Knowing which apps are popular and having anonymous statistics helps SAFE Network to evolve into something better. Fear of statistics means you don’t understand that in order to engineer something such as UX or function you require statistics.
We need to know what the preferences of the people are. It’s not about the preferences of the FBI because the FBI is just one intelligence agency of one particular country and has nothing to do with this. This is about providing SAFE Network information about itself so that SAFE Network can continue to evolve into a better network based on that.
Scores, prices, ratings, all are quantification and all are necessary for curation not just of content, but of apps, of algorithms, of everything. It’s simply not the case that all content is of equal value or that all apps are of equal value, and resources are scarce.
Machine learning can probably be done on any data but the point is to the UX the curation of content and apps are the primary use case for machine learning. People want a SAFE Network which meets them where they are morally, and which adapts to fit their preferences, their use case. Stumbleupon for example is really simple but it’s still better than just throwing a person directly into a dark net.
PpL invites Like buying because just rating on likes is too simple. There has to be a deeper range of expressionality in the ratings. If people are willing to sell their preferences, their ratings, etc, that is on them. People can also coerce others in a free market into buying from certain companies or else the person might lose their job, or they could be made to boycott certain companies out of fear of losing their job. These are issues which exist but only exist if people know the identities of people behind the scores which isn’t something which anyone would know.
In theory you can have like buying but it doesn’t change the fact that even if you have the risk of that, it’s still giving people more options to express how they feel about any particular content. In addition you can structure it in circles and use web of trust so that only people you follow can rate content and this way you could avoid the sort of peers who you think would sell out.
But the point is someone has to rate, someone has to score, someone has to review, someone has to test, or you’ll have to do that. So curation absolutely is a necessity or PtP doesn’t work, and PpL can work but not if it’s just Like, it has to include dislike, it has to include a full range of expressions other than just Like, it has to include how much or how little something is liked, how relevant something is, how useful.
Do they ?
I for one want a network that shows me all the diversity of points of views, would they be shocking to me. I want it to ignore my identity and preferences.
A network that adapts its content based on profile scraping and personal information abuse ,and serves a lukewarm soup to hide the way it manipulates our opinions , we already have.
Yeah they get spent, but it seems to me PtP introduces an element of multilevel marketing in this.
Why can’t the farmers spend their own money (part of what they earn), why does it have to be given to the posters?
That is indefensible as far as I am concerned. We already know that the P’s in PtP will be the posters (“Pay the Pirate” is another way to expand that model), not the producers, who will get the bulk of that money (ever been to xvideos.com? [not workplace safe!]).
That being a fact, it’s impossible to justify the taking money from the farmers to pay the P’s.
But again, may I remind you to discuss this in relevant topic.
@luckybit, Curation as a Service (app) could function without any support from the platform. Download the app, reference what others say/like. If you don’t like it, don’t use it. It’s simple.
You problem is that you know most people wouldn’t give two craps about it, so you want to push it on to everyone (the platform) so that all users pay for it.
I can’t say I like the idea of endless taxation to fulfill these goals however noble they aim to be.
The platform cannot deliver (and not just SAFE, no one can) a way to reward only the producers and at the same time be free and anonymous.
That being the case I suggest SAFE sticks with the primary goals. S.A.F.E.
I am ignoring the implication the system takes from farmers wallets to pay PtD/PtP and some how they cannot spend what they get
PtD ot PtP does not affect in any way what farmers get. Farmers will get EXACTLY the same if PtD/PtP exist or not
Farmers get 100% of FR. This is what they get, the RFC shows this
Then PtD will be rewarded at the rate of 10% of FR for the GETs due to PtD And similar for PtP. So in fact over all the network, rewards given for PtD will be MUCH less than 10% of what farmers get
FR is only affected by storage.
Interestingly if PtP brought in extra content then FR would actually increase and farmers would get more.
I agree with these sentiments. PtX just has too many pitfalls for me to support them. Tbh, I don’t understand why people are so against just paying/tipping directly. Simple, easy, can’t be gamed.
As for who pays in PtX, there is one bucket full of PUT payments. All payouts have to come out of this (ignoring inflation of money supply). Let’s not forget that.
That in my view does not matter. What matters is total issuance.
If today’s supply is 100 and 100 is issued, everyone is diluted by 50%. If 110 new tokens are issued, they’re diluted more than 50%.
Saying this doesn’t matter is like claiming the central bank thugs are not stealing when they give 0% loans to banks, because “ultimately” this currency filters down to the average serf (of course, by then it loses value, which is why one has to ensure to be first in the line). A very easy way to imagine how this (PtP) will work on SAFE is:
Do you want to buy a $250 SSD and become a farmer, and wait till you get some GET requests (may be days or weeks; in any case it may take you a year, if ever, to get your money back)
Or, do you want to create a “Click here PLEEEZE, 1 click 1 satoshi, weekly payouts!” type of app for $5 and start making Safecoins on day 1
There being no way to tell request stuffing from legit app requests, PtP adds no value to the network.
SAFE is a PoW network and based on what we know now, PtP requests aren’t work, they’re just requests.
Like digging a ditch and filling it up again. That shouldn’t be rewarded, it’s not useful “work” and it can’t be proven that it’s useful (so it shouldn’t qualify as Proof of Work).
