pay for your contributions. How long you will need to farm, for how much you plan to upload will be decided by the market though.
