Well here’s how I see the SAFE network playing out long term.
At first it’ll be stuck relying on ISPs and people will be just devoting resources to the network. You’ll pay your ISP for internet access and then devote computer resources via your internet connection to the SAFE network to get decentralized internet.
But since the SAFE network will impliment mesh networking at some point either at the network or app layer, or both, then anyone with a SAFE connection can become an active node. This means even if one doesn’t have an active internet connection one can still devote access to the network via eithernet, wifi, or bluetooth. Or one doesn’t need to use the SAME ISP to devote resources. This means essentially very strict competition between ISPs and cell carriers.
Eventually as more and more people adopt the use of SAFE and more and more people start using cryptocurrency ISPs will start accepting cryptocurrency in one form or another which means that people will start being able to pay for their internet and cell service in cryptocurrency. This also means that ISPs will likely be the point governments attempt to tax. But given that by this point SAFE will be pretty wide spread, people will also be able to start expanding their own decentralized network of nodes. It’ll come down the old system of charging a for profit fee to use a closed source corporate network vs devoting unused computer resources to an open source encrypted SAFE network in order to use the network.
I like that thought a lot and since there is no connection to access of data but only to its age this sounds like a smart and privacy maintaining proposal
Hmmm - yes - valid argument that there should be simulations and estimations on how realistic different scenarios are - just saying storage growth will be large enough forever is too simplistic
I’m Very positive maidsafe will do those simulations and release them when it’s time to discuss safecoin first things first and now is the time for data chains =D
From how I understand mesh networks, Mesh networks would take AGES, there has to be someone every 2 km apart on basically every piece of land on earth running a small walkie talkie sized signal tower for that to work right? Of course the distance depends on how big the signal tower is. If it’s just a small node then it doesn’t have much radius.
Your view is possible, although it’s an extremely positive view of everything, assuming EVERYTHING goes as planned, which 99.99% of the time doesn’t happen.
That is what I was trying to achieve a non-time method of aging the particular copy of a chunk so that the network can redirect its replacement to a archive node when its not accessed for quite a while. That count can be tuned so that both archive nodes don’t get too many chunks and farmers are not carrying too much stuff that isn’t accessed. Eventually the 8 copies will end up in archive nodes, but if in the meantime that chunk is accessed then those particular copies of that chunk not in archive nodes will remain in farmer nodes for some time.
But as you pointed out there is no count of accesses, no record of who or what is accessing that chunk, just IF that particular copy of a chunk is accessed at all and how many times it has moved between vaults since the last access. Its purely a meta value that is unrelated to a ID or person and only to the particular copy of the chunk itself.
This is not trying to send all copies of a chunk to separate archives at once, but is more of a migration of stale chunks to archives.
I’d say that when archive nodes are specified that something similar will be implemented so that archive nodes are filled with staler data and not fresh data. Hopefully the write once data cubes being prototyped now will be available by that time. (hundreds of TBs from memory and inexpensive to run) With things like this archive nodes can exist cheaply and with so much data stored each of these archive nodes should make plenty of coin even though each chunk is accessed rarely. So maybe 1% of the GETs per TB that a normal farmer is asked to retrieve, but with 1000 times the storage and *never* turned off then it could be earning 10 times what an ordinary farmer gets which should cover the expense of a couple of these huge archive storage devices.
Oh dear just had the image from the original Planet of the Apes where there were these terminals that stored mankinds knowledge
There is a possibility in data chains to tag the section prefix the data was stored at, this is an indication of age of data in relation to all other data if that makes sense. Its not there yet, but the prefix could be maintained with the data. As the network grows groups split and the prefix grows. These are versioned prefixes, so we can tell how old some data is that way. Latest access is perhaps not so easy unless we stored the prefix it was accessed at as well, but then metadata may start to grow. Its worth investigating though, I will keep it in mind.
Ahh My idea was to zero the age when an access is made. That was the age is the age since last access. Use 2 values if both the age since last access and the actual age is needed.
How much distance is between people who own cell phones? Even assuming not EVERYONE owns a cell phone. Roughly how much space between SOMEONE with a cell phone? Add into the mix laptops and routers. I walk down the street and I can’t spit without running into someone with a cell.
For longer distances add in things like LiFi, SDR, a few more wireless radios to act as APs and you’d be surprised how fast a backbone can be built if people put their minds to it. The fact that it’s decentralized means that anyone could contribute to said backbone and all that would matter would be contributing resources to the SAFE network. You’d be surprised how fast things could be built that way.
