Alright I see your point that the global value could increase, although that doesn’t change that local wealth may very well decrease. But let’s say we ignore this particular point, what about my other arguments?
(Please note that my conclusion is primarily that the system cannot work, because it will either promote rampant abuse, or not enough incentive in the first place.)
I definitely see this as a valid concern.
Hi there! Nice to see you engaging. Totally agree with @neo about your ‘facts’ though.
Actually yes, part of discovering areas worth of research is by speculating around potential effects. From my side this part here isn’t about hard facts, this part here is about reasoning why this could be potentially huge and why we should look closer into how it can be made possible.
Next steps are to design a specification and then try to invent the feature to comply with it. Ascertaining that it does so with a high enough confidence, would be a prerequisite for developing and releasing it.
And it does absolutely not need to be part of the very first release. But research should be well on its way if not already done by then.
For that reason I do not agree with this either:
The work with all new things in the network is to solve problems, that is done by proving (with reasonable confidence) that it works. Some things are harder than others.
Other than that I definitely agree with keeping it as simple as possible.
1 Like
Is there an active RFC to discuss in detail how this might be implemented? I don’t see one.
Maybe that would be a good first step, so we can debate something of substance because there may be ways to mitigate some (not all) of the concerns in this thread.
EDIT … and it’s certainly a pretty hot topic (always has been)!
1 Like
lol … wrote that, then found this from Nov '15:
1 Like
I see it as quite doable to temporarily introduce for testing in a live network. The harder part will be evaluating it, I would say, considering access to all the data that is needed for it.
However I see it as quite likely that it can be modelled accurately enough that simulations can give us good insights, albeit not perfect.
1 Like
No
- Farmers get a certain amount for farming
- App developers get a certain amount for making apps that people use
content providers provide content that people actually will want to come over to SAFE to see
Now all 3 are rewarded at a certain rate and worked out on a per GET basis.
- Without PtP & PtD farmers get x amount per GET
- With PtD and PtP farmers still get x amount per GET and PtD/P get x/10 per GET but only only on their app or content
- PtD and PtP get at most x/10 per gets on their APP or content
Now without PtD & PtP there is y users and each do average z GETS per day
With PtD and PtP 100 times the people join each month each GETting as much on average as the others. So 1200 times in a year as opposed to no PtD/P. Its more likely to much more joining due to desiring the APPs or content. Without them joining rate could be stagnate
So farmers are getting 1200 * y in rewards
And now there are 1200 times the people doing PUTs to social media, uploading their files & photos, so thats at least 1200 times the PUTs and the network economy booms. So you are not losing locally or globally. Global increase in value means what coins you are getting is also worth more in $$$ and buying power. Its how you create the network effect so many love saying
1 Like
Thanks for the details! However I fear this still doesn’t counter what is probably my core argument:
If PtD/P is worthwhile for the uploaders, then abuse of it will also be worthwhile.
How could it be technologically feasible to prevent rampant abuse (i.e. abuse to such a degree that it affects the network’s content quality from a user perspective)?
(And another point of mine is that quality - in contrast to farmer disk space etc. - can’t be judged automatically, making the payments inherently unfair, but by all means let’s just ignore that point for now.)
And when you read the topic this has been dealt with many times. Basically caching kills it. Also the expense to game it also makes it a not really worth while.
Like I saud earlier EVERY aspect of it can be used to game farming and PtD too with similar poor results I might add.
But lets test it so we have more information to work from.
This is not taking into consideration on how it works.
[These are what would happen in general, and not necessary every case]
If an independent artist makes their highest quality works available then people will generally use the original content and the pirate loses out.
Also the quality is not determined by the network as you rightly say. It is determined by the people accessing the contents. If a pirate provides a copy of that original artist then people will learn of the Artists site and use the original in future. This is the customer finding the best quality and not the network.
If there are 2 equal quality works on SAFE and neither is the original artist then one or the other will be used in varying amounts.
If the quality is no good then people wont use it very much at all.
Thus you can see by way of thought experiments that bad quality is poorly used great quality is used a lot
PtP is determined by the use of the content. Please don’t think its based on just uploading it and some how that uploader partakes of PtP. No PtP is based on how many GETs are done on that file.
