Price difference between public and private data

Features
121

Advantages and disadvantages are absolutely subjective and don´t really matter. The dominance of Bitcoin within cryptocurrencies as well as the dominance of fiat money in general shows that graphically. Apart from that, the “advantages” you named (in the other thread) are not solved exclusively by Safecoin:

Secure wallet: paper wallets are actually quite safe, while SAFE itself suffers from the possibility of keylogging. There have been several thread on this issue already.
Anonymous payments: Exists with other currencies already
Fast transactions: many other currencies have already quick transactions
Millions of transactions per second: look up Bitshares…it´s already there.
Zero transaction fees: exists as well with several other currencies

The only point of sale apart from storage is a different form of security, but as I said: that´s a matter of perspective, since SAFE self-auth credentials can get logged, too.

In the end it really doesn´t matter because my main argument wasn´t that Safecoin cannot have value aside from storage (I actually acknowledged that at the very beginning of my post!) My point is that the provision of free space allows every user to manipulate the system. You are failing to address the points that I´ve made.

Why? This has been told to you in different posts already. Do you really want to hear them? I´ll give you some reasons:

  1. Because stirring instability can make money
  2. Because systems get gamed for the sake of it (actually several users have already signalized that they would game it if that´s actually possible - and this are the geeks who support the network)
  3. Because system get gamed for fun
  4. Because someone wants to damage the system for political interest
  5. Because someone wants to damage the system for economical interest
    and and and

I also mentioned that it isn´t even necessary that someone ACTUALLY attacks the system. In the all free model you can even harm the system by disseminating the idea that people are attacking by spammming, because it can neither be validated nor refuted, causing instability.

Your main argument to all potential threats is “Nah, that won´t matter” and that´s not really convincing. Also, you seem to assume a massive growth of storage that eats all attacks, but don´t consider a likewise massive growth of bandwidth. @neo has already calculated for you how much damage you can cause with a small botnet, you keep waving that off.

The whole argument of yours is based on not naming any numbers while issuing “ideas” that the system will be large and awesome and intouchable. It´s not an argument, it´s pure ideology. If you´d name some estimations of size it would be easy to show how your model doesn´t work out, but apparently for some reason you prefer not to think your scenario in numbers. Same goes for the proposal to have endless inflation - that isn´t debatable since you just assume it will be “optimized for first-mover advantage, volatility and inflation/deflation stabilization” - which basically means “in a way that everything will be fine”.

2 Likes
122

That’s just because other proof of work coins offer little advantage compared to bitcoin. Not enough to dethrone bitcoin’s dominant position. And the proof of stake algorithms frankly suck imo. And look at how bitcoin is still actually a failure when it comes to practical use as a currency for buying products and services. Safecoin can become the first cryptocurrency that will be good enough for general use.

Paper wallets are a horrible pain in the neck to administer, even for someone who is an expert on cryptocurrencies. It’s easier to store cash in the mattress than having to deal with the mess of paper wallets for cryptocurrencies. An absolute disaster.

Can you explain that with an example? You could be correct, but I don’t grasp the logic behind your argument.

It’s true that many people will upload all kinds of files for free. And that’s good! That’s one of the things the SAFE network provides: replace many of those BitTorrent files already. (Except the political problems of copyrighted content and so on, which is already a problem in the current model.)

123

Speaking of which, Bitcoin sidechains have launched

1-2 additional implementations are expected in 2016.

Because system gets gamed for fun & profit (from your point 5, actually).

LOL that’s funny, I didn’t see that.
But in this domain of “Unstoppable Force Meets Immovable Object” scenarios it’s not too difficult - in fact, that’s too easy and I can’t wait to get an opportunity to do this - to imagine an “A Botnet with Unlimited Bandwidth Meets Storage Network with Unlimited Capacity” type of scenario :wink:

1 Like
124

You know, EVERY evangelist of an alternative cryptocurrency argues this way and until now network effect has proven to be much more relevant than any of the many “improvements”.

That´s also classic evangelism, I´d say…

I don´t see how it´s a failure. I buy stuff with Bitcoin all of the time using my web wallet. It´s pretty neat and better than Paypal. There is no reason why Safecoin apps are going to be more intuitive in use.

It´s quite the opposite: you don´t have to be an expert to use a paper wallet. You may need a clean machine to do it, but even a teenager can handle paper wallets. And as I said: that´s not the main point: the main point is that soft- or hardware keylogging remains the core problem of security.

