WTF!!! My biggie boy supa seneca is Baaaaaack!! 
Give em the noise and hit em with the brains my dude!! 
1 Like
Iâm sorry, but this whole thread and attitude displayed here is only alienating people from outside the community.
The way I see the translated thread is that there are apparently some folks whoâre eager to understand these technical details of some of things that are proposed as a solution. But right now, they canât verify it because in their opinion
a) There is not enough details in the whitepapers to really verify how itâll work. A high level overview is good to lay down the requirements that should be met, but what is missing is the actual documentation of how the implementation will look like.
b) There is not enough working code at the moment that could be used to verify it there.
Either of those things are necessary to verify that it actually works and so itâs quite understandable that there still people out there whoâre sceptical that itâll work when under attack and apart from the personal attacks, I donât see anything wrong with saying: I donât believe it until I see it.
Either side could be wrong, it could be that there are problems that canât be overcome with the proposed approach and until that happens it is rather pointless to retort to dismissing claims that it wonât work just because weâre more faithful that itâll actually work.
It is always important to listen to critics and what their arguments are, countering with facts and being rational about it. Being emotional and dismissing them out of hand just because we want to be right, doesnât help and only sheds a bad light on this project.
Remember, the things that unite us are far greater than the things that divide us.
18 Likes
I agree, we should ignore the turd throwing and just try to answer the actual issues.
11 Likes
Iâm fine with listening to critics. I also acknowledge the validity of their concerns. They went beyond this and began insulting because desired information wasnât/isnât available. Not due to clearly defined flaws. Speculation should IMO be less derisive and never so conclusive. They were being ridiculous. Itâs okay if they find it reasonable⌠Narrow minds inherit this.
2 Likes
But just because theyâre resorting to personal attacks and insults doesnât mean we have to, now does it? I donât think itâs ok either, but that doesnât make it ok to insult them in return. Be the bigger man and look past it, move on. Making it a battle doesnât help anyone, it only drives people further away and makes it almost impossible to focus on the rational side of things. Weâre not achieving anything by calling them names, other than personal satisfaction, that is.
6 Likes
So humility is not to be shared? We present our understanding. To others itâs noise. 
1 Like
I have seen some of this many times, particularly in universities when I went around them to explain the system in early days. Unlike here though, you could step folk through the code/design in a few hours (about 4-5 hours) in an audience of peers. That was the fastest and clear route and put concerns to rest as well.
Like all new things there are folks wrapped in old ways who say, itâs impossible or there is not enough documentation etc. Itâs the easy out really. Look at early Internet commentary or bitcoin, it is much worse than this.
The best way to deal with it is in person with a whiteboard, thatâs my favorite, but not possible on the internet.
So we wrote a load of papers, patents, did videos etc. and still there is not enough. this forum has a ton of questions and answers and still not enough. We have a FAQ wiki podcasts etc. still not enough, we have prototypes out and running, still not enough.
However it is an issue when folks can keep saying blah blah, in terms of the personal stuff I care not a jot as these folk do not know me or me them, so kinda irrelevant and sounds really childish in many ways. Bit like thecrowdsale guy in big bold âI am a F*&g genius they are spending mt gox coins and I have proofâ, which itself was a scam to affect price, and it worked.
So I think the Wiki is perhaps the best place and we should link all the documents, papers, whitepapers, peer reviewed publications, citations of the docs (citeseer shows this or used to) all in that one place. Then folk can pick out sentences or paragraphs they do not agree with and debate specifics in the community.
Rather than say I demand a detailed explanation of this single part and repeat that continually. If we can link exactly the explanations or just the wiki and say what donât you understand or agree with ? then we can get decent technical critique in place.
We will find bugs and we will make improvements for sure. Thatâs what this is all about, not a 100% completed never to be improved network, but the beginning and folk need to realise this is a solid start.
I donât bother so much with reddit and certainly not bitcointalk etc. as itâs a lot of fud many times. If we can get to a place where we can point directly at whatever issue folks talk about then great, then itâs all useful.
