A script that does this automatically from several clients could do quite well.
@seneca said it’d cost a lot in bandwidth, but at the moment I’m on an all-you-can-eat plan and can grab 1TB a day at 0 cost. Obviously I’d have to make sure to create a large set so that I can read through its different segments to allow them to expire from the cache layer before I cache them again.
If cache expires in 1 hour, then I’d need a small data set (100 GB or so) and continuously read them in order to always hit the vaults.
Wait a minute 
where do you think that money coming from? That 10% cut ripples through all of the SAFEeconomy starting with farmer and eventually ending with me paying more for my PUT… Why do I have or need to pay someone for moderation (that I might don’t like or agree with) or some published content that I don’t care or even condone…
1 Like
It’s just like taxes 
you’ll pay them for the benefit of all. In this case, people making and updating content and less ads (or none) on the network. But it’s not actually that you pay more, it’s more that Vaults make 10% less on content that’s owned by someone. And if you don’t like a website, you don’t visit so they won’t make anything extra on you, because you’re not there.
You, my friend, are going to be virtually crucified for this statement! 
1 Like
+1
The only crucifying you’ll get from me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WgXPBDrd8s&ab_channel=WILLIECOLLOW
Yea well, it’s all good until you get MSM headlines like “SAFE network - keeps your children unsafe” or “SAFE - secure access for extremist”. By network wide taxation you will be subsidising both good and bad actors.
Now these headlines most certainly will be printed out regardless of the final decision whether to go with this 10% tax or not but in my opinion without it we stand a chance and with it the public opinion will kill the network before it grows so to speak…
1 Like
So killing the network (which kills both good and bad users’ chance of benefiting from it) is okay, but creating a network that benefits the both is not okay.
That’s a typical example of double standards that go accepted and unquestioned by the electorate.
I would also question the official definition of a terrorist. Most governments should be classified as terrorist organizations.
1 Like
Be more specific which network you have in mind. I assume it\s the one with pay the producer cut you talking about.
But in general - IMHO yes it is OK if there are means to explicitly benefit good actors while benefiting bad actors only implicitly that is I agree to provide the means to express anybody’s views and opinions (by providing resources) but I disagree to pay for it (by getting 10% less rewards or paying 10% premium for a safecoin).
Edit: By OK I mean I wouldn’t weep if it disappeared not that I would actively participate in its disappearance
I was talking about the SAFE Network, but it’s the same for any public network - highways, railroads, Internet.
None got shut down because they were used by terrorists.
And you finance all of them by paying taxes, by the way. But you don’t do anything about that because it’s not easy (or, it’s useless) to complain to the government about paying taxes.
I haven’t argued for or against payments (rewards) on the SAFE network.
Personally I don’t like them either, but at the moment I’m more bothered by the planned discount for public data and some other details.
David pointed out that the “public discount” and “reward the creator” schemes are alternatives, not planned to exist together.
It’s 1 safecoin per file? So if I want to upload a 100kb JPG file it will be just as expensive as one 10gb MKV? That would encourage people to package a load of files they want to store and then upload it as one huge file.
No, this would be step one in the network you won’t see that price (unless you switch on the first vault on the network). Imagine if you did bootstrap the network then you upload 10 chunks then the price is 1000’th of a safecoin, then after 100 chunks (and no get’s yet) the cost will be so small I probably cannot write it here (1safecoin / 2^100), OK it’s 1/1267650600228229401496703205376 if that helps. So we reduce this slightly using nth root calculation, but imagine without that then this is what happens. Then as a single safecoin is paid for a get (on first get) this half’s (so 1/2^99)
Hope that helps, it’s an exponential decrease (well a 5th root decrease) in price of put and price paid for get, this is levelled somewhat, but for basic math of it, ignore the smoothing factor and just imagine this.
Each put half’s the cost of the next, each get half’s the safecoin paid to farmers (starting each at 1 to 1). Then you can see the balance happening, but also then realise there are more clients than vaults so it cannot be a 1 ↔ 1 relationship and needs a smoothing factor.
1 Like
Yes what you describe here I call implicit participation (users subsidise farmers and app devs) and it is somewhat easier to defend against “the children” and “the terrorists” sound bites precisely because of the same real life examples you’ve provided…
What pay the producer introduces is explicit participation (users subsidies farmers and network content) so subsidising somthing like porn site which would more than likely be getting high hit count would not be attractive to a significant part of network participants and then there’s marginal cases I’ve mentioned in the first paragraph. In this case rebuttal like “the tech is neutral it’s the human nature” won’t fly…
I didn’t really get everything you posted (I’m not very tech/math savvy), but what I got from your post is that initially for the first few users of the network the price will be 1 safecoin, but as more people join the network and store data on it it will become much cheaper.
Will a user of the network be able to see how much more data they can store without having to pay another safecoin?
And if I pay 1 safecoin today and I can let’s say store 10gb with it, but only use 1 at that time will I always still have 9gb left or does this change because of more users joining the network / more space becoming available?
I am sorry but I don’t get it. Intuitively I would have thought that each put would increase the cost of the next:
-
We are in the market of storage space (user buys and farmers sells). The selling is not direct because farmers receive some kind of interests but basically the laws of supply and demand should apply. A user buying successive puts is increasing the demand, so the next price should be higher and not lower
-
And more defiantly: If I can buy 1 byte with 1 safecoin then I can buy an infinite storage with 2 safecoins because 2 = 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + … As the price is halved for each buy each term buys 1 byte and the total infinite sum is equal to 2
Is everybody OK with of the direction of evolution?
Are you not quoting the cost at startup. I coin for the very 1st Put (1MB) then it halves until there are plenty of PUTs and the formula is working fully and PUTs are determined by various parameters
And he continues on this premise,
Otherwise we have the silly notion that
which obviously is not the case. So that supports the notion that David did not move away from the bootstrap situation. It halves because 1 coin per MB is way too much but one has to start somewhere
1 Like