This is the only thing we can assume to be true in my opinion.
The question is at what rate will it happen over time?
In my opinion we should want storage costs to drop at the quickest possible rate. The competition between these DACs is to see which one can drop the storage costs the fastest.
And any DAC has to beat the rate of the dollar or the economics will never work.
The problem is we don’t want it to be self correcting in the sense that if “we” don’t need the space it could be because “we” haven’t marketed SAFE Network itself so demand is artificially low.
The only way to increase demand is to increase supply. So farmers would have to be encouraged to farm even if demand is low.
For example do you think Google ever stops increasing their storage space? or their computation? Do you think Amazon does this? All you would be doing by doing this is artificially load balancing and the only purpose would be to make you less competitive compared to the network which just keeps going for unlimited space not caring about how much is actually being used.
The reason is when you look at chips for example like ASICs the reason these chips become chip is because they get massed produced. Far more chips are produced than required by the market at the time which results in very cheap chips as they flood the market. This is what causes the deflationary spiral and I argue this is exactly what we want to cause for storage.
So if we can mass produce storage space at a faster rate than any other network we win. We don’t need to load balance because we are the whole sale network. Let whomever buys from us worry about load balancing.
Perhaps my math is wrong? I just don’t see a reason why we would ever stop feeding the growth of the network. I think if demand is low early on it’s because people can get cheaper storage with dollars or something else so you’d have to mass produce as much storage as possible all the time to create demand by having such ridiculously low prices.
The value would be in selling the space itself. If you can get more resources from SAFE Network than anywhere else then Safecoin will be how you acquire those cheap resources. I don’t think demand will ever go down and if there is lack of demand it would be either because there aren’t enough farmers to bring the price down fast enough to offer the best deal compared to the dollar or because of poor marketing to the sorts of companies which would be able to use the storage.
There isn’t a limit on demand or supply. But the supply has to be increased continuously and the idea of trying to load balance it seems stupid to me.
What if Google and Amazon decided they wanted to stay buying MaidSafe? Then the problem would be there isn’t enough farmers. So you have to focus on getting enough farmers to woo these sorts of businesses into using MaidSafe as a whole sale supplier.
Think of it like a whole sale manufacturing business and not retail. You produce as massive of a quantity as you can and if you have over supply then you lower prices continuously until someone bites.
When big companies figure out that they can save 50% or more in costs if they buy from MaidSafe then MaidSafe will be a success. So that should be one of the early goals, to have so much supply early on that you can make an offer to Google or Amazon or to their competitors.
You could do this. The question is how do you scale MaidSafe to overtake Google and Amazon? It should dwarf them in terms of resources if done right.
The only way to do that is to figure out how to get people to farm. I don’t see how we could provide incentives for people to farm right now and without that there will not be demand.
If I can get a better deal from Google why would I care what SAFE Network is offering? Google could decide to offer free unlimited storage and then what will you do?
Now you have to compete with Google to acquire storage space at a faster rate. Does the math support that? If it does then eventually MaidSafe could win by going to Google’s competitors and offering them similar deals so that Google would have to eventually go to MaidSafe as the whole saler as well.
But the problem is if Safecoin represents CPU and bandwidth then putting so much emphasis on load balancing for storage seems like it would backfire.
When you have too much storage that would mean farmers shouldn’t stop farming but should instead switch to bandwidth etc.
How do you price in everything?
You said what I was trying to say but could not express so eloquently. We need to focus on increasing the supply of storage if we want to make SAFE Network and Safecoin competitive.
Because of technology deflation, the odds are in our favor that Network storage continues to increase exponentially. Add mass adoption and Safecoin will purchase even more storage. I think I made my point clear and if the community wishes to ignore it, so be it.
This quote here could end up being as important as the discovery of Moore’s law. If network storage grows exponentially then the whole MaidSafe project will be a success for early or late adopters.
Are we really setting out to complete with Google? I don’t want my data on a network that hands it over to the NSA as soon as I save it. I realize I’m probably in the minority but the more and more we know about what governments are doing with our data, the more I’m willing to pay more for the security of MaidSafe.
We should not only compete with Google but surpass Google in resources. That is the whole point of a whole safe resource network.
If you don’t want your data handed over to the NSA then keep your data private. MaidSafe gives you the option to do this while Google does not.
But most people want the search capabilities, the apps, the email, etc. There are a lot of functionality that Google has besides the NSA scandal and I don’t know why you chose to ignore everything useful in favor of that.
What I should have said is are we really setting out to dethrone Google and Amazon right off the bat in the storage realm? My belief that it can and will eventually happen is one reason I’m speculating that my time, energy, money is not going to be wasted here.