I used to think it great if all papers were anonymous and this is another reason why. then folks deal with maths and not personalities, which would save a lot of time.
In terms of attacks on people, I would let them vent away happily really. On logic then itâs a different story, but I cannot spend time with every single person answering direct to them. Instead if we can find questions not answered in the wiki, then lets add them. That will be a better way.
23 Likes
Sr. Mojón is little trolling⌠He said that an ants colony is not decentralized, because the queen is the boss and the central node, which is a totally WRONG concept about how an ants colony works.
They should read and get informed better, but also Maidsafe should explain those things better if possible.
6 Likes
(Looking ahead) please @moderators DONâT delete this. Rather, let us hash things out like adults.
Noted, but I donât see anything that is against our forum guidelines - did I miss something 
(didnât read every word by a long shot - Iâm not moderating much ATM due to lack of time and the forum is doing fine anyway - the calm before the storm? 
).
I think David is right that we should respond to questions and critique but let hyperbole and personal attacks fall where they land. Catching them hurts, and throwing them back diverts precious energy from everyone: critics and supporters and those doing the real work.
If anyone is activated by attacks on the project, consider putting your energy into something constructive, like the wiki as David suggests, or just into seeing if you can improve your own understanding enough to answer the questions calmly.
Diving into a bun fight can be fun (holds up hand), but doesnât help Project SAFE as much as building our resources, playing with the code, discussing new apps, sharing our vision, and any number of things that are also fun!
10 Likes
My comment was in mode âironic onâ, I just was trolling a bit to Maid haters⌠sorry if you thought I was attacking Irvine, my intention was the opposite
6 Likes
What should have been a simple explanation of the network derived, by bitconers, in extremely aggressive responses. If at first they were supposed network failures, easily defeasible, quickly derived in personal attacks especially against Irvine (snake oil seller, or scammer).
Forums in Spain, especially those that mix economy and politics are not quiet places but this thread became extremely unpleasant.
Fortunately I disappear a few days on vacation, turn off all devices will be good for my health.
11 Likes
I absolutely agree that we should get cracking on the documentation and I talked to @Ross and @nicklambert about it a couple of times, but Iâm not sure it makes sense just now for the community to start working on it.
We have whitepapers, documentation on github, readme.io, threads on this forum. My understanding is that some of the information might not be accurate anymore and therefore I donât think it makes sense to start putting these into one place. And before that, there should be a decision on where that place is. I donât think it makes sense to fill the wiki with information when changes to some part of documentation is made else where. This only leads to fragmentation and makes it really hard to track changes and overhead in work that has to be done.
I think there should be a process outlined on how this should work, so everyone knows what the flow looks like, otherwise weâre doing the same work twice. Once you (meaning the team) made a decision on where all this stuff should be, we can:
- work on the general structure, meaning where do we put whitepapers, FAQs, instructions, documentation, reporting issues, where are updates posted, how do we keep track of them, etcâŚ
- compile all the raw information in one place, sift through it and decide what is relevant or obsolete in the meantime, what is outdated. Some of this can be done by the community, some of it, weâre going to need your input.
- Put all the raw information into the structure from 1).
- Review it so weâre sure that itâs up to date and correct for the current state of implementation.
- Create a FAQ that can be linked to for all the things that are brought up, which then can be discussed on this forum, or any other place.
- Continue working on translations.
But at least for me itâs absolutely impossible to sift through the immense amount of information and decide: what is still relevant? What has changed with rust? What changed in terms of functionality? Iâve been following this project for quite some time now I still donât see myself in a position to say what is still relevant and what isnât anymore.
Like I said, I talked to @ross and @nicklambert about it and both said that the main focus is on the actual implementation right now and I agree. So, at least Iâm waiting for a discussion or decision for this particular topic before it makes sense for me to pick this up. Iâm more than happy (and eager really) to help out with this, but I think we first need to lay some groundwork and for this we need your help to understand which direction you want to go in terms of documentation.
I fully understand the arguments from both sides (again, apart from the petty attacks and FUD) and while thereâll always be criticism from some people, we can make it easier for the folks whoâre willing to learn. But I also see that it makes more sense to get the MVP out of the door first and let the action do the talking. Hopefully this will give you guys some time to breathe and focus on this stuff.
