In the future data access could be controlled by a smartcontract with any terms. Sounds like a higher-layer problem to me. Please no feature bloat.
Unless it e.g. requires some kind of atomic operation on the data perhaps such as reencryption with s new key after every GET.
1 Like
One way to look at this might be a spectrum. On one side we have more GETs cost more network resources so maybe the content provider should have to pay extra for that and find a way to make up the income with advertising or donations or whatever. Middle ground is everything is neutral: No extra cost for more GETs but no direct benefit to the uploader. To me this sounds like maybe the far other end of the spectrum. Now we are going to pay an uploader if their data does receive lots of GETs. I am not sure where I stand in this but just wanted to point out that this spectrum exists.
1 Like
Agreed, it is complex so we need to think, discuss, test and review.
1 Like
The problem is that there are a lot of assumptions in recent posts in this thread about how the basic network economic model works that are completely incorrect. Those who are unclear on the details should review some of neoâs comments and other threads related to put cost and get reward rates.
Like what? I think most people understand the current proposal is a set PUT cost and then GETs are âfreeâ (at least on the consumer side, farmers get paid per GET still) but there is not payment if your data receives lots of GETs. This proposal is that there is a set PUT cost but you can make money the more GETs your data receives.
It hinders both, but to different extents.
Lets say you have a botnet to game a piece of your content. Very quickly the paths to each of those (10K, 50K, ?) computers will be caching the content
Now lets say legit content is widely read by 200K or more, which roughly equals your bot of 20K computers, they will be from a global audience so maybe 10% of accesses come from cache.
The point is that while my example may not be perfect you should see that a botnet can only access the content from limited paths due to using the same set of computers over and over again, but the legit content will be from random locations and the caching is less effective
Again I ask What do people think an abuser will earn???
- they have to pay in $$$ or resources to have a botnet of even 1K computers
- BOTnets only last typically 2 days max
- short or long term caching will get to be more effective over time
- the abuser has to upload the content first and if it takes 6 or 12 months to get equivalent amount of coin back then is it worth all the other costs to do this??? And caching may cause more than 12 months
- What cost is there to set up a or buy a botnet of even 1K every 2 to 3 days?
- this does not make sense.
You missed the point.
The farmer determines the addresses of the chunks in their vault (by luck or trial and error) and then sets up a botnet to access those chunks thus earning them more. This is actually 10 times more profitable than any PtP abuse.
So lets get rid of farming rewards FIRST
What everyone says âBut then no farmers will farm except a fewâ
Well less us be 10 times LESS effective and get rid of PtD
What everyone says âBut then no application developers will make APPS except a fewâ
Well less us be 10 times LESS effective than getting rid of farming rewards and get rid of PtP
What the innovators say âBut then nobody will be interested in the SAFE network because its all on the clearnet except a few bits of worthwhile contentâ
We need to test this otherwise we cannot determine the real flaws and benefits. But the real benefits is lot faster adoption and more coin for the farmers
Testing will not determine everything but it will assist. Many of the attacks are the same as for the other rewards so if they are actually viable attacks then we need to address the attacks or give up any of the three rewards.
But knee jerk reactions that sees âOh people will get something for nothingâ OR âItâll make my safecoin worth less in the marketâ OR "Iâll earn less SAFEcoin" are all in my opinion, for reasons given above are based on fear and cannot be supported until it is tested. Remember that PtD and PtP are TEN Times less than any farming rewards for a particular file they relate to. And both encourage more uploading thus more opportunity to earn through farming. SAFEcoin will never run out under this operation since rewarding encourages use of the network which is due to people uploading
Without the PtD & PtP rewards there might be 1PB of content in 5 years to attract users. That is less than 0.01% of the current internet and we can expect similar percent of current internet users to even look at safe for 1 hour.
With PtD and PtP we have opportunity of killer APPs being developed which take time and money to produce and have quality content uploaded to SAFE. And this potential could attract 25% or more of the current internet users to look at SAFE for 1 hour in the first year. And the retention rate would be order of magnitude higher as well than without PtD & PtP.
So for those who are focused on safecoin gathering then having rewards will gain you more value in $$$ and safecoin than by not having them.
And we could have a system of phasing out PtP if it is no longer beneficial
Then as I showed above we need to get rid of all rewards, especially farming rewards since they can be abused 10 times more by the methods that can be used against content or Apps.
BIG Business determined these. SAFE is not those big businesses so poor comparisons
The code is actually there since it is basically adding a test in the GET procedure and the marking of private files is the same method that would be used for PtD and PtP and can be introduced in Beta code
It was a core feature till people got scared of abuse and is only a few lines of function calls.
We need to Test and Review
7 Likes
This topic discussed here is interesting but I wonder why the question asked here is not: What kind of primitive functions or hooks, a minimal set, could be needed to enable solving complex problems using Safe network? To support efficient implementation of for instance PtP.
I think that a SAFE Network that will serve as a unique foundation on which we can build higher level features will make a chance to exist perpetually. A SAFE network that feels like a single distributed app itself, probably not.
If this forum had a category âcore featuresâ besides to the current âfeaturesâ I would not have made this comment. Or is the âcore featuresâ the realm of the dev forum?
well yes this is a spectrum but if you zoom in the view even this side of it has itâs extremes. PtP could be a very high reward, which might encourage more people to upload content, but which might make abuse economical. I think what you are proposing is a low enough one that fake traffic does not profit. But then is it high enough to encourage me to put good content that maybe wonât be hugely viral? I mean some people will like dwarf porn but is it enough? I still think a donation button is the best way to encourage good content because humans will verify if this is value or not so the reward can be much higher per use.
