Year after year the forum has attracted people who had an agenda about pay-the-producer or pay the ‘creatives’ and that always seemed like a inversion back into a centralized, enclosed, controlled toll road back to having a top down megaphone and 3 network TV channels and programmed modal ad interruptions and so much incessant brain washing. It is really in the exact same spirit of DRM and EULAs and all that crap a decentralized net should free people from. Its not even a problem, the problem is not funding more corporate and supply side welfare.
But that oppressive IP-royalties-copyright-labels-RIAA regime, none of that matters anymore, its all obsolete and it was already super broken. AI kills it deader than dead and law can do zero about it and good damn riddance!
As before what matters is person to person unfettered communication and preserving that to the extent it is possible. And preserving privacy to the extent it is desired and possible.
But IP… that was just a pump priming for the benefit of society exercise and never should it have ever been anything more! And let us never get deluded into conflating an orifice with the actual source of the inspiration, which is always generic. We primed those well holes but the water always came from a common place that drilling another hole could access.
To hell with the RIAA and the totally obsolete labels and middle layers. Disintermediate to the limit! The same with ads, you don’t sell people’s attention any more than you sell surveilance on them by mining their data to sell it.
The idea that Autonomi would be used to enforce so called ‘creatives’ so called ‘rights’- just horrid! Does anyone really think that bs is what matters? Putting that kind of phone home spyware in the system negates the trustworthyness of the system. Can you have a system useful in an Arab Spring situation and still useful to a facist RIAA?
I think this network will have a better endgame once any kind of currency is removed. Let there be zero incentive to anyone to participate in this. Let there be no corporate greed taking hold. Let there be no inequalities for its users.
We dont need IP. We dont need creative control. We dont need the bag holders making decisions.
This project will be great, but if it follows this philosophy, it will be everything for all humans.
IMO, there is no means to incentivize forever data without a token. Torrents prove this already. Torrents are fast and effective for storing and transferring data - but how many are kept forever? Probably none. Generally most people (leachers) only keep them live for a few hours to a few weeks - seeders for weeks to years, but eventually they all go dark - resources have to be paid for to manage data that few care about.
If its tokenized, no matter what, you will never have equity for the network’s users. Tokens will be funneled into fewer and fewer hands as time goes on. The value of each token will fall, as the bag holders will need more to keep their value up.
Whats the incentive of letting tokens concentrate to wealthier users? How many times do we need to have this happen to projects before we realize it ruins everything? There wont be any value in hosting small nodes, so there wont be a global effort to host them. It will just turn into a “is it even profitable to host nodes?”
It has to be a philosophical decision to want to host nodes, not a monetary decision imo.
The fundamentals of the network are different to other projects, and include designing to maximise inclusion and participation, and the viability of small independent setups. Blanket statements about other projects ignore the specifics around this, and so are not convincing.
Can you argue based on the specifics of the network, rather on a belief that this is inevitable because it involves a token?
None of that makes any sense with . If the ‘bag holders’ keep more and more, as you suggest, then there is more scarcity, so price of individual tokens goes up via deflation - this is basic supply and demand economics.
is a permanent data storage network so more and more nodes will be required over time. Given the cost of datacenters as opposed to subsidized everyday devices that is being geared to run on, it appears it won’t be possible to monopolize this area for profit either - meaning will remain highly decentralized.
Why do you think tokenisation is at odds with users having equity?
If users can run a node to earn tokens, their earnings are equitable, and can be used to participate in the network by storing their data, or earnings can be held to gain value if network demand grows, or sold for other uses.
As the user base of the network grows, more and more people will be running nodes to earn, which spreads tokens into more hands rather than fewer.
Also, as demand for tokens grows from more users wanting network resources, big holders will sell to many, again with the tokens spreading to more hands vs fewer.
Thirdly, the token supply is planned to be diluted in favor of node operators, so over time the supply is spread to more, and not fewer hands. (as a note, I’d prefer supply dilution went to fund app / infrastructure / ecosystem developers instead of node operators, as it’d have a more productive impact & still spread tokens to new hands that are contributing, but the plan is to issue it to node operators).
Value of the token won’t come from ‘bag holders needing more’, but from growing demand for network services (storage) as adoption grows, and speculation on the network’s future potential.
Also ‘freenet’ - I think that one is still around.
edit: lol, just looked it up and it’s renamed to hyphanet !
edit2: … omg … no there are two projects, freenet split for some reason, so there is a freenet and a hyphanet. The strange thing is that the hyphanet people claim to be the original freenet … have to do some digging.
edit3: So hyphanet is the original freenet. The new freenet being called “Freenet” is now being rebuilt in RUST and using libp2p. I’m unclear if it is up and running - didn’t see any binaries, just it’s github repo.
So, wow … why did they do such a roundabout naming process. Makes no sense.
The price of storage may drop to nothing. In 2006 or so some US lab researchers demostrated storing and retrieving information in an electron cloud. At that time they expressed that the storage capacity of a single electron was some where between that of the library of congress and unlimited in the formal sense. That unlimited storagre or plausibly infinite storage was suggested where these people guaranteed knew the formal definition of “infinite” and the implication I think paints a picture where storage ceases to have an associated cost or maintenance cost.
If it does great, then the price to store and also share on the network will drop substantially too. Remember that doesn’t just store, it allows people to retrieve the data from anywhere in the world easily and in a censorship-proof way.
I hardly know where to start with that statement there are so many things wrong with it that will cause it to not happen!
It sounds a lot like in the 1950s people said that with advent of Nuclear power electricity would become ‘too cheap to meter’. Still waiting for that one! And that won’t happen either.
. If the ‘bag holders’ keep more and more, as you suggest, then there is more scarcity, so price of individual tokens goes up via deflation - this is basic supply and demand economics.