Actually, it is an ethical issue, not a moral one. Before 1900s, it was normal for adults to have sex with 12-18 year olds. You know what 4chan usually say, "If there is grass, then it is mowable. "
Child pornography has reduce child abuses, and underage sex overall. Disgusting humans who crave for child porn will go out their way to find child, and get what they want. But if they can access to it via internet, the crime rates drastically decreased. Why go out when they can fap to some image?
Lastly, we are living in age of Technology, and virtual reality is coming at a fast rate. There are already virtual reality porn. Some jap created an ass machine, where one could insert into it. The ass moves the way as the virtual reality character moves. So if users designed virtual reality child, this will even prevent more crimes, and reduce child pornography overall.
I am not saying I advocate child pornography nor support it. I highly find it gross, and disgusting. I am merely a messager.
Now to your OP post, I highly agree. Child pornography shouldn’t get paid simply because they build an app and incentive users to use the app. That’s why I am against PtP, and PtD. Farmers should get 100 percent of income.
Well think about it. The seed of PtP and PtD is the notion that the current situation is heading for a catastrophic meltdown. A notion that content creator are being abused by big Corp who makes plenty of profit on their back. A notion that for content creators, there is no other choice then selling their soul if they want to have a minimum quality of living.
Thing is, that’s a pretty defeatist view of the situation. You just need to look at the growing popularity of Patreon to see that the paradigm is already changing. The future belongs to live/virtual performance, memberships, crowdfunding and services. The concept that you can draw a picture and sell it an infinite amount of time as been invalid the moment computer were invented. Like laws that makes pirating content illegal, PtP is just trying to hold unto an era that is no longer here.
So yeah, it’s a pretty sad vision of the future where an artist need to rely on such scheme to thrive.
But this is not what it provides - it provides an alternative that isn’t there at the moment, and the easiest and simplest of all. Even something like Patreon takes effort to gain followers and build up an income. Many do well from that, I support a journalist through Patreon, so these alternatives are good. I don’t see that adding an even easier option is sad, not to deny your feelings, but it doesn’t make me sad to think that instantly anyone who creates and publishes something that others like - adds their wallet address to it - will be rewarded for the upload according to how much it is accessed. I think this is interesting, and I’m glad there’s now an active debate about it, although it does still tend to be focussed in on a negative without comparing it with the alternative. You at least have acknowledged the comparison (above) - though you don’t seem to think there is much not to like about it I see (but that’s off-topic).
I think you’ve made a good case around the moral or ethical issue. I don’t have an opinion on that myself because I think its not clear cut for me. I feel very strongly about “supporting” paedophiles and other abusers (from psychopathic bankers and oligarchs to dictators) but I try to balance my emotional responses by stepping back and looking at the whole picture - seeing what are the benefits as well as the drawbacks, and these I would hate to be thrown out without very good reason.
I don’t think the moral or ethical case is clear cut enough to discourage many people from making use of SAFEnetwork. Most won’t be aware of the issue when they are introduced to it, will see many benefits for themselves (secure storage and communications, great applications etc.) and will sign up and spread the word. Even those who are uncomfortable with the issue you raise make moral and ethical compromises around these issues all the time. So only those who feel strongly and that it is clear cut are likely to be affected by this, so I see this as a personal issue and not one that will affect adoption or make the network vulnerable to a PR type attack.
Yes, both may be ethically problematic, but I don´t think they are equal, and one could argue that farming is ok, but paying all producers is not (and maybe the other way around). Personally, I think blindly paying for illegal (or unethical) content is worse than blindly paying those who may be storing illegal content. In the first situation you actively (by economic means) support their behavior, in the second you make it possible by selling them the storage space, but, certainly, this may be seen as unethical too.
I agree 100% and I don’t think they are equal at all which is why I support PtF over PtP.
I also agree that one is worst then the other to the extent that I would call a murderer worst then a liar but they are both sinners morally speaking none the less.
So in my mind, if I accept PtD and PtP as immoral (which I don"t), then I have to accept PtF as immoral as well albeit to a lesser extent
wait up, what about your baby’s photos. If you store the photos of your children with amazon; and they are compromised, zomg!!
SAFE saves the day.
Before you start posting pictures of your child online, think about how the images or video could be viewed if they were seen by a stranger in a different setting. While you may be delighted to share photos of your toddler’s first bubble bath with her big cousin, you probably don’t want strangers looking at such pictures of your child - or her relatives - online.
If you want to share certain pictures with particular people, it’s probably safer to share them via email, or invite friends and family to view a personalised photo site.
you see you shouldn’t store your children’s baby photos where hackers can steal them and then sell them in the first place. the root of all the problems is where people store their data online.
PtP & PtD do not reduce Farming rewards. David spelt this out in the last couple of days.
PtF = 100% of the FR Does not change if PtP or PtD exist
PtD = 10% of FR
PtP = 10% of FR
None of those change if any are taken away.
It is a misunderstanding of recycling that leads to the idea farmers somehow get less coin because coin is given out for other things. The life cycle and buffer of coin that is maintained by the system ensures that the balance is kept so that the network can pay out each without the need to reduce any one of the 3. Recycling is what maintains the buffer.
Also it is a misapplication of dilution to claim that the fiat value will change significantly and attributable to the extra rewards. If this was for Bitcoin or other coin then extra coins does cause dilution of that coin/price because the extra coin remains, BUT SAFEcoin is recycled and all coin eventually is recycled as people PUT, thus reducing the effects of dilution to background noise (after a possible detectible delay effect at startup). Extra coins extra puts.