(Bitcoin transactions are a completely separate issue; the every inclusion into the blockchain is useful PoW and miners also validate unspent outputs from addresses that broadcast transactions, for which they must have a valid copy of the entire blockchain from day 0 till now. On the SAFE network it’s completely different; PoR is a fulfilled GET request; that’s how you (the farmer) prove you have the blocks you’ve been entrusted by the network; you don’t care (and can’t even know) what others are doing in terms of Work, you just need to take care of your own part).
[I still can’t believe you keep coming up with these “clarifications” that noone is asking for; please go to a PtP topic for that. This topic is about curation.]
If one creates an app and then markets it well enough to get enough likes (from an authorized curation app?) to deem it worthy to receive payment - where does the safecoin come from - how would that work?
Authorized by whom? There is no central authority on SAFE.
I concur with this and said as much in the legalize PtP thread. We don’t need more averaging and democraization of ideology. We already have that now on internet 1.0.
it’s not. No money is taken from the farmer’s wallets. We’ve been over this. Safecoin is issued directly from the network.
Oh for the love of toast do the math man just like i did. I made the exact same argument against PtP you’re making. Do the math! There are a fixed number of safecoin in existence. If the network issues more safecoin then it adjusts the farming rate and cost of storage accordingly. What happens when there are not enough farmers? The network issues more safecoin. What happens when there are less farmers? The network issues less safecoin. If more safecoin is issued the value of safecoin might take a dip, farmers might drop out a bit or people might just spend on storage a bit and then it all balances out again. Every user on the safe network, including the content producers is most likely a farmer to some degree and they most definitely all use storage so the “dilution” is regained by either lowered upload costs or farming rates. It all balances out.
Do you want to do the math and figure out which method is more efficient and actually pays more? It’s not like the click for bitcoin (or in this example safecoin) is a new idea. It’s all over the bitcoin market. And people should be free to engage in that kind of thing. BUT you need to take into account the time you would be spending on clicking away at that button, or watching those adds or whatever the clickbait would have you do. Also you gotta take into account caching on SAFE. SAFE caches content that’s accessed over and over again and cached content doesn’t get credit or repeated GETS. So if you don’t produce new content you won’t get rich because your content will just end up being cached and you won’t get credit for it being popular.
I don’t see why curation and smart contract distribution wouldn’t work, especially if it was easy to set up and modify said smart contracts. Mostly my objection is towards the notion that PtP won’t work or can’t work because that’s been proven false not that curation can’t work. As I’ve said before there’s no reason they can’t work in tandem or in harmony.
Mostly my concerns about curation come from a curration monopoly developing and that essentially ostrocizing minority opinion of one form or another. Moreover I’m also concerned about information analysis breaking security. I suppose if only the app knew the stats and the A.I. simply analyzed it without disclosing it to the public that might work but I think it would become an issue if such statistics became public without the user’s consent.
Yeah tight and the Fed didn’t do anything bad since 2009, all new money was lent at. 0.25%/pa to the Wall Street.
Sure let’s see how the farming will pay compared to the Wall Street biz model!
It’s not like the click for bitcoin (or in this example safecoin) is a new idea. It’s all over the bitcoin market. And people should be free to engage in that kind of thing.
You really don’t get it… Such as for example the distinction between who pays for the stupid clicks in case of Bitcoin microjobs vs. who’d pay here.
BUT you need to take into account the time you would be spending on clicking away at that button, or watching those adds or whatever the clickbait would have you do. Also you gotta take into account caching on SAFE. SAFE caches content that’s accessed over and over again and cached content doesn’t get credit or repeated GETS. So if you don’t produce new content you won’t get rich because your content will just end up being cached and you won’t get credit for it being popular.
You must be joking! I don’t need to “produce” shit, I just need output from /dev/random and a bunch of bots to bang on those files with a t+1 interval where t is the cache expiry time in seconds. Is it clearer now?
The Fed is based on debt based currency since it’s inception. SAFE is a resource based economy. You’re comparing apples and oranges. Moreover SAFE is open source, as would the PtP and PtD protocols be per your inspection of the code to make sure that indeed they are not taking from the user’s wallet and that in fact the network is issuing fresh coin. You don’t need to trust, the code is right there for you to inspect.
What on earth are you on about?
You’re inferring that one would make their living purely off PtP, I find that doubtful as I don’t think one could, but okay. Network pays user, that money then belongs to the user to do with what they will. User then starts microjobs app business and pays other users to click clickbait and generate content for him to generate PtP revenue. It’s stupid but hey he is providing a service and they are clicking the clickbait. If you don’t support it then don’t click the clickbait and use the service.
No since random data won’t generate downloads for you and you’re back to square one. People generally don’t like to watch white noise.
They won’t even need to see it. A background loop in your web browser, rendered to a hidden element, would be fine.
I think people underestimate how easy it will be to get clients downloading useless noise , which will earn the provider money. Genuine works will be lost in the noise and these leaches will feed off the network until it slows to a crawl.
Okay but wouldn’t that just be you loading your own data over and over again? You’d get the data but wouldn’t get it again for the same reason a web page loads instantaneously, it gets cached.
Even so it is a security concern. Could a work around not be devised?
The flaw is being able to target specific data to get your victims to hit. You won’t be able to do it with data farming (it least not without an awful lot of resources), but with PtP it would be relatively straightforward.
Could one not design a similar exploit for app development? Design a script to repeatedly download an app from the network over and over again?
If this kind of strategy can be employed against PtP surely it can be employed against PtD as well.
I mean yeah this does lend itself to a curation system of some sort which would lend itself to creating more variables and verification systems. But it also underlines the fact that PtD, as well as PtP could be a severe security concern.
