Then what you’re saying is you want the content creators (PUTS) to support the content creators and farmers and developers. Don’t forget that although it is the network distributing the safecoin, it’s not an unlimited supply, and is funded by wherever the money comes in. Having content creators and farmers compensated by only the content creators is not economically viable and doesn’t make any sense. You need to look at both sides of the equation.
Edit: also, my post didn’t necessary mean to say that every GET would need to cost money. This could be decided according to the value of the content being received, such as the crowdsourced voting I gave as an example. Simple comment posts, for examples, could still be free.
Remember that as more coin is issued the coin eventually finds its way back into the network and recycled.
Thinking about it, if you issue 1000 coins only then there are only 1000 coins to spend on uploading. They will not return to the network all at once but be delayed by varying amounts, some almost immediately some maybe years later. Now if you issue 100,000 then those will also eventually find their way back too.
So even if the network became super generous and issued coins at 10x the rate, those coins would eventually find their way back (excluding lost coins and idiots who hoard forever).
Basically the network gets into trouble when the algorithms are made way too generous or too tight.
The network does not really care about the fiat value of the coin, it is really concerned to regulate the coin so that
Its supply of coin does not dry up because it issued all the coin before it has a chance to be spend in uploads. IE issues most of its possible coins
It does not not issue enough coin and no one puts content onto the network and thus becomes unused
the balance is to issue enough coin for uploads to occur, but not so fast that there is no buffer in available coins to issue.
And in all this ensure that there is enough incentive for farmers to supply resources.
In other words its more a case of ensuring the “buffer” of coin does not get too small and there is enough coin to spend for uploads.
The algorithms also have to give incentives for farming so people want to farm and incentives to use the network.
Unlike other coins where once the coin is issued it remains, thus you have to place hard limits on the rate of issuance so that it gets harder and harder to get the coin, SAFEcoin is recycled continually and thus the network can payout 100 times its total coin base because that coin is continually being recycled. The trick is to ensure it doesn’t issue coins so fast they don’t get recycled fast enough. Also the system has a failsafe in that if the available coin for issuance drops very low the issuance rate drops too because an attempt for issuance will fail if the coin at the address is currently issued.
I DON’T agree with the above premise. This creates a society based on obligation. Unless I AGREE to pay you I shouldn’t be obligated to do so. People should be able to give stuff away and more to the point a whole society shouldn’t be based on the premise that one should be obligated to compensate a creator simply because one received value. I like the fact the open source community is essentially a gift economy. I like that GETs are free. Don’t bugger up a system that works.
I’m so sick of people that believe just because they do something for others that they think they’re owed compensation. Don’t try to sell me something under the guise of giving it to me for free or doing me a favor. Either be honest and tell me up front you want to sell me something, tell me what you want for it and I’ll decide whether or not to pay you for it or don’t try to sell me your product. If you’re going to give me something then just give it to me. Don’t give it to me and then ask for compensation. That’s not a gift that’s a sale, and a deception at that. Give me something because you want to give it or keep your stuff.
No obligation required. You don’t have to consume anything if you don’t want to–no deception here. By your wording I could also say that you believe you should be obligated to get something for free. This is just another belief that you should get something for nothing.
Except it’s not perfect. You’ll have a hard time making a living from open source projects, as most open source devs have primary jobs to support them. I want to see sustainable open source projects become the norm, not on the sidelines
You really have to think about both sides of the equation here, the whole picture. Content creators have a hard time making a living because it’s so easy to consume for free – everything’s available for free online (think musicians, artists, etc). As such, most are forced to work for someone else or do something they don’t have a passion for. This is a huge downside. Having the ability to spend your life working on your passions trumps any necessity for getting stuff for free. Would you rather get stuff for free or enjoy your line of work? This is how the two different economic models contrast.
The more people start paying for what they consume, the more creators will be paid. But guess what? Content creators are also consumers for other types of products, so paying them gives them more money to pay for what they consume, too. It’s a positive reinforcement cycle.
Giving stuff away is nice, but it doesn’t put food on the table.
does consume just mean to read / view? Because it would be great if people could be free to view and read everything without having to pay for it, so they can scan the free market in its entirety and then make the most informed decision about paying for something
Safecoins can be used to access and use network applications, with part of the ‘payment’ going directly to the application developer.
I understood this as the network incentivising you, to reference your data through an application running against the API i.e unless the data is accessed via an app, there is no reward…because browsing is free. Similar to releasing an album as a free app on IOS or Android…but in the SAFE world, actually getting payed if consumers vote with their clicks.
Could be right off the technical plantation there, but to me, you will only ever know if your media has legs by making it freely accessible.
Yeah view/watch/whatever. But like I said, this still needs a lot of thought and elegant solutions. Not saying everything you come across should be paid for
If it means doing scientific research and being able to save a life without going broke after the first 2 papers then yes. The producer in that case doesn’t see a dime, just the publishing houses and they charge people through the nose. Your argument is filled with false dichotamies and assumptions. First it assumes that payment goes straight to the person that created the content. Second it assumes, quite falsely, that content won’t get ripped the second it gets released. We already have a system of “pay the producer.” It’s called copyright. Guess what? It doesn’t work. That’s why content gets pirated in the first place. Third you’re assuming that content producers can’t or won’t be supported any other way than via quid pro quo.
