yip, that’s what I would intend to do … a hard fork that would be a separate network, with a separate coin. I don’t see any other way.
I really don’t want to have to do this, but I feel strongly enough about it that I will do so and I will seek out others to help. I do believe there will be plenty of support for this.
I will wait to see if the devs follow through with adding PtP.
Lots to respond to and lots I don’t understand in the current system. Are PtP, PtD, etc. already existing taxes/charges in the system? How many total exist and how are they charged/calculated?
A difference of opinion I’d like to address is how adding a 1% charge on every transaction in here compares to the fiat system. It was said above that no one with large transactions or banana transactions would pay 1% and so would go elsewhere. The banking system regularly charges from 2.5% to 4+% per transaction for most accepted methods of payment today and people pay that. It goes directly to the banks (or their financial transaction brothers). However, indirectly, they have many rules, regulations, restrictions and other middlemen in the way that the total effective societal charge is more than 20%. In some entire supply chains, it can top 60%.
This doesn’t even consider that problem of rent-seeking migration where the more wealth you have, the more you transition to becoming evil.
What does counter rent-seeking is when people have spare disposable income. Anything after survival, or maintaining one’s social status, is available for them to wield social, market and political power. If they are always day-to-day, they never get to choose their own destiny (their preferred products, their social circles, their political direction). If they have even a tiny bit extra, they get to spend it on those things and society benefits by becoming more what the people want instead of what the elites want. This is how society has migrated to becoming top-down - by stealing discretionary income. This may sound off-topic but this process begins by hidden transaction fees sent upward, then price inflation (upward) then wage deflation (upward) then we add in all the rent seeking and compounding effects of financial games. In short, every evil in the system flow up the chain even though the majority are seen as systemic costs of society.
In this system, those direct costs of 2-4% per transaction get reduced to 1% but they flow downward. All of it, 100%, goes to every member (automatically with no overhead), but this increases the discretionary income of all those people by x nominal dollars. That is likely not going to change the discretionary income for the majority (maybe .01% to .00001% ?) but it will change it for the poorest (5% to 50%). This raising of the floor, effectively moves power from the top to the bottom in proportion to its membership. And by giving them power, it is giving them a voice in their society. In the beginning, this mostly translates to just a decrease in apathy but that’s a start. If it reached the point where the poorest 10% of people could eliminate poverty based mortality, that would be great. But as one person gains the ability to feed himself or get medical care, another person higher up gains the ability to buy something he wants, not just what he can afford. Someone else can buy a durable product to replace a rent. Someone else, a political contribution… or maybe even run for office or lobby?
So, the proposal reverses the flow of power unlike nothing in society today.
It was also stated that large purchases would not be done here because they wouldn’t want to pay 1% when they could pay less in another system (alt or fiat?). That’s the wrong line of thinking. Virtually all transactions (excluding free cryptos) charge something so that’s merely a difference in where the line is drawn. The other way of thinking is not how large the transaction is but how frequent. Most of the entire economy has only two transactions per dollar. First, they earn it, then they spend it. The people who are rent based or financial game based don’t operate this way. They have 5, 10 or 100’s of transactions PER DOLLAR. Those transactions will never be done under this system because they would get taxed/charged 1% each time, quickly totaling more than their profit percentage. What this results in is that productive transactions migrate to this system for less charges and rent-seeking/un-productive transactions are left to operate in the failing fiat system.
Overall net effect… individuals, self and local businesses, straight/direct lending, the crowd-funding economy and many other socially enlightened groups migrate toward this system and leave the fiat system to crash under its deflating growth. Isn’t that what everyone here pursues?
I consider the 15% a tax, or cost of running the system. At least it’s loosely related to outcomes.
People only pay the fees when they have no choice. When there is technology available to do this at zero cost, people aren’t going to choose an alternative which applies some arbitrary fee.
It really doesn’t matter whether the fee is less than incumbent systems or whether it would feed the hungry and save the world - people will simply use the cheaper alternative, which will inevitably be forked.
@team_2E16 His power was reduced. That was the point.
The extreme delusion of the current right is that money will free them. They do not understand that the coercive power of money in itself is the worst kind of tax. Its so extreme that other kinds of tax dilute this tax. There is no way to reject the political economy arguments. Do we think that some fool that can seem to win the arbitrary and shallow money contest, at least according to logic of the money worshippers, is proven virtuous and fit to rule as a king because of course life supports the rule of the shallow-strong over the weak and justice demands that their genetics would carry this on? Do we think life is a contest of dice and that limits on money unjustly restrict this game? Life is a casino and not accepting its is not realistic?
