You’ve never heard of malware? A virus? A worm? A meme? People could be made to download something they don’t like because they don’t learn that they don’t like it until later on. With apps it’s a situation where you don’t know what an app is doing or because the app starts out not doing anything bad but later on the app could change yet everyone downloaded it.
With any kind of popular information, a lot of people could download it but it could still be disliked or not something people wanted. You never got the spam emails before or seen a video which went viral? It does not mean it’s highly valued just because it’s viral… If you structure the rewards like that then the incentive is just to create viral stuff no matter how shocking, and to create clickbait.
And that is the flaw. It’s subsidizing on downloads which is no different from subsidizing on views. Clickbait will be the predominant focus of content producers and this typically is not high quality content. It’s shock value content.
Getting a lot of downloads is a statistic but it’s not a better statistic than simply asking for feedback in the form of a rating. Why not let people rate the content they download and reward based on that? If something is downloaded a lot and highly rated it’s very different from something merely downloaded a lot.
The network is supposed to evolve to fit the preferences of it’s participants or the network has no reason to exist. If the network is to have reason to exist it must know whether or not it is providing value it’s “user base”.
Sure I can. Anyone can fork, come up with a clone of SAFE Network with the same freedom, privacy, security, but without the features which generate the negative PR.
PR is important for mainstream adoption. It’s one thing to offer security and freedom but it’s another to throw people into a disorganized dark net with no curation and no wizards, guides, etc. It will never be popular just like Freenet isn’t right now. People want their kind of freedom, their kind of security, and it’s all about accommodating to the preferences of the network (not just the user base but the network itself).
SAFE Network has to figure out how to curate and I think curation will be more important to people than PtP. In fact I don’t see why PtP will even make sense on the network layer. Just set aside a pool of resources for developers, for producers, and then use a smart contract to reward it to whatever algorithm the user base votes on to be the reward algorithm. To hard code it based on downloads in my opinion is a mistake because that might not closely match people’s preferences.
It might be better, I agree that it may create a problem if “bad” apps gets rewarded, at least in terms of PR.
What about some algorithm that takes into consideration many factors such as this so the system cannot be gamed so easily. It may solve these problems.
Lots of things that could be considered such as how frequently the same users returns to the app (if possible) and what about even things like google analytics statestic for the apps search term
That is what I’m trying to say. The algorithm itself should be something that the user base selects. Maybe include download frequency or something like that but you need more than that to determine the aggregated preferences of the network.
With the right curation model perhaps it could work very well but without curation you could create a PR nightmare which will be very difficult to explain to ordinary people.
I was commenting on the PR problem that, I too, have been concerned about. It seems there would be no way to quantify what’s happening on the network to make any claims of “evil” against it. Curation will. And could possibly be manipulated.
I can’t help but love what PtP-PtD brings to the table. It will (among so many other thing) encourage kids with the aptitude to create content and apps - maybe to help pay the family bills. And, it needs to be at the network layer so that it will be simple and can’t be manipulated. The potential for good, I think, outweighs other concerns - so far. Everyone has great arguments…this isn’t easy
Curation done right cannot be gamed as easily. When it’s just downloads then that can be gamed easily. Cickbait already gets people to pay attention to complete trash articles on the Internet. Most people will not rate these articles as high quality or claim these articles or this content changed their life.
Curation done right would include enough criteria that it cannot be gamed and curation models themselves could be rated, templates reviewed, rated, exchanged. It works really well for Google, Amazon, Ebay, and it could work for SAFE Network.
PtP does not need to be at the network layer. You’ve not given a reason why it needs to be. If it’s at the app layer and all apps can be rated then what is the issue? Put the app in the app store, rate the app. Apps which get high ratings get the rewards. No reason to reward apps which get 1 star and a lot of bad feedback.
Because the network can’t measure that and because any reputation system you used would mean sacrificing a measure of anonymity. A curation system might be a good additional app to PtP but it’s not going to replace it fundamentally.
First off isn’t SAFE reistant to viruses, malware and worms? Doesn’t it repel that kind of thing to begin with? Second memes are a subjective preference. Third so what? That’s where reputation building comes in. You’re right a curation system would probably be handy but we seem to be arguing at cross purposes here. What good is curation if you don’t get paid? Uh hello you’re arguing for micropayments. But that’s exactly what PtP does. Moreover if you added more micropayments on top of it it would be even more.