I have read some of the topic from the top down (although definitely not all of it!) and read something regarding caching; in fact one of my arguments in my long-ish first post included the idea of caching. But maybe I don’t understand it properly.
Could you explain why caching hinders abuse (not just piracy), but doesn’t hinder legitimate uploaders?
(Or is that specifically already explained above and I should just search for it properly? ^^)
Edit: BTW I am also talking about long-term abuse, not just short term gains, if that was unclear. I.e. even small short-term gains can become profitable for a long-term abuser.
But it is true that aspects of farming such as available storage space & bandwidth can be measured properly while PtP/D content quality really can’t, right?
Do you say that this doesn’t make a difference regarding abuse (& payment fairness, if we want to include that kind of argument)?
Yes, thanks, then I do understand it correctly apparently.
Most importantly of all:
As stated in my first post, I am not just talking about piracy.
Can people not be tricked to GET resources by abusers?
Can bots not be used for this?
Can abusers not upload encrypted data as public, then get their payment to the network back via one of the abuse mechanisms over time, thus essentially paying nothing to the network, while also not providing any real public content?
To everyone arguing on the basis of what we believe will happen: nobody can win this argument.
We only need to decide if the idea should be tested, and whether we think it is worth any risk and effort to do so.
This is why I have said many times in this topic that I could be wrong, and because I can’t prove otherwise, and nobody can prove their elaboration… I want us to test these theories.
Please argue for or against trying this out, because I don’t think anyone can make a convincing case for what will actually happen, one way or the other.
7 Likes
I argue very strongly for trying it. 
3 Likes
Libertarians would argue that “clinging to every coin” isn’t about greed, but rather principle. If they gain value from the contribution they can voluntarily reward it.
3 Likes
This is the short sighted part. If you set aside sum X to gain sum Y > X, that is an investment. Which is what I and others have been trying to say.
There is nothing non-libertarian about it. If you (as libertarians) are against the network doing smart things to gain everyone (including yourself), because you want to decide instead of the network, well then we could just as well cancel the whole project. Because it decides a whole lot of things for you.
Sorry, but that angle is a blind alley argument here.
1 Like
I don’t think anyone dislikes the positive intent of the idea (well at least I don’t mind), it’s just that I honestly think the potential for abuse in a real internet-scale network is overwhelming, making the very idea logically flawed and any attempt ultimately pointless.
But of course I wouldn’t mind to be proven wrong here - I have nothing to lose - so go ahead and try it! 
2 Likes
I’m confident because Maidsafe has come up with solutions to all the hard problems faced in replacing and securing the internet so far.
3 Likes
Still Betamax lost to VHS. CD lost to Spotify. People are downloading poor cam movies. Quality is not always king. Accessibility (or perhaps usability. Edit. or conveniance) is. (Not sure of the correct English word to use here.) But, you are correct in that quality is an important factor.
1 Like
Well it seems like it would delay the release of final to implement it on the network side. I think we should first try out just doing paywalls and donation buttons on the site layout side. If this does not prove satisfactory try the PtP approach. Like this is the kind of feature I would say is worth looking into after the MVP perhaps, but might be an unnecessary use of resources in this time we want to get the company to be profitable ASAP, then work on the bells and whistles.
I think donations might actually be more profitable for GOOD CONENT then just being like meh that guy is getting payed by PtP so I will let that handle it. I mean nothing stops both from happening, but I think there will be a psychological barrier to donating if the provider is already automatically getting paid by the network.
5 Likes
It isn’t planned for launch but afterwards, so it won’t cause a delay.
Other methods can be tried, so why not PtP? We won’t know how they compare unless we can try them all.
3 Likes
ok then I would say sure try it. Just don’t think its critical to getting to a MVP. I am all for doing some experiments when we got that breathing room.
3 Likes
If this is a point of contention for anyone, the other app working in conjunction with JAMS I mentioned the other day will be an honest and organic attempt at remedying this. It will make it easy for any listener within JAMS to make the right choice and choose the “quality” content as @neo has suggested and support the original artist whether they come late to the party or not . If PtP can be tested, JAMS will be Exhibit A. We share the same vision as @dirvine here to create a sharing economy and value chains. JAMS is currently being built with this in mind BUT what does need to be considered more is how to prevent rampant abuse of its potential but I think between the community, @maidsafe, and testing we will find a worthy solution!
4 Likes