Is sharing, linking, liking now obsolete with SAFE?

Sharing, linking, liking…is that superseded in SAFE …maybe I want folk replicating my stuff…un-modified of course.

So you consume some content and are prompted “Do you wish to replicate? The content will appear in your public collection and be visible by xyz”

The content owner still gets paid and the consumer has gained some sense of ownership. The content provider could offer all manner of wrapping for the consumer to present their collection…and of course the network would also reward the wrapping.

You consume a new release movie directly from a Warners Brothers Vault and the wrapper is available should you replicate. Maybe the wrapper could offer functionality such as embedding personal reviews/ ratings into your copy.

Maybe your network reputation is inferred (not rated) by the value you add to the data you present (your own and others). If you are real smart and write your own wrappers and offer all manner of value add on that data…others may replicate the movie from you and bypass Warner Brothers, doesn’t matter to them and you get the coin from wrapper activity…

I like the sound of replication…it’s old school physical media type psychology, to me at least. The copy sits in your library and you can annotate it.


I thought likes could gift SafeCoin right?

I dont know of any like functionality in SAFE, is that what you meant?

My reaction to this having not thought about it is that there’s a social aspect to those options, that people will always like.

You may want people to replicate your stuff but might there be options to not do exactly that. The underlying system perhaps could increment a file count, so that I own the copy and it’s not removed when you delete it (perhaps Save is a word for that, rather than link)?

So, I link to your stuff because I prefer to retain the source detail; in the case that you delete it, that can be noted but the file still remains. There’s an option here then to add more control to those who would currently point to the one copy that’s liable to you deleting it… but perhaps there are cases where they would want to follow your lead. I don’t know if that preference would be global… delete files when owner delete them || do retain a copy when the original is removed.

No data is deleted in the present scheme, and all old version are retained.

Ah… you might be steps ahead of me. I thought I’d read something suggesting the file count goes to zero. I imagined the data still existed but became inaccessible… or maybe I’m confused and it’s just a count on the fragment. I’m hoping to have time at beta to catchup with the fine detail.

That was an old scheme, but eliminated to avoid the overhead involved.

1 Like

This is an idea that I and some others have mentioned a few times. It’s not a part of the core SAFE functionality, but it can be designed on top of it.

Every file on SAFE has an address, a unique identifier. Public files can be linked by anyone from anywhere. So yes, you can make a SAFE portal/page that includes a link to a file someone else uploaded, and add additional data on that portal/page about that file (such as a rating).

SAFE in my opinion abolishes the distinction between “linking”, “embedding” and “sharing” on a technical level, because all content and pages are on this same, gigantic, virtual server; the SAFE network. “Replicating” doesn’t seem an accurate description to me, because if you link an existing file you don’t replicate that file on a technical level, you just copy the pointer (address) to that file into your own content. Your SAFE browser or whatever application you use to consume content resolves those pointers/addresses and downloads and displays the actual files.

Replication is definitely not a technical description…it’s purely a word to invoke ownership…as in tape, video,CD, LP replication and could be clone, copy etc

…and rewards the file owner, not the guy with the virtual bookshelf pointing to it.

The meta data you could string around a pointer is interesting I think…

The virtual bookshelf is also data so the network rewards the uploader of the bookshelf as well.

Yes! that’s where I’m imagining an opportunity to distinguish a content creators original from an alternative uploaders modified copy…if value add was the norm, alternative uploaders need to work harder and their not just up against the owner, but also anyone who has replicated and chosen to do their own value add around the content.

It seems wonderful from many angles. Its organic, and seems like a tight fit with the basic SAFE model. Nature is in the habit of making and keeping countless copies but it also values subtle variations and copies those endlessly, on and on. Not only that, whether we recognize it or not every idea is an extension or riff on another. The value is determined by those making use of such ideas at a given time. Stuff can come back into widespread replication.

1 Like

Oh I didn’t mean it was baked in already but it can definitely allow for apps to do it

So when you “like” a friend’s post or something, it can be turned into a micro payment that actually means something

I don’t remember where I heard it but it made absolute sense

1 Like