1 Like
No its a 1/10 of farming rewards and the same attacks can used against farming rewards too. So I donât know where this "very high reward" comes from. Its more an assistance to attract high quality content creators and not to pay a 100K a year wage or any thing like that, its 1/10 of farming and only if its really good content will they be making anything. Breaking even will not be that easy.
The methods to attack PtD & PtP can be used against farming rewards too and I do not see anyone complaining about those. Could it people donât see themselves as being able to benefit from PtD & PtP rewards so they donât want them. (Because they feel itâll reduce their farming rewards)
3 Likes
just saying there is a slider of how much reward to give with PtP. Too high and attacks become economical. Too low and there is not enough incentive to upload content that wonât pass a certain threshold of virality
2 Likes
Thank you, now (I think ^^) I finally understand why you previously said farming could be abused to an even more severe degree. So then this is all far worse than I thought?! 
I just still canât see how these kind of GET rewards arenât a horrendous issue, becauseâŚ
âŚthis assumes that abuse would actually need a typical botnet, but what if e.g. simply a sufficient number of people collaborate to abuse the system?
That wouldnât have any of your listed hurdles. Itâs not illegal and the abuse-collaboration-setup could even be automated, so this attack vector seems to be very plausible.
Regarding âWhat do people think an abuser will earn???â:
Abusers could at the very least try to long-term neutralize their PUT costs by gaining currency without providing any benefit to the rest of the network (i.e. everyone outside their group).
Then this would be a fundamental problem for the entire network since it does very much rely on fair PUT compensation - if Iâm not mistaken again?
Ah, the potential is there alright. But until there has been attempts to solve it, concluding that it is not feasible or too hard to solve with current resources, it is just another solvable problem. Thatâs how I look at such things 
Thereâs no giving up on such things before. Do you think they would have tried to create âthe impossible networkâ (SAFENetwork) otherwise? 
There is a huge difference in the stance taken from the two sides here:
- One says âletâs research how this can be designed to work, we donât know all the problems before doing the work, but neither do we know of the solutions to potential problems before it.â
- The other says âitâs impossible. Neither me nor anyone else has done the work of finding all problems or solutions, but I have this initial hunch, so everyone listen to me and stop working on this because I know.â
They are very different because one stance is open to whatever is actually found after researching it. The other is convinced it is impossible, without having actually put in the necessary work to be able to reach such conclusion.
5 Likes
Not really because if caching is working then even that attack is minimised and turns into something people might try but there is no real motivation since the resources used outweigh any gain. This was one of the most popular attacks discussed in this forum and the result is caching seems to be a reasonable effective solution so let test the shit out of it and see if we were right.
2 Likes
Iâve not speculated on this particular aspect before ⌠IMO the individual upload reward may not be high, but the ROI looks really good on the face of it, as compared to farming - particularly if you have the money to market your uploads and drive traffic. So perhaps this is what people are considering as being a high reward - a high ROI (return on investment).
Iâd like to see how that staement is justified. Spending $$$ to make pennies is not great ROI sounds rather negative to me.
1 Like
As said before I donât mind that this stuff is going to be tried out, Iâm not even involved in the actual work after all. Itâs just that I personally canât see a way around my stated arguments that would allow the GET rewards as described so far to work without glaring logical issues; i.e. I would like to know what I am missing if I am wrong.
Of course itâs fine too if no one is willing to waste further time trying to explain to me how my kind of argumentation is wrong, I could understand that. AnywayâŚ
âŚI still donât get this; if caching minimizes the attacks, does it not equally minimize genuine usage?
But that canât be right, obviously it must not be allowed to minimize genuine usage to a degree to make genuine usage worthless.
But then that also canât be right, because if genuine usage is rewarded by a noticeable amount, then automated abuse could easily be equally worthwhile (as stated in my previous post a botnet isnât needed, or can someone perhaps counter that argument too?).
One way or the other there is a problem, if these statements are true.
Anyway, I will probably shut up about all of this now and take your word that it might possibly workâŚalthough I still would welcome further explanations & counter-arguments to mine of course! 
Micro tips should be free and trivial with SAFECoin, according to the latest RFC (RFC 57: Safecoin Revised).
Surely throwing pennies or less at something decent, at the click of a button or two, better rewards good content?
I am not a fan of engineering complex solutions, which may not even hit the target. I understand why people want this to work, but it seems open to abuse and of limited value when compared to the alternative.
5 Likes
Answered you before, and plenty of repeats in previous 500 odd posts (whew a lot)
The legit accesses come in randomly over location and time. Caching is not kept forever, but more frequent the more caching done. Slow attacks give virtually no returns since keeping a bot costs time/resources and/or money
Until you are willing to put some figures to the situation and see for yourself the lack of returns and thus incentive of these attacks you can keep thinking they will be quite significant.
Do the sums and it ends up being a losing game
- Itâs a smaller amount of $$'s per upload - by far
- no hardware maintenance costs - just some level of marketing costs and those arenât mandatory.
- Once itâs up is ongoing residual income for as long as itâs popular - so honestly difficult to quantify final returns.
I suppose itâs a matter of perspective and we wonât know for certain until we have it and are using it.
1 Like
And lots of promotion costs you left that out of it