Safenetwork sustainability concerns - Bandwidth has an ongoing cost however Safenetwork is a pay once, benefit forever model

[neo]

EDIT: I think I worked out some of the confusion. MSN in the mid nineties is not wat MSDN or MSN is today, but back then it was Bill’s attempt to win the web and via the MSN. Ever wonder where 9MSN comes from> Well that came from channel nine siding with Bill about which network would become the internet. Bill went around courting businesses.

@foreverjoyful

Um… What? No one has really heard of Netscape.

Really? You obviously didn’t use the net during that time and expalins why you are grasping at straws with your explanations

But by the middle of 1995, Netscape had jumped to an 80% share of the market. It might seem short-sighted now, but at the time, coding for Netscape was the only way to go.
…
And that’s when Netscape got their first real competition from the goliath they knew would eventually come around: Microsoft.
…
You see, Microsoft had largely ignored the web (and the Internet at large) for some time. Bill Gates failed to recognize the importance of this new network early on,
…
Microsoft’s enterprise customers, however, began to ask for this kind of support. And some employees began experimenting with setting up web servers and a central information hub, which would later transform into the Microsoft Network.
The History of the Browser Wars: When Netscape Met Microsoft - The History of the Web

And Microsoft could not compete while they charged the users to view the web through their MSN Explorer. And that is why it became the Internet Explorer. (yes a tad more complex than that. But while people paid their ISPs they resented paying microsoft to browse the internet and dumped on their MSN while they could use Netscape (and others) to view the web for no extra cost.

And BTW it was netscape that caused microsoft to be tried under the anti-trust legislation over their explorer. So yes I feel its appropriate to say Netscape blew the MSN charge to view the internet out of the water.

@foreverjoyful

Again, no. Because there will be ways around it. You certainly won’t think of any though if you keep on thinking there isn’t any.

Just because your rental and bandwidth charging is not going to work does not mean anything other than that. Your idea to get more money for farmers at the expense of uploaders is not going to help and disagreeing with your idea does not make anyone closed minded.

@foreverjoyful

And regarding forking, yeah sure they can do that, first not many farmers will join which would mean storage cost will be high, and it can’t handle waves of interest and disinterest(which forks often often, if not always, experience)

Again facts pulled out of thin air that have no basis in anything including reality. Even those on this forum who have said how much storage they will provide on day one is huge. So no your “fact” is pure thin air stuff

[foreverjoyful]

@neo

Just because your rental and bandwidth charging is not going to work does not mean anything other than that. Your idea to get more money for farmers at the expense of uploaders is not going to help

No, it’s more like, just because you think it’s not going to work doesn’t mean it’s actually not going to work.

@neo

disagreeing with your idea does not make anyone closed minded

Of course not, but disagreeing repeatedly regardless of any evidence presented and refusing to accept the possibility that you yourself may be wrong as well is the definition of being close minded.

@neo

Again facts pulled out of thin air that have no basis in anything including reality

I’ve presented reasons for why the network isn’t too well equipped to handle waves of demand to store new data. So far no one has produced a counter argument so far.

[neo]

@foreverjoyful

Of course not, but disagreeing repeatedly regardless of any evidence presented and refusing to accept the possibility that you yourself may be wrong as well is the definition of being close minded.

Ummm but that is what you have been doing. Nice debating technique but doesn’t help your argument. I notice that you no longer can present any more evidence your idea might have a chance to work but are now attacking those who point out the problems. And what do you know, I am certainly not the only one and some very talented knowledgeable people have also told you in clear terms where you are wrong and why.

And I notice that when your “errors” are pointed out you don’t admit the fault but go on to attack the person like you just did now. You have spread quite a bit of misinformation from studies to bandwidth in AU to the current SAFE model as a 2 dimensional model to just stating and claiming as fact things that have no support. Hell you even had a go at me for thinking Netscape was a real thing, yet a google search would have educated your ignorance and saved you the egg on your face. Chinese defeated the mid 90’s MSN, oh dear give me some popcorn and beer so I can enjoy whats coming next.

This is why I say it is you who are “repeatedly regardless of any evidence presented and refusing to accept the possibility that you yourself may be wrong” Because you are wrong ever so many times in this topic and rarely if ever admitted it.

So before you attack others you had better get your house in order.

@foreverjoyful

I’ve presented reasons for why the network isn’t too well equipped to handle waves of demand to store new data. So far no one has produced a counter argument so far.

No you haven’t. Others have called you to give a detailed reason why and how your edge case would ever come into existence and why we should even consider it before all the other far more likely situations. Yet you just repeat you are giving it as something that needs examining without reason why it needs examining.

Its not just me you are fighting but many others who are very educated and knowledgable and have considered the many aspects of the current model.

