The point is that people farm with their spare resources. So the cost is free (except for a marginal amount of electricity increase). Disk, bandwidth, etc is using their spare resources. Marginal electricity costs is more than covered by SAFEcoin rewards.
If you think of it as a pure data storage system then you might be close to having a point in my opinion. But even then the average farmer will not attract much extra cost and 1 SAFEcoin per month covers extra electricity costs due to drive usage or leaving it on for a few hours more.
Remember that only people who can do this will be farmers and those who cannot recoup the costs they incur than will either not farm or will farm anyhow because they feel the cents extra a week (after rewards) is worth the effort for helping have the secure internet rather than the mess we have now.
Also it is reasonable to expect the price of SAFEcoin to increase on the open market, so my farming rewards today might be worth a lot more in a couple of years and if the last 2 years is any indication then the rewards will likely pay for the drive outright.
So no I completely disagree that the rental is at all necessary.
So it resides on some archive nodes (eventually) and takes up a really tiny portion of their drives. And less and less as time goes on since drive space increases dramatically over time.
Also I disagree that the data is useless or lost, since when SAFE becomes used by ordinary folk then it will become common place to include in their sealed portion of their wills the credentials or where to find them. Such valuables as photos are cherished by older people which is evidenced by the interviews after bush fires.
Also this data would most likely be shared with their children so no its not unused, just not being updated anymore. So the idea that the network will just fill up with junk data is simplistic and does not reflect the little used data. Maybe allow people to delete their old private, but not by any rental or network initiated method.
Anyhow back to the point I was getting to at the start of the post (which someone made earlier), it is not a matter of the economics of data storage as if its some physical object. Data storage is a lot different than the economic models we apply to objects such as cars, houses, valuables, etc.
- Data is infinitely copyable.
- Data chunks/objects are not just the bits being stored. They have so much more value than that. Look at bittorrents where people get NOTHING for sharing their diskspace, except for potential nasty letters and legal troubles. Yet they still give up disk space, lots of bandwidth and we are talking of a bigger system that that which also spreads the load more too.
- Solving the problems that exists now with rental models of the current internet where everything is rented.
- security of the data both in personal security and the non-deletion of data.
- Anonymity of data online
- Extremely and I mean extremely small costs of storing each small file. If I want to store 10 MBytes of files only then I don’t have to pay anyone anything other than 10 times an extremely small amount.
So once you take in the real value of forever data then having a rental model just brings us back to the bad old internet where others own your data and can delete it on you for being one day late. Oh and did I say how do you ever keep track of the rental due date of all those chunks and MDs. Oh and did I mention you no longer own the data. And did I mention that you are no longer storing anonymously since the data has to be tagged with your ID, when you stored it and when rental is due. Oh did I mention that it will be a nightmare for the system to scan the network for data that is to be deleted because rental is overdue?