Poll: Should MaidSafe implement PtP (Pay the Provider)?

Features
557

Na, I’m just a stickler for words. Problematic indicates that there is a problem - as in it breaks something. Whereas “I don’t like it”, just indicates that I personally find it immoral/unreasonable to some degree.

I don’t think there is any 'supposedly about it. It’s not needed for the Safe Network to function.

So if bulls-horns mounted on the hood of a car are unnecessary, then so is the whole car? I’m not getting your thinking process here. You and others may think those bull-horns are needed accoutrements … but …

I realize that’s not a great analogy here (just being a bit sarcastic for fun).

You don’t have to ‘counter’ my personal opinions on the subject. I’m not positing much at all in the way of technical issues with PtP. I’m just stating my personal preferences. If I were arguing technical points in response to an RFC that gives some technical details, then by all means … have at me! … but as it stands, what I’ve posited is just ‘ma feels’! … which is why I wrote above:

I don’t think there is anything to debate about monetary inflation either. Farming increases monetary inflation in the network, so does PtP. One is clearly more necessary than the other for the network to exist. But again, I’m not claiming that this is some existential crisis for the network - I’m just morally opposed to this sort of add-on.

I am pragmatic though and if we do end up with it, so be it, I’ll take full advantage.

cheers :wink:

1 Like
558

All right, stickler for words. I’ll take you up on that one then:

Problematic sure indicates that there is a problem. However, as in causing unwanted effects, I would say is more accurate than “breaking something”, which would just be a subset of “unwanted effects”.
Immoral and unreasonable things are things I assume you don’t want. So, unwanted effects, i.e. problematic.

Immoral and unreasonable are two very different things. The first would have to founded in “proof” that it actually causes unwanted effects (as with everything, ‘unwanted’ would ultimately be judged by how it benefits network and humanity) with regard to the SAFENetwork ethos I think. Other references to morality are per se excluded from SAFENetwork scope I would think.
But yeah, sure you are free to express that as well. Maybe we can then at this point conclude it is not relevant for the PtP implementation though? (Unless specifically related to SAFENetwork ethos)
Edit: Because including all references to morality opens a can of worms, you know the whole discussion about illegal content on the network etc… I might be missing some loop hole in that depiction, I’m open to hearing it.

The other thing (“unreasonable”) is very tightly related to objective facts. That word indicates it has to do with reason about the effects. That is regardless wether it is “personally” or not. Could well be others agreeing, so that is the only alternative to “personally”. Since you brought it up, most sane thing for someone about to research PtP would be to ensure it doesn’t actually cause real problems. That’s why you get answers to the things you say here.

You missed the point. As you yourself say “if … are unnecessary”. Which is what I said. KISS applies IF it is unnecessary. And then I continued with dissemination of why it would be unnecessary (which you by the way did not respond to, instead of these other things you wrote). Quite clear, no? :smiling_face:

It doesn’t matter to me who’s opinion it is. If it has any relevance to the PtP implementation it needs to be addressed. That is the real work of testing the idea. So I am trying to find wether or not objections to the idea has relevance. You put something there, so it does get included in the work. Doesn’t matter if you then say it is not relevant, unless it’s agreed that it isn’t :smiling_face:

Edit2:

Me at least did not debate the inflationary effect itself. Don’t think @neo did either.
But if you isolate that effect only, without considering additional effects of the PtP feature (network growth, content growth, use case growth Safecoin value increase) then, that is a bit of a half baked argument, wouldn’t you say?
Or you would need to show (just as the opposite needs to be shown) that this network growth and resulting Safecoin value increase would not happen. To me it seems like a quite solid chain of deductions though? (Anyone up for refuting it?)

Yeah, and if you are withholding information on how it could be abused, so that you can exploit that if it gets implemented (which you alluded to before, and kind of again here?), instead of trying to secure the feature, then I would consider that quite blatantly immoral. So, if we’re talking immoral, then it seems a bit contradictory to me.

559

Linking to an example specific instance of this issue.

2 Likes
560

This is understood. I said that tipping was optional. If they have no balance, they give no tips. If they have a balance, they can tip.

