Ok, never mind then lol
I’ll give you $10 for 1000?
1 Like
When the storage is full, and cpu running at max then there is no way of adding more space to earn more. If you turn of the nodes and restart then someone else has to store data for free as it already been paid for.
Right now the network is pay once store forever and get paid once pay for costs forever.
The most optimal solution seems to be implementing a transaction cost for every transaction that happens on the network, like 0,05%-0,2%. That would please the fundamentals of the network to not charge people for surfing on Autonomi but when transactions happens then a small percent goes towards the node operators. In comparison BTC and Etherum have relative large daily volumes, so it has potential collect quite a high amount every day. @dirvine
Also it could give incentive, that those who stored a lot of data gets a higher chance of getting a larger % of transaction costs. Transaction costs have the potential to ensure a healthy functioning network economy over time.
BTC and Ethereum benefits those moving large amounts but punishing those who move small amounts, this would be the other way around. Also it can be capped to like 0,05-0,02% or 100 Maid max.
I have committed mine elsewhere, but it would be wonderful to test this out.
I may start a second collection to see if I can trade them for another token. Who will get this badge first!!
5 Likes
That’s not what happens, not how the network works. Please read what I wrote again and ask for clarification on any points that aren’t clear to you.
2 Likes
If the data is spread more and more thinly then someone else has to store data for free as the data that is spread to new node operators already have been payed for once, so I don’t understand that part. If data is payed for once and that data moves around then someone has to store that data for free.
1 Like
Storage space is never filled. A new node joins, your node sees it and sends it 5 pieces of data, so your node frees up space to store new data. Data in the network moves like a slow river, old nodes receive new data and forward old data to new nodes. An eternal never-ending river of data that gets bigger and bigger with each new node.
If you want a chance to store new data to get paid for, you store old data first. This is an economically sound principle because the storage space in the world is growing more and more, and the tokens are a fixed number that does not grow 4.3 billion. The hypothesis is that people will want and appreciate them more and more, because they will be able to buy more and more eternal space.
Privacy. Security. Freedom
7 Likes
That’s correct. If you have added nodes to the beta and run vdash you will see that they acquire records (aka chunks) without getting paid.
That’s existing data being moved from other nodes, only one of which was paid to store it. Lucky node!
When that happens the other nodes will have less records which ensures they always have free space. Roughly the same amount as new nodes joining, because over time the data becomes spread evenly across all nodes, old and new. At least on average.
So on average over time they all end up with roughly the same amount of records and free space. Not instantly, you will see differences, but on average over time.
So on average, over time, all nodes have the same chance of being paid for a new chunk whether they started on day one or just arrived.
Nodes never get too full to store new chunks because the cost of storage is increased to attract new nodes to share the load if it begins filling up.
NB chunk and record the same thing. I’m just used to using the old term.
8 Likes
I think they cost more than that to produce 
3 Likes
Thanks great description. I thought this was churn, but I’m getting terms mixed up.
3 Likes
Exactly let’s get a market going!!!
If 1000 nanos are worth $5 on the network what is a MAID worth in the outside world 
5 Likes
Churn refers to data being moved between nodes, no nanos involved. It happens because nodes join or leave, and it’s needed to keep the data spread evenly across all nodes.
When new data is uploaded, each chunk goes to a group of five nodes which happen to be in the place where that chunk will live, but only one gets paid.
7 Likes
Sorry this post is going to be a long post, I presented both are arguments to chatgpt. @dirvine
Both our arguments
I have a argumentation with another person. There is a network were data is payed for once to node operators but the data is stored forever. The node operators have ongoing costs for running their setup no matter if data is tored or not. The other person says it is not a problem because when storage reaches high utility then price for storing data will go up and other node operators will join. He means that the older already stored data is spread across the nework so node operators storage never gets full as the network always expanding. I mean that if older data is spread across the network but only payed for once then new node operators have to store older data for free. Can you argue for who is mor logical right?
