Farming Rewards, free space for new users, and processing power rewards

Features
21

The reason is FREE.

We were trying to find a way to give free storage but avoid multiple account abuses. If I paid for storage with Safecoin I earned for providing storage, that storage was not free.

@reivanen If we charge Safecoin to create an account, we’ll limit accounts created to only those who can gain access to Safecoin first. This means they will have to gain it from another farmer, or an exchange. Both require new users to depend on another person to get started. If the SAFE Network becomes popular, some people would sell new accounts for profit.

@dirvine Any person, any where in the world, should be able to use their existing hardware to run the MaidSafe API, create an account, and run a vault. The cost for entry must be zero. I would rather remove FREE storage than charge for account creation.

1 Like
22

Free is Free. Or it’s not. If it’s free, it’s got to be free to everyone. “Buy this item for $10 and get a second one free” is actually saying “Buy these two items for $10.” If you’re getting storage because you’re providing a farming node, it ain’t free–you’re providing a network resource. Take your payment in safecoin and buy what you want with it.

A person can use any node to establish or reestablish a relationship to the network. Whether or not that person is also running a node somewhere is an unknowable datum as far as the network is concerned.

The interface between the two is safecoin. If you want to make some other interface, well, okay. But why? Safecoin is already there.

Unless you’re saying that if you install the software and tell the network you have X storage and expect the network to award your listed user account with free storage without your resource being proven out. But then we’re back in the same boat: 1. start up a node, 2. get awarded free storage, 3. close account, 4. repeat as desired to accumulate all the free storage you want, in a single account no less.

3 Likes
23

I agree. This would barrier adoption to make it almost impossible to spread.

I agree, except that running a vault and having an account are separate things.

I believe we’re back to having to allow anyone who wishes to use the network to create an account that has a low level, but still very useful functionality. Then, using safecoin acquired either by farming or some other means, to increase the account’s storage capacity and other functionality.

That way it gives everyone an opportunity to contribute to the network, even if just by using it (which is a major contribution, actually). We’ll, as a community, want to make it fairly easy for someone to upgrade, even if by charity, to a more functional account level.

1 Like
24

In other words if the main marketing push was the minimalist approach I suggested (say, a cool browser extension/add-in which backs up your bookmarks to the SAFE net), that would be enough to get millions of users.

Then in there put a link to downloads which says “Want more? Become a SAFE network node and store all your backups on the SAFE network!”
As they install they learn they need to give to be able to take, but that’s OK because most of them have some unused space.

It can all work fine based on people’s economic self-interest.

25

If you give to people a few MB nobody will use it when Skydrive, Google drive, Box or Dropbox give 2 to 15GB free.

1 Like
26

Some email functionality would be really good as well.

Yeah, that’s great. Then it becomes everybodies network, and safecoin distribution is spread far and wide, with minimal need to establish intermediary exchanges with fiat in order to drive safecoin use.

The more people who are earning safecoin by running part of the network, the more local solutions for people to exchange safecoins peer to peer, either for fiat or for services. Then getting hands on some from a friend or local person in order to upgrade your account becomes a driver for utility of safecoin as well as an incentive to earn by adding resources to the network. I like it.

It’s a matter of making opening accounts sufficiently functional as to be very useful, but enticing further functionality by getting more involved, whether by setting up a node or by buying safecoin (which itself is a valuable action).

1 Like
27

It’s not about competing with cloud storage as a starter. It’s about a cool, secure, private, decentralized network that is scalable and has a cryptocurrency that is anonymous, scalable, fast transacting. People can keep their Dropbox, etc., as long as they want to. But as the SAFE network grows, it’ll make less and less sense to not safely and cheaply move to permanent, secure, unsnoopable means that you have complete control of.

It’s network effect that we’re trying to drive. But it’s not an either/or from the start.

3 Likes
28

If your own privacy and information are free, then yes, those are free (and let’s not even mention advertising because Warren will be all over you in no time).

But if that’s the case (your privacy & ID info are worthless so those are really free up to X GB), then it turns we can’t get anyone to use SAFE unless (1) we pay people to use the SAFE network, or (2) we give away more free space.

To me that seems like a losing proposition. Ultimately they need to start paying.
50 GB * 5 cents (random guess) is $2.5. They could earn this back couple of weeks later if they play fair.

And as @fergish observed our success is not defined by how much people use, but how much they contribute, so giving away 1 or 10 GB doesn’t do much (I claim it’s damaging and wasteful). People have to be ready to make a commitment to farm.
I won’t say no more because by now everyone already knows that I’m fiercely against giving stuff for free (fortunately for those who disagree, I don’t decide).

