I wonder if it would be worth proposing a simple term that creates a very beneficial added value - SAFE Investor?
Farmer refers to the term “mining” in cryptocurrencies, but this term has become tired and overheard, while SafeNet is a new Internet network created by its shareholders, so we have an excellent business model where you are co-owner and customer at the same time.
Add the adjective "safe: and you can easily think of Safe Client and Safe Investor, and after all SafeNet has to build trust in its business model - does not that sound great?
I suggested ‘Operator’ for someone who runs Safe Nodes. Nice clean break with ‘Miner’ because it’s not the same process as Bitcoin uses and it’s nothing like ‘Farming’ like the idiotic Sia.
I also can’t find the thread where we were discussing it. There was a poll.
‘Operator’ received a generally positive response. There may be better ideas out there. I like ‘Provider’ now actually.
Operator describes a work title. Mining, farming and similar describes the work that is being done, that is a good way to name things. Still think farming is a great name that differentiates itself well from mining and blockchain tech.
I thought that when talking about hardware you are running the Safe-Node software on, so why not just name it that. Who cares if one person sees it as farming safecoin, and another sees it as storage hardware, and another sees it as protocol node, and so on
Really its doing a multitude of things. Its storing data, its handling the protocols, its helping to secure the network, its providing resources, its earning tokens in exchange for resources, and so on.
The hardware’s real purpose though is to run the node software and be a node in the network.
A valid point. But Operator describes someone who is doing something simple without any real control which is what Node runners will be.
‘Mining’ and ‘Farming’ are too tied up with things in the physical world and bear no resemblance to what the process actually is which is providing storage and securing the network.
Just realised I meant ‘Chia’ and not ‘Sia’. Using ‘Farming’ which is the same term as the massively wasteful Chia is would be a bad move in my opinion.
Seems lika trying to push a round ball through a square hole, like wanting something to be a certain way even if knowing it does not make good logical sense.
Operator fails to describe the work or action that is being done. Who cares about what Chia does or don’t, is anyone still using their thing, have not heard about them for a long time.
Just because example Bitcoin was first with mining does not mean that Ethereum or other blockchain tech should stay away from the word mining.
The word for the action does not define the project or tech, just a way to make it easy for people to visualize what is being done. The word farming does a good job, making it simple to visualize the action or work that is being done.
I agree that just because Bitcoin and Etherreum were first with ‘Mining’ doesn’t mean they should be avoided. I’m not worried about who used it first. But I think the process is so different it should be avoided to make a clean break from that association. ‘Mining’ implies something that is hard work and takes a lot of energy. Safe isn’t using PoW for which that applies. We ought to make a break from that terminology as the process is so different on Safe.
Similarly I can see how ‘Farming’ makes sense as a word to characterise what happens on Chia. Getting a load of storage space, setting a process running that uses that space and takes a fair bit of energy over a fair bit of time and then having something at the end that is worth something to the network is very like farming in the real world. But there is no energy and time intensive preparation of the ‘ground’ that is needed on Safe so ‘Farming’ has no relevance as a word to describe it.
Safe is very different. It’s really just providing some storage space for chunks of data and compute and networking to retrieve them and secure the network while doing so. That’s why I like ‘Provider’ now.
But we are getting off topic and way ahead of ourselves. A decision on what to call people who are doing things for the network doesn’t have to be made yet and it’s not our decision.
Provider sounds better it fits in a logical sense and it is easy to understand, I could get onboard with that. On the other hand I can see farming working well because it is relatable to mining, people will think, ok, so I can set up a node and then it will make Safe coins if I let it run.
It would be good if people relate to example farming like the word mining but also understanding that it is a different underlying tech. That is all that the word needs to do, to make it easy for people to know what happens if they set up node, that it will make them Safe-coins and that it uses cpu and storage instead of mining which is gpu heavy.
If I may interject my humble opinion… the name of the network participant is very important, as are people’s associations with new technologies - it is no coincidence that in “work camps” such as Fakebook, 80% of the employees are not programmers but sociologists, psychologists and, above all, specialists in behavioural engineering. No serious name in today’s world is created by chance and is carefully “designed”. This is very important when we think about the mass adoption of SafeNet.
Very good point, mining was conceived in terms of blockchain and bitcoin to somehow visualise this new phenomenon and get the community invested, but today it is associated with clunky slow software, hard work and high energy consumption.
And SafeNet is so different from other networks that it should create its own nomenclature and terminology from A to Z, denoting something completely new, secure and independent, just as the path in the URL in Safe is likely to be completely new.
Have you tried asking your friends who are average internet users how they associate blockchain, crypto, bitcoin mining, or perhaps ethereum, crypto exchanges, etc.? What did they answer to you…?
There has been no talk about calling it mining. A name should be choosen to aid a purpose. That purpose could be a easy way to make people understand that when they run a node they store data and get safecoins in return.
As Bitcoin started with mining then farming is close enough to differentiate that Safe is a different tech but close enough that people understand that you get Safecoins when storing data.
Well, this is where we have a slight difference of opinion
In my opinion, agriculture is close to mining and the idea is that the associations have nothing to do with cryptocurrencies. I suggest the simple term secure customer and investor, it could also be operator or supplier depending on the details of who will be responsible for what in SN.
Simplicity of association should be key.
Many people see Clearnet as unsafe and associate it with hackers, data theft, bank account robbery, fraud, etc., and the same is true of most users’ perceptions of cryptocurrencies, so I think it is worth using an alternative of simple opposite associations.
The second point is that many people feel the entrepreneurial gene in themselves but find it difficult to dare to invest on the Internet these days because of the many dangers and risks, so by starting with the Safe client they can familiarise themselves with what SN is, how it works and whether it is really different from Clearnet, and in the next step they can try to become a Safe investor.
Someone safeguarding, storing and fetching data is more like a “steward” than a farmer or miner. And when he does this deed he is not farming or mining, he is “stewarding”. Something along these lines, I think, more aptly describes what is happening.
Or, a new word could be conceived that might sound meaningless in the beginning, but acceptable later (think “Google”, “Kodak”, “Sony”, “Ikea”).
That statement don’t seem to have a relation to running a node storing data, more like wanting a name for browsing the safe network or a name for a client.
Missing the point, people only need a simple name for knowing that if you run a node you get Safe coins. A Word only need to explain that in a simple way. Building on what Bitcoin started is a good thing because people are familiar with those kind of words used in crypto. No need to re-invent the wheel, just ride the wave and differentiate with example the name farming.
Again you are talking about a name for something similar to describing the whole network as a tech or using the network as a client, it has nothing to do with a name for running a node as a provider and storing data.
