I was really just asking to explore the situation since its a browser without programmed actions. Using the plugin to supply a tip icon seems reasonable. Unfortunately as an engineer I tend to explore things a bit too much which often appears as nit picking.
2 Likes
Heh, that’s funny. 'Cos all I see here are farmers complaining they aren’t getting the whole pie. (which is itself an arbitrary hypothetical allocation at this stage).
Point being is that the current net has adverts and middlemen. We can have a net that doesn’t have any of that. The SAFE net. Directly paying for viewed content – whatever it is, however popular that is – frictionlessly.
Wouldn’t that be lovely?
I think something a lot of the anti-PtPs are missing is that the current internet is based on ads. And those ads track you. That’s how ad value is derived. Without the ads, a lot of the internet as it is wouldn’t exist. There would be much less content, much less data.
As @whiteoutmashups is saying: without data, there’s nothing to farm.
But another point is that without some basic rate of PtP there will be ads. (yes there may be ads anyway, but let’s try and avoid that). This ads will be more annoying and of lower quality as there can be no tracking. Which will lead to a much worse user experience than the current internet, which in turn will lead to less people using the network and so forth. So again, less things to farm.
If you think ads aren’t a problem, then just check if you have an ad-blocker enabled.
(and you can google what it ‘costs’ publishers eg: https://blog.pagefair.com/2015/ad-blocking-report/).
As a consequence of that we’re all now being harassed and harangued and ‘popped up at’ to encourage de-ad-blocking or subscribing or yes: paying! 
Which conceptually isn’t bad, but IMO pop ups are the bane of the internets. I hate them and any site hijacking my reading gets closed. FAST.
Tipping: it doesn’t have to be a huge amount. In fact something insignificant might be better and this rate allows for simple ‘Tipping’ on top of it. But the point could be that even without ads, if someone writes something, makes a video etc and it explodes and becomes mega popular, they are justly rewarded for all of those views. Maybe they get tipping on top, maybe they just get the safe equivalent of $100 for 26 million views (an amount I would call: far too little). But that’s still better than nothing. And it requires no user action.
Yes we can tip on top of this. Perhaps it will work. If culturally we can get that to be the norm. With frictionless apps (always pay 1 safe per view). All of this depends on how generous viewers are. But the seamless nature of it would be key (I think).
But for the ‘pay per like’ crowd of PtP rewards: I personally think everyone is overestimating how many users will take such action.
Example: A two year, pay-what-you-want (incidentally very good) book: Butterick’s Practical Typography, where only ~ 1/1000 people donated.
1 Like
The thing is, farmers should end up getting the same either way. The economics of it will drive down the cost of PUTs to as low as the farmers hosting them will bare.
Therefore, this is about PUT costs increasing. The higher PUT cost is what I am worried about (and the gaming and defined value elements) as it makes it more expensive for users - they are paying farmers and content creators.
I understand that this cost is already paid for on the current net, either through charity (content uploads for free), through advertising, through subscriptions, etc. However, safe net with PtP would increase PUT costs instead.
4 Likes
From the safecoin RFC we see that farming rate is unaffected by any APP, PtP, core dev incentives. Depends on Total Primary Chunks and Total Sacrificial chunks FR=TP(TP-TS)
From the safecoin RFC we see that PUT cost (storecost) uses Total Primary Chunks and Total Sacrificial chunks as factors. Nothing about APP, PtP, core dev incentives. Storecost = (TP * NC)/( ( TP - TS ) * GROUP_SIZE) Where NC is number clients actively storing data
The White paper also reflects this thinking.
Recycling is the key. More coins means more PUTs (with some delay) Yes it is a little more complex in the interactions.
1 Like
Economically, I don’t see how this can be true.
PUT cost = farming cost + PtP cost
Farming cost will fall to the lowest the market will bare with or without PtP. The PtP reward has to be funded from somewhere, which must be the PUT fee (as it is the only fee).
Whether this is obscured through recycling or not, there is only one monetary cost which must pay for all rewards.
1 Like
It’s funny, because all I see is people who pretend that uploaders can be paid at no loss for farmers and others who argue that this is essentially impossible. You’re probably the first of the advocates of paying uploaders who admits that farmers don’t get the whole pie.
I don’t see why NOT paying the uploader would turn SAFE into a network of middlemen. Actually quite thw contrary would be the case as @smacz has pointed out. “[I]f you want to eliminate the middleman, don’t make the network the middleman!”.
…less data? Doesn´t sound like the worst thing to me. However, facts are quite different: there wouldn´t necessarily be less data: people would be empowered to pay for the services that they are actually using. SAFE isn´t more expensive due to lack of tracking - users are just paying differently.
