Just one observation then I will slink back into the wood work
Not only is the situation highly unlikely, it is made more so by the solution offered.
Data no longer being uploaded (just a little but almost nothing)
People relying on being able to read data
need to keep farmers paid a healthy income
rental & bandwidth payments in place to get farmers a lot more income (amounts like other crypto)
So riddle me this if people don’t want to pay for uploading more, then why would they keep paying rental?
This is a proposal to use a 2 dimensional economic model to charge people a lot more for their uploads (per month charge) and charge for download bandwidth and then that is directly paid to the farmers for storing the data. Yea nothing like what SAFE is going to be but a different model altogether and I gleaned this from his “logic” and refusal to accept the current aspects of the model which is more than 2 dimensional. A 2 dimensional model is where uploaders pay the network and as a direct relation the farmers are paid by the network. One dimensional would be uploaders pay farmers without network
Hey, did i ever say I’m right or I am the centre of the world? it’s not helpful if you talk like this, as you’re no longer attacking my arguments. Even if i am a bad person that in no way weakens my arguments. I am only brining some potencial issues up for discussion.
With the current model, it is POSSIBLE(again, not saying it’s likely, but nevertheless possible) for people to be actively using the network yet the network unable to sustain itself. Philosophically, this is significant, as i think, a good model of the network should be able to sustain itself when people are using it, and shouldn’t be POSSIBLE for people to be actively using the network while the network not able to sustain itself. That does not make sense philosophically. Whether it has any practical significance is another question.
Although, if something is possible, then it can become a reality. For example, i could imagine a surge in demand of storage and farmers come on board, everyone starts storing and storing, then the demand for storage of new data reduces, and as farmers quit some people may lose access to their data permanently.
On another note, from how you talked… so you’re so sure that you’re right, that the current model will never have problems even when people access data much more than new data being stored? If so, why? And before you say “all here” first, there has been several people seeing agreeing with me that they may be a problem, second, there’s only about 3-5 people, like you, @Traktion, @ neo @Jabba and I can’t really name a lot more arguing strongly for it. But you are old members of the forum, it may be that you could be unconsciously biased to seeing the network is good the way it is. But nevertheless though, please accept the possibility that you could be also wrong, and the network may face set backs because of its current model. Otherwise, if you think you’re 10000000% right, there’s no longer a point to have any discussion.
Well, what’s your intention in attacking me as a person? I can’t understand why. It does not help the discussion in a meaningful way.
I just want to make the question more clear, so the question is: “if people don’t want to pay for uploading more NEW DATA, then why would they keep paying rental FOR ACCESS TO THEIR EXISTING DATA?”
First, to be honest, i am not even sure if you’re joking or not… because the answer is so simple I don’t see how you don’t see it… If i had some good photos with my family, or did a science research and published my results, I want the data that i’ve put there so far to stay there permanently, let’s say in the research case that i have since stopped doing such research, hence I don’t have any more new data, but nevertheless, i would very much like everyone to have continued access to the existing data I have put there. The network’s model however though, cannot sustain people doing this(if everyone did this)
If you think it won’t have any problems, fine, but don’t attack the person making arguments but the argument itself, and also, you should also please be open to the possibility that you could be wrong, as I am open to the possibility that it could work just fine, because otherwise it’ll be a pointless one sided debate.
This might be a possible concern. Although storing photos only in the phone is risky. People want to store their photos in a secure place that is backed up. And most people don’t want to backup data on their own, so today people store their photos in some cloud service I guess.
The competition for the SAFE network in such use case is then free or cheaper cloud storage. The SAFE network probably can provide storage for a lower cost than most if not all cloud providers. But the question is, will that be enough to make users move to the SAFE network for storing photos and other private files? What if people in a near future expect to be able to store their photos safely on the internet for free? Then the network effect needed for the SAFE network might be absent.
One solution is to make all PUTs and GETs on the SAFE network free, while still rewarding the miners with safecoins. That may require a different inflation model for Safecoin though since coins are then no longer recycled.
You mean they wouldn’t do the common sense thing to do and move their data to the cheaper & better system they are now using to store their new data. (because a old system they don’t want to store their new data on could die any day because others do the sensible thing and move their data and stop paying to a system they no longer want to use to store data) Face it that is so unlikely that I think an asteroid hitting the earth next year is 10000 times more likely
Anyhow now slinking back into the wood work. Have fun trying to get support for charging a lot so farmers can get more income
Well, assuming even if safenetwork asks them to pay recurring, safenetwork will probably be very cheap if not cheaper than other systems anyway. So which systems are you proposing they move to if they wanted it the data to have other benefits of the safenetwork? Like un-censorable, secure, that they can uploaded anonymously, and that it can’t be taken down without taking down the internet, and with great data redundancy, and they have full control of the data?
