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

And I consider this wrong for so many types of files. It may be true for some but not for most large files.

The Disney effect for one. This can be kids and timeless classics, or a limited effect for a TV series where people are just starting to be interested and start from the beginning. There are so many TV series that even 15% in a region on release is considered massive viewing, but the sales of DVDs and Netflix/Hulu/Stan/etc show a lot more watch TV series long after release (usually more than double the release figures). Yet because of the number of TV series “worth” watching no one can keep up to date with them all and as Netflix shows the old stuff is worth their disk and bandwidth costs to keep on file.

The evidence out there shows that while files are accessed less the usage of the files is still not small even after years and worth the cost to them to keep available. So the 3 months being generous is plainly false from both experience and commercial considerations.

File type usage is very important and movies being a major type of file that is both large and shows that a good portion are still used well above insignificant after years kinda of shows that the simplistic view that 3 months is way too short and your parameters need tweaking.

So while your examination is good the time frame and parameters are not right.

And as I said before I agree that overall file usage drops off as the file ages and is a important aspect of the payment model, it is certain not 3 months.

EDIT1: In my modeling I never considered websites and wide variance of their use of files and/or MDs. This it seems is also going to be a very large usage of data/storage and does not follow your model of fit into the study I read.

EDIT2: @tfa I am trying to find the source of a study that read a while back about file access over time. In the meantime can you give me the source of your all significant access in 1st 3 months please

1 Like

Oh you want to change reality now. Rental means the person does not own the object being rented. Its a definition of rental and a experiential fact. If someone else holds the delete/don’t delete strings (and determined on your paying rent included) on a file then the other person does not own the file. They may have created it but they don’t own it on that system. Even if an admin can delete a file on you then you don’t own the file, pretty simple really. But I guess that you are so used to not actually owning stuff that you feel having use of something is owning it. Use != ownership

You have a strange view on ownership, or else this is another one of those misinformations to keep the topic going?

1 Like

And there is another dimension to that. The coin creation attempt which occurs once on average every 1/FR GETs only succeeds if the generated (pseudo random) coin address is available. The effect of this is to reduce the successful coin rewards as the number of coins reduce.

So for a given GET

  • a function determines if a coin attempt is to be made. This occurs on an average of once every 1/FR GETs
  • a function determines the coin address to try and create
  • If the address already has a coin then no coin is created
  • If the address doesn’t have a coin at it then the coin is created and given to the farmer
  • The %age of coin creation successes is going to be (“Coins_Available”/“Max_Possible_Coins”) * 100%
  • Thus as the available coins reduce the successful attempts to create coin reduces.

The effect is that the number of attempts to create a coin from farming is determined by FarmingRate and is always this independent of available coins. But the successful coin creations reduce as available coin reduces.

3 Likes

No you do… Does anyone own the blockchain? Or data stored on sia? I consider if the data is maintained in a decentralised way then the data isn’t owned by someone else. It has no owners, only controllers, and you’re the only human controller, the other is the smart contract which isn’t owned by anyone.

Like I said, it’s not rental, I simply call it recurring fee but you’re not “renting” per say

Strange when did you redefine your desire to rent, and call it by its operation. That is recurring fees while the person is using the things being rented. I don’t care what you call it, it still is not true ownership like what SAFE provides. BTW that is what rental is “recurring fees to use something” (including storage containers)

And that isn’t ownership is it.

You know in my era only children equated use with ownership, but I guess times have changed.

Well SAFE gives us real ownership not the pseudo ownership you are peddling.

Oh BTW SAFE only curates (for want of a better word) your files and does not control it in the sense you were using it (as a controller)

7 Likes

You don’t own something you need to rent. If you have to pay to access it you don’t own it.

5 Likes

I have a proposal for this issue of files becoming stale over time, we disagree on that time period but hey this isn’t about the actual time or curves they follow.

David has mentioned often the concept of archival nodes that some people may run. These would be huge vaults with some archival storage methods and these can survive because people will GET enough chunks to cover the cost.

Well it would not take much for chunks to have a #transfers count since last request for the chunk. And once this reaches a network calculated value the chunk is stored on a archival node rather than a normal farming node. (and yes keeping to the target of 8 copies to be kept.

This way when a vault is powered off and the chunks are moved to other nodes then when the chunk is retrieved from one of the other vaults its count is incremented and if over the network calculated value it is sent to one of the archive nodes. That way farmers will have the freshest chunks while the archive nodes end up with older chunks. If a chunk is never access again then all the 8 copies will end up in 8 (maybe 12 for safety) different archive nodes.

