I’d like to see Safecoin going to 10$/piece but the network doesn’t care for that, would it be bad for the network if Safecoin went down to say 0.1 cents? It would be bad for the investors among us but the network doesn’t give a beep about them too.
Where does it state that it will only impact the algorithms significantly from 1PB?
Maybe there’s not enough information about Day One to discuss it? I think we’d need to know absolutely everything to start discussing it. What happens and what we’re seeing right now is that people will start to make their own calculation with their own assumptions. For example: you’re now saying algorithms will only really kick in at 1 PB (?) and in the other thread you’re saying that we need 4.3 PB (to have a network(?))? But let’s keep the discussion about the 4.3 PB on the other thread .
It says in my scenario above. My scenario assumes 4.3 PB usable or 20 PB raw on Day One.
If you count on the algo to significantly change farming reward, I doubt that consuming the first 23% (1 out of 4.3 PB) will meaningfully change rewards when 73% of capacity would be free.
I didn’t say that algos will kick in at 1 PB, but rather that the way they’re construed they’re supposed to increase the reward rate as available capacity gets close to full. So maybe at 75% or 80% rewards would change meaningfully.
It doesn’t matter, you can make your own estimate. I’m not saying my guesstimate is better than any other (well, it is in the sense that there are no other estimates).
In your opinion, how much usable storage will be available on Day One?
I was being optimistic so I assumed 4.3 PB (2-5 PB, but I picked 4.3 so that I can easily divide it with the number of MAID). The important thing is order of magnitude. It certainly won’t be 43 PB and if it turns out to be closer to 430 TB, it’s going to be terrible for Safecoin.
I’m not making any estimate but I’m just trying to figure out where yours come from and why there needs to be one. Why would 430 TB be terrible for Safecoin?
Because then 430 million SAFE (e.g. MAID now) would be after only 430 TB, meaning every MAID (Safecoin) could buy just 1 MB of capacity (430 million MAID / 430 million MB).
Mind that Storj in it recent test got > 1PB online, although they didn’t use replication, etc.
Not all 430 million Safecoin will be going after all the storage on day one or even day 1000. Most of the coins right now are bought for different and multiple cases. As long as you’re going to calculate and think like that your estimates and calculations will be (with all respect) way off.
Why terrible? It´s terrible for those who don´t want to see a volatile exchange rate. It´s not going to destroy the network. We can assume that most users on day 1 are going to be idealistic pionieers who don´t care if they are not earning money by sharing space. I also believe that price will probably drop. Your estimation (1GB = 10$) is quite optimisitc, I´d say. To me that´s really a bargain. I´d suppose it´s much more expensive. Still, I believe people are going to experiment with the coin, so calculating without seeing that in practice is pretty much looking into a crystal ball.
It is relatively free of maintenance cost to store data forever but allowing this data to be fetched back in a timely manner does have significant maintenance costs.
@Seneca Users of SAFE network only pay once to store the data, so what does it matter if price of keeping 1mb available for 2-4-6 …20 year does not increase to more than 2 safecoin ?
Was a consensus reached on how buying space works? Buy e.g. 1GB then if unused, it decreases or buy 1GB, and that’s it stays that way?
Here are my thoughts:
With regards to hoarding space, real-time reductions of coins as space gets used will not help much because users can just put random data to keep the space used, then delete when they need to use.
Another thing that someone mentioned is that if unused space stays unused, it could decrease, but on the flipside, it should also increase if the conditions are favorable (with a fair algorithm), so that system is not good.
Best is if you buy 1gb, you get your 1gb.
This network promises perpetual storage, so it is like buying property, storage land. I also gather that the public is able to get access to files, so besides the actual storage, there are bandwidth costs. In the real world, keeping computers up costs money, I wonder who would store me e.g. 1GB for a lifetime, while I paid little just once. I the user want that reality, but when I question how it will be achieved over the long term with mass adoption, serious questions come up. How will the network resources be supplied? I believe that if this project is to succeed well, make sure that the farmers get a ROI. They should be rewarded proportionate to their work, which means that the introduction of other fees can be introduced. Fees that farmers spend on bandwidth, uploading data. While ISP’s can get better deals on bandwidth, compared to what users get per buck, you still find that torrents dominate internet traffic. Torrents primarily being bandwidth from personal computers, meaning that personal bandwidth is sufficient if the storage and delivery methods are efficient. The bottom line is, to fairly reward farmers that they can easily deliver or fulfill what the network / service promises. So, if I upload e.g. 100gb, it can stay in the network for x years, but when I want to download it, I get charged a fair fee. Maybe this is where real-time coin reductions occur, based on bandwidth downloaded. The selling point stays the same, decentralized encrypted storage, that is perpetual, you just pay once for the storage space, and for every other time that you download.
I agree and I think that a more viable model is that payment for space expires after a period, so you have to make a small payment, say once a year, to keep it.
Well, that means that the service description will have to change, so that it does not say perpetual, but I get your point, it does cost to just store. Gotta find a solution for the cost of perpetual storage, unless that term gets dropped.
Another idea will be to evenly distribute files around the farm so that each farmer has an equal amount of active files relative to passive files, so that the earnings from bandwidth are equally shared. No farmer should have e.g. a majority of inactive files.
If this precise rebalancing is introduced everyone would use the crappiest server possible since their “share” of earnings would be more or less guaranteed.
Everyone does get approximately the same amount of active files, but there are no guarantees and in part uptime and service record play a role in determining the farmer’s earnings.
Farmers are paid based on their uptime, but does their uptime determine what files they get? Because I thought that when a farm goes offline, whatever it had gets replicated elsewhere. So, the farmer who has less uptime gets paid less that one who has better uptime, but all have the same chances of reaching their full earning potential, by balancing the ratio of active vs inactive files.
.