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.