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


See, right now, PUT requests add to the network while GET requests drain the network. So why don’t we do this, leave PUT request as is, but make GET request sustain the network instead of drain it.

So basically, people will pay for viewing, the exact amount of gets that farmers get paid for delivering the GETS. It’ll be Very minimal amounts of course. And as people use the safenetwork more and more there’s more content on the network and more people get on board. There will be websites where you do surveys and get like free safecoins to view the network for ages.

People nowadays already pay for internet anyway. Make them pay $1-5 extra per month for all the bandwidth they’ll need for the safenetwork that month isn’t bad. Also, the websites themselves or any data people upload, can have an option for the uploader to instead pay for their viewers(they already do now anyway), they can maybe have an option to choose a 50/50 share too whichever. So they will get more views than otherwise. All they need to do is leave safecoins in their wallet it’ll get automatically taken. Very simple for them.


Then its the double paying people reject. But really for me mobile data+phone is all inclusive. But everyone pays to connect to the internet but its the browsing the internet and you have to pay twice for this? That is one reason they reject it.

But the Microsoft experiement in the mid ninties showed it for the failure it is. And in the mid nineties you paid by the KByte downloaded from the ISP in most cases and 100’s Megabye (NOT GB but MB) quotas were rare. So the MSN subscription was a very small amount compared to what people paid the ISP, yet it failed and failed entirely.

I think the average was approaching 40% over most ISPs aggregate and they were using techniques to throttle the P2P as well. Then we saw a drop off of unlimited. Optus in 2000 was unlimited on their cable then they started enforcing kick offs of people who used 10x average, then introduced 60-200GB/month then higher and higher till they offered unlimited on their 100Mb/s cable plans. TPG is the 3rd largest ISP with unimited on the NBN and Telstra the largest just doubled their plans and increased their unlimited offerings

Europe I believe is also increasing their high speed plans with larger quotas or unlimited.

There is a few hundred posts discussing this elsewhere. Botnets cost the runner to run, they don’t rent them out for free. And caching would be reducing that to some extent. Large botnets are like 10,000 and expensive just for that. 2-5 days usually is all most attackers can afford.


I think there are several reasons it failed and that the subscription cost is not the main one, but that’s debatable though.

Obviously a botnet of 10 000 computers couldn’t do any kind of damage, that’s a relatively small one. Large botnets are millions or tens of millions of computers. Newer botnets infect millions of unsecured IoT devices and as the number of IoT devices grow, these could become more numerous. As for who could afford such attacks? Someone with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Bitcoin who wanted to protect their Bitcoins against potential competitors for example.


Hahahaha what i just read this… MSN failed cos of subscription fees? That’s my first time hearing anyone say that is the reason for its failure. :joy:

It failed mostly because of its user interface not upgrading overall very hard to use and not many features etc. If you compared to the Chinese version of it which copied but improved on MSN, namingly QQ, it’s extremely successful. It’s not compulsory to charge subscription but people voluntarily pay for QQ ruby or emerald memberships for their added features that goes beyong just a computer messenger. Used to be more crazy than it is now, now the entire Chinese population moved to Wechat(and foreigners are coming on board too), also owned by the same company that made QQ. But that’s another story.

Important point to take away though, is that instead of saying something just won’t work, you can only say you cannot think of a good way to make it work. I personally think pay-to-view if designed right can work very very well. You can have websites on safenetwork offering to pay people like 0.001 safecoins so they can access the network for free for one day to see what it’s like upon a sign up where all they need to do is put in their name and email etc(they’ll obviously do this on their www website), there’s going to be a myraid of other ways you may not even have ever thought of if you close your mind to the possibility of it being doable in the first place. (Kinda a similar thing you’re doing with a proposed recurring fee model too)


Remember though node age, so young nodes that switch off will find it hard to age. So botnets etc. need to have uptime, traditional computer infested botnets probably won’t work so well. Botnets of IOT is interesting though, it could be an attack if they can hold enough data etc. Even so though the botnet has to live a long time to get to where its vote would be valid. So it would need to be a botnet of pretty beefy IOT devices (not prohibitive though) but undiscovered for a long time as well.

Just for info, hope it helps.


Uh oh …


Anyway. We don’t know yet exactly what attacks SAFE will experience or what imagined or not imagined issues will turn out to be a problem or not. Bitcoin has been attacked time and again and every time it has emerged stronger and more secure and so will SAFE.

SAFE is an antifragile system. Its code can be changed, it has the capacity to evolve. That doesn’t necessarily mean there won’t be anything that replaces it at some point and it doesn’t say anything about what market position and market share it will take, but it does mean that attacks and problems in general will make it stronger over time, rather than weaker and as it grows stronger, its potential use cases will increase even if at some point there could be temporary setbacks and loss of confidence as a result if attacks or unforseen issues.


