Only the very first time you send messages. And that is to create the messaging SD for your inbox/outbox.
It will cost 1 put value. Only need a coin if your account_balance of puts drop to zero.
So if you regularly send datamaps then typically it will cost no puts or coins. (only the first message ever)
Now if you bundled up a number of datamaps into a file and stored them you pay for the put cost of the chunks needed to do that and you send the datamap for that file for free.
But thinking about it, its really just a sub-directory rather than a file with a datamap of the subdirectory. I gather that is costing too to make directory structures. About the same as a file.
The advantage of the library of datamaps stored in a file is that I can share just the library without worrying if I added a file I donât want to share with a friend.
But a disadvantage is that if itâs ImmutableData then you canât remove one if itâs outdated or you otherwise donât wish to share it in the future.
Also, I remember that @dirvine said that it would not cost anything to rearrange files in or out of a directory structure as long as they are on the Network already. He didnât say how in technical terms, but that was the goal.
I think we should throw out this argument and run any simulations without it. I grant that this has held true for some time - however for those of us who have studied the fiat game run by sociopathic banksters, it is very clear that rampant deflation is currently eroding and eventually going to destroy competition and create mega-monopolies ⌠when this period of deflation is ended, mass price inflation will come into play and the new monopolies will not keep prices low, nor will they have any incentive to spend big bucks on R&D - as big-money entrepreneurs (future competition) will be almost non-existent for a decade or more after the crash. In short, I think it is more than likely that prices per TB will stagnate or even move dramatically higher within a decade (as priced in the fiat they are sold in).
This is a result of advancements in technology and not economic. It is not included in any simulations that I have attempted. But is just a fact of life/technology and factors into the cost to the farmer. Also the ability to store more next year than this year.
The foreseeable future has already had the majority of R&D spent. A lot is spent years before it is viable to sell. 1000x times the cost to discover the science and prove it then to produce it.
History is a great teacher and its is unlikely to fail in the foreseeable near future of a few years.
If we take the view of collapse then are we going to lose the internet before SAFE takes off???
You have to assume a level of technology will still exist and grow.
tl;dr none of my simulations have used the cheaper space. Because that is more for the farmer costs which is considered/targeted at the spare capacity use model and so cannot be a cost input to the models.
Also this âcollapseâ has been coming for every decade of my >1/2 century of life
Granted, but the implemetation of that research doesnât have to follow ⌠and it wonât unless there is competition - history is a great teacher here too.
This view makes no sense to me ⌠the internet is established technology. Certainly it will become unaffordable for many during collapse and for some time after, but to think that the internet will be lost? I donât understand.
Why? Looking at mooreâs law with regard to processing speed we can see that this doesnât hold true ⌠there are limits in our physical world. As you move from a triangle to a circle the wheel gets better and better ⌠but the return on investment into rounder wheels has limits ⌠so does research into processor power and also with storage density.
Thatâs good to hear. I hope that this fixed storage cost is workable without this assumption. How did you do your sims and are they available somewhere?
Itâs a matter of interest rates and the Basel banking regs which are affecting the money supply in the consumer economy and the ongoing mass transfer of real property from the poor to the elite (e.g. loan defaults, lack of credit). This process has been deliberately slow so as to prevent people from understanding what is going on and how they are being screwed to the wall. History is a good guide though and you can lookup real honest historical inflation data ( I suggest http://www.shadowstats.com/ ) to gain a good understanding of how things are moving along. You can also study the consolidation of the mega-industries to see how that is progressing. Lastly you may study how banks are moving toward negative interest rates soon and from that youâll be able to see that they are working to restructure economies in dramatic fashion now as people generally have lost the economic means to fight against them. Japan is leading the way here.
I am very hopefull that the SAFEnetwork and SAFEcoin can give people an new way forward as the banksters continue to pillage society and industry alike. Itâs going to be an uphill battle IMO as we will have to educate many people.
Oh well then donât worry because I donât use it in my simulations anyhow
As to the internet, without technology advances, and these more complex than disk storage, the internet will fail under the ever increasing load. Literally it will fall over itself. When you load up the links to 100% capacity the normal error rate on packets mount up and slow everything down.
The traffic is increasing faster than disk storage increase and without very expensive R&D the advancements will not come and the internet will have to have severe limits on users bandwidths as the load causes lag to go through the roof and error rates to increase causing further delays.
So if what you say happens then forget SAFE which absolutely needs bandwidth.
ISPs need the disk space for normal operations so they will suffer if disk sizes donât increase.
The world data systems will overload without the increase in disk space capacity, every company that relies on any disk space will suffer without disk space increasing to cater for the ever increasing demand for storage.
If anything the remaining R&D budgets for so many projects would be diverted to bandwidth and storage R&D because they are the 2 R&D areas that are the most essential for the ever increasing needs of data storage and communications, which the world now relies on for its existence.
TL;DR
kill R&D for disk storage and watch the world grind to a halt, literally
As to physical limits there is a few decades yet before we reach that then there will be technology to overcome those physical limits because of the new science/physics used. I have been in this industry for 4 decades now.
I donât understand how this affects or improves the long-term viability of the network.
I donât understand how this affects or improves the long-term viability of the network. It might reduce the cost of GETâs, but not the cost of storing the data in the first place. If my old hard drive is dying, I will need to spend money and replace it, even if nobody has done a GET against that data in the last 20 years.
