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


#369

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.


#370

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.


#371

Here are the answers that I received when I recommended the very same thing


#372

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?


#373

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 (https://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=36&doc_id=1330462) - 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?


#374

@foreverjoyful, I’m looking forward to your thoughts on this.


#375

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.


#376

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.


#377

Sorry, but I’m not letting you get away with that weak answer! :slight_smile:

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).


#378

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 :slight_smile:

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


#379

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.


#380

Ok nevermind! i apologise! Will never mention you again… Anyway i hope there are people that can follow the logic and continue the discussion.


#381

Thankyou. And BTW I do follow your logic, I am not stupid about it like you just implied. It is really quite simple and easy to follow.


#382

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.


#383


#384

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.


#385

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.


#386

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.


#387

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.


#388

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.