I hope to be as articulate as you one day and then maybe I’ll be agreed with more often. 
Very well said
1 Like
The truth is that SAFE is very good for high security, or censorship prone material.
It is a rube goldberg device for delivering normal content. There are much simpler, less complex methods of delivering normal web content.
Bribing people to use a less effective platform may work, but it is an uphill battle that may not be worth fighting.
I think SAFE oughta fight the battles where it is strong. Trying to bribe users to use a less efficient platform isn’t going to work. There are other p2p content delivery platforms that can be used for free…
Many may not like this answer, but it is what it is. Overkill for most things.
3 Likes
@jreighley you and I have very different visions for SAFEnetwork. Yours is limited, and may be where it ends, but if I believed that was all SAFEnetwork can or will be I would not have been putting the effort into this project that I have.
I see SAFEnetwork as the logical, vital even, replacement for the internet - or at least a first real stab at it.
2 Likes
Yes, but I have been looking at the alternatives, and there are a lot of them a lot further along that we are with a much shallower hill to climb.
Reality is what it is. Trying to be all things to all people is going to inhibit success, because there are some battles that you will win, and some battles that you will lose. To take on the hard battles first, consumes resources that ought to have been expended on battles you could and should win.
SAFE ought to win where it is indisputably better, then expand elsewhere rather than trying to bribe their way into a market where they are not going to be terribly competitive and trying to grow from weakness.
2 Likes
A few things to consider. Unless you are only sharing really stupid stuff like cat pictures or pictures of your dinner facebook is probably going to start profiling you, actually they’ll probably do that anyway. Point is if you’re an activist or try to get any decent info out there you’re liable to run into Facebook censorship of politics, anything threatening to Facebook’s business model (example TSU), health information and so on. Facebook basically pushes corporate and government propaganda by censoring select posts or promoting/demoting various kinds of content. Now if you’re a user be you an activist or not you might not want to have your stream interfered with so SAFE would be majorly appealing for this reason. Privacy and security doesn’t always mean high security. Sometimes it just means being able to post what you want to post.
Yes there are other P2P file sharing systems such as bittorrent however bittorent suffers from some security issues. Namely people can view your IP and track who is downloading what. This could become a problem in the long term.
Basic rights these days like expressing one’s political opinion or opposition towards the government, or even one’s religious beliefs or sexual preferences in some areas, are being being stripped from people either culturally or outright by government mandate. One’s rights of free speech are being curtailed. Therefore having SAFE and the security it provides is not just for people seeking “high security” but rather for normal day to day activity for those who just want to live their normal lives without being harassed and oppressed.
It is great if you need to be wikileaks for example. But that is about none of us.
Nobody cares about 99.99995 percent of content out there. Even if it is political or religious, etc nobody cares enough to put much trouble into tracking you down…
Yes there are platforms that censor, but most do not.
I like SAFE. I am confident it will work. I am not confident it can win marketshare with the wrong strategy. The science of Peer to peer networking is advancing quite quickly, and the SAFE way is only one way – Not the only way. When we tack on a bunch of complexity, and try to play out of our weaknesses and not out of our strength, those competitors are going to win.
Within the computer world there is a school of thought that “The most paranoid policy is the best policy” But the public tends to use the first mover that gets the job done.
1 Like
My vote is to reward the quality of the data and not the quantity of the data.
To award the quality of the data can be done manually by choice of the user.
To award the quantity using the network to awards of bloated gamed data structures is mining and the users losses.
What ever choice is made I hope it is a good one and makes the network fun to use, not not just a get rich scheme for people to destroy the network out of greed to chase rewards. The ultimate network structure would be it was free to use for everyone by collecting rewards and equally using the rewards to upload your memories and to share yourself to the network in a free, private way where no outsider can track you down to abuse your privacy…
The economy of the network should be for everyone.
2 Likes
Way too true
I 200% second this.
And I’m sure the MaidSafe team wouldn’t be motivated enough to build this if that’s what they thought of it either.
The real vision that brought all of us here is that this will first eclipse, then completely blow past all current online services available today
So? Just fork it. If it’s not working as you like you can fork the code and mod it in such a way as you think it would gain marketshare and put it out there for people to use. And if it works then boom you’ve created an improved network. There’s no saying whether Maidsafe will be the ONLY SAFE network out there, or even the best SAFE network out there. It’s just the first SAFE network and only one so far. We’re blazing trails here but that doesn’t mean others can’t follow or even pick up their own machettes and hack through the folliage on their own.
1 Like
Your point?
We aren’t advocating forks. We are advocating SAFE.
If SAFE fails there may or may not be forks. It is a very complicated system compared to most everything else out there.
Every fork is going to make SAFE weaker. Why not get it right in the first place and win?
4 Likes
Okay then. Go post something “offensive” or “illegal” on some random forum or social network and see how long it stays up. Pretty much every socnet and forum I’ve ever run across has a TOS stating you’re not allowed to post anything illegal, offensive, hateful, sexually explicit, yada yada yada. But where’s the line between “sexually explicit” and posting ligit pics of say mothers breastfeeding their babies. Or “offensive” and people posting images of the horrors committed by factory farming. Or “hateful” and political activists protesting against Isreal’s genocide in Palestine. I mean I could go on here but the point is these are subjective terms. The point here is not to debate whether or not these cross various lines of decency of offense but to point out that some people are offended by them and some find them to be valid forms of expression. The vast majority of sites may or may not actively censor their users but they do “moderate” their users to prevent their sites from getting shut down by the DHS, MPAA and other such agencies.
As for the whole PtP issue. I don’t really see a way around it. Ideally no content would be subsidized by the network by default, devs or raw content, and all of that would be done using apps which would allow users to opt in and out. But the community seems to want PtP to be included at the network level as is the dev subsidization. However as has been pointed out in other threads such subsidization can easily be gamed if not backed with a reputation system. Indeed I think apps should have a reputation system as well. Your app can have a million downloads but that doesn’t make it a good app. It just means you are either the only game in town or have better advertising than the next guy. So really the dev subsidization runs into the same issue that the content subsidization deals with which is you need to pair subsidization with reputation otherwise the system ends up getting gamed. And since people tend to agree that reputation systems should be on the app level then should not subsidization systems be on the app level? As you say we don’t want to have to fork the network and if we don’t have a choice to simply opt in and out of various systems then that’s exactly what people will do. The least amount possible should be at the network level. Just farming and what’s required to run the network. All this PtP stuff should be at the app level.
1 Like
My wordpress installation never takes anything down.
has anyone seen the synero model how information is shared.
1 Like
@seneca & @jreighly will a distributed computing component change the efficiency in any way? That would seem to require at least regions of high efficiency no?
@jreighley there is Slur on SAFE unless you think its complete on a bitcoin blockchain basis- could it be secure that way?
I withdraw my comment, finding out that it was kinda “old” and only pushed up by one comment.