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


One solution is the same way they set up the internet backbone where I grew up. Solar powered wifi radios to act as access points. Routers connect to the radios (which were usually pegged to trees or up on mountain tops) and viola a huge relay network that spanned the whole valley. We wouldn’t have had internet if we HAND’T set up our own system because we did live in a remote rural area and no one gave two bits about any of us.

But no way is that the ONLY way to solve it. Could set up high powered LiFi relays with line of sight situations if say you had flat plains or if you could get a relay on a mountain top or two. Or just start building a grid of nodes outwards from the city towards your destination.


@foreverjoyful I think @whiteoutmashups is talking about stuff like this *derailing-the-topic-completely *


Maybe so :slight_smile:
Could be using the micro satellites to connect the mesh network on ground.

A local mesh network could crowdfund their own satellite, that locks in position over their area, and keeps connection to other satellites.

So the mesh networks in cities and other areas, would connect through the satellites that run in fixed positions, forming a top layer for interconnecting all meshes.

Satellite future just has a small problem:

This is a map of all known space debris. (You can google space debris damage to see some nice pics).

We’re still on topic, just a bit out on a branch :slight_smile:
So, bandwith…


Also, imagine in the future where we all use mobile devices, the network has to operate on mobile devices’s hard-drive, and mobile bandwidth may cost a lot, but no matter the cost, it at least should have SOME cost, and if the amount of new data uploaded to the network is not enough to cover all the costs of people using the network, as people use the network more and more, then it becomes a big problem, slowly but surely, the amount of farmers will decline, further causing problems. It’s a very dangerous potencial positive feedback loop that the network should have a way of solving.

I’m thinking maybe some apps can also offer services for safecoins in payment that donates back to the network, but wouldn’t most developers just want to have the safecoins for themselves instead?


Why should it have ‘some’ cost?

If you pay a fixed monthly tariff for an unlimited connection then you do not suffer bandwidth limits or costs. This model will become more common, not less. We’re not going to move towards paying more for our bandwidth, we’re going to move towards paying less and using more of it.

There is a cost to the electricity, there is a cost to the hardware wear and tear, there is even an opportunity cost to the hd space you give up that you could be using for other things. The one thing that many of us have literally zero cost for is bandwidth. It is going ‘spare’. We already pay our fixed monthly bill, it doesn’t change no matter how much we use. The trend and technology is moving away from high infrastructure costs for basic services like bandwidth and it will continue to do so imo.

You are a dog with a bone though, it doesn’t seem like you can be swayed from this ‘cost to bandwidth’ idea you’re stuck on. I presume you are from the US and your experiences there are colouring your perspective on this? I know the pay-for-bandwidth model is common over there, despite the fact that it makes no sense?! You don’t pay per mile to use the roads. Centralised infrastructure like bandwidth does not need to be charged at a use-rate, access via subscription/road tax/toll model works better.


How will you charge for other’s space. And how to use that accumulating fee even to create more space without creating a financial central point of failure.

Just as with idiot sponsored media resulting in sponsored bribery based criminal government we now have sponsored data to try to create forced modal ads to reinforce sponsored media and government. So its predictable there will be an attempt to space constrain mobile devices to enhance fake caps and premium scams that work to disincentivize ever having adequate network capacity.

Answer must be in memory/bamdwidth (and at some point possibly surplus processing) costs being integrated into into mobile mesh nodes that bypass ISP sponsor-toll road-enclosures- that support corporate welfare barons. Seems the service would pay safe coin for excess storage beyond a minimum to support back channel. Same possibly for bandwidth but how to get that to the people that supply it? And how to keep it away from tax issues. Its a commons- have to forget generally nonsense tragedy of the commons gripes as these are generally just cord justifiers. If the network will remain autonmous it will have to remain in the hands of end users and aside from selling end user hardware good luck profiting from building out that network.

Initially it will use reserve capacity on people’s devices but since in the US at least the sponsor class keeps trying to turn ISPs from dumb pipe data utilities into spy/spin/discrimination/premium gouging platforms, services like SAFE that convert them back into true dumb pipes (as justice and anything other than criminality demands)- they will throttle and deproritize SAFE type function forcing off end user spare capacity onto purpose built hardware. There is a time window though. Its an arms race.

Thread is annoying because it seems to be this no commons TANSFL its wrong if its not enabling the ‘profit’ of rip off artists vibe.


Ummm you need to read more, This is NOT a stated goal of the SAFE network. It is only when the mobile device is on a local WiFi will it do any farming.

Also if you read about upcoming 5G networks then its going to rival fixed line bandwidths. Also the quota allowance on mobile networks is increasing year by year. 70GB/month on 4G included with the phone plan is common now due to a new company rivaling the price gouging of the big telcos. It was not that long ago it was 1GB and not that long before that it was 15 cents per megabyte You’re in Australia you should read the news a bit more and realise that bandwidth and quota prices have only ever dropped in price and the research & current development show its not slowing down at all. You are kicking a dead horse here.

EDIT: Just saw vodafone is offering 90GB included on a voice plan. So increases all the time

But since farming on mobile phones while on Mobile is not a goal of the SAFE network then your argument has no merit at all.

If and only if it becomes profitable to farm with mobile phones on mobile data, will people start farming,

You seem to forget - people will only farm when it profitable for them to do so. So no need to charge for bandwidth. It ends up being a cost to browse and something that will stop people using SAFE and if people stop using SAFE then SAFE dies.


Couldn’t agree more but certain criminal types in the US believe that it should be possible to pay for censorship (money megaphone especially through sponsorship and paid discrimination and every other form of money based conflict of interest) in order to silence people to strip them of their rights and make them into property. They are very clear that labor died when automation solved the economic problem which meant capital died- but that was 50 years ago and in the interim, to keep their status, they’ve been trying to take the masses back to the plantation with stuff like delinking wages from inflation and also petrol. Petrol hasn’t been economically viable for 70 years but they push it because its property model converts people into property- its politics is its main externality and why they keep pushing something so obsolete.


That’s not the point though, I’m saying the network doesn’t have defence mechanisms in place and hence decreasing cost in bandwidth is the only thing that’ll help it grow and sustain. Arguing for the case that it’s unlikely ever going to happen doesn’t help, in fact it already proofs there’s an potencial issue.

And the issue is, IF anything goings wrong, and say if we don’t have an unlimited bandwidth model and any governments or regulators in a certain country started charging for bandwidth or at least they make it so that they cost does not decrease overtime, especially mobile bandwidth which is regulated heavily across countries such as Australia. Bandwidth may be cheap but it won’t be a small fee for unlimited amounts most likely, at least for mobile bandwidth in the near future, and even if it’s limited, the speed is also. So the total you use per month stays the same. Also what ISPs if they do charge for bandwidth is they can do is they can keep on draining bandwidth purposely by keep on downloading something repeatedly on the safenetwork, hence force their customers to pay them more. Even if they offer an unlimited bandwidth plan, they could still do this so that the speed of customers internet usage is slow as soon as they farm(because it’ll take majority of the bandwidth), so that they upgrade to a better plan.

I don’t see how giving people free lunches on something that cost money, aka bandwidth, is going to be sustainable. Please understand that I’m arguing the network should have some defensive mechanism in place, or a solution incase anything goes not as expected(that bandwidth will decrease in cost forever).

If by your analogy of simply saying, oh but bandwidth isn’t going to cost much anyway in the future, it’s like saying, “look, crime rates are decreasing year by year, soon it may reach zero, so why do you need to install a lock on your door on new houses you build?”(let’s say for arguments sake, that crime rates are forecasted to reach exactly zero by the time you forecast you’ll finish the construction) I don’t know about you but things never go as expected in most cases in my personal experience, just like how Bitcoin creator has said that, in 10 years, the size of the blockchain won’t be a problem because there’ll be advanced technologies to store data much more efficiently etc. As it turns out though, it’s one of the biggest problem with BTC and Blockchain technology right now, right now I’m still trying to download ethereum blockchain and it’s been the third day.

Anyway… I hope you see my point instead of saying:

Because it’s not that i think bandwidth is likely going to increase or stay the same(in fact i think it is going to decrease in cost too most likely), but that’s not the point though, the argument is that i think it should have some mechanisms incase anything goes not as expected, how can you know there’ll always will be people storing enough new data on the network than the people using bandwidth? At certain times people may not store much new data on the network, yet bandwidth cost may stay the same for three years and usage of the network to access existing data may increase exponentially over that period of time, so you never know whats going to happen, so it’s always good to have a mechanism in place to protect the sustainability of the network if things doesn’t go in a straight line as we expect it to.


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?


I like your idea and it make sense. But OMG someone needs to go up there with a vaccume cleaner. We’re becoming a glorified dust bunny.


Yep :slight_smile:
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.