yes I think we have toughly flogged this dead horse of a debate between donations vs PtP… now lets come together and see if there is a way to get the merits of both sides. I don’t think just being like there is PtP and there is donations and they act in separate silos is the way though. If there is PtP I am only going to donate for exceptional content and just figure anyone else is still getting the PtP reward. Now if donation is the gatekeeper to getting a PtP reward I would hit that like button and spend a small amount doing so much more often (like any time I enjoyed it at all and didn’t feel scammed.)
It is relevant as Ptp is pitched as helping to fund content creators. I’m suggesting tipping will do a better job of this and will be less dangerous for the network.
I just don’t think it will sufficiently reward content creators relative to those who will seek to abuse the system.
The truth is, just because someone accesses some data, it does not mean they value it. Incentivising quantity of hits over quality of content, with the hope of some quality getting caught in that net, just seems flawed.
Moreover, if we pitch quantity as a reward, you can bet your life that adversaries will try to profit from it. This will form another attack vector and even caching has its limits - any chink in the armour will be mercilessly exploited. Is that a fight really worth having? I say no.
Bingo! It may be short, but I don’t have the inclination to sift through the thread and repeat it again.
If you are convinced that countermeasures will thwart any abuse, that’s great. I have strong doubts.
2 Likes
To me this reads like “I think the right shoe does a better job than the left shoe”. When to me, they are both needed to keep both right and left foot dry. Even if you happen to have an odd pair, where one has better ergonomics than the other 
. Well, what ever, we’ll leave that alone.
To me it’s never been a ‘vs’. These are not mutually exclusive mechanisms, on the contrary they cover different spectra. And additionally, as has been mentioned, could be combined to mitigate abuse.
I’m trying to go a bit deeper than just “I think” here. You know, lead stuff into evidence, or just dig as far as can be dug. I’m not much for just taking stuff at face value. But OK.
I don’t see that anyone is saying that. But rather that among those that do access, there could be plenty enough as to be able to use it as an indicator for valuing it.
Where we differ here is that I am trying to find out more about this. You seem to say “nah, not possible, not worth it”.
Hm 
, I think you missed a lot of what I was writing. I’m not convinced of very much I think (a few things though, on a more abstract level, not related to this topic 
)
I’m looking at finding out exactly what concerns people have, and see what of it is well founded. Hard to device any counter measures without it.
The really horrible arguments so far against it, have been that it feels immoral and unreasonable, that some other mechanism will do a better job, that it’s a socialistic bad idea destined to fail.
Then a couple of better ones (some with unrefuted counters still lingering):
- With a sophisticated decentralised overlay network it could potentially be gamed.
- Audience whales are already making profit in that way (but do they really steal that profit from the producers or would they be benefited as well, or at least status quo? No more reasoning provided on that yet.)
- Click baiting exists today, and it is assumed it would exist then as well thus supporting unwanted content and actions. (Microtipping as an indicator for GET count validity was suggested, and IMO that could absolutely have the effect of correctly allocating the GET rewards).
- Knowing that PtP exists could have adversary effect on people’s willingness to tip (I suggested there’s probably only psychological research to go to for verifying that, so that was a bit of a challenge. As I said, I’m looking to go a bit deeper than just “I think” here.)
Of your own four points, 1. and 2. are really the same (and included above).
Nr 4. Would be necessary since not all producers are alive to upload. Other than that it goes into audience whale argument, which is also mentioned above.
Leaves us with nr 3.
- Background GETs does seem like a way some extra GETs could be siphoned. But now we’re talking sites that would get quite low reputation.
So, this here would be parameters to take into account when starting the real job of designing the solution. It’s kind of a brute spec of things that must be avoided.
4 Likes
I think the psychological research on this is worth looking into I haven’t had much luck digging up a study on if PtP influences peoples willingness to donate. I think there might be though. I am just struggling with what concept to call PtP in my search since that’s pretty much a term we just made up here lol. Will keep looking at report back if I find anything.
Phew, today was a ‘hard day at work’ on safenetforum.org 
@happybeing, I absolutely did not stick to what we were saying in the dev forum, on focusing on what’s important for release and adoption 
Nonetheless, quite fun, and not entirely useless IMO.
Hey, cool 
So, I would imagine like studies on gaming theory, cooperation, altruism things like that. It’s not my area so those are probably still way too general. I think someone in that area would be able to associate the phenomenon to relevant sociological studies.
3 Likes
I took 4 years of psychology and I still can’t think of a concept that is exactly like PtP. Yes there are some that intersect but don’t capture it exactly. There might be info for us there but I warn you now I know there will be reasons it might not represent our situation because it is not exactly the same variable
1 Like
There’s always a gap between intent and action because we are more than our thoughts. My gap in that is enormous, and I’m not exaggerating 
3 Likes
Yes, and this whole scheme is impossible to predict - the network I mean - so we should plan, test, review etc
We’re very privileged to be in at this point of something like this. I’ve enjoyed watching this discussion because it has demonstrated, like many before it the qualities of this community and the values we share, even though we often have very different perspectives and motivation.