There IS NO SYSTEMS IN EXISTENCE for them to move their data to. But if a better network comes out, then yeah sure of course they will start using the new one. But you have to realise, with the current model of the network, the network ALREADY promises that they’d pay once for forever access to their data, but if a new network comes out and everyone stopped storing new data on safenetwork, but do not want to pay to store the data they’ve already stored on the safenetwork to store that same data on the new network, they will eventually end up losing their data under the current model of the safenetwork
Never said that. This is how you keep it going and going, answer something people didn’t say. I am done with this. You know that all you are after is farmers to be paid along the rates of other crypto projects at the expense of the uploaders. Of course people move their old data to the new favored system and BTW I didn’t say the new system they moved to was any sort of payment model. And yes there is other systems, what do you think dropbox is?
I am not saying that! I am saying, the model could be changed such that usage of the network boosts the network, instead of having the model in a way such that accessing data, a major usage of the network, actually draining and not helping the network.
I think there’s a misunderstanding, I am a bit confused now, anyway I removed that part the argument still remains.
You know that’s not the case! That’s just one of my proposals, you got to stop assuming all these things about me, but anyway, at least it may explain a bit about why you were quite against me. My intention is simply to bring up the potencial issues and let community come up with some solutions. And the one i have come up indeed have those consequences, but that’s because I am not smart enough to come up with others OKAY? So please help contribute if you can too. I would like the network to be up and running forever and have minimal setbacks as much as you’d like to.
Ok you obviously didn’t read the part of what I said about all the other benefits…
So be it, since you really can’t seem to understand where I’m coming from and at least some of the essence behind my arguments, but at least understand that my intentions are simply to make the network better and try not argue against everything I say unconditionally(which you seem to be doing)
As you say, they are your assertions. You own them. Therefore, you need to provide arguments for them. In fact, I see a lot of arguing and repeating of your assertions, but I see little actual argument for your assertions. If you bring something to the table, expect people to interrogate the owner of them.
It is significant to the same degree as any lifeboat scenario. If you are not in or likely to be in a lifeboat squabbling over food/water, it is all academic though.
Or it could just be that we have thought about the problem for years, digested it, understood the technology and the approach chosen. Thus, we have concluded that your assertions have some validity, but there is no compelling argument for them occurring (you haven’t even presented one!).
What? If everyone did just that, there would be new data perpetually being added to the network!
So, Safe Net has become obsolete (uneconomic, unreliable)… rent will not save it. Just move your files to the new fancy pants network. You are hardly likely to start paying rent on an obsolete network, that you already thought you had persistent storage on. It just isn’t logical.
If everyone did that IN DIFFERENT TIMES, if everyone did that at the SAME time then no. So this network then obviously relies on new people keep on doing that, we can never stop doing that otherwise all our data may be at stake.
Yes well could be so also, well said.
First, thank you
Second, I’m a little confused, I’ve presented my philosophical arguments regarding how a network SHOULD be able to sustain itself when people are using it, and philosophically it shouldn’t be even POSSIBLE for people to use it while the network die at the same time. It does not make sense to me. Could you please help by maybe giving ME an EXAMPLE of a compelling argument that you said I should come up with?
So in that case though, what would make safecoins valuable? You’re then giving people FREE data storage? Both storing AND downloading? Why would safecoins be even needed? Isn’t that worse than the current one? Plus it makes safecoin no longer a store of value…
Compare with Bitcoin where the coins have value, not because huge miners are burning up massive amounts of electricity, but because of the service the system provides. I started a thread about this: Reducing Safecoin inflation over time
The prices we are talking here will be tiny. I pay for 100 GB for £1.59 a month with Google. I make that about £0.000016 per MB. Given a photo is about 3 MB, or about £0.000047. About 5p for 1000 photos! If Safe Net is in the same ball park as Google (reasonable to assume, IMO), the costs are super low. Not only that, but you will only pay for what you use with Safe Net, rather than what your total allocation is (which Google do well out of me on to - I use a fraction of it!).
A small one off fee to store all your photos forever would be appealing to many (me at least). I would also be happier storing more sensitive data, which I just don’t trust cloud providers with.
We will have to wait to see how the numbers pan out, but there is plenty of cause for optimism. This post would have cost about £0.00000002!
Naturally… time is a dimension we have the luxury of enjoying.
Why on Earth would you expect everyone to upload everything at the same time?
You haven’t presented an argument as to why your assertions would both occur. You have just asserted that without new data, the network cannot sustain itself. Why would there be no new data, given a reliable and economic network?