---

And this is why I decided before to stop answering. But all this misinformation can be so confusing to new people who think there is actually something wrong with the current SAFE model. And you put so much energy into such a failed cause. Oh and the Microsoft saga in the mid nineties when they wanted to be the internet web was ever so funny (real popcorn and beer stuff) with all the announcements coming out of MS headquarters (deleted now since the anti-trust case) and then Netscape taking on Microsoft. And then people just putting up the middle finger to MS and using Netscape or another browser. Even using the MSN browser and disabling its “use the MSN feature” They copied the other browsers too well hahaha.

[foreverjoyful]

@neo

Ummm but that is what you have been doing

Ummm sorry but that’s CLEARLY NOT what I have been doing. I’ve repeatedly said many times the current model as is may work, And that I’m bringing up a potential issue for discussion. Whereas any potential solutions I bring up or even the potential issue, all you say is solution doesn’t work. Issue doesn’t exist. I’m sure if a third party contrast it with how I approached it with how you did, they’ll see a massive difference…

[neo]

@foreverjoyful

Ummm sorry but that’s CLEARLY NOT what I have been doing. I’ve repeatedly said many times the current model as is may work, And that I’m bringing up a potential issue for discussion. Whereas any potential solutions I bring up or even the potential issue, all you say is solution doesn’t work. Issue doesn’t exist. I’m sure if a third party contrast it with how I approached it with how you did, they’ll see a massive difference…

Yes we have heard you say this again and again but saying it does not mean its now true.

And still you cannot give any evidence of why it could ever happen, even you said its artificial. “What do you do to fix things since God could create a rock he cannot lift” kinda of reasoning

So many brilliant minds (not me) have showed why you are mistaken

[VaCrunch]

Just wanted to say I have enjoyed the banter between @neo and @foreverjoyful. Although at times tedious, the long-running discussion has been somewhat enlightening as well. It seems like now, though, it has developed into a battle over which one is going to have the last word.

[foreverjoyful]

@neo

Hell you even had a go at me for thinking Netscape was a real thing

What? I KNOW Netscape is a real thing… I don’t get what’s your point. Anyway I have no time for long typing too to be honest, and I rarely attack the person, in fact I am just pointing out what you have been doing, I don’t think that’s really attacking…

I feel like if you believe in something 100% and can’t admit the possibility that you may be wrong I don’t think I can argue further, so I did point some stuff out for you to maybe change the way you approach this a little bit, because it’s either that or I’ll simply stop talking, because I don’t think there’s a point to continue with you. And I think I’ve done enough for those that can see a potential issue to think about it further.

It’s just like how when the DAO contract was created there were some people who warned them that there may be security issues, but they went ahead and did it anyway, and it ran smoothly for a while until something happened.

@neo

And still you cannot give any evidence of why it could ever happen, even you said its artificial

I already done it. I can copy you the post but I am on the phone and I don’t think there’s a point anyway. If you scroll back you can find my arguments as well as evidence for:

1. How the network’s philosophy, if it aligns with what I said in the premises in the original post, on a fundamental level, its design is in logical conflict with its philosophy.

2. How the networks growth is to a sense limited by the amount of new data being uploaded.

3. How the network may not be too equipped to handle waves of interest and disinterest, with real life scenarios of why and when there may be a sudden surge of demanding to store on the network and such, a surge increases in farmers, followed by a potentially prolonged loss of interest and little demand to store new data, while access to existing data may remain the same.

You REALLY shouldn’t be afraid of me spreading misinformation, because I have about 5-6 military-grade cannons(aka knowledgable people that have been around the forums for a long time) firing directly at me if and when I do, even when I’m simply making arguments, there’s a lot of people immediately fighting against them. As such, It’s unreasonable to expect that anyone reading the thread wouldn’t do their own due diligence to think and research before believing in what I say. If I still remain convincing to them however, have you ever thought it MAY, however slight the chance, just be due to my arguments being logical and making sense? And there may, again however slight the chance, be a potential issue? After all, my opposition(at least vocal opposition) is much stronger than anyone that I have who may agree with me.

You may think logic can be somehow “broken” in so called “higher dimensions” you speak of. Anyway, I don’t believe that, logic as I have learned it in philosophy does not come in dimensions, it is universal like maths. You say safenetwork is so many more dimensions than my “two dimensional” logic without explaining or giving a case in which my logic won’t apply. If I said “I went left or right and I didn’t go left” , in what dimensions would I have went anything but right if my sentence is to be true? I can’t think of any.

But anyway… Not the point, it’s taking too much time, I need to spend time with family doing other things too, but lately I’ve just been on the phone and computer typing. So I’ll admit defeat, if it makes you feel happier and think that I am no longer trying to “spread misinformation”. After all, I can only do so much. I won’t be discussing this topic any longer… with you at least… Let’s move onto discussing or doing something else more productive.