The cost and size of which are falling like crazy. I remember reading about thoudands of tiny cube-sats that were all dropped in space recently for some crazy low price.
Yes, but it depends… near populated city centres it may be easy, but in rural areas or even just 30 minutes drive away from city centre, depending on which country you’re in, mesh networks may be pretty hard to pull together. Your phone doesn’t board cast very long distances. Maybe just 300 meters. So how is the mesh network of one city going to possibly connect to the mesh network of another city just 1-2 hour drive away?
Unlikely launching your personal satellite will be available to the masses for the next 50 years. But yes, that would be cool if that happens. You also have to factor in what if government decides to shoot down the satellites? Who’s to stop them?
When they do it, even today, they group the orders together into the hundreds or thousands, so the Costs can actually make sense. I’ll find the articles again
One solution is the same way they set up the internet backbone where I grew up. Solar powered wifi radios to act as access points. Routers connect to the radios (which were usually pegged to trees or up on mountain tops) and viola a huge relay network that spanned the whole valley. We wouldn’t have had internet if we HAND’T set up our own system because we did live in a remote rural area and no one gave two bits about any of us.
But no way is that the ONLY way to solve it. Could set up high powered LiFi relays with line of sight situations if say you had flat plains or if you could get a relay on a mountain top or two. Or just start building a grid of nodes outwards from the city towards your destination.
Maybe so
Could be using the micro satellites to connect the mesh network on ground.
A local mesh network could crowdfund their own satellite, that locks in position over their area, and keeps connection to other satellites.
So the mesh networks in cities and other areas, would connect through the satellites that run in fixed positions, forming a top layer for interconnecting all meshes.
Also, imagine in the future where we all use mobile devices, the network has to operate on mobile devices’s hard-drive, and mobile bandwidth may cost a lot, but no matter the cost, it at least should have SOME cost, and if the amount of new data uploaded to the network is not enough to cover all the costs of people using the network, as people use the network more and more, then it becomes a big problem, slowly but surely, the amount of farmers will decline, further causing problems. It’s a very dangerous potencial positive feedback loop that the network should have a way of solving.
I’m thinking maybe some apps can also offer services for safecoins in payment that donates back to the network, but wouldn’t most developers just want to have the safecoins for themselves instead?
If you pay a fixed monthly tariff for an unlimited connection then you do not suffer bandwidth limits or costs. This model will become more common, not less. We’re not going to move towards paying more for our bandwidth, we’re going to move towards paying less and using more of it.
There is a cost to the electricity, there is a cost to the hardware wear and tear, there is even an opportunity cost to the hd space you give up that you could be using for other things. The one thing that many of us have literally zero cost for is bandwidth. It is going ‘spare’. We already pay our fixed monthly bill, it doesn’t change no matter how much we use. The trend and technology is moving away from high infrastructure costs for basic services like bandwidth and it will continue to do so imo.
You are a dog with a bone though, it doesn’t seem like you can be swayed from this ‘cost to bandwidth’ idea you’re stuck on. I presume you are from the US and your experiences there are colouring your perspective on this? I know the pay-for-bandwidth model is common over there, despite the fact that it makes no sense?! You don’t pay per mile to use the roads. Centralised infrastructure like bandwidth does not need to be charged at a use-rate, access via subscription/road tax/toll model works better.
How will you charge for other’s space. And how to use that accumulating fee even to create more space without creating a financial central point of failure.
Just as with idiot sponsored media resulting in sponsored bribery based criminal government we now have sponsored data to try to create forced modal ads to reinforce sponsored media and government. So its predictable there will be an attempt to space constrain mobile devices to enhance fake caps and premium scams that work to disincentivize ever having adequate network capacity.
Answer must be in memory/bamdwidth (and at some point possibly surplus processing) costs being integrated into into mobile mesh nodes that bypass ISP sponsor-toll road-enclosures- that support corporate welfare barons. Seems the service would pay safe coin for excess storage beyond a minimum to support back channel. Same possibly for bandwidth but how to get that to the people that supply it? And how to keep it away from tax issues. Its a commons- have to forget generally nonsense tragedy of the commons gripes as these are generally just cord justifiers. If the network will remain autonmous it will have to remain in the hands of end users and aside from selling end user hardware good luck profiting from building out that network.
Initially it will use reserve capacity on people’s devices but since in the US at least the sponsor class keeps trying to turn ISPs from dumb pipe data utilities into spy/spin/discrimination/premium gouging platforms, services like SAFE that convert them back into true dumb pipes (as justice and anything other than criminality demands)- they will throttle and deproritize SAFE type function forcing off end user spare capacity onto purpose built hardware. There is a time window though. Its an arms race.
