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


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.


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. . . . . . . . . .


… 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.


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:


Well here’s how I see the SAFE network playing out long term.

At first it’ll be stuck relying on ISPs and people will be just devoting resources to the network. You’ll pay your ISP for internet access and then devote computer resources via your internet connection to the SAFE network to get decentralized internet.

But since the SAFE network will impliment mesh networking at some point either at the network or app layer, or both, then anyone with a SAFE connection can become an active node. This means even if one doesn’t have an active internet connection one can still devote access to the network via eithernet, wifi, or bluetooth. Or one doesn’t need to use the SAME ISP to devote resources. This means essentially very strict competition between ISPs and cell carriers.

Eventually as more and more people adopt the use of SAFE and more and more people start using cryptocurrency ISPs will start accepting cryptocurrency in one form or another which means that people will start being able to pay for their internet and cell service in cryptocurrency. This also means that ISPs will likely be the point governments attempt to tax. But given that by this point SAFE will be pretty wide spread, people will also be able to start expanding their own decentralized network of nodes. It’ll come down the old system of charging a for profit fee to use a closed source corporate network vs devoting unused computer resources to an open source encrypted SAFE network in order to use the network.


I like that thought a lot and since there is no connection to access of data but only to its age this sounds like a smart and privacy maintaining proposal

Hmmm - yes - valid argument that there should be simulations and estimations on how realistic different scenarios are - just saying storage growth will be large enough forever is too simplistic

I’m Very positive maidsafe will do those simulations and release them when it’s time to discuss safecoin :slight_smile: first things first and now is the time for data chains =D


From how I understand mesh networks, Mesh networks would take AGES, there has to be someone every 2 km apart on basically every piece of land on earth running a small walkie talkie sized signal tower for that to work right? Of course the distance depends on how big the signal tower is. If it’s just a small node then it doesn’t have much radius.

Your view is possible, although it’s an extremely positive view of everything, assuming EVERYTHING goes as planned, which 99.99% of the time doesn’t happen.


That is what I was trying to achieve a non-time method of aging the particular copy of a chunk so that the network can redirect its replacement to a archive node when its not accessed for quite a while. That count can be tuned so that both archive nodes don’t get too many chunks and farmers are not carrying too much stuff that isn’t accessed. Eventually the 8 copies will end up in archive nodes, but if in the meantime that chunk is accessed then those particular copies of that chunk not in archive nodes will remain in farmer nodes for some time.

But as you pointed out there is no count of accesses, no record of who or what is accessing that chunk, just IF that particular copy of a chunk is accessed at all and how many times it has moved between vaults since the last access. Its purely a meta value that is unrelated to a ID or person and only to the particular copy of the chunk itself.

This is not trying to send all copies of a chunk to separate archives at once, but is more of a migration of stale chunks to archives.

I’d say that when archive nodes are specified that something similar will be implemented so that archive nodes are filled with staler data and not fresh data. Hopefully the write once data cubes being prototyped now will be available by that time. (hundreds of TBs from memory and inexpensive to run) With things like this archive nodes can exist cheaply and with so much data stored each of these archive nodes should make plenty of coin even though each chunk is accessed rarely. So maybe 1% of the GETs per TB that a normal farmer is asked to retrieve, but with 1000 times the storage and *never* turned off then it could be earning 10 times what an ordinary farmer gets which should cover the expense of a couple of these huge archive storage devices.

Oh dear just had the image from the original Planet of the Apes where there were these terminals that stored mankinds knowledge


There is a possibility in data chains to tag the section prefix the data was stored at, this is an indication of age of data in relation to all other data if that makes sense. Its not there yet, but the prefix could be maintained with the data. As the network grows groups split and the prefix grows. These are versioned prefixes, so we can tell how old some data is that way. Latest access is perhaps not so easy unless we stored the prefix it was accessed at as well, but then metadata may start to grow. Its worth investigating though, I will keep it in mind.


Ahh My idea was to zero the age when an access is made. That was the age is the age since last access. Use 2 values if both the age since last access and the actual age is needed.


How much distance is between people who own cell phones? Even assuming not EVERYONE owns a cell phone. Roughly how much space between SOMEONE with a cell phone? Add into the mix laptops and routers. I walk down the street and I can’t spit without running into someone with a cell.

For longer distances add in things like LiFi, SDR, a few more wireless radios to act as APs and you’d be surprised how fast a backbone can be built if people put their minds to it. The fact that it’s decentralized means that anyone could contribute to said backbone and all that would matter would be contributing resources to the SAFE network. You’d be surprised how fast things could be built that way.


&Don’t forget satellites :slight_smile:

The cost and size of which are falling like crazy. I remember reading about thoudands of tiny cube-sats that were all dropped in space recently for some crazy low price.

The future of mesh internet :slight_smile:

Clarification: sats owned by real, regular people due to the cost of launches falling so much. Have your own personal satellite and choose to connect to others if you like, to form federated mesh networks :+1:


Yes, but it depends… near populated city centres it may be easy, but in rural areas or even just 30 minutes drive away from city centre, depending on which country you’re in, mesh networks may be pretty hard to pull together. Your phone doesn’t board cast very long distances. Maybe just 300 meters. So how is the mesh network of one city going to possibly connect to the mesh network of another city just 1-2 hour drive away?


Unlikely launching your personal satellite will be available to the masses for the next 50 years. But yes, that would be cool if that happens. You also have to factor in what if government decides to shoot down the satellites? Who’s to stop them?


Looks like this was misunderstood.

There’s definitely not one launch per satellite :stuck_out_tongue:

When they do it, even today, they group the orders together into the hundreds or thousands, so the Costs can actually make sense. I’ll find the articles again