Tracking files on the network

[Traktion]

@neo

And even if they did, what good does it do them. They have no way to find who uploaded it from a datamap they created by doing their own self encryption. Unless of course the uploader advertised the fact they did the upload.

Well, depending on how cynical of the law you are, it could cause said media companies to go after Maidsafe for facilitating it. I would like to think the law would see straight through such nonsense, but I wouldn’t put it past them trying to claim damages.

[Traktion]

@oetyng

If I wrote the algo for checking existence of chunks, I would choose chunks from the map nondeterministically.

Whenever NotFound is returned upload would start, and so patching the file.

If a chunk starts download, it can be immediately cancelled. The address of it is the verification that it is not corrupted.

And of course running a fair amount of these in parallel.

And the chunking+encryption etc. of files, that is probably quite fast with human perception, if we’re talking everyday files.

So, not sure this would actually be such a hassle once abtracted away.

Yes, my thoughts too. It just makes a bit of a nonsense of charging to PUT something which is already on the network. If it can be circumvented with relative ease, I would say it will be.

[neo]

@Traktion

It just makes a bit of a nonsense of charging to PUT something which is already on the network. If it can be circumvented with relative ease

No, if you refund or don’t charge when someone puts a file up for storing then some security/anonymity is lost. Also the first person to put it up bears all the cost.

The network has to do work in order to attempt to store the chunk so why not charge the person for trying? Especially if that person could have checked before hand. By being able to check beforehand then it strengthens the idea of charging each person that uploads a certain file. Sort of if your too lazy to check for yourself and want me (the network) to try and store it then i (the network) will charge you as normal.

EDIT:
Also a lot of the time, if a file is uploaded multiple times then it is more likely to be accessed and thus helps the economic model of the network to charge for each upload.

I honestly think that even with an easy-to-use app to check first that most will not worry about it or the potential extra cost that it might cost them. There will be those who check (almost) every time and some who check for files they suspect may have been uploaded and most will not know about the app or see it as a waste of time (diminishing returns sort of)

[Ken]

Frozen foods in general, PIes, lasagna, breaded fish etc.
They were pulled up a few years ago putting horse meat in their products. Their PIes are anecdotally known to have anything and everything in them… “earholes and arseholes”, cartilage etc… what ever they jet wash if the animal carcass!

It was a rubbish joke, I apologise!

[oetyng]

I didn’t perceive it as that the necessity of charging for PUT for something already existing, was nonsense (it isn’t, for the reasons you mention), but to pay when it can be circumvented.

I would imagine the checking of it to be a simple codesnippet in a library of general functionality that can be included in any app, if the developer want’s to include it.

If it is an app where it matters, it can be a setting: “[Checkbox] Always check for existing files”, and user can turn it on off as they want.Would depend on the app. I can only vaguely describe a potential app as one with high frequency writes with large probability of duplicates.

But, as to how necessary / popular it would be, that I don’t know.

[Traktion]

@oetyng already replied with what I was thinking, really. It isn’t that it has no cost, it is that it can be circumvented relatively easily.

Perhaps it is doing the network a favour as you suggest and the free PUT is the reward. It would be interesting to see how the economics compare.