Not if you have a surge of people who use it to store NEW data for a period of time, attracting many farmers, then a long time where no one stores too much NEW data but instead using the bandwidth excessively for existing data. The farmers income will be smaller and smaller over time, causing them to quit and network to suffer due to the positive feedback loop I describe earlier. It’s a possibility…
But either way though, let me asking you a question, if crime rates are zero right now, and is forecasted to stay zero forever… would you install a lock and door when you build your next new house? Do you trust the forecast enough to not have any mechanisms in place to protect your health and wealth(and in the case of the safenetwork - everyone’s data) in the case that the forecast is wrong?
I guess you could argue, well, what’s the probability that the forecast is wrong, which is a fair point, it may be small. Is the probability worth the additional development time? So fair enough, i’ll leave the community to decide on that…
Although, I just think there may be a POTENTIAL issue, since SAFE network is essentially giving free lunches(bandwidth) which does cost money. So even if the cost does go down, its growth is still limited, or in other words, proportionate to the amount of new data being stored on the network, which I’m just thinking, wouldn’t it be better for the whole network if the growth of it is also proportionate to the people who use the network to host and access their stored data? Instead of just making the growth proportionate to the amount of new data being stored on the network?
So in other words, why don’t we make the network’s growth PROPORTIONATE to the amount of EXISTING data on the network AS WELL AS the amount of new data coming into the network?
Yep
The objects on that picture are extremely exaggerated in size, and the distances in reality are very very large, so probability of collisions are not quite what the picture might give the impression of. Much of the debris is quite small, but with the velocities they have, they can seriously damage anything it impacts with.
So, the best way to end anything we send up, is to have it burn up in the atmosphere.
Cleaning up what is already there is not yet solved.
But your argument is for mobile data. And I see you didn’t quote me where I said it is NOT a stated goal of the safenetwork for farming on mobile data.
So you are still kicking a dead horse.
Oh did I mention that paying to brose is also AGAINST the stated goals of the safenetwork. So in effect you want to CHANGE SAFE to your network. Well fork the code and run your network.
In one of my replies yes, i just thought about mobile data one day so i thought i’ll post it, the topic/thread as a whole isn’t talking about mobile data at all though.
BUT the quote is from my reply to your new call for farming on mobile data. You need to keep your story straight and not lie through misinformation and misquoting
You want to charge for browsing and since that is against the stated goals of SAFE then I guess your only option is to fork the code and run your network
I don’t see your argument, if it’s only doing it via wifi then it’s okay for the users in terms of data cost but it’s still using someone’s landline, and the main point is bandwidth, regardless of mobile or landline, mobile is simply more costly. Also where did i lie?
Not what i said, I’m bringing this up for more attention on this potencial issue from the community, so we can work out something together perhaps. But yes, ONE of the several potencial solutions i outlined does require charging for browsing, among many others i’ve outlined, such as, charging whoever uploaded the data uploader for browsing of their data by anyone including themselves. Which is also pretty good as it gives them incentive to monetise their uploaded data to make some money, maybe run some adverts on videos, and that contributes back to the network.
No but its the result of doing what you want and actually it was a major feature you wanted to pay for the bandwidth.
I am with @Jabba, your like a dog with a bone and just cannot let go and has lost focus on the reality of what you are saying
Obviously some natural disaster (or whatever) could happen to make bandwidth costs go through the roof. But you need a reality check, what would also be happening when bandwidth availability drops though the floor. Remember this problem has to be a global one to affect SAFE. So you propose artificial situations that ignore reality and what would be happening to the world.
At that point a lot of people are no longer able to use the internet let alone SAFE. This is one of those doomsday scenarios that to try and code for is another decade of coding and building hardware and solving entanged communications.
As I have pointed out before, the sustainability issue is not just a technical one. Costs for PUTs will kill the network from a user perspective and costs for GETs will double kill it. In order to compete with the existing Web you need to offer something that’s like 10 times better. And I don’t think the claim of having less ads will convince people to start paying forever for both PUTs and GETs.
It’s like someone coming up with a new email standard with spam and attack prevention by putting a cost on sending and receiving emails. It will be difficult to get people to start using the new email system.
Wait, that’s not what I’m inferring… I’m just simply saying that cost of bandwidth may stay the same and/or may not decrease as fast as needed to sustain people using and consuming the network. Hence leading to farmers quitting due to little profits, they could for example quit farming so that they pay less for a lesser speed connection and less electricity, because the money they saved can buy more safe coins than if they farmed.
I didn’t say a doomsday scenario where both internet and safe gets destroyed. I’m only saying scenarios where the internet will out compete safe.
To stem the near doubling of bandwidth (backbone) each year would require something like a natural disaster. Research and current developments has a doubling each year for many many years to come.
So yes that is what is required to do what you are saying.’
AND you have been told this before. But reality does not sit well with you or your argument. Your argument is an artificial one and deny the reality of the situation .
Bandwidth not increasing and bandwidth/quota costs not decreasing to the consumer requires some sort of disaster (natural, political, war, etc) And then your argument is unreal in that situation. You know one in a 100 billion situation.