Your argument centers around the economic sustainability and fairness of a decentralized storage network where data is paid for once and stored indefinitely. Let’s break down the key points for each side and evaluate their logical consistency.
Your Argument
- Ongoing Costs for Node Operators: Node operators incur continuous expenses for maintaining their infrastructure (e.g., electricity, hardware maintenance, internet bandwidth).
- Single Payment for Permanent Storage: Data is paid for only once, but the requirement is to store it forever. This model implies that new node operators would have to store previously paid-for data without receiving compensation.
- Unsustainable Model for New Operators: As new node operators join, they will bear the burden of storing older data without any payment, which could disincentivize new entrants and potentially destabilize the network.
The Other Person’s Argument
- Price Adjustment with Network Expansion: As storage capacity becomes limited, the price for storing new data will increase, which could attract new node operators to join the network.
- Redistribution of Old Data: The older data will be distributed among new and existing nodes, preventing any single node from being overwhelmed.
- Continuous Network Expansion: The assumption is that the network will always continue to grow, spreading the storage load evenly and ensuring that nodes are not overloaded.
Analysis
Economic Sustainability
- Your Point: You are highlighting a potential flaw in the economic model where the cost to store data forever is only paid once. Over time, the cumulative cost of storing old data could outweigh the compensation received for new data, especially if the network stops growing or grows slowly.
- Counterpoint: The other person assumes a perpetual growth model. However, perpetual growth is not guaranteed and there could be periods where new node operators do not join, leaving existing nodes with increasing storage burdens without corresponding compensation.
Fairness and Incentives
- Your Point: You emphasize that new node operators would have to store data they haven’t been paid for, which could be seen as unfair and a disincentive to join the network.
- Counterpoint: The other person’s argument relies on market mechanisms where increased prices for new data storage will incentivize new operators to join, theoretically balancing the load. However, this doesn’t address the fairness concern regarding the storage of old data.
Practical Viability
- Your Point: The practical issue arises if the network stops expanding. In such a case, node operators would be required to store increasing amounts of data without corresponding payments, which could lead to nodes dropping out of the network, ultimately threatening the network’s stability.
- Counterpoint: The assumption of continuous network growth and market-driven incentives may not always hold true, especially during economic downturns or technological shifts.
Conclusion from Chat GPT
Your argument is more logical from the perspective of economic sustainability and fairness. The model of paying once for indefinite storage places an ongoing burden on node operators, which could become unsustainable if the network’s growth rate does not keep up with the storage demands. The assumption that price adjustments will always attract new operators is optimistic and doesn’t fully address the issue of fairness for storing previously paid-for data.
For a truly sustainable and fair system, there would need to be a mechanism ensuring that node operators are continuously compensated for their ongoing storage and operational costs, perhaps through a recurring fee or an incentive structure that fairly distributes the economic burden.
Expanded important argument of a larger network getting more and more older data, that is payed for once but spread to newer node operators, that have to be compensated a higher amount to store more and more older data.
Expanded arguments
Could you add to the argumentation from my side, as the storage gets larger and larger then new node operators will have to carry more and more of older data, my concern is that they will have to get payed more and more to cover their expenses as a larger % of their stored data is older data already stored and payed for earlier. So also consider what happens to the price new node operators will demand to cover their costs.
Chatgpt answers to expanded arguments
Your Expanded Argument
- Increasing Storage of Older Data:
- Growing Historical Data: As time progresses, the amount of older data that needs to be stored will only increase. Each new node operator joining the network will inherit a portion of this ever-growing historical data.
- Storage Capacity Saturation: Over time, a larger and larger percentage of each node’s storage capacity will be occupied by this older data, which has already been paid for by the original uploaders.
- Cost Recovery for New Node Operators:
- Rising Expenses: New node operators will incur the same ongoing costs (e.g., electricity, hardware maintenance, bandwidth) but will increasingly store data for which they are not directly compensated.