[neo]

@foreverjoyful

What? I KNOW Netscape is a real thing…

Contradictions much

@foreverjoyful

Um… What? No one has really heard of Netscape. Internet Explorer was much better marketed

Yet Netscape

@neo

But by the middle of 1995, Netscape had jumped to an 80% share of the market. It might seem short-sighted now, but at the time, coding for Netscape was the only way to go.
The History of the Browser Wars: When Netscape Met Microsoft - The History of the Web

But no one really heard of it? Yea right good one, pull the other leg mate.

Cya. Again I am going to sit back and watch the fireworks. Till you pull the misinformation card again with bandwidth is a free ride crap

[foreverjoyful]

@neo

Contradictions much

foreverjoyful:

Um… What? No one has really heard of Netscape. Internet Explorer was much better marketed

Yet Netscape

There was no contradiction. If I say something like, no one has really heard of MySpace(after like 10 more years, so in 2027), Facebook was much better marketed etc etc it doesn’t mean I don’t acknowledge that it ever existed like you accused me of doing then calling me ignorant. I simply mean it’s no longer popular and we probably won’t ever hear of it again in the future.

[neo]

Yea yea, but you compared it to another existing product marketing at the time. So say whatever you said it and wonder why people wonder.

Like I said see you later, I think you know your idea doesn’t fly. Even for the one in a billion chance of the doomsday artificial scenario happening.

[Traktion]

@foreverjoyful

it can affect the network enough if simply the amount of new data being stored on the safenetwork suddenly surged then dropped or simply dropped rapidly, while the value of safecoin remained relatively constant or decreased, and bandwidth costs remained relatively constant or increased, during that same period.

I don’t really have the time to address everything you wrote, but it is probably too premature to discuss the responsiveness of the safecoin distribution algorithm.

We only know that the farming rewards will increase when storage is running low. We don’t know how quickly this will change, whether the storage costs will move in lockstep or not, etc.

I suspect damping rates will take some optimisation to cope with such swings.

[neo]

Look @foreverjoyful here is the solution to your problem.

You want to change Maidsafe’s mind to implement something that changes some of the fundamentals of SAFE and I doubt they will consider it.

So a solution for you (and Anders)

Both of you can implement your ideas as an APP. The users who want rental and pay for bandwidth as they browse can use your APP to upload and the APP handles the rental. They can use your APP as a layer above the client code to charge the user for the bandwidth they use.

All these payments go to your APP and your APP pays the network for what is uploaded. Then you can actually profit from all the proceeds and if the network needs more coins because no more uploads then your APP can donate back to the network (upload duplicates) and still charge the users who use your APP for the bandwidth.

Then you can prove if people prefer that.

And Anders can do similar to make uploads free.

Hint:Use MD data for the rented file storage and you can then delete if rental not paid on time

[Anders]

@neo

And Anders can do similar to make uploads free.

Well, maybe SAFE shouldn’t become a BitTorrent on steroids. So if it’s possible to implement in a spam proof way, then PUTs for up to 1 MB can be free and for larger files there is a cost for PUTs.

[tfa]

@neo

So a solution for you (and Anders)

You put them in the same bag, but just to clear any misunderstanding, they have opposite ideas about the cost of uploading and maintaining files in the safe network:

• @anders wants these operations totally free,

• whereas @foreverjoyful wants additional costs for the uploader (compared to what is currently planned by Maidsafe)

I share @foreverjoyful concerns about sustainability of pay once and store forever principle but I find @anders idea not viable in a decentralized network.

@neo

Both of you can implement your ideas as an APP.

They necessarily need to be implemented at the network level and not at the app level:

• Nobody will use @foreverjoyful’s app when they don’t pay any renting by uploading directly to the network

• @anders’s app won’t be able to upload files because it won’t have the fund needed for this if users don’t pay anything.

[neo]

@Anders

Well, maybe SAFE shouldn’t become a BitTorrent on steroids.

Bam this illustrates your lack of understanding and/or again the misinformation continues.

[foreverjoyful]

@tfa

They necessarily need to be implemented at the network level and not at the app level

Exactly, if i were to do it, I’ll probably end up forking the network rather than implementing it as an app. It’s impossible to do it as an app and still be viable as @tfa has said. Although it may not be necessary since the network once launched can still be changed(to an extent) as David has said, if it doesn’t end up working as well.

[neo]

@tfa

You put them in the same bag, but just to clear any misunderstanding, they have opposite ideas about the cost of uploading and maintaining files in the safe network:

Yea, it was not the same APP. But two different ones suited for their purposes.