If they download it a million times and share it obviously they value it otherwise they’d just ignore it or delete it. And like any other advertising clickbait can only get you to click once.
Not if they want to develop a reputation and relationship with their audience over the long term. Real artists will want to develop relationships with their audience so will not use clickbait.
No but the network can’t measure ratings. The network can measure downloads via the number of GETS a user receives. Reputation is an entirely subjective human thing and is outside the scope of the network.
The network’s core purpose is to privide Security, Privacy, and Freedom for Everybody. Security, Access and Freedom for Everyone! S.A.F.E. That is it’s purpose. Where on earth did you get the idea that it was meant to evolve to suit the individual moral preferences of it’s users?
Go ahead. You’ll find that if you sacrifice freedom you sacrifice security and you’re users are liable to all come back to the original SAFE.
Why do you keep creating this false dichotomy between PtP and curation? They can easily work together and even reinforce each other. I don’t get why you keep banging on and treating them like they’re opposing forces.
I would venture to say that only a certain type of person will participate in rating. Like in politics. I don’t see how it could remain neutral at the app level. Anyone can make a curation app and like polls and surveys can made to say whatever somebody wants it to say. Sure a rouge curation app would be down-voted. But, if this method is the way compensation is determined the conclusions it (the rouge app) could create could be used to slander the network. I think this is more risky than at the network level which would have no favorites and could not be tracked.
PtP/PtD do not know who. But if a pay address has been provided and stored in the chunk meta-data then the network knows what address to send any gift/rewards that may be generated.
So its not the network tallying up a count of gets on the chunk, but an algorithm that results in a payments every (on average) FD*10 GETs where FD is 1/FR and FR is the farming rate
So the network doesn’t know who stored the content and doesn’t know or record who accessed. It only knows the payment address, without knowing who/account that owns it and only on the get from the vault does it see if payment is to be make. The vault does not know who is doing the get.
I agree with your statements whole-heartedly – a PR nightmare and repercussions for SAFE’s launch and sustaining success despite the good intentions of PtD and PtP
This one I might warm up to solely because you’re proposing the curation solution at the app level, not at the infrastructure level. This will give freedom of choice to those who want to use PtD and those who don’t. This would also change some of the legal ramifications as described in the original post which would be beneficial. Just how much, I’m not sure. For me personally, I would likely not use such an app for safety reasons. Who the heck knows what new laws governments want to pull out of their *sses.
How do you lose anonymity through anonymous statistics? The only thing you’d have is ratings, numbers, scores, there is no lose of anonymity. You could say reputation reduces anonymity but most people only want to be pseudo anonymous and not totally anonymous. Most people want reputation as bad as they want privacy and to not accommodate both needs is not wise.
You don’t need total anonymity to have privacy and security. You can have it with pseudo anonymity.
On this site you can have likes. On any site you can have collaborative filtering. It can be gamed if you don’t add reputation as well but you can add reputation and pseudo anonymity on top of any kind of scoring system and then it begins to work.
Only a certain kind of person rates stuff? Not true. Everyone is rating everything subconsciously all the time. Every human has preferences. Every human wants the Internet to more closely fit into their preferences on how they wish to interact with it or content they wish to come into contact with.
If you try an app you rate the app or there is no way for the next person to know if they should try the app. Why would anyone try any app if they don’t know for sure the app does what it says it does or that the app is worth their time? Why should a person click a link or look at some content if they don’t know if the content meets into their preferences? The only way we can know is through a web of trust which rates content on our behalf.
So you form a circle (web of trust) with your peers. These peers are peers who have similar morals and preferences to you. Any of you rate any apps or content and the whole circle gets the aggregated rating of the circle. Now you web of trust circles and aggregated preferences.
Without this SAFE Network is going to be useless to the vast majority of people because not only will people not be able to curate or filter content according to their preferences, but they’ll be forced to go trial and error? Most people will probably choose to minimize their risks and not use SAFE Network at all if it has no reputation system and no curation.
Who do you imagine will be using SAFE Network if it’s structured like Freenet or Tor with all the same flaws plus new ones like PtP?
STRAWMAN. No one said there is a sacrifice of freedom. I wouldn’t view it as a sacrifice of freedom if I have more choices. If I can choose the algorithm for PtP and PtD by vote or by aggregated preferences then that means it’s either democracy or the market which evolves SAFE Network apps and or content to meet my preferences.
