I have a concern for the sustainability of the network as bandwidth isn’t free… so basically, the whole economy of the safenetwork i guess would depend on how much NEW data gets stored on there. But imagine if all data in the world is stored on the safenetwork and NO MORE new data is stored on there(let’s just say in a hypothetical scenario)…
And, in order for farmers to continue running vaults, they’d still need to pay for bandwidth, but since safecoins only is paid when someone stores NEW data and not when data is accessed by the person who stored it(which to the farmers cost money as the farmers would have to dedicate their bandwidth, how would it be sustainable? I guess farmers will have to voluntarily donate their bandwidth even if they would lose money? Because a certain site can be as popular as YouTube on the safenetwork, not only will it require a significant amount of data storage but also bandwidth to access exisiting data.
i mean, even if new data DOES get stored on there everyday, as soon as we store everything on safenetwork lets say, the amount of new data would significantly reduce(or lets just say any event has happened that resulted in the amount of new data stored to lower significantly). Then, farmers will get paid less because less safecoins will go to the farmers, as the only come from people who want to store new data, hence increasing the cost of storing data, hence it will discourage the storing of new data further, this positive feedback loop is very dangerous for the network.
In the case with YouTube right now, it’s POSSIBLE for it to sustain if no new videos gets uploaded. But it’s IMPOSSIBLE(at least from my understanding of it so far) for the safenetwork to sustain if they had a similar website however no new videos gets uploaded.
What does maidsafe team think of this issue, and how would we address this issue?
During the discussion so far with other people who’ve compared the need to store data to need to consume food, I thought of an interesting example to outline for people to understand where I’m coming from more: "this is the current economical model right now. Let’s say we have a company named “SafeFood” who started having a new model to provide people food - You pay for food once, then you get food for the rest of your life, where do the money comes from? it comes from newborn babies or other people also paying ONE OFF for a lifetime consumption of food to SafeFood, do you think that’s sustainable? I don’t know, MAYBE, if we can reproduce fast enough and make more babies who will pay for a lifetime of food consumption for themselves. But the current food model as is, those who are DESIRING the food pay on a recurring basis. They do not pay a one off fee such that they will get food forever and the sustainability of this DEPENDS on others’ willingness to pay this one off fee for a lifetime of food.
In this comparison in the previous paragraph, you can argue that i have left out the fact that with data storage and safenetwork, even if you paid to store one data, you can still pay to store another data. With food in the last paragraph i made it seem like you can only pay once. So fair enough, you can argue on this, and I could change it a bit to make it exactly the same scenario, since there’s an near infinite amount of different food and cooks styles(just like there is new data), lets say SafeFood only allowed you to pay for specific foods, and not all/every food. So you can pay a one off payment for the lifetime supply of raw lobsters, as much as you can eat. And you have to make another payment for lifetime supply of white chocolate, and have to make another payment for a lifetime supply of dark chocolate etc You get the idea. EVERY single customer follows the same payment pattern. Keep in mind the initial payment would probably be somewhat high. And in this comparison, you also have to imagine that the customers will live forever and consume food everyday, just like the safenetwork is one payment for PERPETUAL storage and access of data.
Now, ask yourself, is this model sustainable? Maybe it is, but would it raise genuine sustainability concerns for you? You can argue new people are born everyday, new people are getting to know about “SafeFood” everyday and existing people who use “SafeFood” want to try some new food every so often, if not every day, so they’ll continue paying, to sustain the people that have already paid. But I still feel the current food model makes more logical sense, that YOU pay for YOUR food as you need it, which is on a recurring basis.
I hope everyone genuinely understand my concerns and not treat me as if I’m trying to challenge the team. I am genuinely trying to help by discussing potentially very important issues."