I wouldn’t worry about that to much.
I know religious ppl who don’t really follow what their religion tells them to let alone what one person in their religion instructs, even if was an appointed leader of a religion many wouldn’t listen.
I’m not saying none would listen, but I really don’t forsee that as a cause for concern.
You know that people cut heads for caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad? Someone will upload them to the network and distribute them.
Also, this is just a focusing example of things that have an effect on the network, but it can’t tell them apart. You can replace the example with a new September 11 or with a landing on Mars or something else…
Oddly when I made that statement I was thinking of Muslim friends, some toke, some of their parents toke and gamble. All not supposed to be done, but ppl live as they choose to.
There is no need for this. Taking into account the rate of new puts, the rate of gets, and changes to section membership dynamics among other section metrics gives more than enough information.
The thread is veering off-topic.
I don’t understand you - how does this give information to the network what kind of attack is there against it - vampire or social? And what can the network do against a social attack, even if it can distinguish it?
Yes, I will have to move some of the posts to the topic of attacks 
Whatever the attack is, all that matters to the network is how it affects network growth and utilization.
That’s right - the network is helpless against social attacks, but the Foundation can preventively launch a campaign to promote Safe as a new home for Wikipedia and the Internet archive.
If a social attack is capable of modifying put/get rates or typical section membership dynamics or network growth then the network will see it and there is an opportunity to compensate via the pricing mechanism just like any other market change. If the social attack has no effect on these things then it is of no consequence.
There are things that money can’t buy.
There is no amount of money you can offer me so I sit at a table and eat with a pedophile or a Nazi…
That is good. I believe in somekind of market between clients and farmers because it is superior and more natural, against Bitcoin blockchains flawed mining rewards, due to too low transactions/fees per block. Some form of market is superior in longevity. I hope that Safe-network finds better and superior solutions compared to blockchains, no need for inferior rewards and algorithms when markets find equilibrium like a natural organism, given good and fair conditions.
Growth will solve most of those concerns. The larger the network is, offering vast amounts of utility, the less likely that a social attack could be effective. That’s just one reason why a pricing mechanism geared toward growth maximization is important. And another reason why making use of a token reserve/buffer to maximize growth is important.
The problem with it is that a direct market link between farmers and clients communicates no information about what the network requires for homeostasis to either party. That is why breaking things up into two markets is superior. The first market is between clients and the network, the second market is between the farmers and the network. As a middleman the network is capable of communication its own needs and the needs of farmers to the clients and vice versa. The network acts as a stable market maker.
Does the network need to know what needs to be required?
Sellers knows how much space they have and minmum cost/price to be a farmer. Clients know their maximum limit price for storage. The network only needs to be as close as a data transport layer as possible. Network would function like a train and a conductor, deciding only which passenger(data) are valid for the ride and if they paid their ticket. I have a strong feeling that the closer the network comes to being a transport layer, the more efficient and natural it will behave. The beauty is in simplicity.
Farmers supplying disk space is the easy part. The Network is anticipated to perform a lot of work managing all the chunks, resource proofs, section dynamics, and pricing, etc.
It would be non-optimal to ignore its role as an important and active intermediary between the two markets.
Yes, I agree, very important.
Clients and farmers are linked through and communicate through elders, as their intermediaries.
But rewards and algorithms to predict needs and pay farmers are unnatural and artificial solutions, similar to blockchains, that would only exist because the lack of elegant, pure, simple, free-floating solutions.
It’s about taking ALL needs into proper account. If you don’t take the network’s needs/status into consideration then the system design will be deficient imo.
Yes and that is why.
To little space, farmers raise prices.
The higher price gives that more farmers want to join, price goes down.
Too high price, clients will upload less, more free space will give farmers have to compete more, prices goes down.
Too low price and clients will upload more because it is cheap, prices goes up because demand goes up.
The market will find balance for all scenarios above, like a living organism it will find it’s way and adapt to it’s enviroment and circumstances.
@tobbetj
(from previous)
I do not understand how it is possible for farmers to give a store price discount to specific people.
The main point that I feel works against (in an unfixable way) is that farmers receive no compensation when storing data, so they cannot give discounts, unless it is to pay the client for the data. But to pay breaks the anon fundamental.
No that is not how it works.
The farmers do not raise anything. The network determines the reward price.
If you make it that the farmers determine their own reward then how is that controlled.
Amount given in rewards is not determinable by the farmer. Simply because the rate of GETs for a particular farmer cannot be determined whether the farmer sets the cost or not. The farmer cannot advertise their rates for the chunks because they really do not know what they are storing.
To allow the farmer to set rates for getting their chunks means they have to know what chunks they hold, breaking another goal for anonymity.
For this to happen then the network needs to gather all the pricing across the network of what each farmer demands for rewards and then calculate a store cost. Spare space is now a minor factor and statistically (economic & IT) there will be (many) times where space is very low and store price is relatively low because farmers want quantity more than price.
Its a positive feed back loop as well which means that balance may happen but any upset will cause large changes to occur with limits reached some of those times. EG no space but low store cost. Or large store cost with plenty of space.
The best method is the negative feedback in the system that will be implemented which means what you suggested will be allowed to happen. Store price rises and storing slows and rewards for gets will increase as spare space reduces. Notice these are independent in calculation and only related by how many farmers come and go.
EDIT: In addition if somehow the farmer can set the price and not be a positive feedback loop, then it becomes “what the market will bear” and that is back to network exists for the purpose to make people profits rather than compensation for supplying resources. Datacentres will take over and the home farmer cannot compete.
Prices will rise to the maximum big users are willing to pay for storage, making it possible for big data centres to become the big players since they can profit over their expenses. Safe is no longer for the people, but businesses
Then if some big player can come in and undercut the datacentres we will see the datacentres disconnect and use their machines for other profitable works. Potential for massive disruptions and loss of data. With large datacentres doing safe then doing regular datacentre stuff in cycles according to the price of SNT and highest price for rewards they can set
It will not find balance because it will not be the only living organism.
There will be many others like him with the same perfect DNA, but smaller and lurking to tear it apart.
When the social attacks inevitably begin, the smaller organisms will begin to devour both farmers and users. Our body may not die immediately but it will stop growing at the same rate and may never recover.
Therefore, we must preventively direct the conversation about how good is Safe for all humanity, so that when the social attacks begin and when the lurking vampires attack us we reduce the effect of both attacks.