@foreverjoyful you are bringing this topic to the top for weeks and weeks now - I’m pretty sure everybody is aware of your concerns and will keep it in his/her mind when it comes to costs and safecoin implementation
Why don’t you let this rest now for a while until we reach the point where we discuss everything related to safecoin implementation - then every aspect will probably be discussed in detail and length… At least to me this lengthy discussion just has the effect that I’m annoyed by it… There have been many discussions about this ‘issue’ and it surely won’t be forgotten at safecoin implementation… But keeping it at top of the threads is simply annoying and won’t result in not discussing it later again… So… Why not wait for the right time
Yeah fair enough. I was just scared if the network launches it may be late causing everyone potentially to lose data but since they designed it so that the network could be changed without compromising existing data, I’m happy to wait and discuss it later
Very interesting and informative thread. I wish it had been one of the first I came across when joining the forum (it would have been had I joined a few days earlier). I would say it would be a good one for every newcomer’s recommended reading list as it may clear up a lot of problems based on the "intuition"of old paradigms. Perhaps this points to the need for a “recommended reading” list in addition to the “Top 10 things you need to know” thread. For myself, having found this thread very early on would have provided some key background information that wasn’t readily gleaned elsewhere and solved a lot of problems in my thinking about SAFE. This would have also made conversations on other topics I’ve had with other members more productive.
The impression I got from @foreverjoyful was that he had good intentions when initiating the conversation and exploring these ideas. However, @happybeing, @neo, @Traktion, @riddim, and others (including Mr. Irving) do provide a rather convincing argument early on why farming would be sustainable. At the very least it would seem that educating new farmers/users about the concept that safecoin returned for storage is a payment for a piece of eternity is important, which is fairly easy to do (perhaps via an updated perpetual data video??). It was pointed out that as long as everyone is made aware of SAFE’s mode of operation then real world economic forces concerning perpetual bandwidth and hardware costs will likely be factored in when making their decision to provide resources to the network. For me, it is rather clear that the need for data storage is exploding, and SAFE will be the go to destination for that data as long as the security offered and “pay-once” model is better than offers such as the pay per GB-year. Since by definition and design it is a pay per GB-forever, there may be edge cases where competitors could offer lower cost for transient temp data that people only want to keep for a few years, but it seems that it would be rather easy for SAFE to offer lower cost/lower durability pricing such as the suggestion by @neo if the need arose.
While reading through I thought might be good to view @foreverjoyful’s arguments as a test run for the type of media inquiry and PR optics that will need to be navigated as the network becomes more mainstream. Having a detailed publication or media packet that describes how concerns such as his are easily overcome may help things progress faster… maybe this has already been done and I missed it. There will be other individuals and organizations much less tech savvy than @foreverjoyful who don’t have the same passion for ensuring SAFE’s success; they too will need to be educated/convinced about some of these details.
One question did come to mind while reading through. Perhaps this has already been answered in the forum ad nauseum and I missed the details in my read through, but I’ll ask anyhow to entice someone to help me understand the basics because I think it does pertain to farming sustainability.
Considering farming rewards based on successfully retrieving a GET request, could an unequal distribution of valuable or “hot” data occur within the network? For example, some ‘old’ famers have been stable and have been storing the same stale data for a long time that nobody really has any interest in or that might only get accessed once a decade, while other farmers are providing a larger percentage of hot data that is accessed much more frequently. In other words, does the data continuously “swirl” around in order to make sure there is a random distribution of hot and cold storage to be shared among all the farmers in the network at any given time, thus ensuring a random distribution of farming reward? Is this where the constant migration of data due to caching comes in?
I believe farming is set up to be somewhat “competitive” among farmers. The ones with the fastest upload speed, most consistent “uptime” and fastest processing will reap the most rewards. Not sure if equitability is or should be the goal. Could be wrong here.
Note: This competitiveness will be mitigated to some extent by the planned “20% rule”, a cap on how much better one farming operation can be over the average measure. Everything beyond a 20% (or thereabouts) improvement over the average will be disregarded when calculating the farm rating.
When nodes leave the network, churn events occur, which cause the data to be copied to another node (if a copy threshold is reached). So, data does move about.
Vaults don’t have a choice about what they store and nor do they know what it is, so you can’t really be selective about it either. This is a good thing as it stops people hunting for hot data. Ofc, you can always rejoin the network as a fresh node again (an infant, new data chains terminology), but then you have to build reputation again, which will impact of farming rewards.
Perhaps there could be a mechanism to generate churn events, just to move stale data about. I suspect it could be added if needed, reusing exiting code.
If your reputation (farm rating) is posted you might be able to “hunt hot data” by turning off your machine after a prolonged period of low rewards, especially if you have strong reason to believe your specs should be producing more.
Restarting your machine might then result in a better “fetch” score. I am not sure what would keep a farm operator from doing this over and over until he was satisfied with the results.
It would become an infant and produce zero safecoin until it had matured. So you lose reputation and ability to earn, although you are farming or at least learning to as an infant
I suppose you would have to balance the effects of starting over for a period of time as an infant with the lack of results you are getting from your current “non-producing” vault. It is possible, isn’t it, that if you left your computer on you could get stuck with unpopular data in your vault for a long period of time? Might it then still be advisable to start over with an infant? You wouldn’t know to do this, of course, if you weren’t able to see your reputation score and reward total.
