About the possible existence of multiple SAFE Networks

OK, I like your idea also.

I reread what I wrote and see a couple of tweaks that’d probably be required, but the general idea still stands. Tweaks:

  • Need to make sure that others can’t replay the attestation message with a different destination address. Maybe include a transaction UUID or nonce in the function and attestation message.
  • Maybe include some PoW in the function call to avoid DoS threat
  • Section near the hash of the source MAID address would track the unclaimed balance
1 Like

I like the idea of using a MAID blockchain snapshot to serve as a seed or genesis set of coins that are baked in to each network release candidate during beta. Those coins claimed through a network function that requires a signature from the owner’s private key is a nice idea too. Any SAFE competitor who wants to fork the code because the community decides not to update the network in a way they desire would be stupid not to include the original MAID holders in order to boost adoption and use of their machination. I see this as the only successful way they could do a SAFE hardfork unless the explicit goal is to get rid of the initial MAID owner and MaidSafe allocations.

Imo one of the driving factors in all the altcoins that popped up for BTC was due to the huge early adopter incentive baked in to their network. SAFE farming doesn’t operate the same way so the only reason I see to fork the code would be to add features that the first (dominant) SAFE Network refuses to implement. (Like PtP or other farming algorithms, 512 bit Xor addresses, farmer security etc.)


Would a fork be able to access the data held on the original?

If not, then the longer we can go without a fork happening the less likely it will be to happen - as the value proposition for using the network will change from infrastructure to data.

So, while we need to build good decentralized social, trade and exchange systems for the network we also must pump lots and lots of data into the network at the same time.

By definition, there is no unique data. Whatever is available in the Safe Network will be available on the regular Internet. Maybe in 1-10 years there will be unique information in our Safe.

But until then, our Safe will not be alive if we do not connect it to the current world economy through the current decentralized infrastructure, or if we do not at least prevent other people from connecting it.

A closed economy is a fantasy. It didn’t work for the Soviet Union and it won’t work for Safe.


There certainly is hard-to-access data (e.g. behind paywalls, or blocked by governments) and as society is driven to bankruptcy, access to data will become very difficult for the masses.

1 Like

I would also point out that the silk road website on Tor was doing phenomenally well, until it was brought down by the State.

So, IMO building a new and separate economy is not only possible, it’s been done many times before in history. If we build our own decentralized currency exchange on Safe, then we will capture much of the collapsing and over-regulated markets on the clearnet.


I mean information that is unique and only available in Safe. All the information that will initially be uploaded will be just a copy of what is available on the current Internet.

The Information is not protection for a network. The economy is the protection and the potential one day Safe to replace the Internet. We need a strong economy, so we cannot wait to build our trading systems and we must use the decentralized ones we have already built.

What I am saying is - yes lets we build our own decentralized exchanges, but lets also not to try to gatekeep the people who will connect our network to the current DEXs…

We need a strong economy so that a copy of Safe with a better connected economy do not steal our farmers and kill our network.


Only speaking for myself, but I plan, as soon as I am able to put together a team, to put original content on safe. I’d like to replicate popular youtube channels. As a hodler, I’m not even interested in earning money off of uploads - just earning through the growth in the value of safecoin as the network gains more and more traction. This is also a mechanism that discourages forking - why go through the trouble of marketing something (in a clearnet environment hostile to safe and safe clones), when you can just hodl safecoin and promote the safe network.

Good, neither am I against taking all steps we can. So we are in agreement.


It would be great if it could, but that would require a supermajority of vault operators on the original to spin up new instances on the forked network and then shut down the old instances. Seems more like a network upgrade at that point.

(unless the vaults could just do a copy in place or hardlink the chunks they hold and serve both networks at the same time…)

The way in which upgrades are incorporated will have a big effect on forks imo. If new features are embraced or discarded in a fair and logical manner it will minimize the chances that enough individuals will get frustrated to the point they want to go their own way and fork the network.


The better route is that the network is not political… like the internet atm; people do not squabble about packets… and most don’t even … “just magic init”.

Users will squabble about applications… and those need to evolve… the more basic elements need not evolve and the more consistency there is, the stronger the network overall.

