Right and since the majority trusts a system that makes them believe they are not paying anything we should better give them what they want instead of pointing out the naivity …lol
Also congratulations for another apples&oranges comparison…
1 Like
So who is going to pay to store data on the SAFE network? Many people would want to farm, but who would use the system? So many farmers and so few users.
If that was the case, storing files on SAFE would cost close to nothing so even people who always expect to get a free lunch would consider using it.
I suggest you sit back, relax and wait for people storing their files, since developers won´t take your advice.
1 Like
Check this out: worst case scenario with free SAFE data storage (both public and private): 100% spam.
What would happen in the case people only used the SAFE network for spam and data storage flood attacks? The answer: The farmers get happy since they could then farm like crazy causing the network to grow and grow. Safecoin becomes a competitive and popular cryptocurrency.
So in a worst case scenario with free data storage safecoin would become a valuable cryptocurrency. In the beginning people will just hoard safecoins and continue to spam the network. Then a lot a trading of safecoins on exchange markets begins. After that, services using safecoin start to appear on the SAFE network, bit by bit outcompeting the spam.
So a good bootstrapping strategy for the SAFE network is to allow 100% spam and data storage flood attacks.
Sorry this is going too far.
That is not even logical.
There is no reasoning given for “farmers will come and farm”
Increasing the number of safecoin does not cause “a competitive and popular cryptocurrency”
More like dilute any value it did have. Oh thats right it has no intrinsic value to start with.
So worse case is the coin starts with no value, no one is able to store anything, farmers get sick of having all this coin and noone wants it.
No apps will run because nothing to run it against.
Of course the purpose of he network is NOT to earn coin but to PROVIDE S.A.F.E. (Secure Access For Everyone) network for everyone to use. Coin is only there to make it work smoothly
How about the reason: Safecoin as the best cryptocurrency in the world?
A cryptocurrency becomes valuable because it’s mined (or farmed) when it’s good enough. And safecoin is the best cryptocurrency so far. Compare with the price of bitcoin when it started to get mined: very few bitcoins in circulation and very little value. Then over time the bitcoin supply got inflated and with an increase in value.
Farming does not do the same things as mining.
Bitcoin and safecoin are not similar EXCEPT they are based on crypto maths.
And you conveniently forgot to account for the logical reason given, you rely on belief that because safecoin exists that its worth a lot. Its just not logic you are following.
You appear to think safecoin IS bitcoin mark III. It works completely different. For just starters mining is processing transactions. The closest equivalent in safecoin is its coin transaction processing which is different and noone is rewarded for it. There is no equivalent in bitcoin to farming. Comparing bitcoin and safecoin is like comparing apples and copper, apples&copper both can be traded, both are made up of atomic structures, but work differently.
3 Likes
Safecoin could potentially dethrone bitcoin as the biggest cryptocurrency. The bitcoin market cap (around $4,000,000,000) is actually still puny compared to the big fiat currencies.
The SAFE network is of course more than just a cryptocurrency. My argument however is based on only the value of safecoin as a cryptocurrency. The farming part in my argument is therefore directly equivalent to mining of bitcoins. And I have already pointed out in other comments why bitcoin sucks and how safecoin is a superior cryptocurrency.
This is not how it would works. Let’s say I would flood the network with 100% spam. It would cost me a great amount of money, because that’s what you need to do, you need to pay to PUT (upload) data to the network. GET’s (downloads) are free, but a Farmer could Farm Safecoin when the data in his Vault is requested. But who’s gonna request spam?? Me?? So first I PUT spam into the network (like GB’s of useless data) and pay money for it, and than I’ll start requesting that Spam so Farmers could Farm Safecoin on my Spam?? That’s weird. And if you make the PUT of data free, people could indeed flood the network with random data. That’s why you need to pay to PUT.
If you’re editing videos for a project with your friends, and you want to share the videos with a group in a SAFE way, why not pay? If you create 3TB of videos, Google and Dropbox will ask you to pay a monthly fee. In SAFE it’s different, you maybe pay 15 cent for a GB of data, you can share it with all your friends, no need to be worried that google is “scanning” your video.
And for “Youtube”. There will be an option to earn money as a content-creator. It’s 10% of the Farming Reward. So the one who makes the App earns 10% of all the Farming that’s done on the data. And of course they want to make money, so how would they do that? They offer you to pay for views of your videos when you upload them to their App. So it could cost you some money to PUT the data, but your can earn on your data as a content-creator.
Let’s say someone creates a Safebook-App. You upload some pictures, are 100% in charge of your files, nobody (even that App) can’t delete anything, add anything etc. It will only cost you like 4,5 cents. Why not? It will be a Facebook without any ads.
