That’s exactly my understanding of how it works.
But if nobody’s paying to store their data, where does the network get the safecoins? (once they’re at critical circulation aka ~90%?)
OR
Are we just going to say f*** it , let’s just keep generating as many safecoins as we need - a limitless supply?
And that is not going to happen according to the model proposed by MAIDSAFE
exactly, and why that thought experiment needed the cap removed, aka infinite inflation model.
Also note that there was a change when vaults were made non-persistent, in that the network does not penalise vaults for turning off “for the night”. In fact it is to encourage such behavior for security reasons.
Even with a botnet, the attacker has to choose what to spend the bandwidth on. To send a million spam emails per day, or upload a lot of data to SAFE.
Even if that’s the case say 2 years from now, then the SAFE network will have enough excess storage capacity to swallow all that data.
You mean like Bitcoin? Miners get bitcoins and have nothing to spend them on?
I think it depends whether the prices (pub and priv) were just changed to zero, or additional changes were made.
In the first case (fxxx it, print it) the network would fairly quickly (it depends but let’s say 2 years instead of 20 or whatever) hit the maximum issuance.
After that nobody would get nuthin’. So it wouldn’t work from that perspective. The coin issuance mechanism would have to be redesigned to accommodate limitless printing (this is where that great advice to bring central bankers like Helicopter Ben comes to play!)
Thank you @neo and @janitor I seemed to have missed the core concept of this thought experiment. While there are many other problems with this specific scenario my concerns are then no longer valid.
I do not think you have even started to make the case why this would ever occur.
Apart from the “geeks” who want the benefits of safe/secure/private/etc who in their right mind would put disk storage to a worthless coin. The network would stagnate with no where the necessary capacity to store the worlds current craze with videoing their life. If its free storage then it will hit facebrook and everyone will move to storing their videos on SAFE, but who will be there to provide the storage? The 1000 and if you are lucky the 10000 who want the real benefits of safe storage. How many of those could afford to supply more than 100TB or 1000TB each?
You need to make the case WHY people will provide storage when they are paid in coinage that doesn’t actually buy anything. Bitcoin survives because it was the first and enough people want digital currency to use it for transactions (and it has a fee structure built in). But this thought experiment is to provide free coins that buys nothing, costs nothing to transfer, and is given free to those who spend money for storage and provides “unlimited” storage for free to everyone in the world.
You have a major issue and that is no case made for people to provide even a fraction of the storage needed and the reasons against it are many (see above for a few) and costly to provide even that fraction.
Its the digital currency favored by the masses who use digital currency at all.
It has a mechanism to pay the miners with “coinage” from those using it. Your proposal has free usage
If a new digital currency that was easier to use and cheaper to use then I doubt bitcoin would be doing so well.
So while bitcoin has “nothing to spend it on” it is THE digital currency for most users and that is why it works.
I think you do not understand attackers. Not only can they send the emails they can create random data to upload without slowing down either. Spam emails require very little bandwidth/cpu but does require many sources, the uploading of random data also requires little cpu and plenty of bandwidth which 100,000 machines can provide. Thus we see that an attack can be made by the many botnets of many attackers. 10,000TB’s per hour, not 1TB per day.
But you pick that, but ignore that the world’s internet users will exceed any attackers by an order or 2 of magnitude. Look at the storage used by a couple of the major players, google and facebook. See my previous post and you need to make a case for why people will farm when the coin is of little to no value and no mechanism for paying to use the coin like bitcoin has. The pay to PUT is the usage fee for the network, which SAFEcoin is inseparable from.
BITCOIN pays miners for great effort done SAFE pays farmers for little effort done
BITCOIN has usage (tx) fees SAFE in your proposal has NONE
Let’s say that there is 10% spam and attack data and 90% ordinary user data on the SAFE network. Then it will still be over 100% extra SAFE storage capacity available in the farms. The idea is that farming will become hugely popular, and that there will be much more storage capacity available than users - including spammers and attackers - will use.
You have not made the case. To keep repeating the statement does not make the case.
A few cases against this happening have been provided and you have not been able to address those OR make your case beyond the statement and saying people will do it.
BTW you are talking of perhaps 240PB per day to be added just to keep up
Exactly. And bandwidth is a significant cost. Even a spammer needs to choose what to spend the bandwidth on.
Do spammers really have that kind of bandwidth available? That’s like a YouTube level of total bandwidth. And remember that upload speed is often slower than download speed.
Yes they do. They regularly take down multiple 100GBits/sec links to server farms. (DDOS attacks)
100Gbits/sec == 45 TB/hr ~= 1000TB/day. Thats per link, and multiple at a time is possible
OK even cutting it to 1MBits/sec upload with 250,000 botnet is a massive upload capacity of just random data
But then you need to account for the 1000s of servers that are hacked and made part of the botnet. They have very large pipes to the internet.
Each computer will only be able to run one SAFE client efficiently I assume (because of TCP/IP ports etc). And the upload capacity is also dependent on the download speed of the farmers. So a large pipe wouldn’t make much difference.
You cannot have it both ways. If you claim that multitudes will become farmers, you cannot then claim there won’t be many farmers and their d/l bandwidth will not enable a large botnet.
The point is, by making PUTing free then its possible to attack the SAFE network successfully. Either by clogging up the bandwidth of the farmers as you just said. AND by filling up their disks.
Yes, I estimate a large number of farmers. Yet one SAFE client when uploading data will only connect to a few of them when uploading a file. A large bandwidth will not scale for a single SAFE client because the same few number of farms will be connected to regardless of the bandwidth speed. (Unless I have missed something in how SAFE works.)
Clogging up the bandwidth can be done with GETs too. And GETs are already free in the SAFE network.
Until you make a case for the following points, I do not see how your model can work in the current economic/technological environment.
Under your model you need to make cases for
Basically it boils down to that people will not farm to get what would be effectively pokemon tokens my kids collected then tossed away later on. The coin has no value because there is no usage model, and no other reason to use it. At least bitcoin has a usage model and fiat has the government requiring its use.
Misunderstanding of the operation of the network. It works more in parallel. A 100MB file will see upto 100 chunks sent at once.
That doesn’t help your case. You are trying to show why it doesn’t matter. Its like the kid who punches another and says its OK because jack did it too.
But its not valid anyhow because caching kicks in on reading and minimises that problem. The more you attempt it the more caching helps out.
Anyhow I am done discussing this because I do not see a real effort to address the important issues with only the outer fringe issues answered which only makes noise until the case is made why anyone will farm at all under your model.
You have a firm belief that people will farm because they can get coins and the coins will be like bitcoin. That is wishful thinking and counter to reasoned thinking. (see why in the discussions above posts). It is useless to discuss this while you counter arguments with this belief.
Cashing only works for repeated GETs of the same chunk. An attacker could make zillions of GETs of fake files, each with a unique hash.
This is why I finished discussions, this has nothing to do with your model or answering the reasons it will not work.
BTW you can only get whats there and the more you get the more times you get something you got before thus caching kicks in. And if you have zillions of files then your model and SAFE for that matter is dead. Your model allows for this [edit] current safe model protects against this
But isn’t there a limit of how many UDP ports a single SAFE client can have connected?
a hundred is nowhere too many. And I could have 50 clients on a computer, using sandboxing or VM tech. No problems for a bot to have many on one machine anyhow. So in any case one machine could have 100’s or more connections to SAFE for many large files using multiple clients.
See you later until the use cases have been made or at least attempted. Bye