Can the SAFE Network evolve into the Internet 2.0?

I’m adding these thoughts now because I don’t want to forget them. Here’s some ideas to consider for later development.

The SAFE Network
When it comes the SAFE Network, we should make a clear message of intent.

“We want free and always open source. We don’t want closed source on our Network.”

  1. I think it’s important to set the tone for the Network community. It should be on the welcome page for every new user.
  2. There will be builders that upload closed source apps on the Network. Do we have a way to let others know if an APP is open or closed source? Maybe a requirement to post your code of the app you uploaded.
  3. There are 500+ Bitcoin clones today and growing. But they are NOT connected to Bitcoin. Is it possible to let independent Networks connect to the SAFE Network?

Assume there will be forked Networks for whatever reason. If we are to become the New Internet 2.0 then we need to allow a “bridge node” to connect other networks. So instead of having 500+ SAFE clones unconnected, we connect with all of them. Depending on which Network you are browsing, the rules change, just as they would if you traveled to a different country.

I realize this sounds insane and controversial. When I think about it, the Internet today does one thing really well, it connects everyone. I’m afraid the SAFE Network may not do that. It seems we will become a niche Network for only open source freedom loving people, but not much else.

All thoughts are welcome.

1 Like

Opinions on this are very conflicted, as can be clearly seen in the Licensing thread

Well, if there’s no reference to any source code or open source license, it’s probably closed source :stuck_out_tongue:

How would you enforce this? Even if you required posting some form of source code, the related programs would have no way of checking whether that’s actually the full source code of your program. You could just attach Hello World and nodes would have no way of telling. If you want to rely on people’s votes instead, you open up the possibility for censorship even of open source apps.

The reason these networks are independent is that they’re just different from Bitcoin enough as to be incompatible. Even Bitcoin’s own testing networks.

Which is why I can’t agree with your opening proposition. I like the idea of an open-source world, but I like the idea of a distributed, uncensorable P2P network more, and I care more about the success of that than having everything on it be open source.


Thanks @niklas

You have posted constructive points.

I agree 100% on this part.


The internet is dying. Its becoming cable. It had a partial military origin and now its becoming a command control surveillance network. A means to push top down one way propaganda and spy/inform.
Its becoming a means to further concentrate wealth and power. Everything outside “opensource for freedom loving people” is being converted to a cable network TV that watches you as you watch it and tracks your eyes to ads to buttress systems that efficiently elect puppets. SOPA/PIPA/CISPA/TPP…

The internet was conceived as a means to preserve communication under the most adverse conditions but now its becoming a means to suppress communication. If the new cold war gets started before efforts like ProjectSAFE come to fruition, “open and free” will be prosecuted as “aiding and abetting the enemy.” Remember how extradition worked in the former binary world? States are so corrupt that they aren’t addressing corruption but making examples of people who point it out. Agencies think they have right to spy on civilians- look at the FBI chief demanding a backdoor into Google and Apple phones. Its come out that the NSA approached Torvalds about a back door in Linux.


Great points @Warren.

As more draconian controls are pushed on the Internet, people would naturally migrate to the SAFE Network and other decentralized Networks. So we may be a niche Network initially but could become a net sanctuary in the long run.


I don’t see any evolution, it’s good to go day1 and becomes the direct competitor with the existing client/server overlay.

I’m not sure why this matters, surely SAFE is infrastructure for everyone regardless of licence type…just as Internet 1 is currently. But what should happen is the playing field is leveled regarding infrastructure costs and if you have a good idea and the public agrees, your apps get’s faster, without the need to invest in infrastructure…to enable that popularity.

I think SAFE enables innovation regardless of business model…it’s already starting to happen with containerization…so folks are tuned into the DevOps/NoOps route, but that still requires a complex team structure. With SAFE a genius kid at age 10 or whatever can become the next big thing…no need to ask for permission.

That is a No from me

Why do we care, if it’s good it’s good

I think this was a big no no from @dirvine to maintain integrity. I can see private networks built on SAFE wanting to utilize the Public SAFE for backup…but it’s probably a case of your in, or your out…otherwise it could become a dogs breakfast.

It does raise the question about POD’s though, their integrity over time…Bitcoin has been hijacked from within.

Not at all…and this is the very case of Open Baazar, who want to use the underlying network for their platform. OB becomes one of these ‘other networks’. You don’t throw the dog a bone and then allow him to come in the house to eat it…your on your own. If you have the realization that SAFE is a superior way to go, you build on top of the API, just like the 10 year old genius.

No thanks

This highlights just how strong you need to be, in order to be a visionary behind this project. The whole team probably works full time for less money than they could realize elsewhere…and @dirvine looks like he’s having a weekend at Bernies half the time. That’s good enough for me to believe that SAFE becomes a tipping point.


Perhaps at first so some degree, but as adoption increases, I think we’ll see something different. It think the SAFE network will connect everyone even better, while not stopping them from doing other things as well, like use the existing (or other) networks out there.

Maybe there’ll be other parallel SAFE network clones, but I’m not sure what would be gained, other than NON-security and NON-anonymity, etc. The advantages of using and expanding the SAFE network, rather than setting up an alternate are huge, even for vested interests which would prefer to keep the police state dream that’s developing in the current internet. Since the network gets better and faster and more secure as it expands user base, it will be irresistable to use it rather than compete with it (even while scoffing at how it undermines society by allowing child porn, and nuclear bomb plans–and whistleblowing).

It’s different from altcoins, each trying to improve on specific use cases, properties, projects, etc., not to mention the pump and dump scams. But they’re relatively easy to launch and get some sort of splash with. Bitcoin has the lead because it’s got the most adoption and largest dedicated group. It was a ground breaker that got enough lead to command the field.

SAFE will have that stickiness in spades. Who’d want to use a network running on a couple dozen nodes or even a couple hundred, when it’s so easy to connect via the SAFE network and be as private as you want to be–even more private because the size of the network ensures better security and privacy. Assuming that it works anything like as predicted, quick adopting to a sustainable is fairly well assured, especially with a bit of work. The entire Bitcoin community will pile on for starters, and it’s off to the races from there.

Safecoin may not take the place of Bitcoin, but that’s not the point. Safecoin is primarily about making the network work, and the network is the prize, not safecoin. Bitcoin and altcoins depend on the existing internet.

So, yes, I think SAFE network can evolve into the internet 2.0. It’s almost assured if it works at all. So saith the oracle. :wink:


This is kind of the problem with some of the more liberal Linux repositories. They don’t mark clearly which pieces of software are closed and which are open source so that those who do care and want to keep their systems clean of all closed source software have a hard time filtering out closed source software. You might not care but others do.


When we talk about the Internet 2.0, I think we need to define an underlying assumption, that is what is the internet?

Is the internet the protocols? The services?

I think that the internet is the functionality experienced by the users. The basic means of communication are text, images, video and audio and everything else is basically formatting. You can have data arranged in a page, and shared with the whole world (ie webpage), you can have staggered communications between users (email) or freeflow communication between users (chats, skype).

If you can do these basic things, you can build UI’s that effectively do everything the internet does right now for ordinary people, and if you can do it in a more secure fashion giving people more control over their lives and personal data, then yes I think SAFE can evolve into the internet 2.0