[quote=“neo, post:75, topic:4960”]Under your model you need to make cases for
Why it would work having no usage pays structure and Bitcoin requires its (tx) fee structure to progress into the future.
[/quote]
The bitcoin transaction fees are meant to take over when the miner PoW reward dwindles down to zero in the future. For safecoins a similar anti-inflation function can be used, but it doesn’t have go to zero as in Bitcoin. The safecoin generation rate can be held at a balance between limited inflation and enough reward to avoid having to add transaction fees.
I have written about the benefits of safecoin as a cryptocurrency in another thread:
Secure wallet. With bitcoin people need to store their bitcoins in paper wallets or use other complicated solutions to keep their bitcoins safe.
Anonymous payments. Bitcoin payments are only psudanonomous and special ad hoc solutions are needed in order to try to achieve true anonymity.
Fast transactions. Bitcoin takes around 10 minutes to make one confirmation, and 6 confirmations are recommended for really secure transactions.
Zero transaction fees. Bitcoin transactions usually need to have a fee added in order to be processed reasonably fast. Complicated estimations are needed to optimize the transaction fees.
Safecoin has the potential to becoming very popular and with a large market cap for the reasons mentioned above.
For the SAFE network to work, there has to be an excess of data resources provided by farmers. And my estimation is that there will be less attack and spam data than ordinary user data. And even if there is more spam data than ordinary user data, there will still be an excess of SAFE data storage available.
Because access to a local hard drive is very fast. In comparison accessing the a file on the SAFE network will be very slow.
Farming for safecoins will become very popular. Compare with mining for other cryptocurrencies. Mining for bitcoins for example requires massive hashing power. Farming for safecoins on the other hand can be done with an old PC. The contrast is stark. And with safecoin as an even better cryptocurrency than bitcoin, farming will increase in the beginning through a network effect.
Apart from the “geeks” why would anyone use this since bitcoin is still only use by the few. (relatively speaking).
Bitcoin is addressing some of these issues and some companies are going to fix all those issues you said and provide the “perfect” platform for microtransactions in bitcoin. So without some value safecoin will not compete, how can it?
so which is it. Fee or no fee at the moment? A fee of course its needed to keep it working.
You keep saying it, but that doesn’t make it true. But rather reasoned argument previously shows why this would not happen.
But just look at faceless and see the number of videos stored on the current web. Now imagine that can be done for all their private videos (holidays, kids, etc etc), and they can view it a grandmas, on holidays, without the need to lug around a few large fragile USB drives. Guess what most I know would be happy to store their infrequently used TBs of videos on a safe secure storage, and only use their one usb drive for recent and often used vids. Also I imaging they would backup all those vids to SAFE anyhow. And why would they farm? So we have a glut of uploaders with little incentive to farm for the majority. The coin remains valueless
And how many miners have there ever been for ALL blockchain cryptos???
For a valueless coin. Why would they ever do it. crypto is for geeks is the attitude and bitcoin is the digital currency if any ever need digital currency.
Honestly your use cases have basically been.
They will do it
Storage will be greater
network effect (without fulfilling the requirements for it to happen)
Why not just realise that to add long term value to a currency you need to back it with something. Fiat has the “government”/laws backing it. Gold has well gold as its backing. Bitcoin has its fees and being the first and accepted as the digital currency and improvements will nullify most of a valueless coin’s advantages even if they are safecoin’s advantages.
By charging (very little really) for storing on SAFE netowrk, you add value, you add a reason to own coins, to get coin, and the network effect really then does start to kick in.
If you wanted it to be a “knowledgeable” users secure storage and the attack vectors where dealt with (magically atm) then I could see it working without any coinage, because people see worth in the network and will support it. I’d say many or even most in this forum fit this category. But to gain wide acceptance you have to provide something. Giving away the network for free and giving free coins for letting people use your storage has little chance of working (see above posts) and the uncapped coinage will not gain value because the “network effect” conditions are not met.
Valueless coin? I see an enormous potential in safecoin. It’s arguably the first cryptocurrency that actually will be practical to use as a general digital currency. And many SAFE apps can charge safecoins in addition to the default safecoin reward for apps. Farming allows people to earn safecoins without the trouble of paying for safecoins on some exchange.
And even in the beginning, when the SAFE network is small, people will find it very attractive to farm safecoins just to hoard them.
Still valueless because your only value is easy to use. There have been so many things on the net that are easy to use that never gain value,
This is really the first positive contribution to your use case.
This has little to do with value and is speculation at best. No help to a use case.
While the use for APPs is a positive, it is of little use if the coin has no value before the APPs startup. And therein lies a major chicken and egg problem. Why would APPS be written of the quality to attract non “geeks” to farm for the coin. There are plenty of current great apps/sites for the wider audience already on the web. There is a much greater use case for the coin having intrinsic value first than for it to be valueless and rely on acceptance before the first use of the coin appears.
This is just a belief. Even for the current model let alone your model that starts off with a valueless coin that requires acceptance before a use is made of the coin that attempts to add value, when the apps already exist on the current web.
We can see historically the interest in cryptocurrencies. Remember, in the beginning there will be early adopters. And many of those early adopters will be cryptocurrency savvy. The general public comes in at a later stage. And for the general user, free data storage will not only be more attractive than having to get hold of safecoins just to store their data, it will perhaps even be necessary to have free data storage in order to achieve a sufficient network effect.
This is still belief/faith. It is also based on another crypto with different conditions. How many coins are 100,000,000 for zero cents. Too many for me to count. So history does not always favor your belief.