This is exactly the point I was making… That is a reason why I won’t go for the better deal with Google or Amazon if there is something else, even if Google is “free” and the safe network costs me something.
I’m not ignoring everything else just sticking to the subject of this post, which was the cost of extra data storage. I personally believe it’s going to take quite some time, perhaps many years, to get apps that compete with what’s on the classic web. We are going to need a lot of Devs.
Correct, you got the right idea.
The big challenge out the gate is how much storage will be available at launch?
In order to get a (1 Safecoin per 1Gb) ratio, we need 430,000,000Gb within the first 30days.
This is because there is already 430 million Safecoins premined.
We have some options if we don’t have enough storage, such as…
If we get something like 860,000,000Gb on day one, then we will slaughter any competition out the gate and it will be a good launch. I have no idea how fast it will grow, but the odds are in our favor as time goes on.
If the fiat price goes up, due to speculation, then most likely storage will be too expensive. At the same time, it means we encourage more farmers. The FREE amount should cover the mobile users, while heavier users will have to provide their own resources until the total Network storage overtakes the total Safecoin supply.
But as I said to luckybit, I’m no so concerned that I’m paying less than I would for extra space on Google Drive or amazon or Dropbox or whatever. What I’m willing to pay for is distributed, available anywhere, encrypted data storage.
Why does the cost and the amount of storage matter so much at the beginning? I realize that the more supply, will mean lower cost but is the main reason we are focusing on this because we want to be competitive out of the gate?
Neither am I. Everyone will have a different reason for joining.
The point I am making is to emphasize what gives Safecoin it’s purchasing power in terms of buying storage.
However, SAFE storage is not just online storage, it used for: websites, social apps, email, everything on an entirely new internet. If people can wrap their head around that, they will break down the door trying to get into the Network.
Cost per Storage is just one aspect I focused on for example purposes.
And hence my desire to be involved as much as possible 
I’m not anxious about the rate of adoption though and maybe I’m being naive. In your opinion what happens if we don’t get this mass start?
I almost feel more anxious about a mass entry into the network than I do about a slow steady pace that will eventually pick up almost exponentially.
Honestly, I don’t expect mass adoption right away. If it happens, great! If not, then we still have a cool place to hangout with our friends and keep building the new internet we all wanted in the first place.
"To lead, means never looking back, hoping others will follow. You make our own path."
In order for investors to retain even the IPO price, then 1 Safecoin will have to buy more like 2.5 gig so you either need much more, or you screw investors knowingly. Simple as.
The solution I suggest is to not allow other cryptos to enable value but I’m flogging a dead horse really. I invested in the IPO because it was stated:
safecoin is the crypto currency of the SAFE (Secure Access For Everyone) network.
It did not say Safecoin will be one amongst many cryptos, which is an entirely different investment proposal. As the recent trial poll illustrated there is community support in following that model and it is as advertised, then why not look at overcoming whatever technical difficulties we’d face, rather than ruling it out. If you rule it out, again investors will feel screwed as there is no obvious value anymore, I really can’t do the mental gymnastics to follow where the value comes from and if I struggle then other investors will too with very forseeable consequences.
I am not worried about Safecoin increasing in value, so that a small percentage can buy the whole network. At least, I would say it is irrelevant.
To explain, the price in fiat is the important price regarding security. In short, the cost to attack the network will remain the same, whether Safecoin doubles or halves in value - in fiat terms, it ist important.
Security wise, the ideal situation is having so many farmers and users, so that the cost (relatively, in fiat) is too high to make it feasible.
Bitcoin already is better than Paypal in many ways. It also has more computing resources than all the top super computers in the world.
So I don’t think it has to take many years at all. I think Google and Amazon can be dethroned in terms of resources in the first 2 years if we were to set it as a goal to do that.
Businesses have projects, goals, and milestones. What should be ours? I think we should aim to dethrone them at least in the storage category because that is easily possible.
In terms of apps I cannot say that would be so easy but it’s certainly possible there could be clones which work just like Google.
Safecoin’s (fiat value) and (storage purchasing power) are 2 different things. You can have a $1000 Safecoin and still only buy 1Gb or $0.001 and only buy 1Gb.
Now if we decide to equate Safecoin’s fiat value to Storage, we warp the relationship of total supply chasing total storage. If the community decides to do this, then so be it. I’ve already expressed my concern on this matter.
Here’s a different way to see Safecoin’s investment value.
Google Drive costs $0.02 per Gb per month, $0.24 per year… and so on.
