But clients pay the network so it will still be the same effect, the stored data is paid by clients no matter if clients or the network pays farmers in a direct way, no need for mining new coins and increasing supply, above what clients pay. There is no actual need for the 15% boost.
In fact, it matters because there are two prices. The one of uploading (paid by the uploader) and the one of downloading (paid by the network).
The network pays for the difference between the two with inflation, this insensitive more people to become farmers.
That is why a SAFE network without 15% pre-mining is more attractive for farmers…
Yes, but why? Is there a need to do that? Why won’t there be enough farmers from the store cost alone. Why does it need to be artificial incentives like blockchain. After the beginning stage when network grows large then there won’t be any needs for farmer boosting, if there where any from the beginning.
Because before the network becomes large enough, there will be moments of high volatility.
It is possible to have 1-2-10 days with minimal downloading of data leading to a cascading shutdown of farmers and death for the network. Until the network is large enough, we want to tilt the scales in the opposite direction.
Remember, it is very likely that we will compete for farmers with other SAFE networks…
I’d prefer to farm on the network that won’t dilute my early farming rewards by 90% over time, not the one that will. The ‘pre-mine’ is less important to me than the value of my farming rewards in the short & long term.
I also think the value of being on the first & official Safe network will have benefits as the development team will be the only team who really understands how it works for quite some time.
This seems so unlikely to me. At the point of launch, there will be multiple apps ready to go, developers working on new apps, all kinds of users exploring apps & webites & uploading their data.
By the point of launch, despite probable big investment in developer engagement, community engagement & marketing ahead of launch, if there are even hours when the network goes unused I’d be very surprised.
Even if it did have some quiet periods at first, many farmers will just be doing their best to be online eagerly awaiting early rewards - probably not going to go offline because there’s any short term dip in rewards at that stage.
In the medium term, any time the network reduces prices for uploading data in response to lower demand, automated uploaders with queued tasks triggered at lower upload price levels will likely prevent the network having nothing being uploaded & cause prices to stabilise to some degree.
4 posts were split to a new topic: About the possible existence of multiple networks
If a node wants to leave, then the best time for it to leave, would be after a relocation, because that’s when it has made best profit. If it doesn’t want to leave, then there’s not much reason to leave then, not more than with any other system.
So if a node wants to leave, could be that that’s when it will leave - after relocation. A node that wanted to leave, would leave anyway, so it’s just happening at some other point. It could be positive that it becomes more predictable to the network.
If there is something pushing the pressure up on nodes to leave, having a bunch of accumulated rewards waiting to be claimed would act as a counter - up to a certain point.
Right now in the code, nothing, still being implemented
What is most sane to happen?
From the top of my head I’d say that it’s most sane that within the same period that a node can reconnect to the network and present itself as the same node and take the same place in the network again (a feature which is not implemented yet) - within that period it can also claim its rewards.
If the network does not recognize/approve of it as a previously connected node, then it cannot. What happens to that accumulated reward is not very important, the simplest thing is to just reset the counter (it is not money yet…).
So, this depends on that feature, which is yet to be implemented (reconnecting to the network).
If it is proven malice that gets the node kicked out, then I’d say that it makes sense that they can say goodbye to the accumulated rewards as well.
I mention this in response to your previous questions:
Rewarding on GETs has the same problem with unpopular data: A node could drop it as to store newer (more popular, profitable) chunks.
You could increase payment for the unpopular data, but that delves into more and more convoluted code, because some data is simply not going to be requested again (practically), so giving infinite reward for it is not helping (rather it would encourage false GETs on it, which isn’t helping the system).
There is a need for checks that nodes has the data it says it has, in some way or another. So that is an assumption that the farming rests on; that we will implement that.
These are the simulations I wrote about on the forum about a year ago now. Last spring I was doing a lot of simulations, and what I saw consistently is that there needs to be a huge adoption and a substantial net minting to not stay at just a few percent farmed year after year.
It’s very useful to differentiate between price inflation and monetary inflation. Monetary inflation is whenever the amount of money is rising, but this is not automatically resulting in price inflation (efficiency goes against price inflation).
We (investors) surely want price deflation on Safecoin, eg. Safecoin going up in dollar terms in the long run. On the first look we could amplify that by eliminating monetary inflation (fixed supply), but is it really? Doing this could be appreciated by today’s holders but maybe, at the same time disabling the network to establish itself in the world, hence damaging the old holders by not getting great adoption. I think we should stick to the previous plans for Safecoin distribution, eg. target distribute the frozen 85% of total coins during 10-15 years after the launch. 100% monetary inflation during the first year seems legit to me. But more? Ending up with let’s say 60% of coins distributed after first 12 months would be surely damaging in my estimation. Just my 2 cents.