3 Likes
how about this one The role of diffusion of responsibility, responsibility, and attitude in willingness to donate to a world hunger-related charity - International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing It says there is no difference if you are in the group or alone which seems to contradict my theory that diffusion of responsibility would reduce willingness to donate. It does however say that individual attitudes about if this WAS their personal responsibility or not did impact willingness to donate.
2 Likes
Interesting. It’s quite near. Initially I’m thinking that donating to world hunger related charity, could be quite differently perceived, compared to tipping for a performed service (blog article, music, art, instructional video, code).
But tipping and PtP would span all that as well as any charity stuff. I just think charity is a bit of a niche thing.
Anyway, that’s still pretty darn close of a subject. I think there’s tonnes of research like this.
1 Like
there are certainly lots where being in a group or not being in a group is a variable they study. This is the closest thing to our new concept of PtP IMO. Maybe I should look for other contexts where its more just about something nominal like should I push the lever harder harder if we are trying to get the group to reach a certain total force? I don’t know that’s not exactly it either. I agree we need to look at something more akin to “liking” something online. Maybe there is one of exactly that. Not finding anything right at the top of the stack. Will dig deeper tonight. help me out by thinking of synonyms of “liking something online”
I don’t believe in absolute or objective morality. To me it’s relative to the observer. So what you maybe finding immoral … I might find to be perfectly moral. And vice-versa.
The problem with the logic used by the PtP naysayers is that they are thinking about it from the wrong perspective. PtP is not intended to benefit the producer, that is only a side effect. The purpose is to grow the network. You need to think of it from Safe’s perspective not a human one. Neo and Nigel have given you the details already. It is no more or less gamable than farming. It is not inflationary (growth and inflationary are not the same thing), it is not political. It is an objective tool to help the network grow, which is the only way it will be able to keep the data safe and secure. Growth is key.
The app developers provide the tools for data producers to utilize the farmers which provide resources to Safe so it can serve the clients. Safe is managing everything and needs ways to reward all players in order to achieve it’s own goals as an autonomous agent, which are maximum data security etc at minimum cost.
PtF for Farmers, PtD for Devs, and PtP for Producers. The Clients are rewarded with free gets that are safe and secure etc. Let’s call that PtC for fun. All of these roles are required to maximize the growth of Safe at minimum cost.
As far as tipping goes based on subjective human measures of quality content… that is a separate issue and Safe doesn’t care unless it helps maximize growth and minimize cost, which as a feature it probably would.
3 Likes
Deduped and the originator gets all the PtP rewards. Not bad, really.
If not deduped because they are not clones then nobody gets much do they since there are so many of them out there, one per person and thus few clicks per individual ones. They all lose money since they paid much more to PUT that content back up whether it is a duplicate and deduped or changed.
Then we had better get rid of any rewards because they will cause your MAID converterd to safecoin to have less value. So no farming rewards either since that does the same. Oh you say the network will not work? Well without content the network does not work.
Farming, PtD & PtP are like the 3 points on the triangle that will make SAFE desirable to the masses. Take one away and the desirability drops significantly. We need all three components to make a balanced network. Farming-Applications-Content.
Without all three then your coins will lose value compared to having all three.
Do you let your house go unrepaired because that will be reducing your holdings? No you repair the house so when it sells it will be desirable to more people. Same with PtD & PtP, and farming rewards, they make the network more desirable and people more willing to spend money to put their data/comments/etc up on the network
I get the feeling that some don’t like it for “reasons” and ignore the ability for it to work and keep repeating the same things over and over again. For the following quote as an example of what I am saying this rings true for those against the PtD, PtP and farming rewards
Additionally @oetyng most arguments against PtD and PtP are equally applicable to farming rewards, since the supposed inflation and abuse it WILL receive allpy equally to farming rewards. Money from nowhere, able to be abused, inflation, etc Apply to ALL rewards.
I love the money/coin from nowhere one will cause inflation and is a TAX. That has to ignore all the benefits that it gets and using the logic then BTC would be worth even less than 10000 btc per pizza with all the new btc coins
Content is an absolute necessity and a tiny enticement does wonders to get content creators to put their content up and does wonders for application develops to create that killer app and for people to donate some spare space all for small amounts of rewards. I doubt farming rewards will allow people to make a business out of farming, but it will make some for the home user.
Let test it and see if anyone one of us is even close to being right.
And I have not heard an argument against any of the rewards that does not apply to all three farming/PtD/PtP rewards fairly equally. maybe a variation but still the same attack/abuse/negativity
BS - All the rewards create more buying of resources and far exceeds any need to make a specific charge for them. According to the papers, it’d be 15-20 years before you would even think of needing to add a percentage if those rewards created ZERO extra spending on the network.
