How could we protect the SAFE Network, publicID's and farming?

Cybersecurity
21

Additional thought.

After setting up a vault on my C.H.I.P. I realised that to the network it will not know that the vault I start today is the “one” I closed down last night. That is because when a vault starts it gets a new ID every time.

So to charge to farm cannot work simply because you would have to pay a coin each start and if one is only getting a coin every 2 or more days because they restart every day then you’ve lost them as a farmer who might be farming 18 hours a day.

22

I think these users will not be on the SAFE Network, in the first two years. If people hardly know how to download another browser, all of this will be difficult. Our safest bet are people who are already in this space (altcoin owners, Tor users etc). If the data is right, there are millions of altcoin and Tor users.

[quote=“neo, post:20, topic:10137”]
IF we were attracting only crypto savy people then this idea of paying to farm might fly, but we are not, we are after the folk who know not crypto or coins and provide an easy way into SAFE storing.
[/quote]I love your optimism, I’m also supercharged/exited about the SAFE Network, but if this technology is not proven yet, why would people trust their data to it? Just the idea to farm first then store data, will get people like: “Huh come again?”. The SAFE Network, will need to be time tested, before normal people will store data on it or even use it.

Hmmmm that might be a challenge, because your vault can’t be linked to your publicID (bummer). It would be fun, if Maidsafe could do a 80% attack, during these tests to see how the network reacts.

23

Hello all, some questions I have reading along:

This botnet returning no income-argument does not work for this other, ah, government initiative-argument, running vaults for the heck of it and then take them away again to disrupt?

Maybe having reached one of it’s glorious targets, like “a large safe network (100K - 1M) node network”, it is immune to a large scale disturbance but what about the growing-up year or two years. It already happened once, although “good intentions” were involved. Or should’t I have said “maybe”, but how proven is this proof?

Could a botnet-entrepreneur start his own safenetwork, disregarding patents and possibly not complying with licenses, let alone the law where it applies. Maybe not for the vaults but going for a solid network?

If said entrepreneur of government would take part in THE Safenetwork with (a lot of) nodes would he or they then drop vaults by other means and try to remote control those or an adapted vault itself calling home once in while?

So there is no way to discern between this and a regular installed vault it seems. Some time ago there was a discussion in this forum:

Also:

These are then thrown away by the network to remove any link with the person and the mined unique identifier. These requests would be as unknown up front as a traditional captcha. If the client kept these, they are of no use, they have been made one time use only as a mining attempt.

Maybe you as whizzkids which I’m not want to continue down this alley for a bit? And to follow up on the ants-and-nest-intruders-thing above, doesn’t this tally with “What individuals don’t know the collective does”-type thing the other ants-researcher is after? (link)

So what do you guys think?

24

True, if the vault behaves replying correctly and dishing up the chunks as requested then the network accepts it. Even if the code includes other things done separate to the network protocol.

If any entity gets a high %age of all vaults (80% I think) then they control the network and can do as they wish.

But seriously apart from a very small network this is way down on the list of potential problems.

  • governments don’t even consider SAFE (or similar) as anything until it breaks into the general public and reduces their ability to spy on the majority of people. They only look for a majority when spying on the whole public since they know they will never get everyone all the time.
  • botnets are there to make someone money/assets. For instance botnets used to disrupt exchanges when new trading occurs. Its to make a trader extra money by preventing timely executions and gives them an edge.
  • We need to see an example of any entity trying to disrupt any global network on a global scale using a lot of PCs in their botnet that would exceed the ?80% of nodes in a network.

Without real life examples of this scale of botnets the focus would still be on getting security, stability and bugs squashed Rather then chase&fix something that has not been done before. The fix will be to make the network as easy to use as possible and attract ordinary internet users (maybe the more tech adventurous at first). A killer app is all that is needed to turn the 2 years people have been saying into 6 months or so.

And by the time a government sees the actual potential of SAFE it will be too late for them to apply enough resources. The public resources will overwhelm any attempt by one or two governments by the time SAFE hits the government radar as a “threat” to their being able to spy on the majority for a majority of the time.

Oh and as soon as just one person reports the botnet program to a virus detection company then its all over red rover for the botnet, until they morph it enough.