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

Features
106

There are plenty of points on each side of the argument. And until it is tested they are theories that may or may not be supported by experience with other systems.

  • One purpose that David proposed this was to get content onto the SAFE network which it is hoped to generate both interest and adoption.

  • The Original producer of the content would be encouraged to upload into their Site/Shop/whatever the latest and best quality media, plus a lot of support material. EDIT: this support material also earns when viewed/downloaded thus giving more incentive to the original artist. e.g. the painter uploads their rough sketches thus giving the consumer an insight to the creative process

  • It is hoped , yes hoped but with reasonable expectations to occur that people will tend towards obtaining the material from the original maker/artist/singer/etc and copies would end up 2nd best, unless a copy is actually better quality, then the original maker loses because they supply an inferior product.

  • Remember the viewer/downloader does not pay which actually encourages them to obtain the best quality (for them). Thus the overall quality of uploads will be better because they are the ones that succeed.

  • Every uploader pays, so if a viral vid is uploaded 10000++ times then the network wins. Every copy uploaded reduces the ā€œcostā€ to the network. Especially since there will only be a few (or 1) different versions of the same content and dedup makes those extra copies pure profit to the network. By paying for each upload this reduces any single person from uploading the same vid thousands of times in an attempt to attract more people to use their copies.

  • No matter how you pay the producer, even if tipping, shop, or whatever, the copiers will copy and some charge by faking themselves as the real thing. So should we not do something because some will attempt to game it the same as they game anything thought of so far.

  • As far as the network is concerned the more copies upload the better for the economics of the network. So it needs to be analysed, but PtP could actually benefit the network more than not having it. It promotes useful content on the network, dedup makes most duplicate upload pure profit without bloat.

  • For the original producer, well the theory is that if they are smart they produce a lot of supporting material and upload the highest quality and human nature to pick the original/best if it costs no more and zero cost to them is best.

  • The original producers are still free to charge for material (or be tipped) in addition to PtP if they wish to go down that path.

TL;DR there are a lot of valid pluses and minuses for PtP and would testing it out when testcoin is released be such a bad thing. Even in the live SAFEcoin version with a proviso that it can and likely will change or be removed 6 to 12 months later. Lets try it, if it works better than not having it then we keep it (or improve it to a better model) and if it does not work then we can remove it before it causes major problems

4 Likes
107

As I pointed out before, even if I dislike the concept I donā€™t mind if its tried. We wonā€™t get another chance, so sure, thatā€™s what test are for. I just wanted to explain in other words why the first mover advantage is not as perfect as it sounds. And I just canā€™t resist the temptation to debate on this :slight_smile:

2 Likes
108

Might as well add my two cents. I believe app developers should build anything you want to try on the network, including PtP (unless itā€™s something that cannot be done without needing core work). I am not even the biggest fan of the web proxy being buried in the launcher instead of treated as a separate app.

1 Like
109

Go for it. Thats why the topic exists.

BTW my reply was a general reply and not pointed at anyone.

I agree that first mover is no guarantee, although it is certainly an advantage if used correctly. I think of the number of great inventions trumped by an inferior product because they were 2nd off the block. Then I also look at the number of great inventions that failed because they ā€œfirst movedā€ too early. On the balance I personally think the first mover has a great advantage. Obviously the original artist has other advantages that likely trump any first mover advantage if done right.

1 Like
110

On a side note, I canā€™t recall what was the exact plan, is the payment made on the get request of each chunk of a file or just the get request for the datamap? I think in this case, size should not matters.

111

It was simply the producer supplied a safecoin address for the file and it is stored in the meta data of each chunk. When one of those chunks are retrieved the code then does its maths and approx 1 get in 10/FR gets will result in a coin issue attempt. (equivalent to 1/10th of the farming rate)

When the coin is divisible then its likely that each get will result in a very small payment equivalent to 1/10 the farming rate.

A very simple plan and original plan expected that it only applies to public content.

1 Like
112

Thinking more about it, thatā€™s not flawless either. While this would allow a popular blog post to generate as much revenue as a popular movie, which is good, it would also allow any comments on the blog post to generate just as much. So the actual effort to create something is rewarded just as much as random spam.

Iā€™m curious what you guys think, reward based on size or not?

On one hand, size is a very poor judge of value but on the other hand, rewarding everything is a bit like just shuffling money around, it doesnā€™t add up much for anyone and we might as well not do it.

2 Likes
113

There was a suggestion that safecoin address would only be stored with the first chunk of the file.

Since the address is in the meta data the user & vaults do not know this info and only the core network does (data managers?) so security is maintained. No one finds out that a particular chunk is the start of a file.

1 Like
114

So good idea or bad idea? What do you think?

115

I am divided.

The reward is very small and if I produced a 20 minute documentary or guide, then I would feel cheated if it only earned the same as someoneā€™s one line reply in a forum. (per view that is)

But then if I upload something done many years ago (not copyright) then reward based on size is not really fair either.

I think one has to view it from the angle that this is a incentive and not a wage. So if some gain unfairly because the file is large then so be it. It still added content to the network and hopefully greater adoption. The small file typically adds less than the large, but obviously not always.

