Incorrect. Gift economies are quite sustainable and were quite predominant in many cultures before capitalist imperialists came along and systematically wiped them out because they were a threat to their cultural paradigm. Which is exactly the conflict we are seeing here. Moreover having content released for free hardly makes it free as content producers can be awarded safecoin according to how much the content is used/downloaded much the same way app developers are rewarded or you can rely on donations from people that support your work. OR you could simply refuse to release more content, or content of a certain type that is not supported financially by the community. No donations? No more continuing that wonderful book series or art rendition or work is stopped on a movie production or TV series. If fans want their art fix they keep sending in the donations. People announce financial goals all the time. You see the preverbial themometers all over the place.
You propose to encrypt a file and meter out who has access to it by getting them to pay you for access to it thereby creating artificial scarcity where none previously existed. How is this not any different than the current system?
Not the same, and I am sure if you read the discussions that it is not meant to be either. You are after setting the price of your goods and getting SAFE to get it by charging for GETs. Rewards are a completely different mechanism.
To some extent I did, but when the cost for GETs is totally and highly variable then people will make mistakes even when asked.
Puts are paid for by using some of the amount of pre-paid resources you have and no need to annoy the user when PUTting. Only when you run out of these pre-paid resources does the system ask for another SAFEcoin to be spent to buy more. Even that is going to be simplified by having a pouch with SAFEcoins that can be automatically used to refresh your resources, and only when the pouch is empty does the user get asked anything. The same mechanism would be the simpler way for this idea too.
But your proposal will change SAFE in to a user pays for downloads, big time. How many people will jump on the bandwagon and charge for every chunk you get of their web site and images.
How many sites will charge for that must have information (scam)
It will turn SAFE into a scammer paradise and fill up web sites that can and will make a buck off people’s desire for that information that will help them out.
No thanks, the developers desire to make GETs FREE is a good decision
My understanding was that the necessary information (data map) was available if public, but yes, I might be wrong here and maybe it can only be solved with an app.
Well, define completely different. The 10% cut IS different, because it is statically set by developers and because farmers pay instead of customers. Fact is, as a content generator I will still have to make you pay whether it’s this way or another, because I have to feed a family. The static rewards won’t suit every creator, same as donations won’t work for everyone. On the other side the 10% cut is an incentive for piracy and making money out of the hard work of others. It’s a negative factor for every creator even if GETs will be unpaid.
Sorry, I dont get where the confusion comes from. If you buy different things at different rates on amazon, did you ever made a mistake such as “oh snap, didn’t want to buy ghis spoon for 1000$!”? Or ia volatility a problem? As with basically all cryptocurrencies.
Point is, most content will be free anyway. Few people will sell their goods and if you enter a page that asks you constantly to pay for something that you didn’t want to buy you close the browser, same as you don’t click on popups that promise you were selected to grab a million $. You are arguing with the incapacity of people to make autonomous decisions, since every payment needs to be confirmed. Doesn’t sound very libertarian to me.
Hey, why don’t we all make a statement without having to back them up. Be so kind and make a reference where “gift economies” have ever vastly existed as dominant economical mode. Yes, patronage always existed, but that’s not a dominant economy, it’s subsidation based on other economies and often leads to devaluation of work. Current science funding is a good example. But you certainly have much better ones.
[quote=“Blindsite2k, post:41, topic:5044”]
You propose to encrypt a file and meter out who has access to it by getting them to pay you for access to it thereby creating artificial scarcity where none previously existed. How is this not any different than the current system?[/quote]
As I already explained, you may have read it, SAFE provides users with Secure Access for Everyone. The slogan is not Free Access to Everything. The fact that you dislike content creators to charge for their work is irrelevant in this discussion. People can and will charge anyway, because they cannot live out if thin air or a random cut set by developers.
Sounds like a horrible misunderstanding of art, that is mostly not about becoming popular in a predefined peer group. Sometimes people just want to do quality work that is paid by few - which is absolutely up to them. Popularity has anything to do with valuable art.
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.
But really I find this particular point ironic considering we’re debating this concerning a piece of open source software (which is one example of a gift economy) which is being largely written using linux (another piece of open source software and another gift economy) and supplimented by a volunteer community effort (yet ANOTHER gift economy). You’re literally surrounded by functional gift economies and yet you’re questioning their efficacy?
Sure encrypt if you want to, it’s your right to do so. That’s not the point. The point is you’re proposing changing the system somehow to do it. Also I think we’ve already established that people don’t want to pay money for information that otherwise wouldn’t be made scarce. In short they don’t want artifical scarcity. So go ahead and encrypt the file. Then when the user gets it he then uploads it, people pirate it and you make nothing more just like anyone else trying to use copyright to create artificial scarcity. Which is why I said how is what you are doing different than the established system? People do not want DRM, they do not want artificial scarcity. They want to own their data and they want abundance of data. So sure encrypt if you want that’s your right but I don’t see the difference between your proposal and copyright nor the predictable response from the public.
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.
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.
You want payment then don’t make it public and open a SHOP. Is this so difficult. Encrypt it if you don’t want others to see your “public” data, but really why make it public, just share the datamap to purchasers
Define most. Most useful stuff? or the most stuff because scammers are targeting the huge painted targeted feature you proposed.
The PUTs which one pays for will be following a set of maths and move around rather slowly compared to the price of 10 SAFEcoin’s worth of resources on one image and 1 SAFEcoin worth on another.