Again, there will be the possibility to earn money on the content you upload. Say you upload a 1,5 GB blockbuster movie and pay 15 cents for that. You have the opportunity to add your wallet-address and earn 10% of the Farming Reward. So you pay once, but can make more when people download (GET) your file. Your file is popular? Somebody else will take your file, remove 0,5 seconds of that movie (so it’s a completely new file when it get’s Chunked) and upload it with his wallet-address. There you have it! Competition!
And compared to Bittorrent there’s another big difference. On Safenet you’ll always have 4 seeders. Even when nobody touched your file for years and years.
1 Like
The worst case scenario I described is about having all storing of data on the SAFE network free. I know, this thread is about having a 25% or 100% cost for storing public data. The spam scenario is with 0% cost (free) storage (PUT) for both private and public data. So it’s a radical change of the system, yet easy to implement I guess.
Even with all free data upload this scenario won’t occur. Farmers won’t make any money on a network that filled with spam. You would need someone to request that spam, otherwise there’s no farming attempt. Farmers don’t get paid for storing data, they only get money (Safecoin) once’s there’s a request for a Chunk out of their Vault. So they won’t “farm like crazy” because no one will request the spam so they won’t farm at all.
It is, it’s probably very easy to implement. But what’s the risk when you allow people to upload stuff for free? People could create a piece of software to create random data all day long. A corrupt government that hates Safenet could do that as well. They could upload TB after TB day after day to choke the network and actually kill it. That’s why the choice was made to make people pay when they upload.
3 Likes
So farmers only get paid for GETs? Well, that doesn’t change my argument much. Much of the spam would be “BitTorrent” files and those are hugely popular and would generate tons of GETs.
Corrupt governments and big corporations can do that even when it costs safecoins to store data. They can simply get hold of huge amounts of safecoins on exchange markets and start with massive spamming of the SAFE network. Especially when the network still is small. Safecoin has full anonymity, remember.
I think you are talking to the deaf, @anon40790172. This has been explained to @Anders many times already. He prefers it believe he´s right instead of challenging his thoughts.
3 Likes
You were talking about spam, and now the spam is “BitTorrent” files? That’s weird IMHO. And yes, Farmers only get paid when they deliver a Chunk of data to the network (which is someone else his GET). The one who’s doing the GET doesn’t pay a thing, but the network might pay the Farmer some Safecoin.
When they buy huge a amount of Safecoin to “spam” the network, the price will go up. That’s just supply/demand economics. So when the price goes up, more people will provide resources to the network in the hope to Farm Safecoin. So they don’t really hurt the network, they’ll actually might make it stronger.
3 Likes
For governments and big corporations, that kind of money is still pocket change, while the SAFE network is still small. And it actually could be an actual risk, because if the SAFE network starts to become popular there are big political and corporate powers that will start feeling threatened. They would have a great opportunity to nip the SAFE network in the bud by launching such attacks.
Just like how the succeeded at killing BitTorrent, Usenet, Bitcoin, Wikileaks, Popcorntime? They don’t stand a chance against decentralized P2P. And when the network is still small, not that many Safecoins are there. So when they start to buy, prices go up, more people join the network to Farm coins. It will work like magic.
1 Like
So you say it is not a problem to let people spam the network as it will make the network grow larger and stronger, and then you say that it could be an actual risk that governments could spam the network. So, in your view, is it a problem or isn’t it? That’s a complete contradiction. You can’t have it both ways.
3 Likes
Even with an exponential growth due to a network effect, it takes a long time before the network has become large enough to withstand political and corporate powers bent to destroy the network. If they had known that Bitcoin would have become big, they could have destroyed Bitcoin when it still was small. And that was during a period of several years. Today even big banks are looking into cryptocurrencies. So there is much more awareness among those in power today of the potential threats of decentralized solutions to their hierarchical top-down control.
Grow larger, yes, but not necessarily stronger. My point is that if free data storage can destroy the network, so can big political and/or corporate powers even when there is a cost to store data on the SAFE network.
Data storage with a cost can make the network stronger but hardly make the network grow faster. In fact, with a cost to store data it’s much less likely that a sufficient network effect is achieved.
So the question is: is it really possible to destroy the SAFE network by storing too much data on it? Wouldn’t the data storage simply be filled up so that users would have to wait a bit until more farming resources come online?
Debatable, as pointed out by @anon40790172. But what is certain is that if they don’t have to pay anything to do it, they can do it faster.
Yes, if you store too much junk data that nobody GETs, then the farmers will not be paid, and they will simply stop farming, because there will be nothing in it for them. A point repeated here time and time and time and time again…
Why would farmers join the network or expand their storage if they get nothing in return?
2 Likes