I’d like to see PtP tested along with test-safecoin. While not a perfect test, it could and should provide valuable insight to its usefulness and ability to be gamed (as some said they will do 
)
4 Likes
Walletmarking Alone
I think we are in agreement about walletmarking being on the Network Level.
It’s kinda like those shirt tags you see in the store “Made in …”
In this case it would be “Produced by …”
Here’s where it gets interesting. Unlike the retail store middleman, where you pay the store and the store pays the manufacturer… you can directly reward the “Produced by… (walletmark address).”
I’m still concerned about situation #2. That’s why I’m leaning away from APPS as being the middleman for payment. It is very likely (almost guaranteed) content will be aggregated and then monetized. It’s already being done today.
Maybe, just maybe, some APPS will make it all FREE with optional TIPING/LIKING directly to the walletmark address. I’m excited for this possibility! But we’ll see if the community supports it. See Walletmark Tipper post below.
If the most we can do is walletmarking without any reward mechanism, then let’s go for it.
5 Likes
Actually, I like that idea!
The Walletmark Tipper
It’s a little browser plugin that collects, and manages walletmark addresses. Think of it as a little change purse pop-up window. Regardless of what site or APP I’m using, I always have the ability to directly PtP… brilliant!
Example
Let’s say a very popular aggregator site doesn’t provide any reward mechanism, but I really like the content of the original uploader. I open up my wallet tipper, which fetches their walletmark address and presto, quick and easy TIP.
This may be a reason public content should be walletmarked by default. If the producer really wants to give it for free, then they can donate their SC to whomever, whatever.
2 Likes
You aren’t understanding the first point.
They are both for people getting paid PtP for their uploads. I’m saying that not using PtP is no better than the current system.
Understand?
Not to point out the obvious, but YouTube etc and the current Internet are both operating just fine. No collapse is on the horizon.
All I see here is content creators being annoyed that they can’t make more money. There is certainly no shortage of content or applications on the current net and the incumbents are still able to continue to operate with the income they receive.
I am sure that socialising the cost of creating content sounds great for content creators. For me, as a software engineer, the risk outweighs the potential gains. There are many other ways to earn am income from content without forcing up the cost of storage.
Edit: To add, YouTube subsidises the hosting costs for uploaders. It isn’t without cost, it is just that the user doesn’t pay it. Instead, consumers pay via advertising (including the Google brand).
2 Likes
Remember, YouTube, Reddit, etc. are backed by investors and shareholders of the companies. They are the ones paying $millions for storage, servers, warehouses, security, maintenance, etc. so that users can upload content for free. So YouTube can do the exact same thing on SAFE but a lot cheaper. Instead of purchasing tons of computer hardware, they purchase safecoin.
Yes, this is centralized in a sense but they are adding value for consumers. They are a company (via Google) with the objective of making money while providing a value-add service – i.e. a means for users to upload content for free. This is free enterprise driven by natural supply and demand forces which is the way it should be.
The value of content is determined by the markets, not by a fix set of rules determined by a network; that’s price fixing. Value for content is what people are willing to pay for and that means paying with money/safecoin, not with Likes. YouTube pays content providers who command millions of views, not the internet nor the government nor should SAFE.
I suggest focusing on a means of easily setting up Decentralized Autonomous Companies/Corps/Organizations (DAC/DAO) on SAFE. Then anyone is free to create their own content payment rules with Likes, views, downloads, etc. and experiment with their own DAC/DAO. This promotes competition which is what true capitalism is about. Unfortunately, we do not live in a true capitalistic society. Creating DAC’s can help.
2 Likes
Totally agreed - thinking about it, if Google/Youtube/Reddit used Safe…it might not be as bad as all that.I mean this would stimulate the economy and as “much cheaper” they may not need to do all the advertising to generate revenue. In any case, if they don’t change to a more equitable system, a competitor that will, would likely evolve anyway. 
You reeeeeeally don’t see what I’m saying with the points man
The collapse only is possible within SAFE, if content producers don’t come in and pay to upload their data
Justsayin’ 
Until we have voted on these issues I think it is hard to judge what is the agreement.
Before the poll on PtP it appeared the community was against it, but it turned out that people do want it - but many are wisely saying “depending on the implementation”.