Also the effort required is a meta data count that is only incremented when a vault is powered down and the network is creating new copy for each of its chunks Or zeroed when the chunk is requested from the vault… This way it is extremely small additional load for the network.

2 Likes

No, rent should be defined as, recurring fee to use something that you don’t own. And the fee is set by the owner of the property and they can take the property from you after you use it, and that the owner has to be a human. You can own a vacuum cleaner, but pay electricity to use it, hence recurring fee for usage, you can’t say that you’re renting the vaccum cleaner now can you?

1 Like

By that logic, You’re paying electricity to access your phone therefore you don’t own your phone.

Whatever, you live in a different reality to many of us here. Electricity is not a fee on the vacuum, get real. Electricity is electricity and is another thing you pay for.

It must be easy when you can just change the meaning of things to fit your argument.

I still don’t see how you keep saying people will GET enough to cover the cost without mentioning that all the money paid when people GET is from when people store new data! And sometimes people may not get paid enough depending on if there’s enough people storing new data

The point I’m trying to make is you can say you paying recurring fee for access to something yet still own that thing.

The data could also permanently be there and you pay a bit of bandwidth every time you access it, aka pay per view. You can consider paying for bandwidth to access the data same as paying for electricity, and ownership of the data itself is a separate thing.

You just fail to understand it from other perspectives. You should be aware of the fact that ownership in the current world does not depend on anyone else and does not affect anyone else but you. You can own your phone and you will depend on no one else for your ownership of that phone, nor require people to run computers for you to “own” that phone. However in the safenetwork’s case, people storing new data and farmers spending their own money on providing you the bandwidth is essential for your ownership, so your “ownership” AFFECTS AND DEPENDS on other people, you can really argue if that’s really ownership but anyway…

And once again its you are right and others cannot see it. Have you even considered that people have considered from your perspective and simply don’t agree and give you their reasons? You know people are smarter than you give them credit for.

1 Like

Hey, I’m not saying I’m right. I don’t think I ever have, I’m just saying you just fail to understand the point I’m trying to make sometimes which is true

qed. . . . . . . . . .

2 Likes

… I’m right in saying that you don’t understand the point I’m trying to make sometimes. Which is clearly shown by how you responded to my post even now…I can clearly see sometimes you misunderstood the things i said and meant. When I said “I don’t think I ever said I’m right” I’m taking about actual argument points not meta-argument(argument about the argument) points… Come on…

Anyway you win like I said, I already admitted defeat so I’m just going to be silent now. No point. :slight_smile:

True but I can take my vacume cleaner and power it with a solar panel. Technically I’m not paying to use the vaccume. I’m buying fuel FOR the vaccume cleaner in the form of power. I could have a gun and either buy ammunition or create the ammunition myself (people have been known to smith their own ammo). However if my data is stored on a remote server and the server host refuses to give me my data because I didn’t pay him to access it then THEY own my data, not me. Paying to access is RENTING not ownership. Now if I had my data on a disk of some sort and was paying to use a computer at a cafe that would be different. Why? Because I could take my data and tell the cafe owner to go bugger off and then go to the next computer cafe next door, or buy my own computer, and still access my data. I would be paying for a federated tool to access my data but not access to the data itself. It would be similar to buying ammo or power. What good is the computer if you can’t access your data? What good ammo with no gun? What good is power with no vacume or other device?

This is why I don’t use spotify or any other such service. Because I want to have access to the files I’m playing. If I’m going to develop a collection of any sort I want to be in control of it. I want to be able to download it, access it, organize it, and send the files wherever I want. And most of all I don’t want to have to pay to access my own stuff.

2 Likes

Yes good point. Although the safenetwork is somewhat a slightly special case. You can consider paying for bandwidth buying fuel to use your data. And you can make your own “fuel” too by farming and giving the network your resources or getting safecoins using any other way, such as buying it or trading your car for it, whatever you can think of. If you consider it this way, you can own the data while paying for its access.

And to be frank, no one wants to pay the network for access including me, who wouldn’t want more things to be free. So I’m on your side in a sense, it’s just, is it possible? Would doing this limit the expandability of the network or affect it in other ways to a point worth being concerned about? That’s what I’m thinking about…

That’s like the Ned Kelly movie, ending first :wink: You answered the questions you then asked :smiley:

9 Likes