I could, in fact I already did two hours ago.

Apparently you didn´t catch the point. I wasn´t talking about uploading, I was talking about spreading the idea that the system gets attacked through the loopwhole of free spamming which anyone could refute or prove and which has the potential to stir doubts about the stability of the system. This may lead to people selling off and by doing so forcing farmers to stop farming. And you don´t even need to waste energy on real spam.

125

Yes, that’s a problem for people who want to deal with a lot of safecoins, such as big traders. For people who have huge amounts of a cryptocurrency then paper wallets can be useful I admit. It’s still like stone age technology though. I think that’s one of the reasons for why professional traders don’t trade so much with cryptocurrencies (or do they?). The professional traders use special trading systems who at the moment don’t include cryptocurrencies I think.

In the future a separate SAFE hardware login device could solve that. That would still be pretty convenient. And people can have a separate SAFE account where they have lots of safecoins. And another account which they use for ordinary everyday activities.

An idea I had is to have a GUI keyboard for login. Then keyloggers can’t register what the user enters as a password. But maybe that would still be insecure, I don’t know.

126

How about a really simple solution? Too much added complexity and the SAFE launch date will be in the year 2045. I read somewhere that David Irvine’s original intention was that private data has a cost to store while public data is free to store.

That original idea can still work. Simply reserve enough data storage for the private data. So then, if people fill up the public storage, so what? The private storage will still be available.

The farmers should earn the same for both the public and private data. And that will make the bootstrapping of the network possible since farmers will be able to start earning safecoins even when the users in the beginning haven’t any safecoins to pay with yet.

And many early adopters will be both users and farmers. So they can start to use the private data storage when they have earned safecoins from their farming (or received a donation or bought some safecoins from other farmers).

127
  • when I proposed the freeshit=[yes|no] setting, you said the idea was no good. Since many altruists would have this setting on, the system could place free (public) PUTs in their vaults.
  • we can decide to offer 1KB of free space per user, how’s that?
  • what’s the difference between your new idea and my earlier proposal to offer free storage for anyone in first few weeks following the launch, and then stop, vs. your idea to make only public data free and stretch that time over few years? I don’t see how that might be better.

The farmers should not earn the same. Those who want to work for free should work for free. Being a socialist you want to force all farmers to participate in this scheme.

128

The farmers don’t need a setting like that. For the farmer both public and private storage should give the same farming reward in safecoins. Or do you mean that this will inflate the total safecoin supply too much?

129

From his blog - “Project SAFE, Is this the fair business model at last?”:

So we ask ourselves, is us getting access to input information to an information system really a free lunch, or is it an essential part of the system?
[…snip…]
If we remove all barriers to adding public data, then the flood gates open.
[…snip…]
[A]s humans we will all say, you cannot give this to people, they will abuse it! I think differently though, we can have the network recognise bad unused data, it can recognise bad patterns in data streams etc. If people are storing good data that we can use, or private data that will convert eventually, then this proposal will make more sense to many.
[…snip…]
Physical resources are required, but from whom and why? Every desktop pc user who uses the MaidSafe network also runs a vault.
[…snip…]
These vaults … install and run automatically…
[…snip…]
…your machine will earn based on a double curve graph, most likely a sigmoid curve pattern.
[…snip…]
The algorithm adjusts dynamically based on supply and demand of the network. You want as many people as possible storing data, you want these people to store data with no barriers. This earns you money!
[…snip…]
There is no ‘crisis of the commons’ in this story, only success of the strong and those strong are the providers. They will contribute and be rewarded, bringing balance and equilibrium to the system.
[…snip…]
You want people to store and store freely from all types of devices, even if they have no vault as this earns you more. So yes let people switch off vaults and not use them, these people will not earn, but increase your own earning rate.
[…snip…]
What if all of this did not work?
[…snip…]
If resources could not keep up with demand then clients can be restricted in data storage and be forced to buy resources…
[…snip…]

I can see three solid and one questionable attack on this premises just from what I’ve highlighted here:

  • There is no thought about encrypting public data and therefore making it non-beneficial to the consumers
  • There is a logical fallacy - False Dilemma: “the value of data is either good or bad”
  • It is claimed that there is no possible Tragedy of the Commons…until the last snippet when one is exemplified.
  • Most of the reasoning in the post assumes that all users are vaults, until he states otherwise.

