Wishful Thinking about "Alternative" SAFE Networks

Related Projects
2

sigh

1)

A)

Time and @dirvine is like oil and water. That shit don’t mix. I am in agreement with him - and I’m sure that I’m not alone.

If you don’t mind believing that it changes everything,
Time will never matter
– Jars of Clay - Sunny Days

B)

You talk about operating the network without bait and switch gimmicks, then say that you can upload data, but you have to pay to make it permanent? Sorry, that sounds like bait and switch to me. (at least coming from the current paradigm on the existing internet)

C)

One of the advantages of P2P decentralized storage-based networks (IPFS, Freenet, etc.) is that they don’t delete data. I hate broken links.

D)

From the first sentence in “1”, I initially thought that uploaders and downloaders would get paid for uploading and downloading. If this is not the case, skip this point.

You can’t reward people for consuming the resources on the Network. This is a classic Tragedy of the Commons. Yes, it will deplete resources. No, it won’t advance the economic integrity of the Network.

I’ll just leave this here.

2)

A)

Since there is no supply cap - the payment value will be arbitrary. It makes no sense to have an unlimited supply pool of one thing (SAFE GB) while having a finite supply pool of the related, other thing (storage space).

value = (storage space) / (SAFE GB)
value = (finite) / (infinite)
value = lim(x -> infinity) of (finite/infinite) = 0

Read as:

The limit of a/x as x approaches infinity is 0
– MathIsFun.com

For this reason I find the name “SAFE GB” to be extremely misleading.

B)

If the payment is arbitrary this leads to inflation. Always has, always will. It actually follows the same proof as above.

C)

In a balanced network (and that’s what we’re building, right?) the algorithm (tuned correctly) will ensure that the Network never has trouble paying out more to meed demand.

I’m actually flabbergasted that you consider this a solution. To what problem? In the existing blueprint:

  • Network has little space = there has been much storage purchased = large amount of Safecoin in pool
    • Therefore larger farming rewards are in order.
  • Network has much space = there has been not much storage purchased = small amount of Safecoin in pool.
    • Therefore smaller farming rewards are in order.

If it ain’t broke…

D)

How do you plan on setting a price/reward for permanent storage space? Here’s your answer: it’s arbitrary. You have two options (both - once again - arbitrary):

  1. Fixed (magic) amount (let’s see how well that goes over with the community)
  • Deterministic amount

Well, what could the deterministic amount be based on?

  1. GETs?

    Aren’t the number of GETs not dependent on any real cost factor? They do not give monetary value to the network. They also cause more work to be done per monetary reward unit to the farmers. If this route is followed, although it may be free to GET, the more GETs occur, the higher the cost to perm PUT. That does not encourage people to use the network.

    We’re bait and switching people saying that viewing the network is free - but that the more you view, the more it is to perm PUT your data.

  • Perm PUTs?

    If you perm PUT less, it’ll be cheaper. If you perm PUT more, it’ll be more expensive. I don’t see that encouraging people to perm PUT their data. Also, how could you determine price based on the decision to pay that price? That would infer either a:

  • Free market - farmers set their price for space. The network doesn’t actually doesn’t factor into the equation at all. This has the strong potential to break the equal distribution that the data must necessarily have to ensure loss prevention.

  • Feedback loop - one relies on the other which relys on the first. That’s a catch-22 if I ever saw one.

  • Pool?

    Oh wait, there is no pool.

  • Farming payment amount?

    As shown above, that is arbitrary by definition.

E)

In the existing model the currency is still consumable from the very beginning - basic storage.

3)

A)

If having content become popular is the motivation to make people purchase permanent storage, what’s to say that they won’t just keep uploading it every ${temporary PUT time}?

B)

Regarding re-uploaded data: The hash will still be the same. The location on the network will still be the same. It would take me a day (two max) to script a cron job that downloaded my data 1 ms before it’s deleted, and then re-upload it 1 ms after.

C)

If my popular upload’s temporary timeframe expired before I was able to know that it became popular, what’s to stop someone else from uploading that piece of popular data with their walletmark?

D)

Even having a delete functionality in the network (not to mention an automatic one!) is dangerous to begin with. Bugs happen.

E)

Stop with the “Pay per Get” disillusionment. It’s an ill-conceived notion that is destined to bring down this network before it even begins.

4)

A)

Farming temporary data is analogous to the US’s Subprime mortgage crisis - except worse. You never know if that data will be paid for. At least banks have legal fallbacks if a debt is not paid.

You don’t see many programs offering free rent in the hopes that the place will be liked so much that it will be paid for.

B)

The system already has in place measures to ensure that 10, 20, 30 years from now farming will still be viable for the average consumer. The idea of Safecoin Farming Speed versus the vault size was detailed in the whitepaper: Safecoin: The Decentralized Network Token.

5)

A)

Ledger-type currencies seem to have scaling problems. 'Nuff said.

B)

Security is a big deal. We’ve seen that ledger-type currencies have enormous security and anonymity shortcomings. Refer to Andreas Antonopolous’ Q&A on the subject for more info. (Video linked to begin at relevant point)

Dude, I know that it’s Thanksgiving Eve, but ease up on the drinks, will ya?

2 Likes