What does it look like when the worshipers of the money contest lose that lottery and have to live under it? Kind of like the historical Rand ending up on social security to survive. When the contest runts its quick course it means your neighbor has more money than, based on who he is related to, and you have to do what he says for the rest of your life. It means in the free market for law, he can buy laws specifically tailored against you personally. He can bar you from living in his city. It means he can pay to have you tried and convicted. It means like today that in the ‘free’ market for politicians Saudi Arabia and Israel in concert with Morgan Stanley can select the next US president over the will of the US people and even over the will of a right side plutocrat who is rejected because his side’s money puppets will be in a fight with their own plutocrats over him being too left. It means you can’t marry who you like. It means some one with more money can pay to have you or your family killed or kidnapped and there is nothing you can do about it. It means you can’t marry that person because I have more money than you and my son wants her, and if you do you’re dead. Or like in Scotland, I am the lord of the manner and on your wedding night by the law of money and inherited wealth I get first crack at your wife. Open you mouth about it and I cut of your right hand to remind you that you are my property, I bought you and if you were lucky I bought you from your parents whom one of my kinsmen placed in debt, unlikely but maybe you could buy you way free.
There may have been a few benevolent Princedoms but they were temporary and the exception. There is no substitute, especially not money or mere ‘free markets’ for democratic power sharing systems. And those do consume resources and must have some way to function our you get the historical alternative or rule by inherited wealth- look familiar with my mom was president and so was my dad?.
How is that for a free market of opportunity?
@TylerAbeoJordan Let us be reminded that even after the war Einstein, a Jew, remained a socialist and was quite vocal about why. Let us remember that Gladstone in the 1800s said “Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear.” And as I’ve pointed out conservatives can’t even claim Burke with his line about too many rules hurt the people.
Even that isn’t conservative. The KKK is conservative. Its about insisting that your specialness puts other people at a real disadvantage. Conservative is a fear based ideology based on conserving or preserving, its really about losing and paranoia. Old Testament, much more conservative, New Testament much more liberal. That’s progress. Progress is the movement away from a life based on fear, pain and reflex or base unconsciousness to one based on love, connection and consideration. The liberal sees oneness and union the conservative sees war over what doesn’t matter. Conservatism literally comes down to the right hand trying to cut off the left hand.
@TylerAbeoJordan Censorship based money puppet sponsored media accidentally still correctly identifies socialism as left and historians identify Socialism as Left in intent with some extreme right exceptions that were just socialist as a lure (Nazis.) To understand why its not defined by attempts to subvert it, just look at France today. France got someone in who wants to subvert their socialism with longer hours and union busting etc. What a surprise? Or look at Hilary, a phony democrat money puppet. Or look at when the Democrat and Republican US parties switched their orientations through internal subversions. Property is not even a secondary concern relative to power its merely derivative and the point of socialism has always been about distributing power equitably or at least intelligently with equity and opposing ‘finders keepers.’ Issues with states and money are important but they are not the intent or the point. Marx end point was socialism not communism and aimed to eliminate the state first and foremost but as money, markets and contract. There was bit of a tech gap there and lots of failure but the social democracies have been the high points so far even if Marx had concerns about what passes for democracy. .
But lets just strip it down. Conservatism is not about conserving resources or conserving power for the people by going small on government and rules and laws. That’s all bs. What its really about is conserving or preserving the structural violence of: you work and you work a lot more than necessary so we don’t have to and never have any risk of having to. Laws based on this principle are the only kind of law that conservatives will accept. Its really a kind of body snatching cannibalism that drives the majority of people into unconsciousness allowing conservative elites (wishful) to then chide and sneer with quips about animalism being ordinary people’s nature- animals that need abuse and yoking. Conservatives don’t want a middle class, Buckley was very open about that. In short conservatism is a kind of conspiracy a criminal ideology and ultimately and always because that ideology will be acted on: conservatism is crime. Its theft of life, liberty and happiness. And conservatives would be fine with punishing people for ideology. Also fine with pretending to be liberal (liberal trade) and fine with spying, loss of privacy and the surveillance police state and fine with gentrification.
