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


Yes, or with the GBGB idea, people will pay for the storage space, they literally paid for a hard disk to be made and occupying space.

But either way, it would make no sense for them to not implement a safety-net just incase the current model limits the growth of the network at no compromises to the network otherwise. Maybe with my proposals there may be compromises, but other solutions can involve no compromises. And they should be implemented, as it can only make the network better not worse. I don’t understand why some people want to stick with the current model and refuse to even simply be open to the idea that others models could be better or at least no worse than the current model, and at the same time solves some sustainability concerns.

It’s like Bitcoin maximalists saying bitcoin is the best and refuse to do any hardforks despite the massive scalability problems it’s having.


You have been told why several times. If you don’t read the responses and just keep repeating yourself, it starts to look like trolling. Just saying.

Edit: Apologies if that sounded direct. Your concerns are not invalid, but I feel they are being overblown.


Um… I’ve read them, but as other members have also rebutted, the root of safecoins paid to the network comes from people storing data on the network. Am i not right in saying that?


In a sense yes. It is also useful to think of it as coins returned to the network.

Something that needs to be done to fully understand the dynamics is to see it from the network’s side.

In the beginning the network has 3.6 billion coins (85% of 2^32) that it can create to pay farmers as this amount drops then farmers rewards are less successful when a coin create attempt is made. This means that the network can keep paying farmers rewards till the farmers give up. No coins need to be returned to the network. You could think it like bitcoin where the block mining rewards reduce as the number of bitcoin increases (halves every set number of blocks mined), but this is very much an imperfect comparison.

When people pay for uploading then coins are returned to the pool of coins that can be created.

The real effect of coins being returned to the network is that farmers see the coin creation attempts succeed more often. But there is NO requirement that coins are returned for farming rewards to continue to be paid.

Process:. When a GET is done a formula determines if a coin creation attempt is to be made. The average of this happening is once every (1 / farming rate) GETS done.

A coin creation attempt is where the address (determined by algorithm) is used to try and create a coin. So if a coin exists then no coin is created and that attempt fails.

So if 15% of coins exist then 85 in 100 attempts to create a coin will succeed. When 40% of coins exist then 60 in 100 attempts to create a coin succeeds.

From this you see that even after 10 years there will be some coins coins created, just not as fast as the first year.

Then introducing returning coins to the network as a result of paying for uploads means the coin creation attempts will be more successful.

Thus if noone pay for uploads then the rewards for farming overall will be less and less as time goes on. So uploading means better returns for farming, but is not needed for farming,

So thus the economics is NOT pay so farmers get paid. The dynamics is much more complex and only in the eventual case is pay for uploads results in farmers being paid. For the inbetween cases the economics is NOT a direct pay to upload so farmers get paid. Even seasoned people miss the point that the system would still work if uploads are never paid for in SAFEcoin but some other method is used to prevent spamming the storage.

Obviously paying for uploads means better returns for farmers later on. Has little to no effect in the early to medium system since the pool is very large. Its only later on the effects of paying for uploads is felt, even then though its just a better paying system.

I still contend that the most likely reason uploading dies off is that no one is wanting to use the SAFE network anymore. I contend that if people are using the SAFE network then uploads will be happening and since data production is increasing so will the rate of uploads.


Well it’s the same thing really, once all of the coins are created, farmers can only get paid from coins ‘returned’ to the network. Which is essentially the same as thinking if the coins are paid into a pool then split randomly among the farmers(this is talking about if all(or 99%) of Safecoins have all been farmed).

I still think once we reach that stage the Safenetwork MAY face sustainability issues due to bandwidth, and it makes no sense not to implement a safety net that doesn’t affect the existing model of the safenetwork. Paying once for FOREVER data and bandwidth is a little hard to sustain, it NEEDS ‘coin returners’ so to speak to survive. And coins returners are those who store new data. So in other words all farmers’ payment DEPEND on people paying for storing new data on the safenetwork specifically.

