Ok, great to get a clarification on that. It does seems like the most logical approach.
@kirkion Can they pay for more storage with a straight swap. I bring a terabyte for the networks use, does that mean I can access a terabyte assuming some sort of parity target for conversion, including things like demonstrated up time?
These are all testnet 3 questions. I don’t think we have the hard data to really say.
You know @Warren I remember hearing that back when everyone was debating the free v. Paid storage models, but I haven’t heard anything about that in a while.
I believe so, but it hasn’t come up in so long.
By the way @Deadloch I’m just a regular member of the forum, who tends to be up later than most. I wanted to make sure you got a response tonight. But I’m just regurgitating what I’ve read on the forum and discussed with people on the Slack channel.
Thanks man, I really appreciate your feedback. Maidsafe tends to keep me up at night as well
@Deadloch Above is an older post explaining the difference between account creation vs activation. Pricing for PUT requests (storage), is still unknown. We talked about a Network Utilization model, which you already described above. Once we analyze TestNet3 performance, we can get numbers to answer your questions.
@Warren this was the POR Tokens, which is currently disabled. IMO, direct swap is not enforceable.
The OP triggered a concern because it relates to Safecoin economics. It’s early, but I won’t be able to sleep until I put it out there. This might be a bit long…
Large mining pools are leaving Bitcoin because the fiat price is too low to afford the cost of their operation. People are predictable when you understand their incentives.
The following is PURE speculation…
SAFE Network Beta launch draws a huge influx of farmers, resulting in massive storage availability. Based on the Network Utilization Model, I predict Safecoin PUT costs will drop dramatically, until capacity fills up. Since there are only a handful of APPS, there won’t be enough demand to keep pace with growing storage capacity. Deduplication will also factor in and further cause the Safecoin PUT costs to drop.
Due to the incredibly cheap cost of SAFE storage, for life, whale investors may seek to capitalize and buy up all the space then resell it. This means they would acquire Safecoin, resulting in the fiat price rise, buy up the storage space and wait. Because the Network Utilization Model only counts what is “used” a 20% increase in the Safecoin cost would trigger some to cash in.
(Assume the launch price is 1Gb = 1SC)
Network Price = 10Gb @ 12 Safecoins
Investor Sold = 10Gb @ 11 Safecoins
Investor Bought = 10Gb @ 10 Safecoins
It’s cheaper to buy from the investor than the Network.
(Assume 1SC = $0.05)
Network Price = 10Gb @ $0.60
Investor Sold = 10Gb @ $0.55
Investor Bought = 10Gb @ $0.50
The average Hard Drive is around $0.05 per GB, which is how I priced my example. Now this is where it gets interesting… Imagine if the fiat value of Safecoin also went up. This would lead to a compounding effect in profitability. Let’s say the value of Safecoin went from $0.05 to $0.10.
(Assume 1SC = $0.10 BUT the Investor bought storage when 1SC = $0.05)
Network Price = 10Gb @ $1.20
Investor Sold = 10Gb @ $1.10
Investor Bought = 10Gb @ $0.50
The investor doubled his fiat money on the fiat side, AND from the Safecoin side. It makes sense the fiat rises along with Safecoin because they are acquired for the same reason.
With such a golden egg opportunity, there will be more farmers/investors coming in from mass adoption. I didn’t factor in killer APPS yet. But it points in the same direction. At this stage, we may get some serious consumer demand. The SAFE Network capacity starts to fill up with unique data. Which means, Safecoin PUT costs rise, until equilibrium is temporarily reached. So far everything is great! Consumers are happy, farmers are happy, investors are happy.
Over the next 20 years, the SAFE Network reduces Safecoin payout. This means farmers, don’t get paid as much as they did before. If the fiat value of Safecoin drops below cost of operation, we will have the same mass exodus effect as Bitcoin. I hope this will not be the case, and the key factor is bandwith/energy costs.
If the farmer is faced with increasing cost of production with decreasing Safecoin payout, they will leave. This event may not happen for awhile. But it’s something that I think we should address in the future. My solution is to maintain the payout rate. As less coins are created, Safecoin PUT costs increase, taking over what the Network was subsidizing.
Won’t that mean PUT storage gets more expensive? Yes, that draws more farmers with even bigger storage and better bandwith. It should be self-sustaining. Or we can try the GET request model. Just food for thought.
How does an investor resell SAFE storage space to other people? I thought transfer of storage space can only happen through the network mechanisms, which absorbs the SafeCoins rather than transferring them to space owner.
Anyway, if possible, I’d much prefer a pay-on-put system that disables people from hoarding space when the price is cheap. Example:
When you have no storage credit, and you put a file of 1MB on it, you automatically pay 1 SafeCoin (or whatever the smallest unit will be) for let’s say 1 GB credit. 1 MB is subtracted for the current PUT, you have a credit of 999 MB of storage space left. Next time you PUT a file, it will be subtracted from your storage credit and you don’t pay SafeCoin. Only when you run out of storage credit for a full PUT are you charged SafeCoin again. It won’t be possible to get more storage credit above what you get for 1 SafeCoin.