3 Likes
29

There will be different phases of adoption, and the freemium option, and competing alongside products that lots of people understand helps get over the initial hurdle and build up a user base fast, and if there are viral features (file sharing, secure email, chat) and an app store, the initial take-up will then grow gradually into a more knowledgeable set of early adopters who will evangelise and otherwise spread the word.

So my feeling is that we should consider how we will explain to ordinary folk why they should bother with yet another complication, another download and install etc., when they already have Dropbox, email and so on. What will we say? What will seriously make someone act? It is in my experience harder than you imagine - because we are already sold on the idea and willing to put in hours and hours here because we believe in a future that doesn’t exist. Hardly any of the people we need to interest are going to follow that path. Its a much harder sell. I’ve been gently encouraging people to try Linux for quite some time, also Diaspora, and the take-up rate has been zero. This above should spawn a new topic BTW if anyone fancies having a go!

SAFE will have to work hard to break out of the demographic that we represent. And I’m very curious to see David and Nick’s plans in this area. I think we’re seeing some of the ideas leaking out and some great ideas from the community (@janitor suggested existing apps adapted to run from SAFE, for which existing portable apps are an easy win). It is though frustrating us flailing around when I know David has been thinking about this for years, and Nick, and a very bright bunch at MaidSafe, and they’ve no doubt picked up all sorts of tips from people like Michael Jackson (Skype co-founder), BitAngels and so on. I expect they will blow our minds again :slight_smile:

1 Like
30

Yeah, I’m with you. I think giving it away is just damaging to the network. It disrupts the economic ecosystem that we know works.

My biggest thing is it seems like it’s easy to abuse the free storage, as I’ve mentioned. People are saying that by allowing a little bit (or a lot a bit) of free space will draw more users.

But if it’s violently damaging to the network, then we can’t do it.

It’s probably fair to say that:
The network’s safety and functionality > the network having users

3 Likes
31

I am yet to hear a good argument for generous giveaways.

Another argument against: if generous giveaways are given, Safecoin could dive prior to the network launch (why buy it?), freeloaders could at first overwhelm the network (potential instability and user satisfaction issues) and then cause a big spike in Safecoin, after that farmers on the sidelines would get greedy and rush in like fools, but they’d realize a poor return on their investment (especially those who buy as the army of freeloaders peaks and the growth becomes organic - dependent on paying users).

We know it’s right to reward the givers (farmers), but instead there’s this constant concern that the takers need to be motivated to take others’ resources for free. It’s never worked well because it cannot work well.
And because of potential sudden imbalances (example above), instead of taking the common sense approach and starting without large freebies, the fix would be to use algos to constantly “tune” the network (sounds like rewards would change all the time time, like electricity prices, only wilder).
Small fortunes will be made watching source code commits and analyzing logs (like people analyze Google search engine behavior). Is this really necessary?

People like to complain against the middlemen and speculators, but I think this is exactly what’s creating fertile grounds for them. Those who go about their work and just use the network to farm or store their data will not have time or expertise to understand what the heck is going on, while the pros will make nice returns trading.

I believe the free market approach could ensure a more predictable launch, less volatile prices and healthier demand and supply generation. The need for continuous tuning (manipulation) should not even exist; instead rewards could change on a fixed schedule (daily or even weekly)).

It’s a complex system and I can’t be properly understood and controlled in v1.0. The more it’s disturbed, the worse it’s going to work. I don’t know… I hope I’m wrong about this.

1 Like
32

As a “freeloading” consumer, I would choose free over pay. Sue me, blame me, hate me… this rings true with a billion other people. If there were 2 identical Networks, one requires payment for storage, and another offers a free amount, my choice would be the latter.

Open Source Economy
Giving away free storage can become nightmare. You and others are right. It makes perfect business sense to charge for every Mb or Gb stored. Unfortunately, the pay model doesn’t do so well in an open source economy. You would have a fully functioning Network that is a ghost town. Why? Because the fork of that Network offers free storage. It can, and will be forked, by a bunch of friends, or by a large company. I am amazed so many P2P services manage to do just fine without charging a penny.

DOS from Over Capacity
No argument here. A stuttering network leads to a negative experience. We should explore every solution to mitigate this event from happening. I offered a compromise solution and consider other solutions as well. If we cannot find a viable solution, then I would consider activating POR system for launch.

Safecoin per Storage
There is already 430million Safecoins issued from the crowd sale. Even without free storage, over capacity could occur if there is not enough storage available for purchase. Can the Network raise the price fast enough to absorb all those Safecoins?

I’ll reserve my vote on this matter (free storage) until I can get numbers from TestNet3. In the meantime, the Devs have something to chew on. :smiley:

2 Likes
33

I’m holding onto as many of my safecoin as I can. I don’t anticipate that storage should cost enough to absorb anything close to that many.