1 Like
Not at all. The cost increase will be marginal, and storing stuff in SAFEnetwork might (I think will) still be cheaper than most alternatives. I think this side of the effect will be little it nothing.
On the other hand, the idea of everyone getting paid for uploading content that people view is new, and potentially a big incentive to uploading.
If this proves attractive, this could create a lot more PUTS. But even a small effect here could dwarf the cost disincentive.
YouTube has never made money. All the “free” services on the current internet are funded by exploiting the personal information and attention of users. SAFEnetwork can’t be compared so superficially with the existing internet because it is an alternative to what exists.
PtP may be feasible, it may not. We need to find out, and I think we should try hard to make it work before dropping it: first by design, second by trial and evolution.
3 Likes
Without PtP, they won’t, because they need to capture your personal information and target you with advertising, and SAFEnetwork makes tracking impossible without consent, and we know most people don’t like it, even though they put up with it.
With an effective PtP, it could be argued it is in their interests to PUT their content on SAFEnetwork, and earn the PtP rewards - because if they don’t, someone else surely will!
2 Likes
Hmmmm…So, in regard to Google/Youtube/Reddit using Safe
OK…
…and with PtP they very well might? The thing is - it’s not their information - it’s their users content. Would you not be massively rewarding an aggregator unnecessarily? Is this not yhe opposite of the desired goal?
So isn’t it therefore logical to not attract Youtube/Google/Reddit by way of PtP and just let the someone else surely do it?
Why do we want to attract such people then by incentivising them with PtP?
The network is just not the right entity to be held responsible for facilitating these outcomes though. One exasperating point that needs to be recognized:
“Eliminating the middleman” has been lauded by PtP supporters - if you want to eliminate the middleman, don’t make the network the middleman!
- Content direct from creators to consumers
- Payment direct from consumers to creators
They question is how to do this. I strongly believe that walletmarking is the key. APP integration to facilitate this as well.
3 Likes
If the cost increase is marginal, so will be the rewards for the vast majority of uploaders, which in turns indicates that it can’t possibly become a big incentive.
4 Likes
Like I had said earlier…
2 Likes
I think we may be talking past one another.
There could exist a third party - like YouTube - who could pay for your put, but as a result they would own the file and can profit from it. In short, just like YouTube does now.
You could pay for the put yourself, but then you have to find a way to profit from it. This is the job that the likes of YouTube do for you to make the hosting of your file ‘free’.
Therefore, the main difference is that you get the opportunity to easily host your own data and plan how to profit from it on safe net. It doesn’t prevent traditional Internet business models though.
3 Likes
I’d say that anybody should be able to NOT have an address for PtP or “walletmark”
My browser example was that 20 different addresses exist and the person wants to tip only 15, the other 5 were sick (to them). So there has to be a method to discriminate
1 Like
Do you mean that in your example there are 20 different pieces of content and only 15 of them that the user wants to donate to?
EDIT: Because you “liked” this, I’ll assume that means yes, and finish my comment here @neo
Because if that is the case - and ultimately this would be up to the APP dev - there should (in any reasonable implementation) be the ability to reward every piece of content separately.
There may be APPs that facilitate a “reward_all_shown” function, but I would assume in the beginning, it’ll just be wading through each piece of content one-by-one and upvoting/tipping/rewarding - however that is done by the APP.
There’s only one other way to construe your point, and that is that “not all content needs to include a walletmark”. And I agree there as well. The walletmark should by no means be manditory (I’m a fan of mandating the exact minimum and no more).
1 Like
Our biggest thread has over 400+ posts (content from different users). Yet we have no problem “liking” them individually.
Overlay Icons
Assume each post comes with a 
icon by default and it’s up to the viewer to click it or not. Think of the heart as a walletmark address super imposed over the blog post area. The plug-in makes a heart show up on the website. You should be able to “like” each post independently. A little tricky but doable.
Lists per File (Data Map Hash)
I currently use a video plug-in that lists every stream I activate (GET). In the (pop-up window) there is a list organized from most recent to oldest. I can click which one I want to download. Instead of clicking “download” I click or TIP and enter an amount.
Just a Rant
I never said it had to be mandatory, just offered a “reason” for it to be default. Sometimes you guys take me too seriously. I don’t know why I bother offering so many solutions when I have to constantly fight, explain, and negotiate. I’m starting to realize how exhausting this has been for @dirvine.