I am not sure where your dispute is here?

I am replying on my phone, so forgive me If I am brief.

Yes, a large portion of untargeted income does not go to uploader. However, a smaller portion (those able to tip) will give targeted payments for content they value.

I do not think they are mutually exclusive and I don’t know how you have reached that conclusion. To reiterate, I said that I would rather the limited resource was used on developing tipping.

I also said that I thought ptp/ptd was potentially damaging to the network, making its inclusion undesirable irrespective of resource availability. This is my primary concern, which I have already outlined.

561

I hear a lot of people saying that they’ll take advantage of PtP if implemented and that’s exactly why it should be, because it’s advantageous.

  • It is incentive to upload good and quality content to the network. This will increase adoption massively and cause others to create ways of porting data from legacy net to SAFE
  • Competitive because if you supply the network with garbage you may have wasted your safecoin on PUTs no one will care to GET
  • Potential to earn network wide, so if something is shared across the network on any/all competing platforms you earn! Up to a point (opportunistic caching)
  • There will be some inflation but it doesn’t increase coin supply and the coin earned will be spent and recycled. Not all inflation is inherently bad, this currency is capped and backed by the worlds data. It’s not the US dollar.
  • It fits beautifully into empowering the little guys when apps are built to support it, imo

These might not be highly technical arguments but they are pretty damn fundamental.

5 Likes
562

We can all think of ways to combat abuse and I am sure many a smart mind will be pitched against their adversaries trying to thwart their scheming.

Is this feature really needed so much that the risk to the network is acceptable? I would say no. I suspect the network will be abused in an attempt to game it and the quality of content will actually decrease as the search for clicks becomes a priority.

I believe there are better options, such as micro tipping, which both avoid adverts and ptp style solutions. Payments/tips will be a low overhead on the network and will encourage content worth paying for.

563

Just place a single bit in the file metadata that upon selection for a farming reward, it gets flipped marking the file/block as ‘rewarded’. The reward is the current PUT cost (which apparently is now some small amount of SafeCoin).

If the bit is flipped, there is no reward. Thus, popular producers, over time, will have their total upload cost for their content approach $0 as their content continues to be randomly rewarded. Thus, there is no real incentive to try to game the system, as there is no profit to be had (and likely some small amount of loss as PUT cost will trend down), but popular producers can maintain a near 0 cost platform.

1 Like
565

Heh, I don’t get what the optional has to do with it. GETs being free is to allow large portion of world to access data and knowledge, without having any funds.
You say

If they have no balance, they give no tips

No, not only “they give no tips”, it’s not optional, it means they can not give tips.
Do you mean to say that their lack of funds is optional? That must be some sort of super neo-liberal stance then, every person’s situation is 100% optional and self inflicted. I get where you are then.
Anyway, what I say, regardless of that, is that it could very well be a large portion of potential income for a producer.
When people use network for free (since it is free), the only mechanism at play which demonstrates support, is the actual popularity of the content (meaning many GETs).
I agree it is not as direct as tips, but the two of them acting together means both spectrums can be covered. So, does it has to be as direct as tips to be justified for existence? When multiple co-mechanisms can exist, do we have to discard all but the single most optimal one?

OK, I begin to see that you are saying; that GETs resulting from popularity can not be considered an expression of valuation of the content? That doesn’t seem logical to me though. I mean, I do see how GETs can amass even when users do not value the content, nonetheless GETs resulting from popularity would very much indicate that the visitors value the content. Could you explain how that would not be?
You call it untargeted, and well that’s one way to see it. It is for sure less targeted than a tip. But people consciously accessing data, is also a targeted action, signalling interest in the data. A bit less targeted than a tip, sure, but not entirely untargeted only because of that.

OK. It’s the word rather that you used then, and now again. I interpret that word as wishing for one thing instead of the other.
That’s not what you mean?
And then

I would rather the limited resource was used on developing tipping.