Thread is annoying because it seems to be this no commons TANSFL its wrong if its not enabling the ‘profit’ of rip off artists vibe.
Ummm you need to read more, This is NOT a stated goal of the SAFE network. It is only when the mobile device is on a local WiFi will it do any farming.
Also if you read about upcoming 5G networks then its going to rival fixed line bandwidths. Also the quota allowance on mobile networks is increasing year by year. 70GB/month on 4G included with the phone plan is common now due to a new company rivaling the price gouging of the big telcos. It was not that long ago it was 1GB and not that long before that it was 15 cents per megabyte You’re in Australia you should read the news a bit more and realise that bandwidth and quota prices have only ever dropped in price and the research & current development show its not slowing down at all. You are kicking a dead horse here.
EDIT: Just saw vodafone is offering 90GB included on a voice plan. So increases all the time
But since farming on mobile phones while on Mobile is not a goal of the SAFE network then your argument has no merit at all.
If and only if it becomes profitable to farm with mobile phones on mobile data, will people start farming,
You seem to forget - people will only farm when it profitable for them to do so. So no need to charge for bandwidth. It ends up being a cost to browse and something that will stop people using SAFE and if people stop using SAFE then SAFE dies.
Couldn’t agree more but certain criminal types in the US believe that it should be possible to pay for censorship (money megaphone especially through sponsorship and paid discrimination and every other form of money based conflict of interest) in order to silence people to strip them of their rights and make them into property. They are very clear that labor died when automation solved the economic problem which meant capital died- but that was 50 years ago and in the interim, to keep their status, they’ve been trying to take the masses back to the plantation with stuff like delinking wages from inflation and also petrol. Petrol hasn’t been economically viable for 70 years but they push it because its property model converts people into property- its politics is its main externality and why they keep pushing something so obsolete.
That’s not the point though, I’m saying the network doesn’t have defence mechanisms in place and hence decreasing cost in bandwidth is the only thing that’ll help it grow and sustain. Arguing for the case that it’s unlikely ever going to happen doesn’t help, in fact it already proofs there’s an potencial issue.
And the issue is, IF anything goings wrong, and say if we don’t have an unlimited bandwidth model and any governments or regulators in a certain country started charging for bandwidth or at least they make it so that they cost does not decrease overtime, especially mobile bandwidth which is regulated heavily across countries such as Australia. Bandwidth may be cheap but it won’t be a small fee for unlimited amounts most likely, at least for mobile bandwidth in the near future, and even if it’s limited, the speed is also. So the total you use per month stays the same. Also what ISPs if they do charge for bandwidth is they can do is they can keep on draining bandwidth purposely by keep on downloading something repeatedly on the safenetwork, hence force their customers to pay them more. Even if they offer an unlimited bandwidth plan, they could still do this so that the speed of customers internet usage is slow as soon as they farm(because it’ll take majority of the bandwidth), so that they upgrade to a better plan.
I don’t see how giving people free lunches on something that cost money, aka bandwidth, is going to be sustainable. Please understand that I’m arguing the network should have some defensive mechanism in place, or a solution incase anything goes not as expected(that bandwidth will decrease in cost forever).
If by your analogy of simply saying, oh but bandwidth isn’t going to cost much anyway in the future, it’s like saying, “look, crime rates are decreasing year by year, soon it may reach zero, so why do you need to install a lock on your door on new houses you build?”(let’s say for arguments sake, that crime rates are forecasted to reach exactly zero by the time you forecast you’ll finish the construction) I don’t know about you but things never go as expected in most cases in my personal experience, just like how Bitcoin creator has said that, in 10 years, the size of the blockchain won’t be a problem because there’ll be advanced technologies to store data much more efficiently etc. As it turns out though, it’s one of the biggest problem with BTC and Blockchain technology right now, right now I’m still trying to download ethereum blockchain and it’s been the third day.
Anyway… I hope you see my point instead of saying:
Because it’s not that i think bandwidth is likely going to increase or stay the same(in fact i think it is going to decrease in cost too most likely), but that’s not the point though, the argument is that i think it should have some mechanisms incase anything goes not as expected, how can you know there’ll always will be people storing enough new data on the network than the people using bandwidth? At certain times people may not store much new data on the network, yet bandwidth cost may stay the same for three years and usage of the network to access existing data may increase exponentially over that period of time, so you never know whats going to happen, so it’s always good to have a mechanism in place to protect the sustainability of the network if things doesn’t go in a straight line as we expect it to.
first things first and now is the time for data chains =D