The argument is pointless: data is already there - existing data doesn´t have to be invented and new data will be created whether SAFE exists or not. Safe and distributed data - that´s what the network provides and it is served by farmers, not by uploaders. Your argument is like paying car owners to use highways…
Asides from that, there is absolutely 0 garantee that there won´t be ads on SAFE. The only reason why I don´t expect ads on SAFE in the first years is because it doesn´t pay out (too few [commercial] users, too focused peer group).
Last not least (I keep repeating that, but so do people here): not producers would be paid in the proposal of some of you - only uploaders, since the network cannot discriminate producers/creators from uploaders.
1 Like
I am doing a WIP modeling using the safecoin RFC (& whitepaper) and from that the PUT cost is dependent on Total Primary Chunks, Total Sacrificial Cunks, Number Clients and Group_size. And my preliminary modeling suggests that this will work. I showed some of the WIP further up in this thread,
The keys to it working are the recycling of the coin. The more coins given out result in more PUTs back into the network later on, and how the scarcity of the coin reduces coin issuance and increases value of coin.
Frankly the network can afford to do incentives without requiring extra PUT costs. Instead the dynamics change, more recycling (after delays), scarcity occurs slightly quicker with the corresponding boost to value of coin in $$
Its only after considering some situations in light of the whitepaper, RFC and effects of scarcity in coin issuance when successful farming attempt, that this became clearer.
PS. If coin is (over/extremely) hoarded then doesn’t matter the system used for storecost, the system will eventually run out of coin. So if we take the view that that will not happen then extra coin issued results in extra PUTs (coin recycled) and the network grows.
1 Like
There’s a balance to be struck. Farming rewards will be what farming rewards are. They are not intrinsically linked to GET rewards, which is something extra. There’s nothing anywhere that sez everything the network pays out has to go to farmers. This is an assumption that people make based on the old ‘miner’ paradigm for cyrpto-currencies.
And (as I imagine), if GET rewards are really low ‘now’, they would increase relatively over time as the cost of storage goes down over time (which it historically does). So there’s no way that Farming rewards, whatever arbitray pie size it is, is something that will remain constant. GET rewards would not affect what the farmer’s take home.
I don’t see this empowerment in a SAFE without PtP/CC/Uploader/whathaveyou.
We have apps / sites that do this ‘tipping’ now and it doesn’t work well enough (as in: it’s not common, there’s setup to be done, etc). So to presume SAFE would be any different doesn’t make any sense to me.
1 Like
The only reason Youtube and other popular commercial websites exist is because there large investments can be built on the back of users paying with their data and profiles. Distributing this cost is empowerment. If you don´t see it as empowerment you probably don´t see or cherish the crucial merit of SAFE. There´s aint no thing as a free lunch. And certainly no free privacy.
It was pointed out ages ago that farmers don’t.
But then also many do not factor in recycling. They treat the 100% of farming to the farmers as if there is a limited amount they can ever get.
Now the model has been defined to be 100% for farmers, 10% for APPs, 10% for PtP (if implemented) (AND more not considered here). But the argument has been that means farmers are only getting 100/120 of the pie. Thats true if the pie is static and recycling does not occur.
BUT the 120% is recycled and available to be paid out again later on. So where is the contradiction.
The farmers get the same no matter if the incentives are given out or not. And as the coin gets more scarce then the scarcity causes its own boost to the $$ value, so the farmers still get the same value. (Obviously its not exactly the same as markets have plenty of variability, but this occurs either way).
NOTE: hoarders will hoard if its only farmers getting 100% or farmers getting 100/120.
1 Like
Well ages ago @dirvine said
Since then most proponents of rewarding uploaders have argued that the cut of farmers won´t be lower even if content farmer are rewarded from the same pool of (re)cycling Safecoin. That´s what I was referring
[quote=“neo, post:70, topic:6001”]
But then also many do not factor in recycling. [/quote]
I do, and I don´t see how that changes the whole point.
Exactly, it´s not “exactly” the same. Actually it is really unpredictable if supply scarcity will boost value. In a system where supply is very unevenly distributed scarcity can also be the result of hoarding and manipulating the market. There may be a time where this doesn´t matter anymore but it´s not going to happen within the next 10 years+, see Bitcoin as a good example and basically all other CCs for even better ones.
Lol…No, it’s made on the assumption that farmers provide the resources (space etc) - ie the road…lol…they make the road!..the road that the core devs maintain - am I wrong here? 
If anything, the apps should be paying to use the road…lol.
Edit:
OK, I think I get it now after the David Irvine quote.
Is it that the content producer/uploader of public material get’s 10% of any farming rewards achieved by the farmers where the uploaded chunks are. Because this creates a 10% more scarcity of coin, the Network compensates farmers, by adjusting farming rate/reward 10%…all roughly speaking – is this it?
OK, I get why it would be coded at Network level if desirable. I’m happy that the payment goes to content producer to stimulate eco-system. I wasn’t happy paying apps. Was it always intended to be part of the Network and not a community decision…if so what are we really talking about here – is this a community decision to make or has it already been made?.
