Yes you’re right that a lot of nodes with spare space would make the storecost cheap, but rfc-0057 says storecost calcs are “related to the numbers of nodes within a single section”. 100k+ nodes in a single section isn’t possible so likewise low storecost isn’t possible. My suspicion is that storecost will end up including the full network size somehow so the situation you describe to achieve low storecost will probably become real life at some point (just my guess though).
3 Likes
Makes sense. Consider TSC a pass to make it possible to populate the network without touching any SC or affecting its corresponding value. TSC will just allow us to witness the basic premise of spending a token to gain network resources. A volitile picture of the ebb and flow of transactions.
The beauty is that TSC will allow there to be some life on the network for launch appeal. Otherwise v1.0 will be a ghost town for a while which will imo slow participation in regards to the greater the public. Financial ramifications should minimal if non existent since farmers earn for GETs not PUTs.
So it sounds good to meh! 
But since Fleming we will be able to run vault and store chunks with test SafeCoins based on SAFE Network Dev Update - June 13, 2019
So how you can get these test SafeCoins ? I do not think, that these will be once real SafeCoins.
2 Likes
In Fleming it is likely these will all be killed anyway. Fleming will not upgrade so will lose data on update to Maxwell (inc safecoin). Later though it is a different story
6 Likes
I guess it should be dirty cheap in the testnet or even free to upload just so we can get a jump start in the network and if it changes to a real network as it is then put cost in safecoins so that gets can be paid. so testnet cheap or free to upload to get jumpstart and then when normal safecoins are issues start with a random (kinda “expensive” so that the first real gets get paid good) and then the algo will make the price automaticly where it should be?!
Yeah sorry, not Fleming. But beyond Maxwell, any testnet could be “the one”.
Doesn’t need to be though (a bit depending on final implementation, but as it seems now), since it’s issued from the network supply. So the PUT cost does not need to cover the GET reward at all times. (After reaching stable state at desired 50 % issued, it would be needed to cover it on average, to stay there). The effect of not covering is that there is a net issuance from network. If we were to cover from start (or even exceed) then non-issued coins would stay at >85%.
1 Like