They’ve tried it against Tor, and yet its use is increasing.
The authorities & media know that every time they run a story to put down one of these anonymity systems (Tor, encrypted messaging etc), they have to explain something about it so the public know what is being accused. But they know in doing this they are educating the public about a system that provides freedom to the public and ability to hide from the ever increasing government surveillance.
So they try to limit such stories and focus on the crime to keep attention off the freedom enabling system. This works in our favour and to outright attack an anonymity system is to educate the public. Every time there is a story against one of these system the use of those systems increase and membership spikes.
The Australian government tried to attack one of the new encrypted end-to-end messaging systems and yes the sheeple for a day got all up in arms, but the end result was a 100 fold increase in site visit statistics from Australia and a 10 fold daily increase in total members (for a week or two) and most of those were from Australian IP addresses.
Its a two edged sword. And often the anonymity system has the greater win.
I don’t know.
At this moment I am not concerned about punishing AI and its rights, if it will have any.
People will have to deal with more pressing problems such as terrorist AI, to highlight one close to this topic.
You are thinking in terms of bitcoin and other coins that issue once only. Then I AGREE with you
But you are not thinking 4th dimensionally (back to the future)
As you issue coin so it will come back to the network. If you disagree with that assertion then the coin will be all issued within a year and it grinds to a halt.
Fact: as the coin “buffer” (unissued) coin dries up the issuance algorithm resists this happening and slows down all coin issuance. See the RFC
So using that self evident assertion & fact then as long as the buffer does not empty there is no contradiction that you can issue 120% of FR
Another way to look at it
What is the 120% figure???
is it 120% of total coin. - - NOPE
is it 120% of coin given to put data - NOPE
what is the 120%
it is 120% of Farming Rate. A algorithmic value that is based on the amount of storage used compared to the available space.
So it could be 200% of FR and work fine, it just has to be a rate that does not cause the resisting force applied by the coin issuance algorithm to fail.
But no fear recycling to the rescue.
if No puts (ie the self evident is wrong) then gets dry up too because people typically go after the newish data and the old is less and less accessed.
But if the network is working then there will always be puts
And the put_cost algorithm more than covers 120%, even 200%, and the buffer, and resisting of coin issuance would balance it out even if put cost was not programmed correctly OR puts slow down.
You’ve been doing that for ages via taxation. Hello war criminals. Hello undesired wars. Abortion. Chemtrails. GMOs. Sharia Law in the Middle East! I feel like banging my head against the wall here.
Yes the network supports the people that one doesn’t like or finds morally objectionable but it also supports the ones that one DOES like and does want to support, including oneself. More the the point the people that one doesn’t like, odds are aren’t too fond of oneself. Pro-choice vs pro-life. Organic vs GMO. Sexists vs feminists or whatever. Pedophilia is an easy topic because its so taboo that no one dares speak out in defense of it on this censored internet. Quite frankly I find both the censorship and coupled with the belief that censoring an opposition is somehow a form of validation of one’s argument to be ridiculous. It’s like saying the President or King can never be wrong and then shooting anyone who dares criticize the President/King. That’s why I cited different and less volitile examples of conflicting issues in my example.
Party A believes X and Party B believes -X. The network doesn’t care either way. It’ll reward both for uploading content to the network. The network is morally agnostic. The network MUST be morally agnostic. The core issue a lot of people seem to be struggling with here is mainly ego based so let me be blunt and spell it out for you: Your morals whatever they may be, your faith, or beliefs, your values, don’t matter at all to the network. Out there there is SOMEONE who believes the exact opposite you do and their right to express themselves and upload to and use the network is just as valid as yours. SAFE = Safe Access For Everyone. Not Safe Access for those who agree with me.
But if we were talking about cancer research it or a movie it would be just fine. You can’t have it both ways. Life and death, good and evil, Light and Dark. I can’t stand the idea of funding abortions or Monsanto but hey I’d also be funding families and nice organic farmers that posted to social media or advertised or created whatever content as well. Point is if you want SAFE and secure PtP then you need to get your head around that it’ll go to EVERYONE not just the people you like. Everyone. Values are subjective and that makes objective measurement of them impossible. More to the point net neutrality requires that the network remain amoral and not get involved in these moral decisions. That it leave them to us the users.
If it helps think about it like this: Both the Red and Blue teams are getting funding from both the Red AND Blue teams. It works out. Imagine if Superman got funding both from all his friends like Louis Lane and Jimmy Olsen AND his enemies like Lex Luthor. But of course the reverse is also true. Get your head around it folks. I did the moment I heard about farming safecoin. I don’t know why there is such a moral fuss over PtP, it’s just a different form of farming. Exchanging content as opposed to cpu resources.
First and foremost he failed to demonstrate why posting some data is immoral. He assumes that is a given just because he objects to it (his value statement).
Farming rate/reward is an arbitrary number (of safecoin) as discerned by the system. It can be 200% of itself from one moment to the next, as more/less storage is required.
Farming rate is determined by the network to be X.
PtP or PtD are also determined by the network, however their number can easily expressed as a % of Farming rate, which I think leads to confusion.
They do not reduce the farming rate AT ALL. They are theoretically (as that’s all this is now), rewarded at a rate of X / 10.
Whether they exist or not theoretically won’t change the farming rate reward of X.
There are questions about SAFE value dilution, but when you consider that the farming rate is determined re: storage, you see that the value comes from there and is adjusted constantly. Making (as far as I understand it), the dilution point moot.