It failed because there was a way to see the whole internet for free viewing (excluding ISP costs) and Netscape browser blew MSN subscription out of the water. If we charge for browsing SAFE then the traditional internet will blow us out of the water. People RESENT having to pay twice to read things.

Good try though.

And someone will just fork your rental and bandwidth paying to have what Maidsafe’s model and take all the people from your EXPENSIVE web to a non greedy one. Increased costs is not going to attract more people


Um… What? No one has really heard of Netscape. Internet Explorer was much better marketed as it came with every Windows computer and became mainstream then Chrome took over cos its GUI and performance as well as features was much better

Again, no. Because there will be ways around it. You certainly won’t think of any though if you keep on thinking there isn’t any.

And regarding forking, yeah sure they can do that, first not many farmers will join which would mean storage cost will be high, and it can’t handle waves of interest and disinterest(which forks often often, if not always, experience)


EDIT: I think I worked out some of the confusion. MSN in the mid nineties is not wat MSDN or MSN is today, but back then it was Bill’s attempt to win the web and via the MSN. Ever wonder where 9MSN comes from> Well that came from channel nine siding with Bill about which network would become the internet. Bill went around courting businesses.

Really? You obviously didn’t use the net during that time and expalins why you are grasping at straws with your explanations

But by the middle of 1995, Netscape had jumped to an 80% share of the market. It might seem short-sighted now, but at the time, coding for Netscape was the only way to go.

And that’s when Netscape got their first real competition from the goliath they knew would eventually come around: Microsoft.

You see, Microsoft had largely ignored the web (and the Internet at large) for some time. Bill Gates failed to recognize the importance of this new network early on,

Microsoft’s enterprise customers, however, began to ask for this kind of support. And some employees began experimenting with setting up web servers and a central information hub, which would later transform into the Microsoft Network.

And Microsoft could not compete while they charged the users to view the web through their MSN Explorer. And that is why it became the Internet Explorer. (yes a tad more complex than that. But while people paid their ISPs they resented paying microsoft to browse the internet and dumped on their MSN while they could use Netscape (and others) to view the web for no extra cost.

And BTW it was netscape that caused microsoft to be tried under the anti-trust legislation over their explorer. So yes I feel its appropriate to say Netscape blew the MSN charge to view the internet out of the water.

Just because your rental and bandwidth charging is not going to work does not mean anything other than that. Your idea to get more money for farmers at the expense of uploaders is not going to help and disagreeing with your idea does not make anyone closed minded.

Again facts pulled out of thin air that have no basis in anything including reality. Even those on this forum who have said how much storage they will provide on day one is huge. So no your “fact” is pure thin air stuff


No, it’s more like, just because you think it’s not going to work doesn’t mean it’s actually not going to work.

Of course not, but disagreeing repeatedly regardless of any evidence presented and refusing to accept the possibility that you yourself may be wrong as well is the definition of being close minded.

I’ve presented reasons for why the network isn’t too well equipped to handle waves of demand to store new data. So far no one has produced a counter argument so far.


Ummm but that is what you have been doing. Nice debating technique but doesn’t help your argument. I notice that you no longer can present any more evidence your idea might have a chance to work but are now attacking those who point out the problems. And what do you know, I am certainly not the only one and some very talented knowledgeable people have also told you in clear terms where you are wrong and why.

And I notice that when your “errors” are pointed out you don’t admit the fault but go on to attack the person like you just did now. You have spread quite a bit of misinformation from studies to bandwidth in AU to the current SAFE model as a 2 dimensional model to just stating and claiming as fact things that have no support. Hell you even had a go at me for thinking Netscape was a real thing, yet a google search would have educated your ignorance and saved you the egg on your face. Chinese defeated the mid 90’s MSN, oh dear give me some popcorn and beer so I can enjoy whats coming next.

This is why I say it is you who are “repeatedly regardless of any evidence presented and refusing to accept the possibility that you yourself may be wrong” Because you are wrong ever so many times in this topic and rarely if ever admitted it.

So before you attack others you had better get your house in order.

No you haven’t. Others have called you to give a detailed reason why and how your edge case would ever come into existence and why we should even consider it before all the other far more likely situations. Yet you just repeat you are giving it as something that needs examining without reason why it needs examining.

Its not just me you are fighting but many others who are very educated and knowledgable and have considered the many aspects of the current model.

And this is why I decided before to stop answering. But all this misinformation can be so confusing to new people who think there is actually something wrong with the current SAFE model. And you put so much energy into such a failed cause. Oh and the Microsoft saga in the mid nineties when they wanted to be the internet web was ever so funny (real popcorn and beer stuff) with all the announcements coming out of MS headquarters (deleted now since the anti-trust case) and then Netscape taking on Microsoft. And then people just putting up the middle finger to MS and using Netscape or another browser. Even using the MSN browser and disabling its “use the MSN feature” They copied the other browsers too well hahaha.