116

Once we reach mass adoption, do we keep it or do we drop it?

117

This has folly written all over it. Iā€™ve read through this thread a few times, and I canā€™t support this idea. It borrows from the principle of freedom that MAID safe aligns itself with.

I believe it wonā€™t take long for human nature to exploit this sort of implementation.

When you borrow against the principle of freedom you inhibit human ingenuity.

So my vote will be a resounding no.

5 Likes
118

Letā€™s not forget thereā€™s nothing preventing from someone developing a platform on MAID safe that would require pay-per-view content or any other payment system that could be found on surface web.

2 Likes
119

I think it all goes down to the users or consumers of data in any format. Pay-per-view is one of the many reward options the network can utilise.Its just not feasible to pay-per-view every and useless type of data.So the question is who decides that this data is worth paying for? Is it the producer or the consumer? In a free market the producer sets the price and the consumer choses to pay or not.

For those sites streaming live soccer or boxing matches and have a track record of delivering good quality programs PtP will work for them as in the traditional internet. Decentralisation of the internet is one of the major aims of the SAFE network thus this extends to the decentralisation of trade and services that people are now free to sell their own content or data without any middlemen taking a cut off from their earnings.

A good character of brotherhood in that would be the producer offer a sample of his or her work or data to the consumer in order for the consumer to decide more about the data if its worth paying for. Unless if the producer has a proven track record of delivering value adding data to the world then this might just be addition marketing to the producer.

Thefact that decentralisation efectively cuts off the middlemen it might also mean producers of data become self-promoters. PtP is then a sort of ā€œdecentralised payment mechanismā€ adding to freedom. It only requires the consumers and the network to decide if every view should be paid for or notā€¦If the producer of data has used PtP as payment mechanism then the network should not decide on behalf of the consumer whether to pay or not but should give the consumer the discretion to chose. Yes piracy will exist that is common but the PtP should be given a chance with more deciding power in the hands of consumers and producers of that data rather than the network

1 Like
120

And? So? Therefore? Think of all the AMVs, lyric videos and karaoke videos on youtube that are all thanks to pirated content. What about all the new content that is created thanks to pirated content?

What about projects like sci-hub that allow researchers to do important life saving work because scientific research is pirated and made available for the masses. What about whole economies that rely on pirated content? What about whole digital libraries that have been compiled and then later destroyed all in the name of copyright? IP needs to die.

2 Likes
121

Maybe itā€™s the network

1 Like
122

Thatā€™s definitely not what PtP means.

Nobody will have to pay for viewing, etc.

The PtP rewards come from the upload costs

123

This is a really good topic, Iā€™m glad people are having this discussion. There are clearly a lot of pros and cons here. I wrote about the topic a year ago, too.

The way I see it is this. The SAFE network already introduces something very innovative: a way for developers to make money by simply creating something useful that other people use, without having to rely on advertising, monthly subscriptions, etc. This is a major shift in the economic model already. It is clear to me that the same needs to be implemented for ALL content creators. People should know that they will be compensated for their creative work, and they should not worry about being paidā€“a total paradigm shift. Yes, this will mean more things will cost money by default, but for everything that is consumed for free, someone is working for nothing, and thatā€™s not good. Morally and ethically speaking, if you receive value, you should compensate for it. You have consumed someone elseā€™s hard work. Thus GETs would have a charge, too.

I think that most people will agree with the above premise. What we donā€™t agree on is its implementation, and thatā€™s perfectly ok. If people see a problem, or idea that should exist, they can work together to formulate a solution.

As for my opinion on the method of implementation, a couple thoughts come to mind. Neoā€™s bullet list is pretty spot on. Compensating based on file size is probably not a good idea, as it does not in any way indicate the creativity and time put behind it. A paintersā€™s 5MB upload is worth much much more than a 5 minute, 5gb 1080P cat video, but the size might make you think otherwise. There should be some other mechanism that decides the worth, such as built-in voting on files or files belonging to certain user ids, thus crowdsourcing the value. Or, having a predefined list of creative categories, and letting users vote on which category an upload belongs to. The category would carry with it a value.

Crowdsourcing could also be used to determine if a file is an original or a blatant copy. Allow users to tag a file as original = true or false.

Any voting mechanisms on the SAFE network, whether they be for the above purposes, or for polls, governance, etc, would need additional core functionality from the network itself though. A built-in web-of-trust would prevent people mass creating duplicate accounts in order to vote-spamā€“pretty important to prevent in a decentralized system.

However, all of the above is a pretty massive undertaking, and so definitely not in the scope of the network in the foreseeable future. Iā€™m sure that as time goes on, people will come up with great solutions.

1 Like
124

If it is the network wont this be centralisation again? If you are talking about the network doing the process but not the network determining the value. These are two diffirent but complimentary features

1 Like
125

I donā€™t agree with this, and think that the PtP should come from the uploaderā€™s Safecoin (PUT) costs, like the original PtP idea means to do

2 Likes