If I understand it right, the trusted third party that verifies the spending of a SAFEcoin is the consensus of the nodes with the addresses closest to the coin’s address… The owner signs a message saying this address used to belong to me, but now it belongs to ned… This request goes to the nodes closest to the address and those guys verify the signature is valid and record the new owner… If you where attempt to double spend, you would have to ask the same nodes, so it is very difficult to trick the network.
If that’s the best answer, it needs to be greatly improved in quality. It’s more like a sketch of an idea than a completed hypothesis. I know DI has other things he is working on right now, but it would be worth assigning someone with technical writing experience who has published papers in engineering and scientific journals to do a full and proper write up so that the peer review process can begin prior to a live launch.
The bitcoin whitepaper is devoted to solving the double-spend problem, and this solution is what makes bitcoin valuable, more than anything else. The importance of an elegantly stated, peer-reviewed, and tested hypothetical solution to the double-spend problem is hard to overstate.
1 Like
dude, it’s all in the safecoin paper, including a nice and easy to understand figure. maybe you’re more the visual type…
1 Like
Is much more easy explain the impossibility of the double spend of the Safecoin than of the Bitcoin. A safecoin is something real, a particular data in the XOR space with the information of a particular owner. If the owner sign an order to change the safecoin data information with a new owner (that’s a transfer), loose the possibility to do it again. Each Safecoin is like a bill. If you give the bill to another person (sign the transfer) you cannot double spend because you don`t have the bill any more.
3 Likes
Safe net comes at the problem from a polar opposite to Bitcoin.
The concept that data on safe net actually behaves like property is not only difficult to comprehend, but also staggering in its implications.
I will leave someone with a deeper knowledge of the mechanics to detail the technicals, but I find it most akin to a global file system. As every file saved is given a filename based on its data signature, every data file can only exist once and can only be owned by one person at a time.
As with a local file system, a file can only have one owner at a time and only the current owner can change it to a different owner.
Moreover, as multiple attempts to change ownership will result in the same group of nodes being contacted, there is no chance of a competing request hitting the network at the same time - only one group can ever change the owner and the transaction is going to be fast an irreversible as a result.
Ofc, there are questions about how consensus within the group occurs, how nodes are chosen for the group, etc too. I am assured that these nodes are chosen at random and cannot be easily identified and therefore supplanted. Each group node is protected by anonymity.
In comparison, Bitcoin is simple to explain, as it is a much simpler design. Bitcoin doesn’t attempt to do anything more than provide a decentralised public ledger.
Btw, I think Bitcoin has trailed the blaze and still is. However, if safe net functions as designed, technology will have moved on substantially, IMO.
1 Like
I think that proof of work is a bit hard to explain. And kinda extraneous to the process.
Safecoin seems simple enough. Guy has a house. All of his neighbors know who owns that house. When the owner sells the house, he hands a letter to each neighbor telling them who the new owner is. If he shows up a second time with another letter, all the neighbors say “You don’t own that anymore” and ignore him. In order to corrupt the system so you can double spend, You would have to buy the vast majority of the neighborhood’s houses… (28 of 32 houses) That’s kinda hard, especially since in MaidSAFE when you buy a house, you don’t get to pick which neighborhood the house is in.
8 Likes
I did my best to summarize our ideas in a proper concept:
4 Likes
SAFE doesn’t use a blockchain and should never have one b/c it is a huge advantage over bitcoin – no need to download an ever-increasing blockchain, much more anonymous b/c there’s no history that is tracked, no blocksize issue for scalability, etc.
But blockchain has its uses which financial institutions are realizing and discovering at the moment. It’s the bitcoin 2.0 movement they are talking about. They want a means to authenticate documents, contracts, etc. and a database to pull up historical data that they know is not manipulated, lost, or hacked. NASDAQ, Fidelity, Citigroup, etc. are serious about pursuing blockchain technology. Some are opting to use the bitcoin blockchain b/c it is the most secure and established. Others want to use their own and secure it themselves.
Ethereum, Next, NEM, Counterparty, etc. are all efforts pursuing the bitcoin 2.0 promise of smart contracts which are catching the attention of financial institutions as well.
I can easily see SAFE and bitcoin co-existing together. If one wants to anonymously transmit money, pick SAFE. If one needs a secure pseudonymous database immune to hacking and manipulation, pick bitcoin.
2 Likes
But everything you mentioned SAFE can do as well.
2 Likes
I’m not sure how the SAFE network can maintain a public pseudonymous historical database like the blockchain. One can attempt to build an app to simulate one but I do not see how the database can be completely secured. Smart contracts can be implemented on SAFE but can their history be stored and mathematically verified that they have not been altered? There should also be a history of ownership transfer with a particular asset. SAFE is designed only to record the latest transaction (in safecoins case) and not to leave an ownership trail as is done in the bitcoin blockchain.
