Ha, you are immobilized by imaginary attacker threats. Well, ok you could be correct. The SAFE network should be resistant to all possible attacks. That’s very important. I’m not so sure however that spamming a free public storage would be such a disaster. It could even be a sign of huge popularity!
Maybe David Irvine could weigh in and explain why he believed public storage could be made free to begin with.
Hey, wait a minute! The farming reward is random, right? So it doesn’t matter what data the farmers store. So if the farmer reward declines, as janitor said, then free public storage will only add to the safecoin inflation a bit, and 25% cost or free, take your pick, it doesn’t make much difference.
The solution then is to keep the current model and just reduce the 25% to 0%. That will make it possible to launch the SAFE network in 2017… eh, I mean in 2016.
You are lucky that there is no unlike button because you are going to be in the Guinness World Record.
All solutions to these types of problems have to be market driven, not decreed from above.
Good point. Imagine if Larry Page would say: “Make people pay for Google Drive! No freebies here. Because I say so.” And then an employee says: “More people would use it if we have a free quota.” Larry replies: “How do you think we can pay for a free quota?! Our server farms cost millions of dollars and Eric Schmidt said that we are not allowed to put ads on Google Drive.”
Nonsense. In google your data are their business.
And in Bitcoin the miners pay for the users’ bitcoins?
You don´t quite get it, Anders. Google advertises their product as freebie so that naive people believe it is a freebie, while they actually make you pay.
I can only recommend you to read this post of neo carefully. He asked you to do things that would seriously help to improve the discussions (as advocates of the forum guidelines would say). Rereading the thread it is obvious that you skip the questions that challenge your perspective and selectively open new points of discussion. It´s neither productive nor a pleasure to deal with.
Comparing the SAFE network to a company like Google or Dropbox is misleading. It’s like comparing apples and oranges. It’s more valid to compare SAFE to a cryptocurrency and examine what makes the economy of a cryptocurrency work. If safecoin can’t generate enough value to support free public data storage, then it’s a poor cryptocurrency.
Hear, hear!
If all farmers get rewarded even though public PUTs are discounted or free, the only missing part is how to make it possible for the app devs to generate requests for public data as a creative community member explained here:
And when there is 100% cost for storing public data it’s impossible for apps to earn safecoins? And who pays when an app stores private data, the user or the app owner?
How I managed read this thread without breaking my desk in two with my head I don’t know. Anyway, I have to ask: why have public data to begin with? Any private data that people/companies want to be viewable publicly can be made “public” by creating a script that auto-gives users the rights to view the data, with some extra code made for the purpose of preventing users from the alternating the data you don’t want altered. There wouldn’t be (much) data encrypted outside of the inherent encryption of the network, since the data you’d want private would already be encrypted without extra cost, so you get more deduplication.
Is there something I’m missing here?
Off-topic: Oh hell, sidechains are coming out in Q1 2016? Oh ****, I need to get me some bitcoins!
Public and Private data are the same at chunk level (highly encrypted). Public data has publicly accessible data maps (passwords if you like). Private data us stored in your own personal place on the network and encrypted and hidden. Public data is open published and it’s location shared.
If that helps? sidechains stuff now getting interesting from bitcoin perspective in many ways]
I was thinking about for example a SAFE “YouTube” app, where people can upload public videos. I doubt that many people would upload videos if it would cost safecoins for every video they upload. The same with a SAFE “Facebook” app where people upload public photos. One funny exception is “BitTorrent” files, because people wouldn’t upload so many copyrighted files if it costs safecoins to upload them, and that will make legal authorities and copyright owners happy, ha ha.
They can give them to you to pay of course and pay you with their privacy 
ofc it’s the how much do you pay (you always pay) and with what are you expected to pat with? In our case a token and the cost should be the absolute minimum as farmers should (hopefully) be providing unused resources. So pay the minimum is our goal really and never with your privacy or other data (like medical records etc.)
I imagine a scenario in the future where many people will be end users without being farmers. Or is the idea that safecoin will become so much used for all kinds of things that most end users will have wallets with safecoins in them? In that case people will likely upload files if the cost is very low (as it probably will be).
I don’t know if you noticed, David today said public and private PUT’s will cost the same:
Exactly, it´s misleading. And since you brought it up, you are misleading.
Actually that´s apples and oranges as well. 99% of all cryptocurrencies are based on Bitcoin, SAFE isn´t. The scheme and mechanism of distribution in particular is very different. This has been pointed out several times (I did here, point 3 in particular), but you blank out the arguments that have been repeated over and over again.
“Wait I have to pay money for that privacy shit? No way! I prefer to pay with my personal data. Keep rolin’ NSA!”
GREAT! So glad we can finally shelve this issue…
That’s the prevailing mindset among 99% of the population. Arguments for trying to change that is like trying to convince people that Linux is better than Windows.