Having little or no knowledge of how Bitcoin works, i’d like to know how worthy the value of safecoin farmed in a span of a month or a year in relations to the energy(electricity) used, space(gb) provided and the speed of ones internet (bandwidth).
There are already a few topics on this part. Some include analytics but we simply don’t know all these things for sure yet. Testnet 2 and 3 might give some more information about the things you talk about.
and there might be even more threads about Safecoin here: https://maidsafe.org/category/safecoin
Alright, thanks for the insight
1 safecoin = 1$, lol
i hope so too…
question: will safecoin ever be divisible? ie. .25 safecoin, etc…
It is possible to make it divisible (2 to the power of 248 if required) and I think this will be essential when we offer the potential to move to a model of micro payments for consuming content as one way of getting us off the current ad model, i.e. pay 0.000001 safecoin to read an article or watch 100 frames of a movie, for example.
Assuming we do that. Pay to read an article? Even with micropayments you’ve got to be kidding? There are sites that do that already and I just hit the back button. If you want me to pay to read your stuff I’ll just go elsewhere. I don’t care how cheap it is.
I think implies optional. The more options the better. We, also, i think, need to allow ourselves the right to be wrong. Sometimes to pursue something we are not completely sure will work leads to great discovery and innovation.
This is a matter that is clearly down to personal preference. I would personally be happy to reward content providers for producing something that I found entertaining or interesting. We will have to find something to replace advertising, at least in the short term. As @janeannford suggests, this is one option that will be open to the community. I’m interested to hear different view points on this, how would you suggest incentivising content providers?
There’s a difference between COMPELLING compensation using quid pro quo tit for tat and alllowing one to CHOOSE to donate to a content provider by adding a donate button. No I would not pay for the privilage of reading an article much the same as I would not pay to read a book. I might buy the book, in which case it would become my property to then in turn do with as I willl, but no I wouldn’t pay just to read it. Now it’s conceivable of paying a subscription fee to a public library, or have said library funded by donations. So having a database of media which content providers add their content to and people pay subscription fees or submit donations to in order to acces (consider the humble bundle model or the magnatune model). Then in turn the subscriptions and/or donations go to pay the content providers. That’s one sollution. Or another model might be you just provide the content free straight up, perhaps for a limited time, and the content that people like and donate to stays up longer and is ranked up. Content people don’t like and donate to is ranked down and replaced by new content. That’s another model.
I suppose we are drifting off the topic of the thread now so should probably either finish the discussion or move to another thread. However, I can’t see any evidence of the ‘pay as you go’ donation model working for any for profit companies. If anyone is aware of any please let me know. I did find a radio station in the US (NPR) that work this way but they are a non profit and take in government subsidies.
Talk about missing the point! You would resist paying for content because you’re unused to paying for content, or so you think. The price you actually pay is becoming a target for multiple organisations who want to sell to you, use you as a commodity for their gain and swap your info with each other. Would I rather pay a penny to read an article that was of great interest to me in the knowledge I wouldn’t then be commoditised and sold around, or would I rather get a freebie but belong to google and the like? I’ll pay the penny.
I would hope that any system, be it maidsafe, the internet as it stands now, or something else all together, would have the flexibility for content providers to get paid all sorts of ways. Ads, paywalls, donations, etc. The trouble is on the web the most natural way to get paid is ads and that means that we as readers/viewers/whatever are product, not customer. The prospect of a new infrastructure making it more practical for me to be the customer rather than the product when I surf the web is exciting. @nicklambert, you mention NPR. NPR is always the example in my head that illustrates the difference between the customer being the advertiser vs. the customer being the subscriber, or “member” as public broadcasting calls it. As it happens I have a thermos given to me by my local NPR affiliate as a thank you for donating within arms’ reach. I could see NPR and its better known television equivalent, PBS, functioning without subsidy, but not if expected to make a profit and not if member’s payments were treated as normal corporate income rather than donations to a non-profit. Isn’t reddit trying to be pay as you go, what with reddit gold or whatever? (I don’t use reddit much, so I may have the name wrong.) They’re not profitable, last I heard.
We have been discussing the ways in which content creators can be paid and these discussions will continue next week. MaidSafe’s view is always to make this as flexible as possible and leave it up to the app builders and artists to decide, we are just the platform providers at the end of the day .
Am just about to say that, is there a way both can go together without going to the extreme, so that thighs can get balanced up, cos if it’s made to be pure ads, it won’t be to different from the present internet and if you make it pay to read or view, well…
I agree, I don’t think ads are the answer.