My personal opinion: This is a very solid start and shows that the groundwork is there. One step at a time, rome wasnât build in a day, etc, 
7 Likes
That is a very cheap attack, by the way. If you switch to the investment mode, you could use 2800.
But letâs consider the cheap scenario: if it takes 5 mins to figure out if youâre in the ârightâ group, you can change 200+ groups per day. If each group has 32 nodes, you could go through all nodes on a 6000 node network within less than 24 hours.
If, additionally, one node can tell others which group itâs joined, then others donât need 5 mins, they need 10 secs to figure out if theyâre joining the ârightâ group, and give up and retry if they are not.
This isnât right I think. You have to look from perspective from 1 node. So your 32 close nodes are in 32 different groups. And each of them have 32 âother than youâ close nodes. So you could only attack 1 node and his groups at the time.
4 Likes
Okay I followed the example with 28, but letâs say 32.
I think key part is one node wouldnât need to move, though.
The 2nd node that manages to join a group would stay there.
How long would it take a random attacker node to find the group in which the first âleaderâ node lives? If there are 200 groups, itâd take it around 100 tries, so 500 minutes assuming 5 mins per try. But each would be trying independently, so the slowest would join in 5 * 200 groups = 1,000 minutes, no?
Maybe longer, if the group is âfullâ, in that case theyâd have to wait longer (Tondaâs argument). But you donât really wait - you immediately get sent to the first group which isnât âfullâ, so theyâd go through groups pretty fast.
If 10% of nodes go offline per day (even just briefly), you could gain 2 new memberships in the group per day.
Donât ask where, hard to find. But David said that (I think in one of these videoâs btw) that if you go from IP to XOR youâll only get a chance for a very short time. A group might say: welcome to the network, you need to change your address a bit in 15 second otherwise the offer to join is gone. I think the relay_node will kick you off when you let 3 of these attempts pass or so. I was trying to get my head around bootstrapping in this topic but i didnât got any further yet.
With 1000 users on the network youâll have 1000 groups in XOR. Some might be 12 nodes, others 32 nodes at max. But there are 1000 groups. So what could you do? Run the bootstrap process after connecting to a relay node. Then get a call from a friend saying: âHi, Iâm node 998, get close to meâ and the âonly thingâ you would have to do is ask yourself if the address you got from the network (or the altered address that you got back from a group) is close or not to your friendâs address. if itâs not? Find something closer to him. But this means you need a whole list of relay_nodes to try to get in. And with 1000 groups and 1000 users thatâs already quite hard, not to say impossible. I think my brain spins when trying this with a network of 1 million users. Before you get close enough to him already some new nodes may have joined his group filling it up to 32.
Well, thereâs no PoW concept so itâs a disposable instance vs. the relay node. It takes 5 seconds to restart a docker container and reconnect as a fresh new node. Maybe itâs much harder than it seems, weâll see.
Personally, I think this is the best approach. We are near to having our own vaults joining/leaving the network and this sort of thing can start being proved/disproved/improved.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words. The same can be said for usable software.
Throughout my time exposed to this project, I have attempted to find reasonable evidence that the technical leadership and foundations confirm my expectations. This is all anyone can do, until there is something testable out there. For me, the narrative keeps improving over time, which is why I continue to be reassured that my investment is helping to deliver something incredibly valuable.
12 Likes
Well, the lose out on farming income, if they arenât there establishing reputation and serving data. There is a primary cost of running the hardware and a secondary cost of it not earning an income.
We need to see how the economics pan out, but on a growing network, it is only going to get more expensive.
1 Like
Thinking about this further, the network could encourage churn, by only allowing another node in a group to serve a defined number of requests. This would make it more difficult for sticky rogue nodes to take ownership of a group over a short period of time.
That said, as groups ebb and flow from nodes joining/leaving the network, I assume groups will constantly get split/merged to form complete groups again. Just squatting in group may not be sufficient to enable rogue nodes to take over it.