Without non “geek” farmers
Without solutions to the attacks
Without intrinsic value
Your belief is only supported by another belief that an app developer will see value enough to create an app that will actually be used. You can only have faith that this would work. There is no use case to get you from startup to coin value and until value there is no incentive for the network to rise above “geek” usage.
Then without solutions to the attack vectors the network would never go beyond “geek” usage and really only survive as long as no attacker attacked. There is zero change of not being attacked in the first year.
Add intrinsic value by charging for usage (PUTTing) like the current model then you solve the MAJOR issues.
Attack vectors due to free storage solved
Value from day one, App developers encouraged to develop
Farmers can see the value from day one
Wider audience see secure storage which is cheap (just not free). They manage their storage rather than dump
I cannot state it enough, without solving the attack vectors opened up due to free storage, the network will not survive. It will be dead before it can ever gain acceptance.
One proposal I mentioned earlier is that in the beginning, when the network is small, Maidsafe can set up some very large farms as a buffer for preventing storage attacks and overload of spam. Then later when the network has grown big enough it will be able to handle such attacks and spam by itself.
Having to pay for data storage will perhaps lessen the value of safecoin already from the beginning. Cryptocurrencies are based on virtual value and that has been proven successful again and again. And later when the general public starts to use the network, demanding that they need to get hold of safecoins just to be able to store data, that, again, may lessen the value of safecoin.
Whatever you say. Just because you say it doesn’t make it right. Sorry without some real reasoning behind that statement its just belief.
How big? 25PB per day worth? That is what an attack can achieve. Anything less and the attack can keep the disks full.
Thats all folks, logic cannot reason with belief. See ya later Anders, good luck with your thought experiment and when you can make some use cases that actually explain how it can work, I cannot help further for you to see the holes and devise sensible methods to overcome them.
It’s always possible to come up with worst case scenarios like that. If attackers can do that they can also launch DDOS attacks by bypassing the caching with random GETs.
Is not the worst case scenario but the most probable scenario.
Your 28 post in this topic (and 51 in this) still giving no solution to the problems of security that allows anyone, with limited resources, destroying the network.
If you find a solution to this crucial aspect OK, if not, you can write another 79 post that will be useless.
25 PB per day of spam? That requires a lot of bandwidth. That argument sounds to me like a politician demanding that cities should be built underground, because otherwise the Russians can nuke them, ha ha. Although, more seriously, you could be correct, I haven’t checked the capacity of attackers.
Something that could be tried is to have four storage types. I know, adding more complexity is usually not a good sign but anyway. A suggestion for four data storage types:
Private data - 100% cost to store.
Public data - 25% (or 100%) cost to store.
Free private data - Same as private data except without cost to store.
Free public data - Same as public data except without cost to store.
And the farmers are rewarded equally for all four types. The system determines dynamically how much free data storage is available. And if the free data runs out, users have to temporarily pay for the storage (until more farming capacity comes on line). And if the system is heavily attacked and/or spammed, the free data will run out more quickly. That’s ok, since the data storage with cost will still be available no matter how much the system is attacked.
This will also be useful in the beginning of the network, when no safecoins yet have been farmed. Then users can use the free data storage, which will make farmers earn safecoins which can then be used for using the data storage with cost. So this enables a bootstrapping of the network in terms of earning/spending safecoins.
@Anders, I think you’ve made a good case, and as I pointed out, almost all the criticism levied against your scheme applies equally to bitcoin, yet bitcoin is a big success, and with Safecoin and the economic environment created by SAFE network (content and app developer rewards, instant transactions, fee free micropayments for apps and services, massively scalable transaction rates, apps that will automatically scale massively without spending a cent on hosting or server farms etc) there is every reason to expect that Safecoin will have value, and for many more reasons than bitcoin.
I also said there was merit in the spam attack, but while the “single bot” has mysteriously morphed into a botnet of tens of thousands) a useful analysis of the attack has still not been forthcoming, so it is not possible to look properly at feasibility or mitigation, and it remains an open question.
I think the your thought experiment remains worth exploring, but I fear it isn’t going to get help from the critics on this thread so you may need to work on it separately, or could perhaps see if there are any who would be willing to work with you privately.
Here my though.
Paid private data and paid public data are guarantee to stay (both are at the same prize). Free data space is always available as long has they are free space available but it’s not guarantee to stay. It will work like freenet in that case.
Network will always prioritize the paid data and if there is not available space it will purge free data to make space for the paid data.
The network will not take in consideration the used free data space to calculate the cost for the paid data.
But SAFE need to differentiate the paid data and free data and that should not be in the same deduplication feature. It should be in a separate folder.
My proposal is just a thought experiment, yes. I know too little about SAFE to come up with something more concrete. David Irvine probably has examined a lot of different alternative safecoin models. The tricky thing is to choose what model to use since SAFE is truly a novel invention. Predicting the future for such a large scenario can be really challenging.
Ok, I know too little about the technical details to evaluate your version. I can describe the model I’m proposing:
Free and paid data storage are handled in the same way except with the only difference that when free data is stored then no safecoins are withdrawn from the user’s wallet. The farming reward remains the same for both free and paid data storage. And the free data is always used as long as the remaining total storage capacity is larger than a certain minimum capacity level. What I’m unsure of is if the remaining global storage capacity can be calculated by the system. For example if the total amount of already stored data is 100 PB and the remaining capacity is 200 PB, then 33% of the total storage capacity is used. If the minimum level is 40%, then free data can continue to be stored until 120 PB has been stored.