Ummm sorry but that’s CLEARLY NOT what I have been doing. I’ve repeatedly said many times the current model as is may work, And that I’m bringing up a potential issue for discussion. Whereas any potential solutions I bring up or even the potential issue, all you say is solution doesn’t work. Issue doesn’t exist. I’m sure if a third party contrast it with how I approached it with how you did, they’ll see a massive difference…


Yes we have heard you say this again and again but saying it does not mean its now true.

And still you cannot give any evidence of why it could ever happen, even you said its artificial. “What do you do to fix things since God could create a rock he cannot lift” kinda of reasoning

So many brilliant minds (not me) have showed why you are mistaken


Just wanted to say I have enjoyed the banter between @neo and @foreverjoyful. Although at times tedious, the long-running discussion has been somewhat enlightening as well. It seems like now, though, it has developed into a battle over which one is going to have the last word.


What? I KNOW Netscape is a real thing… I don’t get what’s your point. Anyway I have no time for long typing too to be honest, and I rarely attack the person, in fact I am just pointing out what you have been doing, I don’t think that’s really attacking…

I feel like if you believe in something 100% and can’t admit the possibility that you may be wrong I don’t think I can argue further, so I did point some stuff out for you to maybe change the way you approach this a little bit, because it’s either that or I’ll simply stop talking, because I don’t think there’s a point to continue with you. And I think I’ve done enough for those that can see a potential issue to think about it further.

It’s just like how when the DAO contract was created there were some people who warned them that there may be security issues, but they went ahead and did it anyway, and it ran smoothly for a while until something happened.

I already done it. I can copy you the post but I am on the phone and I don’t think there’s a point anyway. If you scroll back you can find my arguments as well as evidence for:

  1. How the network’s philosophy, if it aligns with what I said in the premises in the original post, on a fundamental level, its design is in logical conflict with its philosophy.

  2. How the networks growth is to a sense limited by the amount of new data being uploaded.

  3. How the network may not be too equipped to handle waves of interest and disinterest, with real life scenarios of why and when there may be a sudden surge of demanding to store on the network and such, a surge increases in farmers, followed by a potentially prolonged loss of interest and little demand to store new data, while access to existing data may remain the same.

You REALLY shouldn’t be afraid of me spreading misinformation, because I have about 5-6 military-grade cannons(aka knowledgable people that have been around the forums for a long time) firing directly at me if and when I do, even when I’m simply making arguments, there’s a lot of people immediately fighting against them. As such, It’s unreasonable to expect that anyone reading the thread wouldn’t do their own due diligence to think and research before believing in what I say. If I still remain convincing to them however, have you ever thought it MAY, however slight the chance, just be due to my arguments being logical and making sense? And there may, again however slight the chance, be a potential issue? After all, my opposition(at least vocal opposition) is much stronger than anyone that I have who may agree with me.

You may think logic can be somehow “broken” in so called “higher dimensions” you speak of. Anyway, I don’t believe that, logic as I have learned it in philosophy does not come in dimensions, it is universal like maths. You say safenetwork is so many more dimensions than my “two dimensional” logic without explaining or giving a case in which my logic won’t apply. If I said “I went left or right and I didn’t go left” , in what dimensions would I have went anything but right if my sentence is to be true? I can’t think of any.

But anyway… Not the point, it’s taking too much time, I need to spend time with family doing other things too, but lately I’ve just been on the phone and computer typing. So I’ll admit defeat, if it makes you feel happier and think that I am no longer trying to “spread misinformation”. After all, I can only do so much. I won’t be discussing this topic any longer… with you at least… Let’s move onto discussing or doing something else more productive.


Contradictions much

Yet Netscape

But no one really heard of it? Yea right good one, pull the other leg mate.

Cya. Again I am going to sit back and watch the fireworks. Till you pull the misinformation card again with bandwidth is a free ride crap


There was no contradiction. If I say something like, no one has really heard of MySpace(after like 10 more years, so in 2027), Facebook was much better marketed etc etc it doesn’t mean I don’t acknowledge that it ever existed like you accused me of doing then calling me ignorant. I simply mean it’s no longer popular and we probably won’t ever hear of it again in the future.


Yea yea, but you compared it to another existing product marketing at the time. So say whatever you said it and wonder why people wonder.

Like I said see you later, I think you know your idea doesn’t fly. Even for the one in a billion chance of the doomsday artificial scenario happening.


I don’t really have the time to address everything you wrote, but it is probably too premature to discuss the responsiveness of the safecoin distribution algorithm.

We only know that the farming rewards will increase when storage is running low. We don’t know how quickly this will change, whether the storage costs will move in lockstep or not, etc.

I suspect damping rates will take some optimisation to cope with such swings.