Also it was to create a way for them to view their ideas from a different light. For joyful he might actually come to his senses and realise that people won’t go for rental.

For joyful, he could definitely do his at the APP level or even replace the client those people use which effectively is the client+“joy_APP” so that people can choose (which he supports) if they want pay once or rental and bandwidth payments.

@tfa

I share @foreverjoyful concerns about sustainability of pay once and store forever principle

I think it can work. Obvious this needs testing, but the solution offered by either of these two is not viable.

Think of the old mathematical problem stated along the lines of “if a frog jumps half the distance to a wall then repeats, will the frog ever reach the wall” This was posed before calculus and most said it would reach the wall quickly. The frog was a infinitely small frog so the physical issues were made irrelevant. So if SAFE charges enough then it can be a forever payment since ?1/2? or ?2/3? is used in the first 2 years but plenty to pay for rest of time.

If the algorithm is implemented correctly then using the studied effect of data usage (new data is used more and as it ages so does it use greatly reduce (not importance to keep, but access). So in effect we have that old mathematical problem where the safecoins used to upload is (network wide) metered out as the data is accessed. Also the network will never run out of coin so farmers will always be paid something (eventually) and that something is worth more because its harder to get more coin.

Anyhow testing is needed and algorithms can be adjusted later on. But rental and paying to browse is the way to turn people away and so if the network needs more uploads then that rental+bandwidth is only oing to quicken the demise.

Oh did I mention @tfa that I did simulations of the network “economics” (when SD data was around) and saw some very nice effects of the model used by SAFE. So I have some good data to base my belief that it can work and testing will help tune the algos. This was like two years ago I did this. Took days to simulate a few years. Change the parameters and see what happened. It worked very well when the multidimensional parameters were used. Eg Farming rate algo, upload rate, download rate, various exchange rates, people reluctance to upload when costs are high, and the other way and a few more dimensions to the dynamics.

[foreverjoyful]

@neo

I did simulations of the network “economics”

Oh that’s interesting, why didn’t you ever mention that before? Can you release some data regarding the simulation? How was it done? What did you assume about not uploading when cost was high? As in what type of parameters you set for the simulated people to react? And what type of parameters did you set with the download rate or upload rate algorithm?

Did you also do the simulation taken account the safecoin price fluctuations hence the Fiat storage price etc?

[neo]

@foreverjoyful

Oh that’s interesting, can you release some data regarding the simulation?

Not any more. It is out of date and never tabulated. It was to answer my curiosity.

@foreverjoyful

How was it done?

A “C” program and used a state style of thing where one parameter was how many transactions occurred between states. Obviously the less the longer the simulation took. But this didn’t really change the results unless I set to a silly high number of transactions. I had a object style of thing were I added the different dimensions to the system as I could work out how to model it. I was up to quite a number before other things stopped me continuing

The program was done/written on a machine that I don’t have anymore and done while watching the test matches 2 or 3 years ago. I always planned to update the program to use a more efficient system so I can make it more do smaller # of transactions between reporting states. And I planned to use updated network plans including node aging etc and increase the initial vaults since people have stated they plan to commit more than I thought possible.

The reason I didn’t mention it to you was I didn’t have the evidence and frankly it wasn’t necessary and would not have changed the outcome, but for tfa who knows me better can take it with a pinch of salt.

[tfa]

@neo

Not any more. It is out of date and never tabulated.

No worry. As I said earlier in this topic, the problem is that Maidsafe didn’t provide any numerical simulations. The simulations should take into account many parameters, but specially the repartition of downloads depending on age of data.

A very simplified one is to suppose an exponential growth of stored data with the hypothesis that data is only downloaded in the 3 months that follows its upload. This means that data can give rewards only during a quarter and then is a pure burden after this period. I know this is very rough, but I don’t think that this is too pessimistic on average.

Let us call:

• YGrowth: annual growth

• QGrowth: quarterly growth = (1 + YGrowth)^1/4 - 1

• Burden: portion of data that rewards nothing to farmers = 1 / (1 + QGrowth)

These formulas programmed in an Excel file give the following results:

YGrowth	QGrowth	Burden
10%	2,4%	97,6%
20%	4,7%	95,5%
30%	6,8%	93,7%
40%	8,8%	91,9%
50%	10,7%	90,4%
60%	12,5%	88,9%
70%	14,2%	87,6%
80%	15,8%	86,3%
90%	17,4%	85,2%
100%	18,9%	84,1%

The download repartition should be refined, but these numbers are not reassuring for the pay once store forever principle, with a heavy burden even with steady exponential growths.

I leave more precise simulations in Maidsafe hands. In particular, with a more accurate download repartition that gives not only the burden part but also the farming rate for the active part.