I don’t think a rental model would do anything to help either and would be damaging to the network for all the reasons stated earlier and the fact that storage is cheap and storing old data becomes cheaper and cheaper with time, so I can’t really see any scenario where the actual storage costs are any issue at all.
If, however, at some point PUT costs rise to what many would feel is unreasonably high, if for example large amounts users download extreme amounts of data without uploading almost anything, then perhaps a subscription model could be added.
A subscription model would be a subscription for getting a certain amount of data, not for storing it, for example pay a certain amount of safecoins (would be decided by the network) so perhaps you’d pay the equivalent of 10$ a month to download up to 10 terabytes per month or whatever. There would be extra complexity to this though, the network would need some algorithm for calculating a subscription price, it would need to keep track of the number of GET requests each user do to ensure they don’t go over the limit. Paying per GET request might seem unreasonable for many users and they might feel that using SAFE would be too expensive, but paying a small amount every month is something people already do for broadband subscription, netflix etc. Since there’s currently no time concept in the network it could also be buying a data package, like you can do on mobiles, you can pay some amount for a certain amount of data. I think that the amount you’d have to pay would in any case be low enough that it wouldn’t be a problem. I think most people will in any case pay for using SAFE. Most likely extremely few would be using SAFE exclusively for read only access, much of normal usage of web apps include storing some data, like clicking like or favorite when reading something or whatever. I think if people would have to pay a miniscule amount for GET requests basically, it wouldn’t really change who’s paying, it would just make it so that people who are uploading lots of data will to a lesser degree subsidize people who are downloading lots of data without uploading that much.
This will not increase PUT costs. What increases PUT costs is massive amount of PUTs without increased vault space
Removing the notion that the network does not track you. Of necessity the network now has to keep tabs on you
The current proposal is simple and nicely keeps the benefits of SAFE. to have rental or subscription removes some of the benefits SAFE has worked so hard to incorporate inherently
I see what you mean now, thank you again, for clarifying.
Ok, first, i can’t present any argument against why no new data will be generated, other than the end of the universe, or mankind at least.
However, new data being generated doesn’t necessarily affect the safenetwork, it’s new data being generated THEN people pay for those new data being stored on the safenetwork that’s more relevant, and I can present some arguments for why no new data will be stored on the Safenetwork specifically, a case would be that there are other better networks out, another case could be some bug/seriously security glitch happened where someone could generate an infinite amount of safecoins(like it happened with Bitcoin) and everyone stopped using it. It could also be that someone figured out how to filter safenetworks traffic specifically and block it, and maybe there are content on the safenetwork that’s bad enough that every ISP decided to block access to safenetwork.
Those scenarios are quite unlikely, of course, because they’re arguing for a scenario where no new data will ever be stored on the safenetwork after people have already used it for a period of time. But thing you should realise is, with the current model, there are several other scenarios that can affect the network.
it can affect the network enough if simply the amount of new data being stored on the safenetwork suddenly surged then dropped or simply dropped rapidly, while the value of safecoin remained relatively constant or decreased, and bandwidth costs remained relatively constant or increased, during that same period.
Scenarios where this could happen : After people migrate the current existing data onto the safenetwork, if the marketing of safenetwork is done aggressively, events happening in the world, aka during Olympics, there may be several other events, causing people to suddenly store new data, then afterwards the demand suddenly drops. Value of safecoin increasing exponentially making the safenetwork gain huge traction then the safenetwork having a down fall because of a relatively large security breach of either the network or an exchange etc etc. Financial crisis, nuclear war, a much better network and marketed aggressively. (you can come up with scenarios yourself too)
How would this affect the network : This would affect the network because the farmers will end up quitting and affect the data redundancy of the network, hence perceived reliability of the network for future storers of data.
it can also affect the network if the amount of new data being stored on the safenetwork dropped slowly, while the value of safecoin remained relatively constant or decreased, and bandwidth costs remained relatively constant or increased, during that same period.
Scenarios where this could happen : After people migrate the current existing data onto the safenetwork, if the marketing of safenetwork is done slowly. A better network came out, a declining population(could happen sometime in the future, as Earth can only sustain so many people), people not really caring about privacy, security or censorship as unhackable systems come out, or better encryption mechanisms come out, or as people like the government more, they may shift their perspectives towards these things. Safecoin value can also suddenly reduce due to pump and dumps.
How would this affect the network : This would affect the network because the farmers will end up quitting and affect the data redundancy and growth of the network.
Of course the exact same time would be impossible, I don’t expect that, I’m simply saying it to more explicitly highlight the potencial pitfall. Because while they won’t do it at the exact same time, the demand of storing new data onto the network can come in waves, even due to random chance, or other events happening in the world. You may have a lot of people storing a lot of data for a year, perhaps even as the value of safecoin increases and it gets more traction as I mentioned before etc followed by a prolonged bear market and loss of interest. The network isn’t too equipped to handle waves of new surge in demand for data then little demand for storage new data for a while.