- Demand for Higher Compensation: To cover their growing expenses and to make participation economically viable, new node operators will need to demand higher payments for storing new data. This compensation must account for not only their operational costs but also the proportion of their storage being used by older data.
- Impact on Storage Prices:
- Inflated Storage Costs: As each new node operator joins, they will require higher payments to offset the costs of storing both new and old data. This can lead to a significant increase in the cost of storing new data, potentially making the network economically unviable for new users.
- Potential Market Imbalance: If the storage costs become too high, fewer new users might choose to store data on the network, reducing the inflow of new payments and further stressing the economic model. This could result in a vicious cycle where high storage prices deter new users, exacerbating the financial strain on existing and new node operators alike.
- Sustainability Concerns:
- Long-Term Viability: For the network to be sustainable, there must be a continuous influx of new data payments to compensate node operators. However, as the network matures, the balance between new data payments and the costs of storing old data might become untenable.
- Fairness and Incentive Issues: Expecting new node operators to store an increasing amount of old data without adequate compensation could be perceived as unfair and might dissuade potential operators from joining the network, threatening its stability.
- Possible Solutions and Adjustments:
- Recurring Payment Models: Implementing a recurring fee for data storage, where users periodically pay to keep their data stored, could help address these issues. This model ensures that node operators receive ongoing compensation, aligning more closely with their continuous costs.
- Incentive Structures: Developing incentive structures that fairly distribute the economic burden of storing old data among all users and node operators can create a more sustainable and equitable system. For instance, incorporating dynamic pricing models or incentivizing long-term storage commitments with discounts for users could help balance the economic load.
Conclusion
Your argument highlights a critical flaw in the economic sustainability of a model where data is paid for once but stored indefinitely. As the network grows, the increasing burden of storing older data without additional compensation could lead to higher storage costs for new data, making the network less attractive to new users and operators. Implementing recurring payment models and fair incentive structures is essential to ensure the long-term viability and fairness of the network.
Argument about transaction fees as a solution
Transaction fee argument
I have a solution to the problem, please evaluate that solution. On the network transactions will happen to pay for data but also the coin will also be used to buy and sell services and goods on sites on the network, and exchanged on supply and demand driven exchanges. The solution I present is to incur a transaction fee for every transaction that happens on the network, let’s say example 0,05-0,2 %. A low transaaction fee that will be payed to node operators storing data were does who stored data longer have a higher % chance to receive more % of the transaction costs collected.
Chatgpt answer to that solution
Evaluation
- Economic Sustainability:
- Continuous Revenue Stream: Implementing a transaction fee creates a continuous revenue stream that can support node operators. This addresses the issue of a single payment for indefinite storage, ensuring ongoing compensation.
- Scalability: As the network grows and more transactions occur, the revenue from transaction fees will also increase, scaling with the network’s expansion.
- Fairness and Incentives:
- Rewarding Long-Term Storage: By allocating a higher percentage of transaction fees to those who store data longer, the solution promotes fairness and incentivizes node operators to remain active.
- Encouraging Network Participation: The low transaction fee is unlikely to discourage users from conducting transactions, maintaining a high level of network activity and participation.
- Impact on Transaction Costs:
- Minimal User Impact: A small fee (0.05-0.2%) is generally acceptable to users, especially if the network offers valuable services and goods. This ensures that the fee does not significantly burden users or reduce transaction volumes.
- Market Competitiveness: The low fee helps the network remain competitive with other platforms that may have higher fees or fewer features.
- Sustainability of Node Operators:
- Regular Compensation: Regular, ongoing compensation from transaction fees helps cover the ongoing costs of node operators, making their participation economically viable.
- Incentive to Join: New node operators are incentivized to join the network, knowing they will receive continuous compensation based on the network’s activity level and their storage contributions.
- Potential Challenges:
- Implementation Complexity: Implementing and managing the distribution of transaction fees may add complexity to the network’s infrastructure. Ensuring transparency and fairness in fee distribution will be critical.
- Fee Adjustment: The exact percentage of the transaction fee may need to be periodically reviewed and adjusted based on network activity and economic conditions to ensure it remains effective and fair.