How about this as an alternative? Instead of “Pay the Producer.” We set up a crowdfund people can donate to which is then divided and distributed to producers based on how much popular content they produce. Who cares about who created what. Just create content that’s in high demand. A stick figure can be an original work of art but it isn’t going to trump an awesome amv on youtube that earns a thousand views even though that amv is a derivitive work rather than an original. Hell even a pirated movie would get more demand.
Moreover copyright and privacy are incompatible concepts. The concept of “original work” and privacy do not mesh. As soon as you start trying to pay the producer you raise the question of who is the producer and who is not. That brings up the issue of privacy. One of the biggest reasons to track people is to determine who owns what and who doesn’t own what. So someone posts something to the safenet. How do you tell if they’re the owner or not? Or here’s a kicker, what if they don’t want to be identified as the owner or not? What if they WANT to remain anonymous? In any event in order to maintain IP or PtP as currently conceived one needs to invade one’s privacy because one is constantly monitoring state of ownership. That’s why I say if we’re going to have PtP we should give up caring about whether stuff is pirated or not. It’s not just about getting “free stuff.” It’s about maintaining one’s privacy and freedoms.
Oh and yeah if “copyright” and the defense thereof ends up giving people the right to so much personal information as this.
I think I’ve made my point.
Also if GETs weren’t free think of how that would affect the network in general. You farm for GETs and pay for PUTS. But if GETS cost safecoin that means you’re paying to upload and download which means a) At the very least the price of safecoin would go up and b) people would be less likely to download stuff in general which would affect farming rates.
Don’t break the safenet just for some halfbrained insistence on sticking with an outmoded concept. SAFE is a resource economy. Look let me break this down for you all:
IT DOESN’T MATTER WHO OWNS WHAT!!! IT DOESN’T MATTER AT ALL!!! That’s not what PtP is about. PtP is not about compensating individual producers. It’s not the SAFE version of copyright or a glorified welfare system. PtP is about encouraging producers to produce content for THE NETWORK AT LARGE. It’s how content is valued BY THE NETWORK! Therefore the question of whether content is “original” or pirated is rather moot because the goal of content as far as the network is concerned is to encourage lots and lots of GETS and usage of the network so that in turn farmers will have more to farm. More people using the network and downloading content means more activity. And more activity means more safecoin changing hands, more resources being devoted to the network, and more stuff being uploaded to the network. Who bloody cares who uploads what so long as quality stuff gets uploaded. If you want set up a reputation system and a donation system for supporting artists but I really don’t think that should be the focus of PtP. PtP should be abou encouraging content creation and generation and getting increased network activity so we’ll all have more resources, safecoin value and safecoin to farm.
How about calling this feature: the “content acquisition incentive”, it sounds a bit shaddy but at least its accurate with the intent and it sets the right expectation. As @neo and @Blindsite2k points out, it’s not about paying the producer, it’s about getting stuff in regardless who does it.
I think we should just make the network ‘information hungry’ and implement PTP as soon as it’s feasible. There is no real logical reason for a delay for political reasons, or to appease anyone who doesn’t like this technological paradigm shift. Just my $0.02
With better search engines (which help people find original creators) and easy micro payment options, content creators will already benefit from safe net.
Moreover, secure file sharing with groups will also be possible, allowing a subscription model for those who value the creators efforts. Sure, it won’t stop people copying and re-publishing data, but nothing will stop that… it is better just to make life easier for those who are honest and have good intentions.
Why not focus on how a freer market can help to connect creators with consumers? This would be better than try to re-hash flawed IP laws in software, which will likely be circumvented anyway.
Edit: typo - death engines = search engines lol! Predictive text strikes again!
People will create content when they have the times and means to do so. Perhaps lowering the cost of living to allow people more free time would be a better goal for humanity?
Open source models do have business cases too. You can be an expert on some open source software and them sell your services to integrate it, make something similar, provide consultancy services, etc.
Lots of open source projects are funded or have contributions by corporations too. Ofc, this is only when it is economically viable, but such is the case with everything in this world.
For me opening the source of software is an evolutionary thing. When a sector matures such that all profits have been squeezed tightly, the next step is free software, with consultancy style services being sold instead. The software itself becomes a commodity, with the supporting services becoming the focus. We can see that with many applications/sectors which have matured to the point of stagnation.
Ofc, open source has other benefits, particularly around privacy/transparency. These are sectors which may not exist at all in closed source applications. There are still many ways to fund these, through crown sales, token exchanges, etc.
IMO, the focus should be on how technology can help us in a post-IP law world, rather than dwelling on futile attempts to hold back the tides of change.
The Hollywood has first mover advantage too, but it works only until there’s a copy.
Among those who aren’t Netflix or similar subscribers, who gets their movies from the first mover (or through “legal” channels in general)? Barely anyone.
Tipping has been the next big thing since PayPal came out, but especially since Bitcoin. No Star Wars has been created from that revenue.
In short, tipping is a joke. But it is what it is.
I think it would help drive massive public adoption.
With the idea of changing your computer into an ATM. (It’s a powerful image for the public)
Vinay Gupta explain how this perception helped bitcoin: 20:17 - YouTube
Tipping small amounts might not be incentive enough but at least it’s something. It may be a joke, it’d just depend I suppose. And if it’s negligible enough of an amount for others not too care then those starving artists will gladly accept
Its not a joke when enough scale is achieved. But it needs another name such as “advancing.” If a billion people tip a tenth of a penny that is still a million dollars. In a world made of FOSS components that goes a ways. If they tip a penny its ten million dollars. Its in world where the organization may not even need an office, it can be very low overhead.