3 Likes
I think either I’ve misunderstood you or you me.
I was meaning, in terms of PtP, no one is more empowered to contribute to content creators/uploaders etc by a SAFE with PtP stripped away. Which is what I’d understood you to be talking about…
I’m also somewhat confused about the constant PtP debates on here as it was part of what drew me to SAFE time and time and time ago.
1 Like
Well, clearly it will be subjective. But the effect could be large for two reasons:
- There are enormous numbers of people who might want to try this.
- The barrier to entry is very small: upload and walletmark.
There is nothing else like this so we don’t know how it will be received, but it appears to appeal to creatives according to David, and I can see why. So the impact could well be very large, and that’s one of several reasons we should test it. All this theorising can only get us so far, and it doesn’t prove anything.
1 Like
I have been looking at the numbers…
Based on any figures I can find, the total revenue of the cloud computing industry (Amazon, google compute, Rackspace etc) does not exceed the revenues for media industries (Video games, Music, Movies etc)
Therefore there is not a feasible way to take a portion of the cloud computing market that SAFE gains and pay for the media in a manner that would be competitive with the current model. Even if you win the whole pie, and don’t spend any of it on actual computing resources, there isn’t enough to cover current revenues.
We can want all we want, wish it where whatever we wish it where, but the numbers don’t even come close to adding up. We can offer a bad deal, and artists can sign up because it is trendy and cool - but they will nearly always be better off with the traditional model.
The pie at we are dividing up for payment just isn’t as big as the old fashioned pie. You could charge triple or quadruple to make a bigger pie, but they you risk not having a pie at all.
The truth is that SAFE makes sense where it makes sense and it does not make sense where it doesn’t make sense. Trying to make it make sense with bribes just makes it make a lot less sense in places where it likely would make sense.
2 Likes
makes sense…
2 Likes
I would be careful here though, some of those you list are not artists or content producers but in fact the very middle men, that perhaps we can live without. If you look at middle men/women then take spotify for instance where an artist can get $0.0000000001 per thousand listens etc. and compare those kind of figures then it may help. I am not saying SAFE will pay everyone everything, but perhaps an amortized payment across all media (hopefully original) will help.
The other issues of comparing farmers should not be making a ton of money and PtP is at best 10% of a farmer, so how can this reward artists?
. IMHO we want billions of farmers and if we had billions of great content producers for billions to consume then great, but I think there are probably less bands/authors etc. making a living than there will be farmers who perhaps only get paid a bonus / premium per device, but we wont know for a while. I know I would love every device to farm to some extent and I would love everyone to produce amazing content, I think the former for the moment may be easiest.
Just a view form a different angle, perhaps 
7 Likes
music
99% of artists share 23% of global revenue >>
1% share 77% of total artist revenue
source FT . 2013
From mid 2013 to mid 2014 42% INCREASE in use of streaming services >>DECREASE in album sales >> 14.9%
source SoundScan
$12.359 << total domestic [USA] royalties Pandora paid out for AVICIIS “WAKE UP” as of November 2014
number of domestic [USA] streams for “WAKE UP” on Pandora
168 million
source Wired
SAFEnetwork and APPS like n99 offer solutions with every step the ERA of the creative is rising
4 Likes
Yes, there is probably some middlemen that can be eliminated — Mainly the distribution channel though. The distribution channel middlemen are probably on their way out via SAFE or any other technological means. Hollywood video and Blockbuster employed a lot more people and paid for a lot more real estate than Redbox or Netflix do… But other up and coming technologies cannot compete against Hollywood video and Blockbuster – They need to set their numbers competitive to Redbox and netflix. I see the same thing here – We cannot claim eliminating the middleman as where our benefit is going to come from if all the competing technologies are also killing the same middelman. You look at the distribution channels like iTunes and Google play and they are charging about 30% Even cutting that percentage out of our guess – I suspect we still need darn near the whole pie.
The fact that there are other bad models out there don’t make our slightly less bad model competitive… At least one prominent artist has pulled her catalog from Spotify - and it is likely others will follow suit if the deal doesn’t get better…
Based on what we see with Twitch and youtube – a lot of the successful up and coming channels are still having to pay high production costs - They are hiring people to edit video, sound etc… Because quality media requires quality production – so a lot of the costs still will remain, and we would probably want them to remain, as those expenses usually yield a higher quality product.
Like I asked though – Where is all this money going to come from?
The fact that artist are getting a raw deal elsewhere doesn’t mean we can get them a better one…
Even if we claimed the whole market SAFE aims to gain (Cloud computing) , the revenues aren’t there significant enough to provide enough to share… Cloud computing is a big market - but at best guess it is about equal to the media industries. We need it to be 10 times as large or so to provide roughly equal revenue as the current model (Which everyone thinks is bad already) We might be able to get away with 7 times as large if we eliminate enough costs… But really it is about 1 times at best.
1 Like