And like i said, even if we assume the new data being stored on the network is consistent through time(this is unlikely BTW). there is still the problem of the networks growth aka farmers payments being only limited by the storage of new data, which only makes 1/2 out of the major usage scenarios of the network, the other one being, of course, accessing existing data on the network. Making a way to make the network grow as more people are using it is definitely a good way to go anyway, as it helps the network grow more steadily and reliably and more resistant to possible setbacks due to less or unstable demands in just one potencial usage of the network(aka storing new data), so that the people demanding and enjoying the other usage of the network(i.e. accessing existing data), can remain much less affected in such scenarios i outlined, and any other possible scenarios.
Currently, the network can only grow or remain relatively stable in two ways : demand of storing new data is consistent throughout(then let the decrease in the cost of storage and increase in the value of safecoins do the job) OR the demand for storing new data on the safenetwork is ALWAYS increasing, both of which i think is unlikely.
Demand for storage of new data would likely come in waves due to reasons i described, and if you think the demand to store new data on the network is going to ALWAYS increase, you REALLY need to think again, it’s so likely that it’s not going to be true. It’s VERY common for any new or existing and even old technologies/companies, successful people, anything you can name, to experience pitfalls and setbacks, during which(in the case with the safenetwork) the demand to store new data onto the safenetwork will be set to a bear trend, during such trends, existing data could be seriously at stake, it will give a bad name to the safenetwork in general. It may be perceive to become less reliable than just having your own USB and putting it in Google drive, once a set back occurs and people reports they lost extremely important personal data, it’ll be on the media. Setting mechanisms in place to prevent these things from occurring i think is going to be a major contributor to the networks longevity and success.
You have no valid arguments.
You are repeating a statement that there is a problem, and repeated that your idea of a solution to it is needed, when several people have quite elaborately shown that it is not a problem (you have agreed that it was based on a highly unlikely scenario), and explained why the solution would not be good. You take no impression of this, and so you are effectively saying that you are right. You don’t need to play so naïve to not understand that.
You have also been flexible eventually, to your credit, but why do you keep clinging to a conclusion based on the unrealistic scenario?
That you are centre of world, no you did not use those words. It was a pointy remark to the general behavior of considering everyone that contradict you to be misunderstanding you. It is a very classical thing to do.
And so, yes, that is then a meta discussion. We inevitably get to it when someone is insisting on proclaiming the importance of something based on an unrealistic scenario, instead of moving the discussion on with reasoning and logic. I.e. when you keep repeating conclusions based on an artificial scenario.
You see, it raises the question what your motivation for doing this is.
So, “only bringing up some potential issues” for discussion? That is a very generous interpretation of “potential”. When the likelihood is so low, that it is only potential if imagining an unrealistic scenario, what do you wish to achieve by, not only bringing, but also keeping it up for discussion?
It is very close to spreading misinformation. That is why your behavior is being questioned generally, also after all your arguments have been thoroughly dissected. And that is why I’m intervening here.
There has been plenty of patience with it. But when it borders to spreading misinformation, well, then you are stretching the limits for what the forum is intended for.
Naturally, anyone doing this would be very squirming about it, constantly reassuring the good intentions, as to be allowed to keep spreading the misinformation.
Now, you have it all in your hands how you want the discussion to continue, if you want to research and contribute, or just keep proclaiming unsupported ideas.
You are putting a lot of energy and time into proclaiming something that you yourself is saying is not very likely.
I see it as either you are more concerned of spreading the idea that there is a problem, or you need to sort out your priorities. (I mean, why are you spending so much time with a non-question?).
And all of the above is the answer to this question below. Except, you do not need to act victim, because you are not being attacked as person. Plainly speaking: Your bs is called. What you do is seen and confronted. Totally different story, and you cannot hide behind playing a victim, because we are talking about your behavior here - which is always a valid subject when you are interacting with people. But naturally, you’d be squirming about it. I have not expected less.
You can still change how it is seen by simply not keeping to announce a problem based on an unrealistic scenario OR just detail why the scenario would not be unrealistic. Your choice really. It is completely normal stuff.
See there, clinging to “if everyone did this”. Again, is that likely? No. So what are we discussing?
We could, if that would make you happy, all say that: Yes, if the unrealistic scenario was realistic, then yes, the conclusion would be correct. Maybe this is all you are looking for?
Already in the first posts it was stated: The network will be used both for gets and puts (only being used for gets is not a realistic scenario) - and if not, then it is simply not being used. And yes, if the network is not being used it will be dead. It is a problem in the same way that if I am dead, I will be dead. Yep.
