Is Safe Inflation real?

[VaCrunch]

@Antifragile

Bitcoin needed 10 years, because it was first one to doall the hard work. A single tweet can bring us more users in a day than bitcoin was able to get in 10 years. We just need to let them use the service instantly. Just install browser and you are done. Compare it to: Install browser, than register on bittrex, send them your ID card, talk to your tax consultant, wire $ to bittrex, buy the dip, withdraw and than pay your taxes.

Bravo, @Antifragile! You are my new hero! Couldn’t have said it better myself.

[DavidMc0]

@Dimitar

It is needed against vampire attacks and social attacks against the network, for example, religious leaders suddenly tell millions of people professing this religion that Safe is evil and its use is a sin.

I can see how a big exodus of farmers would be a problem. But if that were to happen for any reason, how would diluting the token supply limit the harm of such an attack?

[Dimitar]

Have you read the topic of vampire attacks? In short, a copy of the network can steal our farmers, if we have a buffer of tokens we can temporarily increase the payment to farmers and keep them in our network.

My assumption is that people who are farmers will earn very little over their costs, but will speculate on the future value of the token, ie. when you are a farmer it is like buying a token at a discount. Bitcoin miners speculate on the same thing - they believe they can get more bitcoin as miners than if they buy it - certainly no one is a bitcoin miner to protect the bitcoin network

In the Safe network it will be different, for example I will be a farmer even at a loss and I do not intend to sell tokens, but only to use them. The question is what will be the ratio between people like me and between people who are just speculation farmers.

[DavidMc0]

@Dimitar

Have you read the topic of vampire attacks? In short, a copy of the network can steal our farmers, if we have a buffer of tokens we can temporarily increase the payment to farmers and keep them in our network.

I haven’t in detail, but that makes some sense. However, if the appeal of a ‘vampire’ network were harder monetary policy (less token dilution), I doubt many farmers would be persuaded to stay by having an increase in token issuance. I’ll need to have a look at the topic.

@Dimitar

My assumption is that people who are farmers will earn very little over their costs, but will speculate on the future value of the token, ie. when you are a farmer it is like buying a token at a discount

I think this is likely, and why that would make you concerned about token dilution combined with vampire networks (which I think you are if I picked that up from other comments?).

[Dimitar]

@DavidMc0

why that would make you concerned about token dilution combined with vampire networks

The people in the crypto world are mostly speculators. No one in the crypto knows if the tokens they have will cost anything tomorrow. It is the largest gambling community in the world. That’s why so few people are in the crypto world.

My guess is that if we increase the payment in tokens when there is an attack against the network, there will be people who will speculate on their future value. For example, bitcoin miners do not sell tokens they print immediately if the price is very low, they keep them for times when the price is high.

[MaxSan]

I didn’t mean from the user… From the network. It destroys the tokens used which is a form of demurrage.

[Dimitar]

It’s not exactly like that. The network recycles them. This is different - the value for both the user and the network grows over time.

[MaxSan]

As far as I am to understand there wont be a direct correlation for each one destroyed, it will be reissued… the network will try and compensate for the balance of data being used and coming into the network vs what space is available… so recycling isnt exactly the word… its new tokens going out… not related to the old ones which were destroyed (well, maybe in only one metric.)

[Dimitar]

The new tokens pay for the storage of all previous data uploaded to the network. The data is never deleted, it only grows as a quantity, which means that in each period of time when the network spends a Safe Token, its value in relation to the uploaded data grows.

For example, if on day 1 a token pays for an average of 100 MB of data on the network (90 MB previously uploaded data +10 MB new data), then on day 100 the same 1 token will pay for 1 GB (910 MB previously uploaded data + 90 MB new data) of data on the network. This ratio can only grow, never decrease.

What you are saying is that the value of 1 token does not increase linearly.

[MaxSan]

How can it never decrease? what if data storage isnt being added to the network but data is?

[Dimitar]

@MaxSan

what if data storage isnt being added to the network but data is?

If the network reaches 100% of its capacity, then with the last token spent, the network will again pay for all the preceding data stored in the network and will continue to pay while spending the available tokens in the section wallets. So the value of the tokens can only increase or be equal in terms of data stored on the network.

Therefore, this is no demurrage from the user’s point of view nor from the network’s point of view.

[dirvine]

@Dimitar

If the network reaches 100% of its capacity

Then humanity has stopped moving forward, or the network is not doing that function for them/us. If the algo work this never happens as long as Safe is where we store data and we have not all become zombies

[Dimitar]

Of course, we are talking purely theoretically here to explain why there is no demurrage from the point of view of the network.

[dirvine]

No worries I don’t know what demurage means in this context

[dirvine]

@Dimitar

So the value of the tokens can only increase or be equal in terms of data stored on the network.

This is only true when you consider number of coins, not fiat value of them, which is separate.

[Dimitar]

I agree, so I wrote in terms of data stored on the network.

[MaxSan]

I misunderstood, was under the impression certain circumstances could allow the network to reduce the supply of coins at certain points in time… although unlikely.

[Dimitar]

The network can pay less to farmers if there is a lot of free resources. But it always pays for all previously stored data plus the new one, so there are no value losses on fees.

[mav]

@Dimitar

The centralized printer is fully capable of printing to self-destruct. Because a small group of people can’t know where the new money is needed better than a large group of people.

It is the same with the centralized government of Communism - the system is falling apart because a small group of people believe that they know what is good for a large group of people and are trying to control production.

Sounds like the proposed foundation could have this problem too. How could the foundation be structured to avoid this?

Seems to me by the time we design the foundation to be ‘just right’ we may as well build that mechanism into the network itself.

[Dimitar]

The idea is that a foundation plays the role of an oracle. It sees what is happening in the outside world and can help the network not only against vampire attacks but also against social attacks.

If we embed the mechanism in the network itself (this mechanism should not only increase the yield of new tokens for farmers, but also increase the upload of new data so that the network can grow faster than another vampire network) it will not know what the attack is - why people have reduced data uploads and why are farmers declining? - because there is a second network carrying out an attack at the moment or because religious leaders have forbidden believers to use the network?

The oracle can differentiate between the two and react appropriately.

@Bogard

The risk can be categorized into two main types:

1. Economic
   If the network’s token economy model is not handled correctly, an early fork with a more robust economic model will quickly garner attention. The example of UniSwap vs SushiSwap that @dimitar linked to above was eye-opening to me. Essentially, the copy (SushiSwap) supplanted the original (UniSwap) and forced the original to adopt the same (greedy) economic model as the copy in order to survive.It will be important for the network to start off with a robust economic model at the outset so that it does not have to scramble later on to match a fork’s model or undo self-inflicted damage.

2. Reputational
   Going by some of the posts on the forum in the aftermath of the Jan 6 insurrection in the United States capital, the network may become a haven for the fascist types who willfully work to undermine democratic ideals while wrapping themselves in the flag and hiding behind freedom of speech, rights that they plainly deny others. If that happens, the network runs the risk of acquiring the reputation of being a haven for reprehensible content and people with non-peaceful views and predilections. The mainstream would not adopt such a network and a fork with advertised moderation and more wholesome image could quickly supplant it.