Purchase/Sell content without third-party/platform involved

[Artiscience]

@jm5

I used the wrong word, customers have more “power” than vendors.

There is a fine line on this and it can turn into a very extensive conversation. My point was that currently vendors generally have more power, IMO, in the future, that will flip and customers will have more control. IMO, rightly so.

I still don´t see how you can make this statement. It´s neither true that currently vendors have generally more power (really depends on the economical sector) nor is it good that customers have generally more power over vendors, because vendors are always customers and customers usually also vendors. I don´t see why the relation between vendors and customers should NOT be (ideally) an equilibrium.

@neo

Wrong, it will be determined by the system as discussed in discussions around the topic. Look up David’s posts. 10% was only for a figure to get the discussions rolling.

It really doesn´t matter if it was a figure to get the discussion rolling. The status quo of the discussion is a static value - but maybe I am missing the discussion you are referring to. The latest remark of David re: 10% is this one from 14 days ago and it doesn´t say anything of a systemic estimation of share:

@dirvine

What we are looking at is Pay the Producer, so first up-loader of a chunk has their wallet address stored at Data Managers. (don’t upload secret stuff with a public Id etc. more to that, but just for now this is secure (nobody does upload with public Id)).

So create a song etc. upload and each chunk is linked to an id (wallet address) you own. On every farming success 10% of the amount goes to that address. So folk will say hey that reduces farmers ‘take’, but it does not as the network balances the rate to compensate farmers anyway.

I´d be grateful if you linked me to the discussion where David referred to systemically estimated cuts.

@neo

The point is that the person doing the GET doesn’t pay! As the discussions show. Its a reward of the network. The person doing the GET pays NOTHING. As the discussions show.

Uhm…no?! Not as the DISCUSSION shows but as my OP showed. If you reread you´ll find that I am fully aware that GETs are unpaid - my examples showed potential use cases. Actually @fergish was one out of few who commented on the precise question. The technical impossibility to do so is a good argument, your opinion that you don´t want it is not.

@neo

Define most. Most useful stuff? or the most stuff because scammers are targeting the huge painted targeted feature you proposed.

Your argumentation resembles my mothers arguments against cryptocurrencies. There will always be scams, but the scams you suggest presuppose that people would always click on “confirm” whenever a payment request is made. I don´t see why anyone would do that, but feel free to do so.

@neo

Not if the current discussions are seriously considered. That is a “pouch” that holds SAFEcoins for automatic use in converting to resources for PUTs. You could be liable upto the number of coins in the pouch. The reason is to prevent the system confirming a spend for every single coin. especially when you are expecting to do a lot of uploading.

I think to discuss the impossibility we´d need to see the ultimate implementation. In a sense I don´t see why any sort of spending should go unconfirmed. I´d expect the system to tell me: “This action costs you 10,000,000 Safecoin. Proceed?”

@neo

While your (still reading?) point has a lot of merit, the consequences to the network is large and it seems you are ignoring that.

Well, to you it seems I ignore it, to me it seems you are ignoring that I wanted to discuss technical feasibility and merit - technical consequences may be severe, but since I am not demanding to code, but rather discuss the possibility it really doesn´t matter. You don´t have to see the merit, but it would be nice if you´d don´t act as if other people couldn´t. Also, I don´t see how axiomatic arguments like these
“SAFE was designed to be FREE for GETs, PAY to use resources, and the network rewards for farming and supplying popular content (an incentive for creators to upload)”
in a discussion that is about the possibility to do things different. If you don´t like this discussion, noone forces you participate.

Your fears about what could happen to the network are in my opinion way exaggerated. Particularly your scammer argument resembles the argument that retailers made against online-markets: “People will make big promises, provide you with poor/no quality and walk away with your money.” Did people click on “Click here, you were chosen out of 1,000,000 users” commercials? Sure they did. Will the majority do that? Surely no.

@neo

that “public” information will be locked up into pay up or nick off.
(…)
Its a form of DRM made worse because now it costs every time to use

I giggled about that, since - as you said yourself - I could do that with a shopping system as well. So you are saying it WILL happen if users could choose to charge GETs, but apparently have no fears that it happens with shopping systems.

You appear to expect that with the potential to charge for content, users will charge everything. I wonder why? There will always be content that is free because uploaders want you to visit the content without any restrictions. Then there will be content that users want to sell because they are not able or unwilling to give it to you freely and there will also be content that won´t be available to anyone.

What I´d expect to happen is that some people charge for the use of their sites and I believe that is rather good than bad. Fact is: content creators are contributing to economical surplus, but they are currently dependent on services to get income. Many (v)bloggers run their business on advertisement and product placement - because that´s (one out of few ways) to generate income. Users think the content is free, but it isn´t - they only pay differently, e.g. by giving revenue to the advertised service.

Paying for content excludes those who can´t afford the same way as paying for car excludes those who can´t afford. The fact that they can´t is not a reason to expect a free car - it´s a reason to question whether there is a political problem with access to ressources.