Unless I am missing some insane technological advance here, the âdedupâ argument is missing the fact that many videos are uploaded in ways that result in an almost identical experience for the viewer, but there are still differences in the resulting file. If my video deletes the first 0.5 seconds of the original, it is no longer the same file, and dedup probably wonât recognize the overlapping areas as being identical. Especially once that file is cut into chunks. By the way, how does dedup scale as the number of files on the network keeps increasing? A dedup is essentially a search for a matching file through the distributed database that is the SAFE network. This may work with a thousand, a million or even a billion stored files (although I am having my doubts at billion), but what about trillions? Just attempting to dedup each new PUT would quickly overwhelm the bandwidth of the network.
Some people here have already brought up objections to this argument. Another one would be that it isnât enough that storage costs decrease on average. They would need to decrease at a pretty continuous rate for this to be beneficial to the network. Otherwise, a sudden decrease in cost would result in over-capacity and a drop in storage price, which would lead to that storage being filled up rather quickly, and then the benefit to the network will be negated for the period of technological stagnation that followed that sudden advance.
I donât understand how this affects or improves the long-term viability of the network.
If the value of coins rises, then this will just make using the SAFE network more expensive, which is exactly what I predict will happen in the long run, as the network finds itself dragging along all that stale (garbage) data.
The production cost in Roubles may have been lower than the resale value in Roubles, since both were government mandated, but the personal cost in time and effort to the worker was more than their reward for producing the good, which is why they did not produce much, and the store shelves were empty. An oversimplification, obviously, but this is what analogies typically areâŚ
the point here is that the cost of carrying around the old garbage data that nobody needs will either have to be carried by the new/current users, who will probably just defect to another network instead, or by the farmers, who will stop farming once the cost of farming meets or exceeds the profits (except for a few altruists, maybe).
Yes, but supply and demand ⌠if things get bad demand will drop off as ISP and providers will have to put up prices. Personally I canât see how the internet would go down ⌠I do see that many will have to due with less or even none of it during and for some time after the collapse. Higher costs and lower demand will cause many providers to choke and die too, but major oneâs will continue I think - they have lots of money â e.g. ebay, paypal, google.
EDIT: and given lower usage, bandwidth will not go up price much if at all given existing infrastructure. So IMO SafeNet should be fine for those who can afford a connection.
but that does not happen to data & comms. People may adapt and suffer but the demand for it will remain.
Any how you have a view of what will happen and Iâm sorry I do not agree and this is not a broard political/economic debate topic.
And to sum it up SAFE requires bandwidth, and an increasing bandwidth. So if what you say will happens happens they why build the project, its doomed to failure very soon due to what you describe
Unfortunately I donât have the time at the moment to guide you through. [quote=âoliverkx, post:32, topic:7451â]
It might reduce the cost of GETâs, but not the cost of storing the data in the first place. If my old hard drive is dying, I will need to spend money and replace it, even if nobody has done a GET against that data in the last 20 years
[/quote]
Then you to repleace it anyhow, even if not running a vault in the space space. The economics is based on home users using their spare resources, which is effectively a nil cost[quote=âoliverkx, post:32, topic:7451â]
Unless I am missing some insane technological advance here, the âdedupâ argument is missing the fact that many videos are uploaded in ways that result in an almost identical experience for the viewer, but there are still differences in the resulting file.
[/quote]
And most will be the same too.How many different versions of that cat vid, or John Wayne movie is there going to be, for all those 1000âs who upload it into their private folders on SAFE?
Sure if claim every copy is different then it wonât work will it
Yea and some know the science
The buffer allows short term imbalances & hoarders to not cause âno money in the bankâ[quote=âoliverkx, post:32, topic:7451â]
The production cost
[/quote]
Still was not the cause of their economic problems which then resulted in their system failing. You comparing apples and cows with that one.[quote=âoliverkx, post:32, topic:7451â]
the point here is that the cost of carrying around the old garbage data that nobody
[/quote]
And if had indeed read things then you would have noticed archive nodes to help with that. And the many topics that explain how that is not the problem you describe
I suspect that the proponents of this âpay once - store foreverâ scheme have their eyes firmly one one goal: become the next world-wide-web. And to do this, stored files need to be permanent. I do applaud this lofty goal, but just as with perpetual motion machines, wishing for something to work doesnât necessarily make it so, no matter how hard you wish, or how noble the goal.
I havenât read every last post on the subject yet, and maybe never will. It would take one hell of a post to convince me that my logic on this topic is incorrect.
In the meantime, I wish you all the best! Time will tell who was right, and I fervently hope to be proven wrong in the end.
But if the project team ever change their mind and choose the capacity-rental model over the current one, I would like to be first to know and invest (some of) my life savings into the venture!
Actually it takes a lot of research and doing plenty of thought experiments to understand how it is possible
I do agree that it is theory and if the economic algorithms are poorly devised then it can easily fail. The dynamics requires balancing resources and coin cost (not fiat) which the system inherently does.
Anyhow good luck in your ventures and hopefully you will visit again when hopefully there is a viable system to see. It will take time though
Clearly we do disagree. As you donât give any counters to my arguments - merely reiterating your statements that I already responded to, then we are at an impasse.