For a lot of conservatives coming to grips with their liberal reflexes and actual growth path is as painful as discovering that one is a self loathing homosexual persecuting homosexuals. If we could just abuse people through the unfettered use of money everything would be fine, said the abuser to the abused progeny. Its ok, part of growing is being wrong and wrong a lot until we are wrong about everything and in humility stop trying to be right. Such humility puts an end to conservatism. We might still shamefully admit that we still have some conservative tendencies that we haven’t rooted out. For conservatives the growth path is to become more like the dude in the “Big Lebowski.”
@TylerAbeoJordan the quip about states schools is basically saying only people who can afford it should have an education. Educating the animal masses would be bad because it could free them right? Education is only for the rich, right? Or maybe little black children on behalf of the charity, guilt and self interest of the rich might get a finder’s keepers sponsored education right?
Your fork will still be taxing free electrons out of the commons. You’ll never eliminate a tax on resources. Updating or keeping your fork going will still require a tax on other people’s mental resources. And worst of all if there are ever any employees involved there may be profit situations where those employees don’t get at least 51% of their contributions to the product and that would be the kind of tax that really is theft.
I think you should be be free to do what ever you want when ever want right up to the point where it would negatively impact the well being of others. But also where there is a question, the benefit of the doubt must always side with the benefit of others, the need to be free of recklessness trumps any talk of free markets here. Nature has apparently agreed and sided with the mob, generally giving it the physical power to shred the individual.
There is an awful lot of sophistry filling up this thread.
People are free to choose which network to support. People are free to fork GPL code. People are free to exchange or hold whatever crypto currencies they wish.
Whatever some people want others to do, whether well meaning or otherwise, is really irrelevant regarding the above. What will happen, will happen, whether people wish it or not.
You guys misunderstand PtP.
It doesn’t mean it will be more expensive.
It means that instead of farmers earning the whole pot only for themselves, a small small part of the rewards are sent to the person who created the content (image /art, video, song, research, poem, article, etc).
Make lil SAFE spin-offs w/o it if u want, w/e.
But this is a powerful feature that will Help people all across the world. You forget how many masses of people make miniscule amounts of money in their lifetimes.
Go live in Africa for a year. Or rural China. Or India or South America. Etc etc etc. Then decide on PtP.
All you guys who keep fighting it are so far removed from these parts of the world and their problems… Makes me 
. You think it’s just some extra tax on you. You couldn’t be more wrong /blind to what’s possible here
our world progresses muuuch faster, in every field, when all people are incentivised to create /contribute. but hey if you want to live in a world with much slower progress, because utilizes only a small portion of the global human power, then go ahead with non-PtP forks. And then enjoy dying before cures to aging / diseases come out, etc etc
Also encourages further content creation because if there isn’t new content it goes cached, and no one gets more coin if its already cached its a win=win for the system.
I get the feeling many of us don’t realize the caching component limiting the amount of safecoin distribution of farmers and producers. There is no run away train.
The reality is, the network will likely get forked if PtP is integrated into core. Then the market will vote with feet.
It isn’t just us on this forum you need to convince, it is every potential user. Those who voluntarily want to pay producers can do so with or without PtP. Those who do not, will just use a fork which removes it.
Freedom of association is warts and all. Trying to corner people into using PtP will fail. It will just risk splitting the network in two.
It seems to me that every single physical item (and the majority of services) that every person in a civilized part of the world today uses, was designed, made, distributed, sold and advertised by another person or group of people who could not have done that without the many physical items they benefited from. It’s a network where my pencils allow Bob’s drawings, which allow Paula’s machine to make Teresa’s iPhone. But I couldn’t have made any pencils if it weren’t for John making graphite and …
Reminds me of the comedian’s question on the subject. “If we dropped you off on a deserted island, how freakin’ long would it be before you sent us an email SOS?”
Many people don’t realize the breadth of benefit they receive from just being a part of a society. And by raising up the bottom 2 billion people just a tiny bit, they quickly become far more productive than the aid given to them. As such, the ROI on this help is not just more income into the system reducing the need for said aid, it’s that things like the tri-corder gets in your hands by the time one’s body requires one to save them.
The best part, by far, is that the very system of oppression - the fiat money system and its derivations - is undermined to the point it simply becomes moot. Sounds like a win-win-major win to me.
Let’s see who wins then!
