Transition from subletting artificial scarcity bandwidth to mesh


Now hopefully every serious user of ProjectSAFE will be motivated to leave their devices all the time whether they are the owner of a mesh node or using telco/cable. If they are using telco/cable and have a bandwidth cap hopefully they will use every spare bit of that bit of that cap to benefit ProjectSAFE and earn SAFEcoins.

In the early system before wireless mesh, people will be trying to earn SAFEcoins by essentially reselling telco/cable bandwidth. Now these are likely to be very asymmetric connections with way more download than upload. Simply subletting these bad deals and looking for gain from it strikes me as a way to taint the app echo system early on and seriously reduce the received wisdom on the project’s potential. It would be reproducing the artificial scarcity that keeps the sponsor gate keeper system alive right at the launch of ProjectSAFE.

It makes sense to calibrate earning of SAFEcoins for bandwidth in a way that reduces this potential and facilitates the transition to mesh as quickly as possible. If the system were starting off with straight symmetrical mesh from every user where each of a billion new users simultaneously brought a surplus of bandwidth why even allow earning of SAFEcoin for bandwidth in that environment? But that is the environment that we will be transitioning to ultimately and the launch system should be incentivized by mesh devices providing the best bandwidth discount/payout but calculating the value of the bandwidth a mesh device adds to the early system does not seem straightforward. If I add one mesh node that is connected to no one else or just a hand full of mesh devices I have not added another internet’s worth of value, although I’ve enabled them all to connect to the current broken internet through my scarcity connection. Regressive internet providers will raise hell over this but hopefully they face the precedent set by Skype. What is the bandwidth I’ve added worth? It will be bandwidth with a chicken and egg problem that won’t necessarily be able to connect to everything the way the regressive bandwidth would at launch. But the need is to phase the one out as the other is phased in.

In the end, earning SAFEcoins for bandwidth seems like a serious trap, but short of falling into that trap it makes sense to set the system up to incentivize the fastest exit from systems that make it necessary to earn SAFEcoins from bandwidth. That probably means paying for bandwidth that goes nowhere early on but still not undermining system performance (SAFE economy) with that payout. That will make the system leaner, and allowing any spam would make it leaner still increasing risk. Mesh bandwidth has to be prioritized.


Quite a mouthful of a topic title, as always, Warren.

But I thoroughly agree with its message

Feasibility of datacenter farming (and the risk of farmer centralization)

Thank you.