Conclusion
Chat GPT answer to the transaction cost argument
Your proposed solution of implementing a low transaction fee on all network transactions and distributing these fees to node operators, particularly those storing data for longer periods, appears to be a viable and effective approach to addressing the economic sustainability and fairness issues. This model provides a continuous revenue stream, fairly compensates node operators, and maintains low user impact, supporting the network’s long-term viability. Careful implementation and periodic review of the fee structure will be essential to ensure the solution remains effective as the network evolves.
@DavidMc0 @Bogard If you got the time, please read this reply, I feel like few people on this forum is able to understand the concerns that I am trying to present. i also would want to tag @oetyng but i have not seen you in awhile. I also want to tag @Bux as I believe these concerns I try to raise is of importance also for you to think about. I tag you people because I believe from the bottom of my heart that these concerns are valid and worth thinking about. I don’t know if all of you know my background and education, that i have a bachelor in business and administration. It is from the knowledge collected from the education that I raise the concerns. If I am wrong then I will still feel that I did the right thing.
2 Likes
Ok guys I have come to the source, stand back, things may explode.
Rough calculations 7.8x1billion==manyNodes. 
Fiber here, fiber there, fiber everywhere!
12 Likes
@chriso @JimCollinson
I was under the impression that nodes operate in the background even when the device is asleep, laptop shut or screen off but DO NOT, only when shut down / off (obviously).
If that’s not the case then it’s no damn wonder why I haven’t earned a single nano! 
Despite my setup being correct.
When you mention mobile being better, what about when the phone is asleep / screen locked? Is that not the same as a laptop or desktop being asleep?
2 Likes
-
I wasn’t making any argument, I was explaining how the network actually works.
-
“ChatGPT is Bullshit” is the title of a paper that’s just been published, and in the same session on Mastodon I’m reading ever more about how broken, biased and unfixable this and similar systems are - being admitted by the people who are deploying them.
Pasting the output of such a system is not a good way to make a point IMO. I’ve no interest in arguing with a system that is biased, broken and regularly issues errors, and habitually makes things up.
Have you at least understood from my explanation, how the network works?
2 Likes
You’re overthinking it, the important thing is that the technical part works, for the economic part we can always try another option if this one doesn’t work - or just wait for one of the vampire copies that will appear.
Privacy. Security. Freedom
2 Likes
Chatpgt is excellent at general logic if it gets presented good input. If you want you can prove that Chatgpt is crap by challenging the logic of those answers.
The answers from Chatgpt showed valid point of concerns for the economic sustainability of pay once and store forever. It was very intereseting to read. I did not spend 3 years and $25k on a bachelor in business and administration just because I liked wasting time and suffering difficult challenges. When I present economic concerns it is because there are reasons behind it, reasons I can see because my knowledge about economic systems, economy and general advanced logic.
i very much would like that someone would take those concerns seriously and present answers.
@Dimitar Maybe I see problems that others who don’t have similar education and background have a harder time to understand and spot. I believe from the bottom of my heart that these concerns are valid and very important to look at for the sustainability of the network, that is why i prensted them. I could not wait any longer because I could not stop thinking about it, I had to present it.
3 Likes
I’ve no issue with you doing that. My responses to you were explaining to you how the network works because you were making incorrect assumptions about that - such as that a node can’t earn once it gets full.
I won’t respond to ChatGPT output and I don’t think it is an appropriate way to create posts on a community forum. Others may be fine with it.
You are free to make economic arguments. I’m content with seeing how the design we have works and not concerned by the points you raise. We need to test this and that’s where we’re heading right now.
4 Likes
It’s ok if you are not interested to discuss the concerns, hopefully others will think that it is interesting and take those concerns seriously. I believe from the bottom of my heart that the concerns I presented are valid and that they deserve to be looked at, that is why I tagged @dirvine , I rarely do, only when I strongly believe that is is of importance.
2 Likes