The current pay model for Safecoin to buy storage is for life. If a user pays 1 Safecoin per 1Gb and keeps the account for 12 months, they are “gaining” more value as time goes on.
Instead of paying $0.12, they only paid $0.01 for 12months… 12 years… an so on.
I hope you’re not suggesting we find a way to “force” people to only accept Safecoin on the SAFE Network. That is not freedom, it is oppression.
I’ve just read/skimmed this thread and some interesting points stood out for me.
@dirvine has described above the proposed mechanism for balancing demand with farmer provided storage, essentially by increasing Safecoin farm rate when more storage is needed and vice versa. EDIT: This allows the network to ignore the fiat price, since the network automatically rebalances as the fiat price fluctuates. This also, to me, appears like it might be a good damping mechanism reducing speculation and volatility, because Safecoin will be seen at least initially in terms of the storage it can buy - it already has a visible and easily understood value.
@luckybit (posts 22-24, above to which this is a reply) is suggesting that for MaidSafe to succeed we need to also address the effective fiat price of SAFE storage in order to ensure the network grows, by making it price competitive with other providers.
I think @luckybit is jumping ahead here, but does raise important questions, which I think need to be answered first - such as what are the aims of SAFE? (@luckybit suggests we want to dominate the storage market, and eliminate Google, Amazon and other commercial centralised clouds). And another question, what are the ways we meet these aims? such as competitive pricing of storage, feature appeal, marketing methods, channels and so on?
We already have some discussion of MaidSafe’s strengths and how to market it, but it appears to me that we also need some discussion of our aims as these naturally affect the selling points (for example, wiping out Google could be by being cheaper, or by having some killer feature appeal - but it is a tall order because different features will appeal to different users and many are completely happy to trust Google, however misguided we think that is. So we will need to “compete” on the basis of many things if we are to grow that big.)
I thought there was already a significant discussion about SAFE features to use for marketing. I found The most marketable aspects of the Safe Network but it has much less in it than I thought, so have I missed another thread along these lines? EDIT: Yes, this is the one: Clear and Concise Description of Product(s) (thanks @chadrickm).
Anyway, I think we need to consider what is at the center of @luckybit’s point:
If people agree this should be a new topic under Strategy (cat) that can feed back into this one. I’ll wait though as I’ve started to many topics to keep up with myself lately! 
I agree to some extent.
I was thinking about this last night and doubt 50% of the total coin supply will ever be used to buyout all the storage. But 1% of the coin supply is too close for my comfort zone. Assuming there were no malicious investors from the crowd sale, we can also say that someone coming in afterwards will only drive up the fiat price when trying to accumulate enough coins to take the whole network.
*I promised this community I will be more diligent in the future. I’ve been overly protective and will try to reign back some of my paranoia. *
REDIRECTING THE QUESTION
Maybe I’m just being thick, but reviewing everything since I originated this thread, I don’t see that we’ve actually addressed the simplicity of my question. I’ll try again to narrow the target.
Assuming that individual users are enabled to purchase resources from the network beyond what they provide and/or beyond some free limit, what is the formula or mechanism by which the network determines the price?
Perhaps there are too many other variables that are floating to consider this simply. I really don’t have a firm position on how it should be. But if resources are to be purchased from the network, the network has to have some framework to execute the transaction.
If purchase of resources is NOT included, but simply POR dictates the limit (perhaps also even a free limit) of resources provided by the network to an individual account, then the mechanism of safecoin issuance difficulty could be used by itself to balance the network, as @dirvine discusses above .
But if the network is going to sell something, it has to have a model for determining a price, whether fixed or variable.
It’s actually a simple question, if not simple to tease out an answer. I just think it is an important one, in it’s simplicity. @dyamanaka has come closest to an actual formula (whether workable or not) regarding available-storage/safecoin, but with all the other loose factors the water is cloudy.
I’m thinking ratio or other metric, whether simple or complex.
If this is not a valid question for some reason, someone please help clarify why not.
I think I understand (perhaps). I see initially there could be exchanges that operate much like BTC exchanges, run by people. These would take a% of the tx cost of the sale of safecoin for FIAT or whatever. So price is market set.
I think these will compete with exchanges that are more automatic and decentralised (better) that will take less of a cut and be more accountable (perhaps).
I think the current fiat/btc system although not yet complete is a start and can be used as a blueprint, especially to not make the same mistakes, which we all know about. I see lots of scope for projects here to find the best way to get that part done.
I also think there should be a huge push to live in safecoin, i.e. never know or care of the price of it. To me that would be amazing, but realism is an issue that gets in the way, it does not stop me dreaming though. I think crypto will leak further into society and who knows where that will go.