[EDIT: One more]

  • The post mentions several times that more people storing data will increase farmer’s profits when, strictly speaking, accessing that data is what provides the reward - and more people accessing it does not scale as well in rewards due to caching and other factors.

Regardless, the underlying ideological stance is admirable, despite the implementation being fundamentally flawed.

Disclaimer: All quotes were attempted to be put into the correct context, although this is not strictly possible without examining the entire essay. The link at the top redirects to the original source.

1 Like
130

Well “should” is just like, your opinion, man.
Mine is they should not. Farmers should be able to decide for themselves.
You claimed many would volunteer so why introduce compulsion?

And how can one even attempt to justify that a poor farmer from Nigeria should be forced to host some middle class European’s public data for free?

1 Like
131

I would also add that there has been a lot of water flow under the bridge after this and many issues discussed. That blog was early 2014 after all, and much discussion has been had over this topic.

For instance at some stage.

  • it changed to every account would get some free storage
  • then a requirement would be that it is limited to each unique human to keep further restraints on free storage (from being abused) [unique human too difficult now and maybe for decades]
  • then to no free storage and account has to be paid for so that uploading can be commenced
  • somewhere in there it was suggested that public data cost 25% of public
  • then when reward the producer, even the reduced public cost of uploads is doubtful.

There was good reasons for all this and there are a couple of threads dealing with this all. See where I gave them to Anders earlier in this or the other thread where Anders has been discussing the same thing.

At that time payment was for storing in the vault, not GETting.

That is yet another change

2 Likes
132

Yes, the post was a response to @Anders Argument from Authority. Your points strengthen my stance.

EDIT: It also puts in into context on where we are today, and how we got here; namely from collaborative effort and constructive discussion.

133

With free public data the inflation of safecoin is proportional to the growth of the SAFE network. Fractional reserve banking has shown that continuous inflation is a workable model. Before you think that’s a horrible idea, consider the current growth rate of the economy today. Even with cooked numbers, countries today can be glad if they have 2% economic growth per year.

Compare fractional reserve banking to the SAFE network with a linear inflation of safecoins due to free public storage. First of all, on SAFE the inflation rate will always be proportional to the growth of the data storage. This prevents fractional reserve exponential inflation. And secondly, the economic growth of the SAFE network will be far greater during the first years than the economic growth for countries and fractional reserve banking.

This means that a fixed farming reward can be given to farmers for both private (100% cost) and public (free) data storage, leading to predictable, linear and stable inflation of the total number of safecoins. And even though the actual value of safecoin will be determined by exchange markets, the inflation in terms of number of safecoins is proportional to the growth of the SAFE network.

134

Yes no payments to the network and only network paying out (you want payments on write & read to/from vaults. Not even bit coin has a corresponding model.

Thus massive inflation

And thus the discussion has done another circle. Belief vs practicality

1 Like
135

Linear inflation. It will be very stable long-term, and make the safecoin value increase during the first years because of the exponential growth of the SAFE network.

136

maybe linear, most likely not, but massive.

Any system that has no costs, no currency inputs and keep printing money is highly inflationary and devaluing each coin constantly. Since your system has no intrinsic value to start with any reduction in value keeps the coin valueless. Why even have it? Not even bitcoin is like that.

Of course you have been told, been shown why, and this is just another round in that the discussion. Show some real analysis of why the counter analysis is wrong rather than “belief”

137

Linear in proportion to the expansion of the data storage in the SAFE network. So it’s actually much less inflation than with ordinary money like the dollar and the euro. Yes, because an expected network effect, the SAFE network will in the beginning grow exponentially, and thereby the total number of safecoins will be proportional to that. With ordinary money there is actually exponential inflation of the money supply while the economy is growing at a slower rate. So ordinary money actually has an exponential inflation, which could become really problematic soon. Safecoin will remain having a linear, predictable and stable inflation.

“Raising the debt ceiling, which has been done over a hundred times, does not increase our debt.” – Barack Obama :smiley:

138

@Anders, have you ever read the book “Aftershock”?

139

Seems like an interesting book. Here is a video that explains exponential inflation in fractional reserve banking titled Money as Debt:

140

It is. One point that it emphasizes is that money should be based on a tangible good, service, or physical resource.