Man if you share the data map you are in real trouble to begin with. Never share that.
Why not, how do think give a file to another person. You can’t just copy it to their account, because you would still be the author with the datamap and how do you give them the datamap without giving it to them?. They cannot copy it from your account because they would need the datamap to do that.
If you send it via goole/email/USB stick then …
EDIT: the data map is simply the map of the chinks with the keys for those chunks. It is not your account keys.
1 Like
I think I begin to understand what you mean. It’s just impossible. The key in the data map it’s not the main private key of the owner. And the chunk need to be encrypted with the main private key anyway first before it is encrypted with the key on the data map.
Shared files use a common data map too. The datamap does not give away your account info/keys. The data map is only related to you because you actually have it, not the other way around
1 Like
That’s the public key needed for decryption. And that can be shared too.
EDIT: Public Key can’t encrypt and Private Key can’t decrypt
all datamaps work the same AFAIK. Public is public because the datamap is available to a wider audience.
Also once the chunks are encrypted the key for encryption is no longer needed only the key for decryption, and this key does not expose any info on the account or other keys
Yeah and? That can be deleted with my method and it’s no longer accessible.
The Private key is always available to the owner has long it remember his credentials.
And I think (not sure about it) that is going to be multiple datamap. One for public, shared and private. The one or another. I don’t think my private one is going to be shared. And I would be able to delete what I want.
Yes you may be able to securely identify the chunk(s) to the system, but how does the system know that you are the only one with the datamap. That you did not create the file for another person and the other person is now the official owner?
To allow the original author to delete any of their created files is to break the secure aspect of the SAFE network. I could no longer reliably pay another person to enter data, create files or similar. I would have to copy them to be secure/reliable thus placing extra load on the system, extra storage requirements, extra costs and so on. If de-duplication occurred then would the author be deleting my copy too?
EDIT: delete above means physical deletion. You can delete files by deleting your datamap, thus the file to you and everyone else without the datamap is just a jumble of 1&0’s rather like a disk drive securely deleted with random data.
I thinks is better for you, and for us, you read carefully, and take your time, the available information, about the SAFE network, especially the media wiki and the FAQ.
Some of your answers show huge gaps on basic aspects of the SAFE network that are difficult to explain in a forum.
1 Like
The system don’t know your datamap as I am aware off. You control yourself your one datamap the system don’t control it.
Even with the current system. When it’s deleted (unlinked) it’s just loss on the space.
I already read that.
Has I am aware again, logically the de-duplication only work on each account. Because, how the system know it’s the same file while it is encrypted before it is transferred? For me, it’s the only way it’s work on your account. Because it’s encrypted with different key. If you want to keep a public data, copy it to your private storage and it’s going to be fine.
Yes “lost” space will occur, but because people pay to place the data on the network, there will be far less than occurs on a personal disk that can be filled or not without extra cost.
When one looks back at drive sizes for personal use it has been increasing at the rate of 10 times every 5 years. In 1985 with the first 5 1/4" drive I bought, it was 5MB (with 10MB being the largest) and approx every 5 years it has increased 10 times. Today, it is 6 lots of 5 years and that equates to 1,000,000 times. We have available 8TB drives for personal use. A slight amount under the rate, but so close its uncanny considering the issues that have had to be overcome over those years. And the cost for the actual drive has dropped.
The reason for that history is that disk storage in 5 years will be approx 10x for personal storage. And the other factor for the SAFE network is the participation rate will also be increasing. So the available storage on the network will be expected to rise at a much greater rate than 10x. Maybe 25-50x in 5 years.
In other words the %age of available storage that this lost space will represent is always going to be small. Obviously if some billionaire nutter spends their fortune to store garbage on the network then this %age will be higher. In reality that billionaire will simply push the PUT cost much higher that the effect will diminish greatly as more garbage is PUT onto the network.
1 Like
Yeah, it’s a bad feeling I could get too. But I don’t think the network will allow it in case of a bottlenet. And The reward to farm will be far more than usual that a lot more farmer will get in and farm until everything is stabilized. And the rich man just throw his money to us the farmer. I love it.
Yes and the reason for my if. It is a catch 22 situation - how do you copy, if the contractor copied it for new owner, send the datamap and deleted the datamap, then de-duplication will occur and when the contractor physically deletes the “original” file it would also be deleting the de-dup chunks too.
Now if you attempt to identify this situation then you have to rewrite the chunks to include the info,
Its one big circle, to do the physical deletion you have to add stuff, and by adding stuff you do a lot more data moving. So in the end after doing all this additional stuff, which adds to the attack vector, all you do is save some space. And as I posted above the real savings is nowhere as significant as it initially appears.
1 Like
The owner don’t send the data map. When a copy occur if I’m correct it pass through the messaging protocol. And the client app handle that.
Again I don’t think datamap will be transferable like that. Just file.
That’s an exemple. datamap there I’m pretty sure it’s not transfered. Only the whole physical file.
Your are true at some point I guess. At the video there is maybe a datamap share. But a really static saved data like you want. With my method after thinking that should not be possible. But with the current system yes. I think it will always be available.
Giving the datamap to another is really giving the datamap to the then current version. Changes results in a changed datamap (3 chunks at least from memory), but the given datamap from before still points to the file before it was changed.
1 Like
I seriously don’t know what to say more. But this conversation was really entertaining and educational. I learned something now. If we are able to delete data there is a consequence. But on the other side, if we want to delete what we published, there is a consequence too. Maybe it should have something in the protocol that allow both of these kind of situations.
It will be interesting the solution that they come up with if they can delete without the negative consequences. I agree though that it would be nice if physical deletions were able to be done without the negatives. Even if only on a feeling level.
1 Like