Jeepers this is long… afraid I couldn’t read it all.
1 point to make though.
If you’re in the UK (although this doesn’t apply in Scotland) then farming or using safenet/safecoin could not be considered entering into any kind of contract. I have no idea about the US.
"there must be an agreed set of terms and both parties must intend to enter into a legally binding agreement"
Obviously no one farming or using safecoin is intending to enter a legally binding agreement.
The s/w EULA constitutes some sort of agreement.
While MaidSafe Inc/Foundation won’t make any representations (as is commonly done) about farmer “earnings” and such, the way software works (e.g. may generate earnings in the form of Safecoin tokens) probably constitutes an agreement. At least a license agreement, which it is, but it may imply some other things.
I don’t think you can farm for free (can you?) so by definition you’re earning by farming, even if you threw your pass/PIN away (you can’t prove that you did, which makes it pointless).
I don’t think one can say that they intend to enter a legally binding agreement when they farm or use safenet. I would not be assuming that I would have any legal liablility if I failed to meet my responsibilities, nor would I think I had any legal recourse against a DAO if my data was lost etc.
I would say you did enter a legally binding agreement (where’s MaidSafe EULA, by the way?) when you installed the SAFE Launcher in which you agreed to use their GPLv3 license and several other things (maybe wave some of your consumer rights to the maximum extent permissible by local law, waive their responsibility for crypto-coin related losses, etc.). (You didn’t yet, because they forgot to include it, but ultimately they will.)
You wouldn’t have any liability if you lost data as a farmer, for example, but if you - for example - modified the s/w so that it somehow generates more tokens or something like that, they could probably sue you for that and the FSF or whatever zealot group deals with GPLv3 licensing violations could sue you too because you didn’t release the modified source code.
What happens if you buy $10,000 worth of Safecoin to run a video steaming business and the network goes down due to “negligence” or “social engineering” of the dev team? Would you sue? I think you would at least check your options :-).
I don’t think all I said is correct, but I don’t think it’s that simple as you say either.
That’s different though isn’t it? I mean in that situation you are not breaking a contractual obligation that you intended to make with the network, you are attacking it and trying to defraud all of the people invested in the network. Your legal liability in this case would not be contractual, but rather criminal.
The point is that when I download the client and begin farming I am under the impression that I am dealing with free software created by a DAO. That means I really do think I have zero legal liability from a contractual perspective (obvs I am always criminally liable for fraud, theft etc). I also enter it thinking I almost certainly have no legal recourse if things go wrong because it is decentralised and there is no organisation who I can appropriately sue (once the beast is unleashed maidsafe can’t pop it back in the box).
I really don’t think there is an argument here for it being a contractual relationship under UK law. Besides which it is expensive for the state to take people to court in big precedent-setting cases. I doubt they would take the risk of prosecuting law-abiding, innocent citizens when there will be so many criminals who will make easy targets for conviction.
I certainly can’t imagine any jury convicting anyone who was genuinely innocent and using safenet for security, privacy and economic reasons.
“The best use for imagination is creativity. The worst use for imagination is anxiety.” Deepak Chopra
Good points. I still have my doubts but same as before, no major objections.
Are DAOs independent from people who created it?
I wonder if making modifications to your own client in order to earn more Safecoin tokens would qualify as theft (theft of what?)
I’m not sure about that tbh, but I am sure that I personally don’t intend to sign up to a legal contract of terms that hold me liable for what other actors are up to on the same network. If I don’t intend to sign up to a contract of terms that clearly state my liabilities (with signature or tick box) then I can’t be responsible for coincidentally and inadvertently satisfying many of the other conditions of a contract.
No idea… might be a few different legal angles you could take.
Hehe, that’s certainly a best practice. And for MaidSafe it’s the opposite (which is why the omission to include one is a big oversight) - they should design the software so that it is impossible to use unless one checks or otherwise indicates agreement with the license and other details.
The legally binding agreement is the SAFE protocol. A user uses safecoin to purchase storage on the network. The agreement is as follows: In exchange for safecoin, one gets storage that is encrypted and decentralized. In return, the farmer who provides the storage gets paid safecoin. The SAFE protocol ensures this occurs via software. And both user and farmer are both agreeing to let SAFE determine how much storage one gets for the amount of safecoin offered. The terms of the agreement are written in code and executed on behalf of both user and farmer although not in a one-to-one relationship – it’s between a group of users and a group of farmers; between persons nevertheless.