By defending the free market and asking for free market principles to be applied I’m promoting freedom and there is no loss to security or privacy. You’re not losing any security or privacy through curation because your identity would be pseudo anonymous. Sure you can say it can be gamed, but then the apps which you don’t agree with you don’t have to use. So if a curation app is being gamed and censoring content or not prioritizing content according to your preferences the market will produce another curation app to compete and that app will be harder to game.
What do you gain through anonymous statistics? You’d get garbage in, garbage out.
We already know request stuffing is a thing. So you’d at most see a bunch of requests for some chunk (and you couldn’t even tell anything about it - whether it’s an e-book, short movie, photo, etc.).
So you don’t know who’s accessing it, from where, and why.
What kind of conclusions do you expect to derive from such info?
If there’s no benefit to them, of course they prefer more anonymity to less.
With FB and other sites there’s benefit in less anonymity. On SAFE there isn’t.
True, no coin is taken from a single user’s wallet but saying it isn’t being taken from users is false. PtD is ultimately paid for by everyone participating on the network as a collective whole. Remember, payment must ultimately originate from a human or in the case of PtD and PtP, a group of humans. Saying a machine, a system, a software is an originator of a payment will never hold up in court nor from an economic perspective. If so, it would be a money machine and everyone would be rich.
I wrote something similar on the thread “PtP and PtD cannot work without curation”:
The curation idea from @luckybit on this thread has triggered an enlightening thought. PtD and PtP are really smart contracts embedded in the SAFE network. They are contracts per my arguments above and from the original post.
So implementing curation or any form of PtD and PtP at the app level and from a smart contract perspective will transfer liability of payment and morality to only those who participate in the contract while also preserving freedom of choice. A smart contract is formal and can be immediately referenced to understand the details of how, when, and under what conditions a payment is made. There’s no ambiguity of intent because it’s written in code and followed exactly by software/hardware while excluding any potential liabilities from those outside of the contract. Anonymity can also be preserved if desired.
I’m beginning to see the true power and importance of smart contracts. Ethereum is doing a good thing.
I agree, PtP does not give freedom of choice because liability and morality is spread to all users of the system who are forced to make payment if they want to use the network. And I do not want the network to pay on my behalf to all content based on a fixed formula. But it’s OK for me as a user if the PtP formula is formally encapsulated into a smart contract and at the app level. That way those who want to pay for content according to the Get formula will have that choice while others have the choice to opt out.
But the creation of a curation app, or pretty much any app there’s demand for seems to be inevitable. If you believe in it strongly enough you can learn to code and code it yourself in fact. Moreover people will curate content manually even without an app. So if your whole argument against PtP seems to stem from there not being a curation app yet the point seems rather moot. If the app doesn’t exist yet then it will be made. Think the app version of rule 34 and 35 of the internet. If it exists there is an app for it. I no app exists then the app will be coded.
This is an infringement on freedom because it doesn’t account for minority subjective perspectives. If the majority agrees that x is unpopular or disreputable and downranks it then someone looking for x can’t find it in the app database or can’t market their product. Worse yet is when this is applied to free speech and the majority belief is applied to what may or may not be considered “offensive” and what one may express in a public forum. I don’t want a democracy of belief. I don’t want majority rule on belief. If I wanted that I wouldn’t be involved in SAFE and I’d just stick with internet 1.0. The whole point of SAFE is to get away from the mandatory democratization and aggregation of believe and allow them to freely associate with those of like minded beliefs and values. I don’t want SAFE to turn into another form of government. From the very beginning you seem bent on creating government when that’s exactly what we’re trying to get away from. Curation is one thing but a Muslim should be able to curate as easily as a Christian, a homosexual as easily as a hetrosexual, a pedophile as easy as a housewife and a terrorist as easy as the CIA.
Perhaps this all comes down to catorgization and tagging or something. If you’re straight you avoid “gay porn” but if your gay well then you go straight for it. You mentioned psudo anonymity in one of your posts. Psudo anonymity can be a security risk as it can lead to your identity being compromised. That’s the problem with basing all this on a curation system and not having PtP on the network layer. If it’s on the network layer and everyone gets it then one doesn’t have to worry about developing psudo-anonymity and compromising one’s anonymity by allowing statistics to reveal information about one’s behaviour. Companies only really need your postal code/zip code, date of birth and an email address and they can pretty much find out everything about you. If they can find that out using just statistics and those 3 pieces of info what do you think they could do using a curation system? Granted we wouldn’t be sharing such information but still there would be a lot of information shared.
