Of course they cannot find the junk and only GET what they want. But that small amount is still going to be plenty and plenty of farmers will be real happy. And then in a year or two that junk is using 1/5 of the storage as disk sizes around the world double and double again as harddrive sizers tend to do. So the example that destoryed your idea is only a hicup to the network where PUTS are paid for and made a lot of people VERY rich.
This has all been said to you previously.
Anyhow your example destroyed your model. So this topic has no more meaning
Meaningless, who cares your model (this topicâs subject) was destroyed by your example of the chinese government. More discussion is meaningless since it will be off topic.
When the network is still small, then a spammer with lots of financial resources can flood the entire network with spam even when there is a cost for PUTs. My model enables a stronger network effect including more farmers early on which thereby makes spamming the entire network harder.
So your model is in a worse position since it cost the spammer NO SAFEcoin. It would be cheaper to spam your model and very expensive to spam SAFE when PUTs are paid for.
No because the coins would be flooding out because of their vaults all full and so max coin payments. Who pays for coins that everyone can get so damn easy.
I rarely agree with @neo but in this case I kinda also agree with what he said⌠Itâs basically be a volunteered system more than anything. Could work very well and be better than the current network if everyone is willing to farm no matter what they make and not spam the network, but unfortunately not the world we live in now
Itâs very unlikely that your model will work better than the current one.
The early farmers will earn more with my model, not less. And the value of safecoin will likely increase more because of the reduced inflation over time similar to Bitcoin.
Remember, even with the current model, farmers earn safecoins for GETs, not for PUTs.
This solution is viable but is necessarily a centralized one to limit the number of accounts per user. Dropbox, Google, Microsoft âŚoffering free storage are examples implementing this solution.
This is also what is implemented in current alpha network with Maidsafe giving 1000 update operations to any level 1 user in this forum. But it is only a temporary solution until putting data has a real cost for users.
Yes, I was thinking that there would only be a limit during Alpha and Beta and then for the production version there will be so many farmers coming online that there will be more data storage than available bandwidth on the network to fill all that storage thereby preventing spam attacks.
With free PUTs more end users will join SAFE which in turn generates more GETs for farmers to earn safecoins, and with a reduction of the inflation rate over time the farmers want to start farming early when the farming reward is higher. This minimizes the risk of insufficient network effect.
I get your point here but @neo answered this. Having to pay for PUTS is cost prohibitive to the spammer and even if no one GETS that data itâs already paid for and there it stays. Seems inefficient, I know but itâs there because of the freedom aspect of SAFE and again paying for YOUR data is only fair and cost prohibitive to spam.
I made a recent reply to tfa about how when the network is large enough there will be more data storage continuously coming online than the bandwidth on the network is capable of filling which will protect the network from spam.
Comparison with bitcoin is against your case, because users have to pay fees to create transactions on bitcoin network. Similarly users have to pay fees to put data on the safe network.
Your Chinese Example still buries your idea. Even with the limits early on, any large enough group could fill things up. Chinese already mandate an APP to be installed on phones in China so then they could update that APP so it uses every phone to upload to your baby system and cause real problems. Then they could continue when you consider the network large enough.
With paying for PUTs and paying through the teeth when the network resources are low means that no group even as large as China can fill the network. They just make SAFEcoin really profitable because the government has to keep buying more and more and more and more. And farmers are getting richer and richer and able to hire datacentre resources to handle the bandwidth and still make 1000% profits on that. ANd before you say i. There will be a lot of other people who had uploaded and their data being âGOTâ which is what the farmers earn. and the Chinese government goes broke, the country goes broke trying to defeat pay for âPUTSâ â thus it wonât happen will it)
Thatâs only useful as an overkill spam protection. As soon as the cost for PUTs increases just slightly more than Google Drive, people will abandon SAFE in droves and when the cost of PUTs drops again there will be a lot of farmers but too few end users generating PUTs, so after that, the farmers will abandon SAFE too.
Itâs like this, basically, right now with the current model. People are willing to trade their money for safe coins because itâs a store of value and, and importantly, because they need the network to buy storage.
If storage is free, people will only buy safecoin for store of value and it wouldnât have anything special to it distinguishing it from millions of other coins out there.
As an exaggerated example as an illustration, if people expect the value of safecoin to increase a lot then they will hoard safecoins instead of spending them on PUTs, even when there is a very low cost for data storage. On the other hand, if people expect the value of safecoin (in fiat money terms) to remain or even go down, then nobody wants to farm.
With my model, with reduced inflation over time, people expect the value of safecoin to increase in fiat money terms, and earning safecoins will be easier early on which means that people want to start farming as soon as possible and start to hoard safecoins. And since in my model, the data storage is free, the safecoin economy is decoupled from the data storage which continues to function equally well regardless whether people hoard safecoins or buy whisky with their safecoins.
And still the Chinese Government goes broke buying all those increasing $$$ value coins as they become scarcer. You only ever look at one aspect and totally ignore the rest. As soon as someone points out the other aspect you flip to that one and ignore the previous one. No its a whole and your Chinese example proves this model is doomed
My model relies on farming becoming so popular that more data storage is continuously added than the total available upload bandwidth on the network, thereby ensuring spam protection.
The current model relies on people being willing to first get hold of safecoins via donations or buying coins with credit cards from some exchange etc, and then are willing to pay every time they store something on the network, sometimes even having to pay in order to post on a forum like this.
Your coin has no value. Its not like bitcoin etc, since there is little work done to get it, so everyone has it and there is a ton of other coin to do transfers.
Also being free to upload, your example of the Chinese Government with 300 million phones (using their already mandated APP) constantly uploading is going to be hard to handle no matter how many farmers there are.
Your Chinese example still kills this idea.
You need to consider the whole picture when proposing a model and when it has a hole as big as your own example shows then go back to the drawing board and come up with another model. Donât spend a few hundred posts to try and justify a dead model.
But any model that has free uploads is doomed to failure.
The one coin used to setup their account will pay for more than years of forum posts and emails. And those donât wont. We are not targeting the world at launch. When it takes off people will use a play store app to get a coin with in-game purchase and the app will guide them to setting up an Account.
The farming reward with my model is the same as the current model, so itâs the same amount of work done by the farmers. And in my model more safecoins are rewarded early on and then the inflation is reduced over time. So itâs only in the beginning when farmers can earn lots of coins. This means that Safecoin becomes like a scarce resource, like gold, that becomes more and more difficult to produce. This makes people expect the safecoin value in fiat terms to increase over time.
When it comes to spamming, upload bandwidth is a bottleneck so my assumption is that it will provide good enough spam protection.
but in this case I kinda also agree with what he said⌠Itâs basically be a volunteered system more than anything. Could work very well and be better than the current network if everyone is willing to farm no matter what they make and not spam the network, but unfortunately not the world we live in now 