If there is one thing I learned, people will find a way when there is money to be made.
My first thought would be to buy blocks of storage with generic accounts. For example: create 100 accounts and buy 1Tb of storage each. Then just sell the login and pw to the new user. People sell max level characters on MMORPG.
Or create your own middleman software/server to facilitate it. They log into your server, buy storage, and your server sends it through to one of your generic accounts.
I think pay-on-put is very ideal. But according to @dirvine it will be done in blocks, so like 10Gb block or something like that.
Ok, so it appears that nothing is set in stone as of yet. I’m glad that a network utilization model is being discussed because to me this is the most feasible option.
I agree with you there, direct swap does not seem like it would work, even though it sounds reasonable, there’s no way to guarantee how your node will act in the future. Make the swap, upload your data for life, stop farming. To easy to game.
I completely agree with you there. We are going to see a massive farming push from day one, and data storage costs will be driven to essentially zero (given a network utilization model).
Well thought out. I believe the network will be quite capable in sustaining itself on PUT payment alone in the future.
Why can’t pay-on-put be implemented?
I’m sure the devs have a few actual algorithms laid out, but nothing is certain yet. It will be matter of experimentation during test net 3 and BETA.
One important consideration is that the network should aim to maintain a certain amount of free space in case major parts of the network go offline causing big churn events, either due to a natural disaster or a major attack to destroy the reliability of the SAFE network by causing data loss that way.
However, for the sake of efficiency and cost-effectiveness you want to make as much use of the available space as possible, so a balance will need to be found. My wild guess would be something between 50% and 80%.
I’m pretty sure it can be implemented, and probably will be. I’m not 100% clear on what the current plan is. It may actually be exactly this.
cool, cool, I guess the reason why I couldn’t find the answers is because they haven’t been decided upon yet!
It is pretty much pay on put. You charge up your space account with safecoin and will be told how much space is left based on current prices (so if you leave it and store nothing your space will likely decrease). So each store will incur a cost at that time on the network. The network knows the cost of all puts in real time. I assume space will decrease in cost very fast and there will be an opportunity for your client to pay frequently rather than in larger chunks, thereby keeping your cost per Mb as low as possible.
The network aims for 20% over supply and will flatten out farming over that amount, as farmers reduce or space required increases then the network increases farming rate to get back to 20% above average.
I’m so glad to hear this part. “Use it or Lose it” approach. This will discourage hoarding.
So what about 100 million user? The network still knows cost at all time? And that’s cost in Safecoins I guess? That’s like another mechanism I have to learn than
(*dreaming about writing a post on “All the economic layers for Safecoin”)
Yes, the cost is calculated based on the used:free space ratio of the close group, with additional requests from other (random?) groups for this ratio. Standard (and proven) statistical methods are then used to make sure there is a minimum deviation from the network average in the PUT price. So it’s not like the entire network will be polled, but there will be enough measurements to come extremely close to the factual network average (which is practically impossible to know) using math. This way there are no scaling problems at all.
@dirvine Can you point us to information on this?
Is it true that there are two stages of probability as @kirkion suggests. I was imagining the probability was only as to whether the Safecoin address was un-minted (second stage above), which provides a simple an efficient way of making farming harder as Safecoin are used up.
The other area of probability I’m aware of is related to rank - performance of a node translate into rank, which in turn increases its chance of hosting a given chunk.
So I am aware of two areas. Are there more, such as @Kirkion suggests?
Another way to look at it is that the data on the network is stored randomly, but statistically very evenly, over the entire address space. Vaults are created in a similar fashion, i.e., randomly but evenly across the address space. Therefore, if all vaults had an abundance of disk space, all vaults would have about the same amount of data stored on them at any moment.
So, even without doing any polling of other groups, a group of 32 vaults would represent an acceptable reflection of the state of the whole network. I guess an anomaly could occur in a group from time to time, but the churn of the network will prevent even that from lasting too long or causing a problem.
Even if at the moment when my vault attempts to farm a coin, I might be a bit more lucky or less lucky than I ought to be, it still evens out in the overall scheme of things.
Except that vaults have different rank, which determines their chance of being offered chunks. However, given knowledge of the relationship between rank and storage usage, I guess there’s a way of using properties of the network to provide a statistically useful PUT price function. Waiting to hear…
Yes, but even that will tend to reflect fairly evenly across a churning group of 32 nodes. So, again, the value a particular group comes up with at any moment may not be exact, but it will cycle around the average. Probably good enough to be equitable to everyone involved.
I hadn’t thought of that, but evenso wonder if 32 will be a big enough sample. Someone who can do maths needed