No its not, you have free GETs and the farmer is paid for “mining”. Mining what? This you have not really stated.
But even if you meant farmers are paid for retrieving then the coin has no vaule since it is not needed for ANYTHING. A number of other coins are better suited for transacting. SAFE will be getting SPAMMED too much to be of any real use under your model.
lol. Your example proves this WRONG. China has plenty of bandwidth and spread across all the country when the chinese government add a “Spam Safe” module to their mandated phone app.
And again we just keep going in circles as you try to prop up your failed model that your own example proved to be a failed model.
Compare with Hashgraph which has a DAG instead of a blockchain which means no mining needed.
If the phones are uploading spam for hours how fast will that drain the batteries in the phones? I strongly doubt that any government would cripple their citizens’ phones like that.
If the Chinese Government wants to spam your version of safe then it will. There is more than 300 million phones and phones are often on chargers overnight. So no your off the cuff dismissal is not valid. Also they don’t have to be sending constantly to completely spam your no pay to upload. Just spam small chunks more often. Lets say 100MB of chunks an hour for each phone which is small additional battery drain which is 30TB per hour just from their phone spam. And then they could max spam upload when on charge.
Now consider the on charge time in addition.
Each phone 8 hours on charge over night and 16 hours off. This is 1.6GB for the 16 Hours then 4G mobile is like 10-20Mbps or 1 to 2 MBytes/sec upload. This upto 8*7.2GB == 72GB while on charge. This is say on average over 50GB per phone per day. 300 million phones is 15,000,000 TB per day upload that is possible. So even if they cannot reach that you can now see the potential magnitude from just a Chinese phone attack. This is larger than any botnet and only possible because of the mandated phone APP chinese people have to have on their phones and checked by roadside police.
SO NO your model is dead and dead again by your own Chinese example.
I don’t think the 4G cell phone towers can handle all phones uploading simultaneously all the time. But anyway, seems like a far-fetched hypothetical extreme case scenario to me. Are you not more worried about lack of network effect, i.e. that too few people will join the SAFE network thereby preventing it from ever becoming more than a tiny network for enthusiasts?
No I am not worried about Maidsafe’s planned model since it handles the spam. Its fine and quite good and simple.
And no I am not worried about your model, its dead and would be spammed to death by your example… Your model will have the guts spammed out of it. Even in your baby network model there will be account spamming so it can be spammed to death.
Oh The mobile towers COUNTRY wide can have a huge bandwidth. You right one tower could handle that amount, but all of them can handle enough to kill off your model. Even if you reduce by 1000 which would be easy for all the towers and phones and exit bandwidth to handle with ease and you have 15,000 TB per day being uploaded.
Now add all the machines that the chinese government can use and all the botnets they can rent and you have such a upload that your model has no hope of even handling the filling of the vaults. People add a vault and its being filled at their links max d/l speed.
Your own example kills off your model. All that is left is for you to accept it and move on and devise a new model that considers all aspects.
That’s a potential danger yes. But you have the same problem with the current model. An attacker with lots of financial resources can easily flood the network in the beginning when it’s small, even when there is a cost for PUTs.
Oh come on we’ve been through this all before a year or so ago. Nothing has changed, SAFE’s model is as safe as it was then. It becomes very expensive. If an account costs one coin then how many can you create when there is only 420 million coins? And then only possible at the rate coins are created. So no no attacker is going to get even 50 million coins since people will be keeping them to use themselves.
And once the network is mature then it can handle even more.
This is all going around in circles. You are clutching at straws and attacking Maidsafe’s model is not proving yours has a snowballs chance in hell of surviving your own example.
So how about planning a new model and not attacking SAFE’s model just so you can keep this topic alive.
When the network is small isn’t it easy for an attacker to drive the cost for PUTs up to levels where ordinary users will be less than happy? If at moments it’s much more expensive to store data on the SAFE network than on Google Drive, then people will start talking in social media about how expensive data storage on SAFE is. Okay, you know more about the details about the current model than I do, it’s just that I have doubts about that people in general will be willing to pay for PUTs. Especially since technological progress allows competitors to offer more and more free storage. And it’s actually the hassle for non-tech-savvy end users to have to worry about paying for PUTs rather than the financial cost I’m more concerned about. Seems like a way too big average usage hurdle to me.
@neo I applaud your patience and logic. . Frankly I don’t know why anyone gives @Anders the time of day around here but I suppose one does have to field these irrational arguments so they don’t gain any steam.
Again attacking SAFE’s model so you can keep the topic on YOUR model going. Your model is dead by your own example. This topic is a has been.
That would be great. Plenty of people will make a lot of cash too as the price of safecoin goes high.
But again you failed to grasp what I said before. Oh well here we go in circles again. People have to sell the spammer/attackers the coin for the attackers to use.
Also farmers are attracted by the higher price they can get for whatever people retrieve. Of course there will be some to retrieve and that will make farmers coin that they can sell for high dollars till many more farmers join in the fun.
And we’ve addressed this before today and a year or so ago. The farmers will flock to farm with the high price of SAFE and the high rate of return thaks to the attacks who very soon will have spend their life savings attacking
How about using your energies developing another model taking in all aspects. Rather than attacking SAFE’s model to keep the thread alive.
@Anders Why don’t you just fork the SAFE network after it’s release and mod it with your system? See which model works best? Maybe we’re all wrong and everyone will flock to your system in droves leaving the original behind on SAFE network classic. You know, pull your own version of a segwit. Odds are your network would be spammed up the gills and fail though but hey maybe we’re all just crazy and you know better than David irvine and everyone else building the SAFE network who have been working on it for over a decade.
How did you construe my words to come up with that?
Of course it is the markets, but if an attacker is buying all the available coin they can then OBVIOUSLY the price will rise. I guess anything to keep the topic alive hey.
How about dealing with your dead model and move on. This stuff has all been said to you before and you are rehashing the same stuff from a year ago.
I’m too lazy for that. And I think the original version of SAFE should remain the main one, but sure if the current model fails, then someone could start a similar network based on my idea or some other modifications. Unless MaidSafe modifies the current model themselves of course.
Wasn’t your comment about what I wrote: “If at moments it’s much more expensive to store data on the SAFE network than on Google Drive, then people will start talking in social media about how expensive data storage on SAFE is.”
The value of safecoin in fiat terms can still remain low while the price of PUTs goes up a lot. Those are two different things. It seemed to me that you meant that when the storage cost for PUTs goes up that the value of safecoin goes up.
Pretty obvious that isn’t what I was saying. Not all replies are a direct 1:1 relation to what you were saying. My response was what would happen, not what you thought it was.
Did you understand what I was saying? Surely you did and you need to continue. What I said was what happens when an attacker is buying up all the coin they can thus the price rises. Do I need to repeat this again. A year or so ago I had to spend many posts explaining this to you and again today.
Increased costs for PUTs due to spam attacks will cause ordinary users to want to store less on SAFE, which will cause the fiat value of safecoin to drop due to the psychological market effect.
Without some sort of payment for uploading then SPAM will kill it and you gave one such example.
Maybe you could create a fantastic APP which pays for people’s upload. Then you can fund that from how many people use your fantastic APP. Obviously it needs to be used for more than uploads if it is to remain funded. Or you could farm and take the proceeds to pay for your uploads.
. Frankly I don’t know why anyone gives 