From the link:
“These requirements are fairly basic: there must be an agreed set of terms and both parties must intend to enter into a legally binding agreement. Under English law, but not under Scots law, there must also be some form of ‘consideration’ – payment of some kind for the goods or services being provided.”
“Binding” means it has to be executed according to the terms of the contract. If not, there is a basis for liability for failing to meet the terms of the contract and can be taken to court. SAFE just happens to have the ability to execute the terms of the contract flawlessly (assuming no bugs and fully tested) and automatically. SAFE is a smart contract. PtD and PtP are also smart contracts.
Let’s say, there is a unforeseen bug in the SAFE protocol and the farmer gets paid and the user fails to get storage and has no way of getting the safecoin back. There has been a breech in contract. Who’s liable? Well, both user and farmer both participated in the network with the intent of its terms being fulfilled but they weren’t. So liability goes to the owner of the software because the code did not fulfill the terms that were defined on the SAFE websites, videos, understood by everyone on the forum, etc. Well, the owner (let’s say the SAFE team for the sake of this argument) has relinquished responsibility and ownership of the code via the GPL license. So liability rests with those who are participating in the network because they agreed (whether formally or implicitly) to the terms of the GPL license and the SAFE protocol. The farmer who received the funds (if it can be traced and proved) is liable to return the funds back to the user who did not get the storage.
ADDITION: The “intent” is not the intent to enter a formally written and signed agreement. The intent is to expect the terms of the contract to be fulfilled. It’s why a signature is not always required for a binding contract. In the definition of contract in the OP, intent is stated as “an acceptance of that offer which results in a meeting of the minds” – no signatures required. Signatures only proves intent. Here’s a link that describes this:
This is not a legally binding agreement. There is no legal contract here. There is no intent to sign up to any legal obligation!
The intent of its terms being filled is not the same as the intent to sign up to a legally binding contract.
It seems very simple to me…
“there must be an agreed set of terms and both parties must intend to enter into a legally binding agreement”
No one here is intending to enter into anything legally binding. When you tick a box marked Ts and Cs you know you are entering a contract. You don’t bother to read it, but you know there are legal expectations being set. When you tick that box you signify that you have read the terms that you are liable to. That is why you are liable for them. You intentionally clicked he box and the terms were clearly set for you to see so if you break them it is then your responsibility. That is not the case here. There are no terms being set to break and there is no intention to sign up for legal responsibility.
Anyone know a contract lawyer who could end this debate?
Ticks and signatures are not required to enter a contract.
Here’s a link that describes this:
I just added this explanation to my previous post (see ADDITION) and was brought up earlier in this thread. It’s a common misconception.
Will add the link.
It still seems very clear to me.
I have to intend to enter a legally binding contract, even if I don’t have to sign to do it.
I clearly do not intend my contract with a free DAO product to carry any legal responsibility or obligation. If valuable data is lost I would not expect legal recourse. I would also not expect to be accountable for anything other people do, nor would I sign up to that legal obligation.
There is no way you can make that fit with “must intend to enter into a legally binding agreement”. I do not intend to. There you go. Simples. When I sign up to safenet I dot intend to sign up for any legal obligation. Well then, looks like I am not entering a contract then since I must intend to enter one and must have available the terms of that contract for me to read and agree to. I don’t speak ‘code’ so I don’t know how safenet really works and could never be held personally liable for what it did, or what users on it did just because I used it.
It is clearly not a contract under UK law and even if it were it seems quite ridiculous to suggest that any law abiding citizen could find themselves convicted by a jury of their peers for wanting secure, cheap storage and economic benefits of providing spare resources. It would never happen, not in a million years imo.
In addition any informal contract concerning buy/selling goods/services also does not extend to what the parties intend to do with the proceeds or the goods/services received. Even if the person is aware of the potential of any activities.
We all apply that centuries old set of precedents every time we buy/sell at the shops and we understand our rights/obligations. Buying storage is no different and receiving payments for farming is no different.