Limited resources could mean many things here. It’s of course always limited, but I read this as if you consider current tight budget situation to be perpetual?
As network is released I see a lot more resources available to MaidSafe, both before and after tipping has been implemented. That seams reasonable to me, if we assume the network is a success, don’t you agree?

It’s why I said that after tipping is brilliantly implemented (which only takes so much time), then there’s like rest of eternity to spend on PtP. Which of course also only takes so much time.

So, in case you do not use “rather” to say “instead of”, then we are in apparent agreement that these mechanisms are complementary and can co-exist?

OK sorry, I must have missed the backing argument for it then. But OK, let’s head to that. Why is it potentially damaging you say?

1 Like
566

Yes, true but this can be addressed on the app level to an extent. Most probably won’t do that right away but we will present options in hopes that the user makes the easy and correct choice.

I would hope that only Public Data would have to pay that “premium” and not Private or Unpunlished Data. That said, everything uploaded has potential. Why upload anything publicly if it isn’t to be consumed and provide value or entertainment to someone? If it was worthless data anyways then you already wasted your PUTs, sorry I guess?

567

Well, the rationale goes like this:
We are not in a position to be picky with users, that would be arrogant and could risk the adoption needed. So we must make sure that we can attract users in any way possible (within reasonable limits of course).
If PtP actually is an incentive for people to upload data, increasing demand for storage and attracting more farmers, more users, and growing the network - then YES, it is necessary.
We cannot afford to be picky with users. We need them all.

Then you talk about the risk to the network. Well, to answer that question, we must know what this risk actually consists of. That’s why I’m being on to everyone here about detailing their concerns and defending it with proper arguments. That’s the work of testing the idea. The more work we do, the less it should be for MaidSafe to do.

And then the attempt to abuse and game it. Yes for sure, if it’s possible it will happen. So, what we can do is try to find out how, and how it can be prevented. So, me and @torss were talking about one way, requiring a very sofisticated software. @Antifragile is saying audience whales will profit off of producers, at their cost.
Any other ways?

Now we have this “better options”, kind of on the “I rather” theme. If I also say that yes, tipping is better (at some things), but that it is irrelevant to the be-or-not-to-be question of PtP, because it stands on its own merits, what do you say then?
They work in different ways, complementary spectrums.

Is the last part there meant to say that PtP will give overhead that is not insignificant? And that it will not encourage content worth paying for? Or do you rather mean that it will also encourage content that is not worth paying for? (Those two are not the same thing, they are not mutually exclusive).
It’s a start for sure, but I don’t see it as enough backed up by substance. That it would not encourage uploading content worth paying for I think is actually completely unfounded. If we assume content worth paying for is attractive, and attractive content gets GETs, then it gets rewarded and hence is encouraged.
@Antifragile is making a good case for the likelihood of audience whales profiting off others’ quality content. But, while I don’t claim it is not so, I don’t see that it naturally implies that the content creators themselves are not also rewarded at the same time. So, it seems to me like they could still be profiting. It’s not apparent to me that it would be a zero sum game.

568

They can still get the data for free too. This is how tips work - they are not required to access the data.

It isn’t about it being possible to give tips, it is about it not being a requirement to access the data. If they give no tip, they can still access the content. It is a voluntary donation. You give what you can afford to spare for what you think deserves it.

If I felt like only valued content producers would get rewarded by ptp, they I may be encouraged to support it. However, I do not believe this will be the case.

  1. Click bait has little value, yet it will be rewarded.
  2. Any content which claims to be something I value, but reveals itself not to be, will be rewarded.
  3. Background GETs will give me no value, but the owner will be rewarded.
  4. Uploader may be nothing to do with production of content, but still gets rewarded.

Value cannot be summised by someone prior to seeing the content.

“I would rather” is articulating my preference for other options to be explorer prior to this one be considered. Tipping would be more of a priority for me.

There have been plenty of arguments on this thread over the years and many over the last few days.