Obviously there will be opportunists who want to take a punt on their ability to copy-paste and crypto-noobs who like the idea of spawning tokens they control as if they are worth something… but power and greed corrupt and are not good for the long term. Stability and dull grey goo that just works, perhaps is good for the long term. Many flowers can bloom, if the soil is rich.

Everything successfull has a copy. UniSwap has 10 copies…

Even if we reach 100 million vaults in one year, there will be a huge free resource in the rest of the world. Therefore, yes, there will be people who will promote other Safe Networks and that is why our Safe Network must be the strongest economically so that they do not steal our farmers. To be the strongest economically, it must be the most connected to the rest of the crypto world.


I don’t disagree that others will try to fork it … I just don’t think they will be successful (unless existing data can be accessed) … there just isn’t a strong enough advantage to gain momentum. From the user perspective, why join a new network with little data, when I can join one that has a ton … I’m sure the marketers will come up with some arcane reasoning, but it’ll be about getting rich quick somehow, but it won’t ultimately pan out in my opinion.

It’s not about the users. Farmers are important for the existence of Safe. The network exists thanks to them.

When a Safe copy that pays more appears, it will be a danger to our network because we cannot shrink.

What will happen to our network if 10% -50% of farmers go to another network? I say let’s not do experiments, but do everything possible to make it most economically viable to be a farmer with us.

In my opinion, this depends on access to other markets, and we have determined that centralized exchanges are likely to gate us, only decentralized ones remain. So reassuring that this might not be a bad thing is very bad thing for me. We must not calm down.

I obviously don’t know the future, but I’m just not on the same page as you here. I don’t see how it can’t depend on users … there is no reason to upload data if there are few users … one of the main points for uploaders is traffic from users … and without uploaders and users, there is no profit for farmers. Maybe I’m missing something, but I just don’t see forkers as a big threat unless Maidsafe really messes something up, or data can be shared across forks - and I don’t believe either is going to happen.

1 Like

Okay, let me try to explain. I am a farmer in the Storj network. Storj uploads test information and downloads it. For which they pays me.

As a farmer, do I care if the data is useful? No. Obviously, there may be a system where there are no users and no useful data.

If a copy of Storj appears tomorrow, which pays me more as a farmer, what will I do? It will be the same with the copies of Safe…


I see two types of farmers, professional and user-farmer on safe.

Professional farmers don’t have to stop farming on safe if they want to farm somewhere else - they just spin up a new droplet and farm there. So long as they are making a profit on ANY network they are farming, there is no need to abandon existing farms.

user-farmers are storing their own data and using farm proceeds of the network to offset the cost of storing their own data … so they’d need a large incentive to leave as well.

Again, maybe I’m missing something. Certainly none of us know the future and things could shift around in ways we don’t expect.

I’m not against doing all we can to build a strong network for Safe either - I’m not saying we should be complacent. I’m just not perceiving other networks as being a serious threat.

1 Like

What is this information of theirs? Initially, Safe will have only copied information from the current Internet. Copied information that is in 100 places, nothing you can’t throw away lightly…

I believe most people who are interested in joining the network as a user will have at least a couple gigs of personal/family video, photos, etc. that they’d like to permanently back up. Perhaps much more than that. I have maybe 50gigs myself and I have friends/relatives with similar amounts.

a few gigs per person isn’t much these days, so the number of farmers required for it won’t be large.

Given de-duplication as well, copied info from the clearnet probably won’t be too onerous for even the user-farmer pool to handle.

What sort of copied clear-net information are you thinking of? If user-farmers, I can’t imagine many would throw walk away from data they paid to put up permanently. And so long as it’s profitable, pro-farmers can keep going with it - no specialized hardware needed.


50 gigabytes i.e. 1-2-3 $? Nothing worth thinking about when you have local copies.

No, I’m afraid it will be years before there is unique information in Safe that people can defend with their teeth and nails…

Until that time comes, we will be extremely vulnerable to vampire attacks aimed at stealing our farmers and killing our network. Our only protection is the strong economy associated with the existing decentralized exchanges.