There really is no reason anyone cannot make a blockchain. It is just a set of files, each one containing the hash of the previous. If you can share files, you can share a blockchain.
The bigger question is why? Bitcoin has that market pretty well wrapped up… Unless it is going to go away, their blockchain is going to be the biggest strongest and most robust. I see the primary use of the blockchain as being a notary / proof of existence. The consensus of a million miners on the bitcoin network is better than the consensus of a few nodes on the SAFE network.
There is no reason that it can’t work, but I don’t see it as something that ought to be a priority.
1 Like
The answer is yes, just as the logic and maths verify that a Safecoin has been modified only in an authorised way.
Data can be made immutable, so this would be the way a blockchain would be built using SAFE, when smart contracts are implemented. A smart contract can record a series of transactings in the same way as a blockchain does, by creating a transaction and recording it in new ledger record that can never be modified or deleted.
Potential improvements in efficiency, accessibility, scalability…
I’m not so sure of that, there is a lot more to consensus algorithms than the number of nodes. Incentives, deterrents, odds, potential damage, spread of ownership of the nodes (centralization). They all affect the risk analysis.
On a global scale Bitcoin is still rather small.
2 Likes
in MaidSAFE when you buy a house, you don’t get to pick which neighborhood the house is in.
Good idea but the main issue is putting trust into those neighborhood.
Why not using a different strategy like what I propose in the past year. Property owner publish their property on the blockchain by passing down to their DRO of their choice. Then the dro will talk to other dro and make an agreement that the property is indeed his. Once 10 of the dros approved, it is published to the blockchain. The same process applies when the property is being sold.
I was just explaining how the trust worked on SAFE (An analogy)-- Other people may have other ideas, but it works how it works – And that oughta be plenty good… No 51% can corrupt SAFE, It is going to take a lot more than that.
Yeah. I understand that. I am lead dev of bitlaw. It’s still in infancy. I’m debating on what platform I should work on. Just merely expressing my opinion on issues.
1 Like
Is this a built-in feature in SAFE? If public data storage be made immutable in SAFE, who sets up the read/write rules as to when data can be written, by whom, and by what event? I thought it is only the owner of the storage who can grant read/write access and this makes the storage controlled by a single person.
@Grizmoblust do you think once the safe network is proven secure that many of the efforts and investments in the bitcoin community will come to the safe network? Safe seems to solve a lot of problems. Is this true from your perspective?
1 Like
I just started reading the whitepaper again, and looking through the forums to gather more information. I actually start researching mainly because devs choose to use rust. To your point, this sounds more feasible than ethereum. The only thing is lacking is crypto currency that revolved around contract based making decision. That is where ethereum really shines. But where it failed is storing mass amount of information on a block which is highly infeasible, and unnecessary. Light clients will be highly used in ethereum, and discourage heavy clients. Running google maps in ethereum would be very expensive. Light and Heavy clients would fare well in safe network.
I think bitcoin continues to be the leader for the next decade. It’s internet gold. It will stay that way for awhile. Safecoin / ether is more of a tradable commodity to do daily tasks that bitcoin can’t do. Micropayments. Bitcoin can’t really handle micropayment very well due to limited nature of blocksize, and fees. Plus, spamming a lot of micropayment is a huge burden on the entire network. I mean, 50gb blockchain to me is ridiculous. If we scale it to 7 billion people, it would be petabytes a month. No thanks. Elite bitcoiners disregard that fact. I know that fiber can fare well. But what about 3rd world countries who can’t afford to have that amount of space? Not only that, everybody would have to upsize their hhd. So the reality here is that this leads to more centralization. Once we reach to that point, I think bitcoin will lose the race, and people shift over to better system.
Safe network does exactly what I been thinking of in the last few months. Same goes for ethereum. I think contracts from ethereum should be meshed into safe network. Then it would be a better system than ethereum. But again, ethereum is already talking about adding storj.
Safe already solved all of the problems we’re facing. We just need to build it.
That’s my .02btc.
3 Likes
One solution for blockchain bloat is safe net. Even if constructing a blockchain is disirable, safe net still makes that much more feasible.
Instead of a local copy of the blockchain, people can directly addressable the online version and/or cache much of it locally. As much of it is unchanging and identical for all nodes, it is a perfect candidate for de-duplication too.
IMO, there are better ways to create distributed ledgers on safe net, but it will enhance blockchain based technologies either way.
2 Likes