While i completely agree new data is generated every second, I don’t see why all of those people that generated the data would want to pay to store every single new data they generate on the Safenetwork when they already got the important stuff they need on it. So essentially I’m saying there MAY be a reduction in the demand to store NEW data on the network overtime. So let’s say after 99% of safecoins are farmed, in the first year after that happens, we store 100 million TB of NEW data, second year we store 90 million TB of NEW data and so on. Yet the demand to access existing data which cost bandwidth and electricity is increased by 50% as more people interact with the websites more as they grow more popular. So then, if this trend continues, needless to say it’ll frustrate farmers profits slowly. Hence there will be less farmers, hence storage will be more expensive, hence there will be even less ‘coin returners’, hence even less farmers and so on.

This hence limits the growth of the network. I think it’s useful if a solution is worked out to prevent the potential of this positive feedback loop occurring, what do you think?


You missed the whole point. Sorry the network will only create all the coins when its very very old (no coins returned) so you argument is invalid.

Bandwidth cost is not an issue. Saying it is does not make it true.

Bandwidth increases is on par with storage increases.

So again bandwidth is not the issue you believe it is.

But there is concern if some internet link failures occur due to natural disaster or WWIII or something disastrous occurs.

I agree they will not I can guarantee that. But no one said they would and it is unexpected. But new data being uploaded to the cloud is massive and increasing so it is expected as SAFE is adopted more of this data will be stored on SAFE as well as other data.

You are looking at 20-30 years before that happens. If you read the process that SAFE uses (See my post) the successful coin create attempts keep reducing. It will take decades before 99% happens. And if no new data is uploaded then i contend that farming isn’t happening because noone is using SAFE anymore!

You work in extremes to make points, but in doing so come to the wrong conclusions.


In the immortal words of Paul Simon

“Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest”


Maybe i am misunderstanding some of the stuff you said, if i did i am sorry, but with your reference to the network is very very old, i was referring to when all the safecoins ever in existence is created, so it probably will be old. But I’m saying that’s when it may face some issues. Or even if MOST of the safecoins ever will be in existence has been created, it may face some issues.

Look, maybe bandwidth cost isn’t much, but it uses electricity and people do pay for it. Conversely as well, saying it’s not an issue doesn’t make it true.

Fair enough, but that’s why you have a safety net in the first place, to guarantee even if something expected to happen doesn’t happen, the network is still in good standing.

I do so to eliminate all possibilities of it not working as expected, in order to help the network. But some people seem to think I’m trying to find faults with the intention of putting the network down, which isn’t what I’m trying to do. I am merely trying to help. I agree my concerns regarding the possibilities of having a sustainability issues may not actually happen, but it never hurts to implement some mechanism to prevent the network not working as well as intended if what i mentioned do happen, as it’s always a possibility. How can you say I am making the wrong conclusions? How can you know this DEFINITELY won’t happen?


You still have yet to make even a 1/2 convincing reason why this could ever happen.

Your presumed case of no uploading being done.

Why is anyone even using SAFE after a year of two if no uploading is being done?

  • some may be accessing some obscure or special data.
  • Vids/movies are now getting old and people tend towards new stuff
  • personal files?

Well that maybe what is being accessed.

BUT still if no new uploads are being done then even this access will drop off since obviously people are storing their data elsewhere and not on safe (for whatever reason). And thus one can simply reason that even that data people still want to access will be copied elsewhere since everyone will know that SAFE is not being used anymore for storing data. The reason why SAFE is not being used for uploads will eventually show people that storing data on SAFE is UN-safe and copy it elsewhere.

Thus SAFE dies. It will never get to the point of 99% coins issued since no one is using it.

The only way to get 99% issued is for people to be using SAFE and any reasonable view shows that if SAFE is being used then people will be uploading.

And if people are uploading then the 99% is impossible because of the dynamics and algorithms. Except in a edge case where the network is very old and the brains of “futurama” have scanned all knowledge and are about to destroy the universe to prevent any more new data.

You cannot just say that if 99% of coins issued such n such will happen. The reason being that you have to present a details of how the *impossible* situation can occur. 99% of coin issued represents a catch-22 situation. In order to get to that situation things must happen that will prevent that situation being reached.

