Can I exploit content rewards by accessing my public content repeatedly:

I have some question about this. For now I’ll ask two and wait you find the solution for the rest.

Let’s start with a scenario. I upload a random file, I attach my payment address to it, and what I do? I download it unlimited amount of time to get paid.
How the SAFE Network will deal with that?

Is that true?


Of course just because two people request one chunk does not mean that cache will automatically be used for the 2nd request.

The cache is likely to be between you and the vault in routing terms. So if you request a chunk 100,000 times then its very possible that 1 GET will occur and the caching occurs on your own machine or a node “close” to you. And another person asking for that chunk may cause a GET since the cache is “too far” away in routing space.


I could reconnect over, over and over again to get new address in XOR space each time?


Be my guest :yum:

I would think the effort will yield very little results. Most likely you will fill up caches and end up having them between you and one of the vaults for the majority of requests


And I get paid for simulating that everyone wanted my file.

yes, but as we already know hackers have hundreds of thousands of computers infected with r.a.t and botnets. for some people the network would be a get rich fast method
but if there is a limit per vault, things would be a little different. not to mention a limit on transactions of safecoins from one address to another. this means we also fight money loundering and prevent those ‘put the slaves to work for me’ techniques

Ok who are you trying to limit?

Certainly not the person trying to “game” the system.

the limit is for everybody, gamer or not
the safecoin is what will attract gamers of all kind. in the end the safecoin is just the fuel that powers freedom, anonymity and free speech. a lot of people sees it as a real life income, ready to be cashed out at exchange houses. this is the root that might create instability on the network or disruption or bad aspects. every aspect comes at the cost of other. so which is more important? to farm safecoins and cash them out for fiat or to have a secure and well-ballanced network?

You have a number of problems with this approach and some would break the SAFE system

  • Chunks do not remain in any one vault
  • chucks exist in at least 4 different vaults at any one time.
  • vaults are not persistent
  • vaults will be treat differently to each other according to the chunks they hold
  • chucks used often are cached, so your idea falls down
  • the system is now required to track usage in order to limit (anything). Lost of some privacy/anonymity. Also potential for identifying vault holding chunk.

In other words if I have a vault that is victim to your perceived attack then it will be closed off from earning more, even though it was doing its job, So then I stop farming in disgust. This starts occurring to others and as more stop the # of vaults drop and will cause issues. <— that is what would happen if the system worked as you imply

Then you will see all those requests being satisfied by caching and no more rewards, the more they do the most caching occurs. Almost immediately there is no reward occurring for all those bots.

5%, 10% of nothing is nothing, the gamers lose, only tiny rewards. Gamer will move onto richer fields like renting out their botnet to DDOS on sites.

You ask for significant changes to the protocol and core programming for what? Something that has little benefit and potential to piss off legit farmers who refuse to farm anymore because their efforts/resources stop being rewarded after a while because of an arbitrary limit which has to be LOW because to catch those botnets. The limit has to be very low due to caching taking over after one GET. on each Chuck. (maybe 2-10 if bot net is diverse enough).

Limit transactions. Who decides the limit. What to stop someone having 1000’s of “wallets” and only ever doing small transactions on each, using a program to create and move though as they need them to keep under the limit.

The network is already designed to do this, how will it then cause problems if it does what it is designed for

You have made an either-or statement that says one will hurt the other when in fact the SAFE network is designed to accommodate both in harmony and is expected to occur.

We are facing two problem here. I’m not sure I understand all you mean in your last post.
If everything is cached because it’s popular the creator do not make more SafeCoin.
And if I simulate that everyone wanted that file like I explained above, it’s not profitable.
So where is the motivation for the creator to put their files on the network if it’s not profitable? Popular one is going to be cached quickly and no more profit can be made after that.

If you are a botnet or your fans access your content as fast as a bot net then what you say is true.

But when you sit back and think about it, your content will likely be accessed at a much slower rate (except those pieces that have gone viral) and the nodes will not cache content for too long since they have more recent accessed content to cache pushing your chunk out of the cache.

But those botnets are accessing the same content so often that they remain in cache the whole time.

1 Like

Absolutely, plus cache is not a binary network wide on/off as you have also seen. So caching will happen exponentially faster towards a reader, so the readers would need to be very dispersed on the network.

So we need to imagine the network as millions of networks (equal to number of data element plus nodes). These networks all share / overlap in multi directional ways. So a huge venn diagram. Caching happens fast close to origin of chunks and slower further away. So there is a pretty big balance of caching due to this. so a group of nodes near each other will cache fast, but nodes in a different direction will not (yet) have created cache copies.

Measurement of this will be very interesting, all I mean here is cache does not mean network wide on every path and this is confusing to some people, botnets will see cache fast though :slight_smile:


i’m not talking about one song, i’m talking about song after song. it probably is just me, but it’s a kind of automatic process, or is it not? i upload, my ‘slaves’ work for me, i get the resources, then upload another thing and so on. then i also get the resources from hdd-space from my ‘slaves’
do i miss something in the equation?

It will cost more in uploading than would ever be earned in botnetting that ends up being cached before it earns even a 1/1000 of the cost to upload

thank you, but are you sure about it?

also why are you implying that the content is accessed simultaneously? what if the botnet involves timers or other rules?

You confuse me with Warren. I don’t hate ads.
I hate Google and FB because they exemplify the industry of runaway thinly-veiled wholesale of private data. But another difference related to Warren here is I wouldn’t try to ban or regulate them. I just don’t like the companies that engage in what I view as immoral practice.

Very good point, from the privacy and security perspective.

It shouldn’t need to deal with it - you get back a very small part of what you pay. It’d cost you dearly.


Are you saying that uploading a file will cost more than you will ever make of it? If that’s the case then it wouldn’t make any sense for people to upload stuff. Or do you just mean in this specific case where 1 person downloads the same file over and over again?

Why don’t you state the circumstances and someone can tell you the results.

The overview of what will happen is along the lines of the following :-

To go slow enough to not have caching occurring then is it worth a botnet? >>100,000 bots would mean very slow :smile:

To upload enough files to go fast enough then the cost of upload is prohibitive. To make unique enough for this to happen with >>100,000 bots then it is an awful lot of files/chunks needed to upload.

To find an optimal point between the two will see caching rates between source and bots increase to a point that looks like returns from going very slow.

There are easier ways to bum a buck or two off the internet and if one has control of a botnet then they could earn a lot more a lot quicker from hiring out their botnet, rather than making a loss on the SAFEnet

If it is simply an attack then that has been discussed elsewhere with similar results, SAFE is a lot more resistant that the traditional model of a centralise internet we have now.

When you start downloading your own file over and over again, cashing will kick in. So when you get the Chunks from your close nodes they’ll just serve you out of cash. You would probably make more money by just offering space to the network and Farm some Safecoin providing resources.