Yes
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.
While your (still reading?) point has a lot of merit, the consequences to the network is large and it seems you are ignoring that. It turns the network on its head, when people can charge for every chunk you GET, the effect will be
that “public” information will be locked up into pay up or nick off.
that scammers will use social engineering to get even the best of us to fork up money only to be disappointed. Made worse because people will want money for you just visiting their wow site.
Its a form of DRM made worse because now it costs every time to use
the useful uses will be overshadowed by the bad.
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)
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.
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:
I´d be grateful if you linked me to the discussion where David referred to systemically estimated cuts.
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.
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.
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?”
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.
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.
It is not static. Read the discussion you used to claim static 10% just keep reading further
And this self calculated amount is confirmed elsewhere as the way he wishes to go.
Umm I was answering your statement of intent. Don’t complain when I answered this.
Attack a answer to your question but don’t answer the real issue, the fact that SAFE turns into a user pays for their data and scammers love the field day they will have. And only a very little %age of the network is FREE to read
In fact the discussion of the various uses of your proposal is in fact discussing the technical consequences. Because any technical innovation has to consider the outcomes or else it is a goldfish bowl and a pure academic question.
Experience with the current networks and various ideas people have had in the past with their web sites/systems which have a very short life due to the problems this good idea brings with it.
A shop is not charge for GETs but charge for product. Just because the system uses GETs to fetch the content for them is still not being charged for GETs, but your product.
Anyhow I can see that you have your idea of what you want, my experience over 50 years shows me some issues and this back-forth is creating more division than passing on ideas and reasons for them
What is happening right now to local markets in France, local growers cannot afford to continue producing fruit/veg, local meat is no longer viable. Why? Because large producers in Germany and the US are mass producing and selling at a lower price. Large vendors have more power than small vendors, in turn customers lose power of choice, not being able to afford local and to support local economies, to not being able to afford properly raised meat.
Yes, ideally that would be great Hopefully the SAFE Network will allow systems to occur where the ideal can be allowed to happen.
Anyways, this is related to your proposal but a bit off-topic, so we should end there.
and so are some of the other posts that show the implications of building-in paid GETs. As I have said before, I like the idea, I am just concerned about the consequences. As David said “it will require some pretty deep thinking.”
It´s true her refferred to something that might take place in the far future, the status quo of the discussion was still a static value, but I´m not up to playing words. What matters more is that any sort of automatically/systemically calculated revenue would eventually be determined by developers who set up an algorithm.
Rewarding uploaders is a massive incentive for piracy since you can make money out of the work of others. Users pay for that - they just don´t pay directly, they pay whenever they acquire Safecoin.
If you consider a “IT´S NOT POSSIBLE” an appropriate comment with regard to the “I wondered whether it would make sense if…” where I clearly stated that I´m fully aware that it is not forseen, you certainly did.
Your arguments were that “the consequences to the network is large”, that “It turns the network on its head” and that “SAFE was designed to be FREE for GETs”. All of those are not technical but normative arguments. A technical argument against the proposal is the technical infeasibility (the point of @fergish).
You can repeat that over and over again, it´s anything but an assumption. The same point could be and was made against Bitcoin and I still don´t see how Bitcoin is flawed due to the “scammers paradise” argument.
I didn´t say that, I only pointed out the irony of your argument. Your expectation about charging GETs was that ““public” information will be locked up into pay up or nick off”. Point is that there is no reason to lock up information that is MEANT to be public, while information that is supposed to be SOLD will be restricted by payments anyway.
Anyway, we´re way off the two examples that I discussed initially and I agree that both can be done with an app. I personally don´t see why - if feasible(!) no matter how complex - it shouldn´t be handled on a systemic level because content provision has exactly the same economic relevance for the network as storage provision does - you obviously do, so let´s leave it here.
I think you forget to mention the other side: the customers who do not care about buying locally grown stuff. They DECIDE to buy cheap vegetables and meat - they don´t have to. The price of locally grown vegetables is not affected negatively: If there were no competitors from Germany and the US you´d to expect even higher prices because there is a lack of competition and less food on the market. It´s not vendor vs. customer, it´s rather customer vs. customer and vendor vs. vendor. Obviously and unfortunately most people do not care about organic food and prefer to buy non-organic, yet cheap goods from elsewhere.
as I said “out of few”, didn´t want to discriminate the meaning of all other postings. To me as a non-developer the complexity to program what I suggested is irrelevant as long as it IS feasible in some way. It is a relevant point for coders though. In my humble opinion the current proposal gives advantages to storage providers in comparison to content providers. I believe my suggestion would be a fair solution instead of automatically rewarding uploaders by a certain cut.
Oh PS, forgot to mention some remarks with regard to gift-economies. I don´t think they prove trade relations between humans as wrong. There are numerous studies about the origin of altruism and the results mostly point to surplus. The problem of many economical theories is that they expect revenue in terms of a specific currency, but there are many expression of values. If you donate blood because you feel you have done something good to the people, that´s a value. If you provide your couch to strangers because you like the idea of a network of couch-sharers, that´s a value as well. People don´t do things that do not appear valuable to them, but that doesn´t mean they are always thinking in terms of $.
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.
Hopefully the SAFE Network will allow systems to occur where the ideal can be allowed to happen.