As to bandwidth. The market will increse their total supply of bandwidth to meet demand. Basic 101 of service provision. This has been occurring since internet links have been built. To say bandwidth will be a future problem is to assume that businesses stop being businesses and work counter productively and destroy themselves. Every country has worked diligently to increase the bandwidth they provide.

To have an environment where bandwidth in the future will be worse than NOW (relative to demand) is describing a dying internet and SAFE will obviously suffer and no safety net will help. To introduce a safety net like you describe is to simply be adding complexity and extra costs that will not benefit at the time you envision happening (ie a disaster or dying communications system)


You have the nerve to accuse others of using fallacies and your 56 post in this thread are full of them.


We say the conclusions are wrong because they are. The basis you use is fictional because it goes against what every country and business/industry has worked so hard at for 30+ years.

Also you present situations that cannot happen (see my previous post)

As to DEFINITELY won’t happen. Well if you read my posts I give reasons why they can happen, but its just not because of your starting points. And they show that introducing complexities and additional costs won’t solve the problem because the reason for the problem cannot be solved by SAFE or additional costs. We all want SAFE to thrive but making it more complex, making costs difficult to understand for the downloader and uploader will not help either. Making costs variable and unknown till the user downloads will not help. Making the download of a movie (not yet popular) for one person cost differently for another a week later (now very popular) is not going to make friends of anyone. Now is the network owning all the data and charging rent or delete your files is also anti productive. Every wonder why another file storage system that charges rent is not that popular and is not taking over the world


Please point them out… i’m not sure if you understand logical fallacies… i don’t think i made any in the sentence you quoted. In fact it wasn’t even an argument, it was simply a question…


No i never said this!!! EVER! I just said MAYBE uploading NEW content to the network will gradually reduce overtime. Which can lead to sustainability problems, and that the network maybe shouldn’t depend on new data being uploaded but also sustained by the existing unloaders or some other solution to prevent possible pitfalls - that’s the whole point of this post. I feel like you’re misunderstanding me for some reason.


Paying ONCE for PERPETUAL service goes against any business and economic model ever existed since the dawn of humanity… no where in the world can you pay once and expect literally FOREVER service… there’s always a time limit or a recurring price. Tell me one service that offers pay once and benefit forever… There might be lifetime services for a one time payment, but lifetime isn’t forever. It’s maybe 100-200 years max

I could say the basis of the entire safenetwork economic model is fiction. However i’m not saying that, I’m willing to accept the fact it may work. But you don’t seem willing AT ALL to accept the possibilities of my concerns. I find that interesting. Maybe you know some stuff that I do not.

Also like i said that’s only one solution, there are other possible solutions such as the GBGB idea i suggested. Among others some other members have suggested also.


But you said No More new data which is no more data. Ie no more uploading since new data is always being generated then your statement equates to no more uploading while elsewhere new data is being created and stored elsewhere. Simple logic.


Welcome to innovation and breaking away from broken models.

I would be if you can present actual situations that would cause the problem. You seem to think that my describing why your current presented concerns are wrong as being unwilling to accept. If you keep saying 2+2=5 and I keep disagreeing and explaining why does not make me unwilling to listen.


OHH ok that’s in a hypothetical scenario just for the sakes to outline how i think the network should be able to sustain itself even with no new data being added. But i always have thought they’d definitely be farmers farming for no profits and even losses, as well as people paying to store data regardless of the cost, as i’ve mentioned in my other posts in this thread.


Yes, I welcome innovation too. I think it’ll be great if it works out :slight_smile:

And hmm yeah that’s fair, i understand what you mean, but i think the likelihood of the safenetwork’s growth being limited by the amount of new data stored on the network(aka coins ‘returned’ to the network) due to the perpetual data and bandwidth model is far more likely than 2+2 being equal to 5.


sometimes it does hurt


Indeed sometimes it does :slight_smile:

But we should work together for a mechanism that doesn’t is what I’m saying. Instead of overlooking the potential problem :slight_smile: