This is my project, so if you have questions, I can answer them in this thread.
What does it mean to "give access to downloads and other resources"? What kind of downloads and resources?
Can you give some examples of services that exist that you think don't work well enough?
That's simple, decentralized networks are better than platforms and this thing has no need for centralization
Subscribing to one is easier than subscribing to many. There is less friction and the user gets more for that subscription.
> Why does subscribing to one developer give access to all developers?
All developers (and everyone else) can add subscription checks to whatever they like that will let only subscribers pass.
> Why not put yourself in the middle and offer a subscription to "1Sub.dev" and give users the same benefits?
Then they would all have to pay me. I don't want that. Someone could have something against paying me. Maybe the payment methods I offer doesn't work for someone. Distributing payments seems like the only right thing to do.
> What does it mean to "give access to downloads and other resources"? What kind of downloads and resources?
It could be anything. Here is an example of a paywall for this comments page that will only let subscribers follow the link:
https://1sub.dev/link?u=https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id%3D&s=p_GonuAYEe0&k=&n=hK5ZOXymlHi5s2Es&a=a.18
I don't know what kind of services you mean.
> I don't know what kind of services you mean.
You write on your website: "Why this is better than the alternatives"
If you could give examples of the alternatives that you think don't work then it might be helpful to see how your service differs from those.
Developers could sell subscriptions for any price they want. They have a limited number of subscriptions they can sell so there is a supply/demand that influences the price. Users buy directly from the developers so they would get 100% of the money (minus possible transaction fees depending on payment method).
> If you could give examples of the alternatives that you think don't work then it might be helpful to see how your service differs from those.
The alternatives are mainly the ones listed on the page above: buying things from developers in the usual way and donating. There are also other systems that work in a more centralized way where you pay the system that then distributes the money to the creators and this system differs from all of those in that it doesn't handle any money.
If you want an example, there is liberapay.com that seems to be donations with centralized payments. My system tries to be better than that because:
- Payments are less voluntary because you get access to stuff when you pay.
- Payments are decentralized so there can be more freedom of choice in how you pay.
If people subscribe once and access everything, it seems like they'd need to charge a lot to make it a worthwhile co-op to participate in. It feels like the amount they would have to charge would become pretty financially restrictive to access the code and not in the interests of someone who wanted to open source in the first place...
- How does this handle the scenario of a developer disappearing?
Does everyone who had access through that developer continue to have access?
It seems since payment processing is handled by individual developers, no longer would people have to pay for access to the whole catalog. Does this now mean over the long term you are handling an ever increase supply of people with access who do not pay but can transfer their access to others for free?
- How does this handle the scenario of developers with subscribers who are supposed to pay a reoccurring payment but have stopped?
Does the developer have the ability to remove access to the catalog from specific subscribers?
If the developers have the ability to remove subscribers at will, doesn't this disincentivize paying at all because paying gives you no security in your access you just bought? What is your plan to arbitrate this without access to primary payment information to confirm who is right?
- It seems like although decentralized, this approximates to the journal model but for code? Is this your intention?
> If people subscribe once and access everything, it seems like they'd need to charge a lot to make it a worthwhile co-op to participate in.
I have thought about this a bit and yes, when this thing grows, the subscriptions will be worth more and more. I haven't really done any calculations though because it's really hard to know what things will be like. Anyway, let's try one:
Let's say there are 100 developers (individuals) and a developer wants $4000 per month. Then if we want a subscription to be $5 per month or maybe we could allow it to be $10, the number of subscribers per developer would have to be 100 * 4000 / 10 / 100 or just 4000/10 = 400. So I guess as long as the number of subscribers are a few hundreds times more than the number of developers (individuals), it could work.
> - How does this handle the scenario of a developer disappearing?
Interesting question; I have not thought about that. Developers register and unregister the subscriptions so hopefully they would unregister their subscriptions before they disappear. If they don't do that, it could be forced by the system but there would have to be rules about that then so everybody knows what will happen.
> Does the developer have the ability to remove access to the catalog from specific subscribers?
Yes, they can register and unregister subscriptions as much as they want.
> If the developers have the ability to remove subscribers at will, doesn't this disincentivize paying at all because paying gives you no security in your access you just bought? What is your plan to arbitrate this without access to primary payment information to confirm who is right?
That is between the buyer and the seller. If you buy something and you don't get what you bought, you would try to solve that with the seller. Of cource people can complain to 1Sub too and then maybe the other developers will lose trust in that developer and they can be kicked out.
> - It seems like although decentralized, this approximates to the journal model but for code? Is this your intention?
I have not thought much about the journal model but I can see how this is similar. My main vision has been tax that everyone who wants to be a citizen pays so that they then can enjoy things that are not sold directly to people.
In the opening statement of the site the idea of merely trusting the user without copy protection is completely ignored, but without more details it's not clear if the proposed system is any better.
What prevents me, as a rogue actor, from just adding all my mates to the database without them paying me anything? Would they get access to all other software from the developers who take part in this affair?
If you are not a trusted developer in the system then the API key prevents you.
If you are a trusted developer, then you can give away as many subscriptions for free as you like but you only have a limited number of subscriptions to sell so you will not make as much money that way.
What are you going to do about people asking for 1 cent to join the network?
More people should want to pay if they use this system because if you just ask for money, you either don't give anything in return (donations) or you give access to your stuff, but with this system, the user gets access to everything that uses this system.
> What are you going to do about people asking for 1 cent to join the network?
Developers can sell subscriptions for 1 cent but since they have a limited number of subscriptions to sell, they will not make a lot of money that way.
If you mean 1 cent to join as a developer, that is free; it's about trust. This should be a cooperation between developers who trust each other.
Oh, I don't remember the website mentioning this. How does this work, and what are the implications?
You can read about it here (bottom): https://1sub.dev/about/how-it-works
It means that there is a supply/demand that influences what price the subscriptions can be sold for. Developers have a limited number of "credits" that can be turned into subscriptions. They can get more credits by making people subscribe through their links. There is also a plan that the credits will be multiplied and grow with time in order to keep the prices on a sane level.
Yes, a developer can sell the subscriptions for very cheap but then they will probably quickly run out of subscriptions (there is a limited number) and then wish they had sold them for more.
Also, the subscription is not really tied to any product; think of it more as a subscription to free software in general, that can be sold by different resellers (the developers).