I think you are missing those 100 extra hungry new people with 0 wealth need to work from day 1 to keep alive. All those will contribute with their labor trying to obtain the goods the natives own. Natives fell the almost instant ability to sell their goods for higher prices and buying cheap labor from the newcomers. Its only on the second 1 the GDP remains the same. In that sense, you are surely right.
From what I have said it results that natives are richer because newcomers came. In the long run, the GDP will also tend to double.
Not only wealthy newcomers are welcome, but we also welcome the hungry ones.
It could mean increasing or decreasing the amount of coin in circulation (and inversely decreasing or increasing network reserves/savings) to reach a more optimal state. There is no actual inflation or deflation because the total amount is fixed at 2^32.
Steady state on a short term time frame. The 50% setpoint could fluctuate long term, and dynamic variations around this setpoint on shorter time scales. I wouldn’t say “unstable” but rather “adaptable”.
Probably solving the OOM issue, right?
This is in
farming branch, it is not yet included in the testnets.
This was just an issue among others that we are rooting out while testing these new features. (There will be more).
Sorry, just goofing. One of thing I remember from programming is infinite loops are very bad.
There is a need for minting new coins. Part of what makes bitcoin successful is they promised max 21M coins and they delivered it, still do, will continue to. The promise is important.
MaidSafe promised 2^32 coins. People engaged with the project based on that. They also promised some loan repayment stuff and bnktothefuture shares and conversion stuff, and those promises also matter. Changing the total supply now is a terrible idea because it puts the security of the whole project at risk by breaking the promise.
This was the case in rfc0012, but since rfc0057 and this current design farmers are not paid when clients download. They are only paid when data is uploaded.
I can appreciate where you’re coming from, but as a general point I think we’re going to have some communication difficulties around farming if we are talking about different (old) things. And when the farming has and is changing so frequently discussion can become difficult unless we are very clear about what/which/when we are talking.
But what about every other farmer? They’d rather get the bigger reward from the dilution You’d be protecting your initial rewards but missing out on a lot of potential future rewards. The most value comes from attracting the most people (network effects are more important than exclusivity effects).
Ah I see, I thought all nodes were paid at the same time when elders were changed. I see now that each vault is paid their reward when they relocate, so payout is naturally staggered in that way.
Yes, interesting point. Whether checks on data will be part of farming or not, it’s an interesting question. Maybe failed check has some economic consequence but is not part of farming per se, we will have to wait and see.
Thanks for correcting me!
This does not seem a reasonable decision. Storj and Sia pay for both upload and download to the farmers. If you only pay for upload, why won’t people reset their Vaults when they fill up?
In fact, that’s good. This will allow you to be a farmer in several SAFE Networks at the same time. While waiting in line to enter in one SAFE Network, you farm in another. When you fill the space in one, you reset and start filling in the other
I agree, but it’s temporary for the sake of getting a testnet up and running.
Come to think of it, this is good for humanity because it will stimulate the creation of many networks. If there is only 1 dominant network this is 1 point of failure. If there are many who compete for the resources of farmers, it will lead to better results for humanity…
Only if you assume there will be no checks that nodes do have data (which is what a GET is, that is the quality it brings - for popular data), even though it has been said in this topic that that is to be implemented.
Paying on upload is not necessarily that temporary. It is in fact simpler than pay on download, and pay on download does not provide anything unique that motivates the added complexity. In fact, as described in a post above, it introduces problems with encouraging false gets, without guaranteeing permanence of all data.
My expectation is that given the choice between a reward that maintains or grows its value over time relative to a reward that will be significantly diluted over time, most farmers would choose the former.
Would you rather be paid in USD or Argente Pesos? (slightly extreme example perhaps).
Assuming the market has a certain demand for network resources & the network balances supply & demand, paying out a numerically higher reward to farmers than users pay the network to consume resources doesn’t increase the value of the reward to farmers, it only reduces the value of the network’s currency & therefore all previous farming rewards and holdings in that currency.
It seems like programmed in pure inflation with a single function of devaluing previous earnings, investment, and wealth. This may be worthwhile, but I can’t see a convincing reason why.