Agreed.

Aside from the attack vector, though, I think don’t look at a minimum initial storage cap, even of a sizable number of Gb, to be inviting freeloaders. It’s inviting participants to do useful stuff with and on the network. That’s VALUABLE. That’s a good exchange. Every user added increases the value of the network. So offering utility to get them involved is great. That will increase the value of safecoin, too.

Either way, people have to have the ablility to use the network usefully without having to first fork out value other than the value that they represent by just using it. So a minimum workable storage has to meet that requirement.

1 Like
34

I’m still on the fence on this one,.Maybe if we create 2 lists which people can add to, for and against free storage. The main arguments for and against could then be collated in a concise and bullet pointed way by the main proponents of each argument (and it’s variants). The community can then discuss further and decide a course of action with maybe a poll. This could maybe become a better format for these trickier unresolved issues which go on endlessly in various threads with pertinent information being dotted all over the place.
Also how would the POR token be implemented if necessary and what would the implications for Safecoin be - would we then have 2 coins?

35

I think it’s useful to read David Irvines comments that are out there…might provide some clarity of purpose…don’t know but I find them interesting

The issuance is based on complete privacy anonymity and automatic calculation of reward based on usefulness an retrievability. This is for farmers and builders. We cannot charge up soem wallet somewhere and give the keys to the network to spend them.

The network has not ability to do these things, its the point of my story, each node is extremely unintelligent on its own, any scheme to put intelligence and rules like that in place would fail IMO. So think each node follows some rules per persona they are very simple and repeatable (and importantly measurable for ranking). Simple rules for a node do include some cryptographically secured algorithms we could not do, so very very simple for computers != simple for humans. Like simple for a bird to fly, costs us a fortune. We need to look at the world from the perspective of the thing we are making and not our middle earth viewpoint.

1 Like
36

Yes, I’ve read that and can’t find anything in system docs on POR. Not sure how this relates to whether we have free storage or not? Am I missing something…lol?

37

Offer a few MB and expect that the people buy or farming safecoin to have more space is a suicide. The safe network need to offer a comfortable space in the beginning, if not the network effect will never occur because we never achieve the necessary critical mass.

The problem is how we attract interesting people and keep away undesirables. One possible solution is to have a normal account, with only several MB, and a plus account with several GB. To upgrade we can offer a free anonymous voucher in hundreds of forum around the world.

For example, in Spain two of the most biggest forum have crypto subforum. People, like me in this case, can made a post explain Maidsafe and offering free plus account upgrading to people with enough seniority or post numbers. As far we offer free, and safe, storage many people will be interested and and some of them will become farmers or safecoin owners.

If we multiply this by dozens of countries and hundreds of forum we can achieve the critical mass necessary for maidsafe take off. Of course, to do this we need volunteers around the world willing to do this work. Count me.

3 Likes
38

Say Ohmmmmmm …all will be revealed :wink:

39

I like @digipl’s idea but it got me thinking about the rollout dynamics.

There won’t be all sorts of open nodes for people to just walk up to and start making accounts. For some time, the sequence will be that someone gets interested, downloads the vault software and starts a farming node.

Then they’ll be farming safecoin (however long it takes to get some).

In the meantime, they’ve now got a node that they can use to shake hands with the network and start with a free account. It will HAVE to be a free account of some sort of functionality right from the start or the egg can’t turn into a chicken (or vice versa).

If it takes some time to farm the safecoin needed to upgrade to better storage, maybe a friend or some forum connection can give you some safecoin to get started. So the “plus account” would just be a pattern which a lot of us might want to participate in, but not part of the network proper.

The thing is that most people, probably for quite a long while, will need to download the vault software as a first step anyway, just to be able to engage with the network.

As time goes by and other interfaces that don’t run a vault become available (like smartphone apps, etc.), the dynamics will change and more people will probably need to have access to safecoin to buy up their storage, etc. That’s when forum activism, faucet sites on the SAFE network, etc., would become more important. But by then, the network will be getting more mature. Who knows what other ideas will be come up with by then, including safecoin/fiat exchanges, etc.

It also occurred to me that it would be good if the network has the ability to credit ANOTHER’S account with increased storage limit directly, so when we are charitible in bestowing resources to another, that that is what they are getting, rather than scamming for safecoin donations. – This now gives me pause with the anonymous giveaway idea. Humph?

Another thought is that gmail started and went quite some time as a by-referral-only deal, and look where it is today. (Not a recommendation, just something to think on.)

40

The question is how do we encourage individuals to keep only a minimal amount of accounts that give access to free storage, not how do we absolutely 100% prevent it.

What if to access increasing amounts of free storage, users must complete various tasks that become tedious when attempting for many?