1 Like
569

I think I agree with @Traktion that tipping would really only reward value whereas PtP could reward some scammy stuff (along with the stuff that does actually have value.) When I go on youtube I don’t assume content is good just because it has a high number of views. In fact many of those are just clickbait and not very good. I can’t really tell you if its a good video or not until I watch it and then I give a like or subscribe to their channel if it’s really good. I guess with PtP more of the reward would be focused on the value by doing something like subscribing. Like I really enjoyed this one bit of content so I will now check out more of what you have to offer. Donating doesn’t pay for anything up front though, so it’s not like they get rewarded just cause I try them out.

How about this addition to PtP… there is a like button you can either press or not press after viewing the content and the reward is based on number of likes not number of views. And ya this is where @neo chimes in and says so we just PtD for apps but not content providers? Actually I would say it’s better if developers also only get paid if people confirm they like the app after having a chance to use it.

570

If something like that was implemented,then maybe it should also be scaled by number of views. One items could have 100 likes and 100 000 views, while another item has 100 likes with 90 views. The first one with few likes and lots of views is likely to be low quality, click bait or something similar.

2 Likes
571

ya I would agree with something like reward=likes * views. Maybe with some additional math in there were it scales up even more with bigger numbers. maybe we need another variable of “dislikes” that somewhat cancel out likes to, so like you said if 100k ppl watch your video and only 100 liked it… I am sure more then 100 disliked it :stuck_out_tongue: You really need to have a good number of both before I think ok that was something special that should really get lots of reward.

1 Like
572

Since a like would mean you need to write some data, you are actually paying a small amount. So it’s basically a kind of microtipping then.

3 Likes
573

haha a fair point. Ok so if you have absolutely no safecoin all you can at least contribute is views. That is still going to generate income but only on the condition that the “jury” of people that can afford to do likes also confirms this is good quality and not clickbait. I am saying make both likes and views a factor in determining the rewards. Think of a like as opening a door. Now more people can walk though and we will reward based on how many people we find on the other side. The more open the door is the more opportunity there is to find people on the other side but they still have to choose to go though also.

2 Likes
575

This brings back memories of this post I made a while ago Who pays for high demand data?

Even without PtP I don’t think every PUT is going to be getting equal value for their safecoin. Some will just be higher demand then others and cost network resources. The vibe I got in that thread is we aren’t going to really worry about sally got more then tom and just focus on if tom is happy with what he got before looking over at sally.

576

Without getting political it’s interesting that you have that perspective. I’m still highly in favor of testing it out in a test environment and seeing what happens. Respect your opinion though. As far as testing goes we have nothing to lose and if it doesn’t work there are other options even if they might not be a first pick.

2 Likes
578

We must be talking completely across eachother. I don’t see at all how this is relevant to the PtP discussion, let alone an argument against it.

Yep, so, the possibility for illegitimate gains and encouragement of wasteful/useless/deceitful stuff is what makes you go no.
I’m going to be a bit pain in the ass still:
Are you an absolutist, or is there a certain percent slippage that can be tolerated?
I myself wouldn’t think there’s enough data to know where the “break even” is.

OK, that was… a bit short. You still on your mobile? :smile:

Haha this makes me smile. I don’t say it’s not true, I just enjoy that view and expression.
To me, those things are not really socialistic, it’s a bit like calling the ventilation system in the car socialistic because it distributes the cool air to all passengers. Yeah, sure it does. But… you know :smile:

@andyypants and @intrz, now we’re talking, some ideas!
So, that is an interesting way to try to utilize the microtipping as an indicator of what is appreciated content, and thereby allowing that complementary mechanism to be used while (to some extent) avoiding illegitimate rewards.
It’s worth looking into more I would say…

3 Likes
580

And you know, already before I thought this is interesting because I don’t think it applies to PtP only.
I mean, we have not reached the end of times now. There will come plenty of new ideas and inventions. But the problem with knowing if and how they will work in SAFENetwork, will many times be equally hard as it would with PtP.
So, that is actually something to consider. How many things will we not end up doing because we will not be able to evaluate, or how many disasters will we roll out for the same reason?

So, makes me think there needs to be some quite large scale voluntary data sharing for the purpose of evaluation of such things (for example, or some other thing). I don’t know if that has been up for discussion before?

2 Likes