Your suggestion is on the same level as the idea a manufacturer increasing price because they are selling less. No - the rewards come from reserves and they create more desirability of the network and thus more uploads increasing the reserves many times more than charging 10% more. And your 10% is way off too. Its only content that is public and been tagged for PtP so more like 2 or so% anyhow. Hell I would be willing to pay that extra if it meant my farm was earning many times more coin because of the increased use of the network.
And tipping still rewards the pirate and copycat as well. Just the same as PtP does since the user is not going to track down the original uploader of the cat video. Now PtP will reward the original uploader since the copies uploaded and paid for will be deduped and original provider receives PtP since the original upload has the PtP reward tagged.
And you learnt caching helps fix that, oh I see …
And answered,
Actually its capitalism through and through. It is the network paying for content, the same as he would pay for a paint job if he wanted his house to look desirable and salable
Donations have one negative and that the copycat of good content is more likely to be receive coins. Dedup robs copycats of PtP rewards. Actually donations makes it desirable to copycat everywhere since the copycat will receive something
EXACTLY
And David thought up Pay the Provider along with safecoin as the 3rd side to the triangle that makes the network desirable. It is the network that is paying, not you, not me, and it pays from its reserves (same as for farming) and intended to increase usage of the network which translates to more spending on resources and bringing coin back to the network.
Does anyone go to a cafe??? what does the cafe owner do to attract people and thus increase sales and profits. They SPEND MONEY on things to improve the look and create atmosphere and this reduces the profit from each cup of coffee. But guess what he sell way more cups of coffee and profits more. So yes if you were one of the suppliers of the cups of coffee (farmer) then you may get less per cup, but you are supplying what 5 or 10 times the cups. Now with crypto we see that as demand increases so does the price of each coin so win-win.
Oh and that cafe owner paid the labourers, content creators (artists making the drawings/paintings/prints/flowers&plant arrangements/designer furniture/etc) this is akin to developers and content providers. So is that taxing the coffee drinker, nope - its cost to supply coffee tempered by what other cafes charge. And all capitalism.
5 Likes
maybe the computer is a better leader then humans. there is good agument AI would make a much better leader then say Donald trumnp lol. I still think if humans judged content the average of confirming good content would be higher then an algorthim. not to say people might not confirm something that is not good to me but is to them. but who am I to say my idea of “good” is better then yours?
wow, @neo, I’ve come to expect better from you. you know that a lack of PtP doesn’t imply no content - many ways to skin that cat besides PtP
No reason to go this far to push your fav. candy in the shop. I’ve repeatedly said that even though I don’t personally like PtP, I’m effectively neutral on it.
Actually I was rather dismayed at your response
If you did not take the statement out of context then you would see what i was trying to say and point out. Expanding the quote you get "So no farming rewards either since that does the same. Oh you say the network will not work? Well without content the network does not work." and context is a response to the query without farming rewards the network will not work?
So from the context you clearly see that I was NOT saying without PtP the network will not work. But rather saying without content then the network does not work since there is nothing to retrieve. The idea that was being presented throughout the post is that PtP is to entice content and we know how needed content is.
the 3 sides of the triangle is what is required for the network to work, lose one and you do not have a viable network.
- Farming, without rewards there would still be some farming
- PtD, without rewards there would still be some apps built
- PtP , without rewards there would still be some content.
But how long or what quality is the network going to be in a couple of years without the enticement for people to farm, to create APPs and to provide content? That was the point and your objections actually caused a disconnect and saw me as being unethical and just pushing the barrow too far
Hold on, I don’t think that is true.
Farming can be measured objectively, as in bytes stored and then retrieved promptly on request. There is no ambiguity of the value they provide and it can therefore be priced effectively.
PtD and PtP are orthogonal to this goal. They may increase the amount of data stored on the network, but they may also cause the network to be abused (like a piñata). Whether they encourage content creation or value is debatable. Value cannot be measured objectively, so it is never certain that the content is providing value instead of just work for the farmers.
If work for the farmers is the goal, then it sounds like the broken windows fallacy and would become a drag on the network, rather than supporting it.
I like the idea of encouraging content and clearly work that has delivered objective value should be rewarded. However, when it comes to content, it just cannot be measured in this way and I don’t believe it is a straightforward net gain.
There probably isn’t much more either of us can way to persuade otherwise, but I do not think this featured should be added lightly. If it is tested, it should stay well away from main net until it is incontrovertible that it is not damaging to the network, imo.
7 Likes
The abuse/attack avenues nullifies that. Who is to say the GETs are not from an abuser. So then they are not qualified correctly either.
But yes this is the one aea the farming rewards fair better.
But donations have a better abuse avenue than PtP as I pointed out. But I do feel both are still very effective for their different purposes.
I just voted, yes but depending on implementation.
I’d like to see the following.
- network level Consent always. users who click on content that is PtP are warned they are about to access paid content, are shown how much, and can cancel if they wish.
- option for users to set a pin if they want simple confirmation that they agree to pay. So you would click on content, agree to price by typing in pin.
- creators have option of setting a price, including the option of a blank cheque, asking the user to donate any amount… including zero .
Implementation of PtP should really be much later after release.