I do support curration and reputation building but one cannot say it’s not a security risk and any curated content is subject to someone’s subjective opinion, be it that of an individual or a particular group. Any moderated (up and down voting, sorting according to opinion, rankings etc) content therefore would conflict with someone else’s viewpoint which would then mean an infringment upon freedom without sufficient competition and/or catorgization/modularization.
SAFE is a resource economy not a debt based economy. Ultimately the safe network is just information, it’s program. You can download it off github. And yes SAFE IS the originator of the safecoins, they were produced BY the system. That’s what cryptocurrency is: currency generated by a piece of software. So yes it literally is a money making machine. People then TRADED their cpu resources for safecoin that they could then use for storage. When one trades safecoin for storage space on the network, that is PUTS, in order to upload something the safecoin is destroyed and the network creates new safecoin for farmers. Yes SAFE actually creates the money itself. One might argue that humans input “money” into the network in the form of computer resources but given that thsoe resources are fairly traded not merely transferred it’s not fair to say humans are funding the SAFE network and therefore can claim ownership of it. Nor is the safecoin owned by the network the collective pool of resources owned by the farmers. It was there before the first farmers arrived. True the value of safecoin has risen due to the increase in farming but that doesn’t mean that the original coin still doesn’t belong to the network. If I have money in my bank account and you have money in your bank account and we engage in trade and then the value of the dollar rises that doesn’t mean I get access to your bank account or you get access to mine.
If safecoin is worthless (i.e. it’s value is zero compared to any other measure such as USD), then it will not be recognized as payment by the receiver. So whether created by a machine or a government, the currency’s origin doesn’t matter. It’s only when humans recognize the currency as a storage of value, will it be transacted for goods and services. Humans determine a coin’s value and thus its price. The origin of the coin is not involved in a transaction as long as it’s deemed to have value and is not counterfeit. So when a transaction occurs, the originator of payment (not origin of the creation of the coin) must come from a human whether paid directly or paid on behalf by a set of rules. At the time of the exchange of goods and services for coin, a human must have had ownership of the coin.
Agreed, no one will own the SAFE network because the software is open source and it’s creators have agreed that it can be used for free.
The network is not concerned with the fiat cost of safecoin. But even so the only way safecoin price would hit 0 is if no one at all were using the network because cpu resources do have a price behind them. Ultimately electricity, computer hardware and time cost money and it might not add up to a lot if you just let your cpu idle but it does have a cost. People would measure their gains in data storage on the network vs how much it would cost in say buying in buying an external hard drive. How much does physical hardware cost vs safe network cloud storage?
Since when? Any tradable good can become a currency. I can pick up a few stones off the road and use them as tokens for currency. Will they have a high value? No. But that’s still a tradable good. The safe network created the coin, the tokens, so in this case the network is being regarded as an entity holding the tradable good, that is the token, the stone, the coin, whatever. The entity hands you a coin. You the human then hand the entity a cpu cube. The SAFE network is still the originator of the payment in this instance since it created the coin. The coins were CREATED BY the SAFE network.
This is an oxymoron in this case as the SAFE network is the originator of the payment because it created the coin. Look if I go down to a mine somewhere, mine some gold, then go to my forge and shape that gold into gold coins have I note just created gold coins? Am I not the originator of that product? Did I not just make those? And if I then take them and trade them for some goods or services is that not fair trade? Likewise if a piece of software MAKES coins which are then traded for goods and services is the piece of software still not the originator and owner of the coin? Where do you get off saying that the originator of a payment must come from a human?
As stated above the value of safecoin can never be 0. The only time safecoin will ever be 0 is when the network is utterly inactive. As long as there are farmers devoting resources to the network then safecoin will never be 0, and in order to use the network you need to farm coin.
Moreover we aren’t debating whether the value of a currency can or can’t be 0 we’re debating ownership. Even if safeciin is 0 that just means it’s not worth anything and the safe network still owns all it’s coin. I can have a handful of sand and call it currency but no one’s going to trade me anything for it so it’s worth nothing. That doesn’t mean I don’t own it, it just means it’s not worth anything.
