The idea is to allow new users/vaults that are accepted by a section to get a few hundred “Micro” PUTS until it earns its first safecoin. The “Micro” PUTs would Amount to no more than a few MBs.
By “Micro” I mean allowing PUTs that are no larger than a few KBs. This allows new users to interact on blogs, forums, send emails and comment on sites without allowing malicious participants to use many resources. The Vault/node mechanism in place already slows entry into the network which makes using the proposed free “Micro” PUT allotment impractical.
It would IMO improve UX and adoption if new users didn’t feel like mere observers of content held on the network. They could jump in and quickly begin interacting
Of course the details need to be worked out by @maidsafe if this is at all possible.
IMO a better way to accomplish what you are after is to use both a “Pay on PUT” (ie. POP) and
a “Pay on GET” (ie. POG) means for rewarding vaults. The POP is an instant reward for a vault that is taking part and playing nice and attracts new people. The POG rewards them for taking care of the data long term. The reward rates don’t need to be the same, so that POP is less than POG. I think this achieves your goal in a straightforward way which is already in the works by team MaidSafe.
This also works well if the aforementioned variable chunk size is introduced.
Your goal was “free” PUTs was it not? I simply offered an alternative that makes it easy to start earning coin right away. A SAFE lunch, but no free lunch.
Sounds great. Unfortunately earning is still unpredictable. I’m proposing/looking for something that allows new users to quickly start interacting on the safeweb.
Making them stare at advertisements while they surf would be a predictable and traditional way for them to earn. Consider this: small frame at the bottom of the browser, user turns plugin on and off at will, “Pay the Consumer Rewards” given for each ad viewed.
That works. There would have to be some explicit statement about the optional nature of advertising exposure. Otherwise new users would get the impression that SAFEnet has ads by default with no option of disabling them.
I agree that being able to quickly and easily crate an account and set up an identity with no impediments is better UX, no doubt. However that cannot come at the cost of the integrity of the network. There is no worse UX than the collapse of the network, loss of data etc.
Giving free puts, even if these are ‘micro’ in size, opens up the network to attack. It would be trivial to spam the network. If you are big enough actor, or have access to a bot net, it could in theory be possible to take down the network.
And there are also other ways you could attack the UX of the network via free micro PUTs, by say a dictionary attack on Public Names, SafeIDs etc.
Jim this has evolved to having small payments to vaults when PUTs are done into the vault. Thus a new user will be paid quickly for running a vault and get enough to make an account. (I am not suggesting this but the topic has also considered this)
I prefer that when a GET is done that all the vaults that successfully retrieved the chunk in a reasonable time (& valid) are paid. Take the total GET reward amount and pay the successful vault twice the other vaults. This way all vaults will be getting some rewards for helping to secure the data even if they “just” miss out being the successful one.
That encourages people to run vaults even if they don’t have the best (PC, link speed, location to majority of section elders). After all they helping to secure the network data. If the vault is too slow then it will be kicked anyhow eventually.
Perhaps I’ve missed the full context with the new thread… but this to me sounds like vaults owning a debt to the network, or being allowed a or having a negative balance while an infant, which they are under no obligation to pay back, or perhaps can never pay back.
Surely this will just great an ever increasing debt bubble?
This network will surely remain niche if we don’t solve the entry friction problem. Even 1 PUT is better than nothing at this point. Well resourced attackers still have to wait to have each of their vaults integrated into their respective sections. Having 1 PUT for each vault is of little value given the resource requirements for each VM needed to sustain them all.
Seems unlikely to be a problem while SAFE remains obscure tech. As adoption rises the cost of mounting attacks rise with it. By lowering the entry barrier we ensure rapid adoption and thus greater security. We need to find a balance here. If the vents are too small the occupants will surely suffocate. If too big some unwanted critters get in.
If the attacker has the resources to mount such a massive attack a free PUT on each vault would be nothing compared to the safecoin they could use to overwhelm the NW
Safecoin is really just a way of measuring units of resource: disk space, bandwidth, CPU. So it doesn’t really matter if you call it a Safecoin or a PUT, it is still a debt owed to the network, that has to be paid at some point. It creates a bubble. If that bubble pops, then the network isn’t viable any more.
