Some basic questions about the SAFE end user experience

As an end user I should be able to create an account and dedicate some disk space and cycles and then surf to my heart’s content as a regular user without having to pay more?

Under the pending or proposed primary content distribution model I won’t be in situations where I am trying to get coin back because I’ve accidentally gone somewhere or have been tricked into visiting a site or content transfer? I understand it as a kind of default auto tip in SAFE coin. What if I am not happy with a transaction?

Is it essentially like a decentralized Amazon Underground sans the spying?

1 Like

I imagine that the client will have a built-in confirmation popup whenever a script or action tries to make a transaction. Or probably even an extra password field. Since it’s all open source we can manage all that however we like.

I’m personally going to make multiple accounts, one with the majority of SafeCoins that I will never use for regular browsing. Then on my browsing account I’ll only keep a small reserve. It should be possible to have the same username and multiple passwords, each password will unlock different accounts.


My understanding is that GET’s cost nothing.

The content provider pays to publish, but there is no cost to retrieve for anybody…


Sorry for the nitpicking, but a username and a pin define an account in the network. The password only encodes your account.

1 Like

So the system reimburses the publisher/developer in excess of the cost of the put, which is partially offset by the cost of space on the network paid by the receiver or the real cost of the get. And all of it is backed up by any mutually agreed upon amount or absense of it between the actual buyer and seller. And this means there will be a bias to put or exchange data. Except SAFE apps have provisions that would make spam in email prohibitively expensive. But how does this exchange inflator not create spam for the raw network in terms of ads? No one wants to pay to receive or store them especially not when we have yet cut ISPs out of the loop.

The publisher pays to PUT.

The system rewards popular content with a lot of GETS via a SAFEcoin lottery system. There is no “pay per view” built in. Only 10% goes to the content publisher-- Most of the rewards go to the farmer who serves the data chunks off of their hard drive.

By providing your Hard drive and bandwidth to the network you get entries into this lottery – and that ought to offset the cost of Putting your own data on the network…

Because PUTing costs something it makes flooding the network expensive… PUTs ought to cost in line with whatever it costs to store your data forever…


To clarify the farmer get the same amount whether the content has a creator pay address or not.

the 10% (not going to be this fixed amt in the end) is the system giving to content provider for using SAFE to store their work and to reward them according to the content usage.

@Warren the farmer does not see any difference, the person doing the GET sees no difference, the creator (if they entered a pay address) get rewarded by the system by an amount that the system provided, it is not taken from the GET reward or is it a part of the PUT cost, but a separate reward by the network.

Yep, spamming should be greatly diminished almost wiped out in comparison to the traditional net.

1 Like

Also, maybe worth mentioning as I have seen the opposite idea floating around in several posts:

While the 10% make it seem the publisher earn less than farmers, it may not quite be the case: the publisher makes 10% on every successful farming attempts, while one individual farmer will probably only have one farming attempt successful before caching kicks in.

And as I think @neo was alluding to the the 10 % s expected to reduce overtime possibly to sub 1% which sounds much more balanced.

Regardless, thank you guys, its seeming like this former unsolvable problem may get solved. If this works though I doubt it will pay content providers more than the after-the-fact tipped anonymous (or not) tipped ad free like system. I also wonder about tampering. I thought it was horrid when the labels momentarily got Apple to go above the 99cent mark the labels need to go away and granting them price control in any degree was allowing them to seem viable.

The answer against tampering seems to be that SAFE is programmed over time to follow an anti tampering curve.

Assuming the issue with attempts to pings one’s own content are resolved then it would seem that ripped content accruing payment in an escrow would be a strong kick starter for SAFE, but how would that be set up or rightfully claimed?

I thought a cache hit was not a successful farming.

But this has not been finalised yet according to David. The exact method of determining when the creator is paid and the actual amount is to be decided and coded. So that may change whichever way.

I was attempting to allude to what David said when he mentioned the 10% and he added that he is not happy with fixed numbers, but the network should have a method to determine the amount. I did not have in mind up/down from the 10%. But 10% is the only figure really mentioned at this stage and maybe the figure used in early testing.

The discussions gained a reply from David that basically said that caching would make any significant gains by doing this an impossible dream so to speak, since caching would kick in before profits. (The creator earns nothing from cached content)

1 Like

Just amazing to think there is a chance that all this can work.

Now I see a bundling advantage coming that cant be challenged by courts or industry where in addition to SAFE network and SAFE coin and content distribution facility will add SAFE browser and SAFE mesh OS for end users, native SAFE Search to go with SAFE approved and verified hardware. All of it fitting into less than 50k lines of rust code.

1 Like

Sorry for the nitpicking, but a username and a pin define an account in the network. The password AND WITH THE PIN AGAIN encodes your account.

Perhaps you should define those terms and explain the difference please.

“nitpicking”, I don’t know what’s that mean. Maybe I misunderstood what he meant. I though he was saying that’s it’s not possible to create multiple account with the same username and password.

When I look in the source code, what I understand, it’s Username+PIN for the account and Password+PIN for the encryption KEY.

Logically we can’t have more than the same Username+PIN even if the password is different.

From the system docs Accessing the SAFE Network:

The SAFE client is a program used to log in to and access the SAFE Network. After starting the SAFE client you are asked to provide login details.

  • Keyword
  • PIN
  • Password

These 3 elements constitute the credentials to connect to the network:

  • the keyword is an element entered in clear by the user (and I wrongly called it username)
  • the pin is a number that could be entered by clicking in a matrix of randomly disposed digits
  • the password should be masked

The key to retrieve your account data is derived from the keyword and the pin. When @Seneca said he was going to create multiple accounts with the same username and unlocked with different passwords, I corrected him by stating that it is the username and the pin that define the account. I used the verb “nitpicking” because my remark was about an inconsequential detail.

1 Like

Yeah, I forgot the exact details of what is what concerning username/PIN/password. I’ll create multiple accounts with the same username, but different PIN’s and passwords.