U right I don’t have to convince anyone. This convo is totally pointless.
Do what you want. I know yours won’t win. It lacks the powerful vision necessary to make real change and impact on anything.
cuz: common sense, would you rather upload your great new creations (song, doc, image, etc) to a network with no ROI??? Where you just have to hope for donations?? ORRR would you rather PUT it to a network where it earns you SafeCoin, 24/7??? I want to hear you answer that. We will see!!
This guy gets it. ,,,*,
Don’t get mad @whiteoutmashups. You’re right and I know you know exactly what you are talking about because you were in Africa for a period of time right? And you’re right, people like me in my comfortable western home are very far removed. But imagine this…one day while sitting on my cush cush couch, me and millions of other westerns see this picture:
A sober image of what is going on in places like Africa and a strong motivator for many noble people like you to action.
I stay were I am (shame on me) but I see something else which is this:
“I’m really, really sorry. The pain of life overrides the joy to the point that joy does not exist… depressed … without phone … money for rent … money for child support … money for debts … money!!! … I am haunted by the vivid memories of killings and corpses and anger and pain … of starving or wounded children, of trigger-happy madmen, often police, of killer executioners … I have gone to join Ken if I am that lucky.”
Which was the suicide note from the famous photographer who took that image but did nothing “more” to help that child.
You say that those who are against PtD/PtP [quote=“whiteoutmashups, post:133, topic:8444”] lacks the powerful vision necessary to make real change and impact on anything. [/quote]
But I see it differently. Let me ask you, what good is it to pay for content that will only be taxed out of the hands of these content producers? What good to the world is a bunch of content creators who are made criminals and jailed for attempting to avoid those taxes?
To be clear, I am not personal against PtD/PtP on moral grounds because I feel that the developers have a prerogative to be as generous as they like. Also, while I don’t like PtP/PtD, I will always support the Irvine version because I am not forced to do so. That is why we have forks.
However, if I want to continue living my comfortable western lifestyle, I am forced to use fiat and a lot of the resources I contributed to earn that fiat is taxed away to content I don’t like. Kinda sounds like PtP/PtD to me.
That poor photographer had a broad vision and provided valuable content but society demanded “more” from him.
Aggression in our world is what creates poverty, depression, oppression and a host of other issues. What many of us who are advocating Austrian economics, the non aggression principle and the like are saying is to please take what we voluntarily give you and don’t demand more.
In that sense our vision is broader IMO.
Again, this convo is completely inconsequential. I’m done. Time and results will show you 
we must just wait and see
Also I see some taking the poll results that has less than 50% saying they don’t want PtP and saying they have significant support for a fork… What the poll didn’t ask and is utterly important to this question, is how many would be willing to live with the major network having PtP and the corresponding question, how many would not stay with a network that has PtP. Then involved with that is how many against PtP in any form would sit and wait to see what happens.
The comments in that topic did not suggest a large number against PtP would jump ship and join a competing network.
Anyhow they have that choice, the beauty of open source, to fork a separate network and see how it goes.
[I should know better than to comment on this with you @warren, but this statement rolls off your tongue (figuratively) so easily, yet has now anchor in anything real, I can’t help myself.]
The question then becomes: “Who DO you trust to use the force necessary to justly control others’ associations in order to do what THEY think solves ‘our problems’?” Do you really think that those who wish to compel and inhibit free association amongst others are the people who have the pure hearts and clear compassion AND ubiquitous knowledge to solve everybody’s problems according to what’s actually best for them?
The problems people have and need to solve are those that they actually have, not the ones that somebody else says they have.
Again, I challenge anyone here to answer this.
Quite a few old forum members claim donations will work fine. (The uploader may not be the actual author, of course, so the chances of someone making money are very slim).
But since the topic is Austrian economics and the SAFE network, this should be discussed elsewhere, I think.
A question that even Austrians don’t agree on is whether the copying of digital content is illegal.
So to answer your question in an on-topic fashion, one view is that the group that thinks the copying is fine doesn’t care. The other group would upload their creations to a network that charges for content based on criteria set by the owner and accepted by those who agree to T&C’s of using each particular piece of content. (The rules could be uniform or several contracts could exist so it’d be necessary to get familiar with 2-3 main licensing approaches). But the problem is at the moment there’s no way to either monitor or enforce the second approach, so this discussion is largely pointless.
Yes, agreed, …