PtD is merely a gift and fails to met the standards for even a informal buy/sell “contract”, the network does not receive anything from the PtD and simply gifts the dev for being a “nice” guy
Talk of the underlying protocol binding anyone is mere nonsense. That is purely something SAFE does after the transaction and to perform the transaction. (eg at the shop the cash register and EFT protocols are the equivalent and who in their right mind considers one bound to the company selling drugs elsewhere because they bought gum at the checkout)
First, SAFE is not code created by a DAO (Decentralized Autonomous/Anonymous Organization). The SAFE “foundation” owns the patents for the network and is the one issuing the GPL license. Even if it were, someone must be liable to any actions of the DAO. It goes back to the argument of things (whether software or machine) cannot be liable for illegal actions nor can they own other things, only humans. You can look at the previous posts.
Legal recourse is completely up to the person who was wronged. In all likelihood, a person who lost safecoin wouldn’t take the dispute to court just like those who’ve been scammed by hundreds of crap alt-coins. Legal liability is automatic when the terms of the contract are broken. Pursuing compensation in the court of law is up to the person wronged – they just have the right to pursue it whether they actually do or not.
The only way to be 100% sure you are not entering a contract with intent is to not use the SAFE network and not own safecoin. Owning safecoin (not MAIDsafe from the token sale until it is converted to safecoin) is evidence of intent. Providing storage as a farmer is evidence of intent. One does not need to understand code if the code does pretty much what was understood SAFE was to do. There are plenty of YouTube videos, posts on this forum, FAQ’s, articles on the SAFE websites, etc. that can be used show clear understanding of what SAFE is suppose to do. It’s probably safe to say that the majority of those on this forum do not code and do not understand code.
With PtD and PtP, of course it is possible. The premise is that paying via PtD/PtP blindly and indiscriminately also pays for apps and content that supports illegal activities such as terrorists like ISIS, pedophiles selling child porn, apps that facilitate operations of a drug cartel. All it takes is one malicious abhorrent app to get governments involved to get the public, NSA, FBI, etc. behind a shutdown and arrests. E.g. Silk Road.
And clearly not a contract under UK law? The link you provided seems to clearly say the same things.
Expression flogging a dead horse comes to mind.
Yes, clearly defined terms that can be demonstrated as having been agreed to… doesn’t have to be signed, but does have to be clearly agreed upon terms that are binding and if broken can result in legal recourse.
It is not evidence of intent to enter into legal obligation. It is evidence of intent to use the facilities of the safenetwork. The distinction here is huge. You must intend to enter a legal obligation and that must be demonstrable to a court of law. I do not intend to enter into legal obligation.
I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to leave it there. I think it’s quite obviously ridiculous to suggest any actual human being is ever going to be tried for using safenetwork for legal activity - prior to there being any specific legislation banning safenetwork. No judge, Jury of peers, or crown prosecution lawyer would ever pursue or successfully prosecute such a case. How few illegal download cases have been prosecuted in the last 20 years and that is quite obviously illegal, much easier to catch users, and uploading is sharing so everyone’s breaking laws that govt and business desperately want to stop. To suggest users might be convicted by a judge or jury of their peers for using safenet for legal purposes is cray cray imo.
Wow.
That escalated quickly!
Then again, we all knew that it would. A few things to bear in mind as we step into the brave new world:
The man has agitators, infiltrators and other nasties aplenty. I’d be shocked if there weren’t some here now. Take everything said with that in mind. They’re probably not restricted to the country wearing a Canada hat and Mexico underpants over its “Texan bulge”, either.
we do not know what might happen once we get the whole thing up and running. Judging from @dirvine’s comments in our discussion the other day on devices, even he does not know: the intention is to create a vast and multifaceted system.
Also please know that this post is not an accusation: how the hell could I know if anyone here is actually working for the man?
Freedom has consequences: you’ll be exposed to points of view that you don’t necessarily like. If you’d not like to be exposed to those points of view, then simply disconnect everything digital, grab a beer, and turn on your nearest television.
As for the nasty folk, weather they be terrorists or sexual nasties, there are plenty of meatspace ways of dealing with them. MAIDSAFE remains in the right because MAIDSAFE isn’t about giving them free speech or taking it away from them either: it’s about giving you, and everyone you know and love, and in turn everyone they know and love, the right to free speech. Doing one unfortunately requires the other: doing otherwise is a slippery slope.
Look, the state can make up whatever justification it wants to, so all this is moot.
But the state does yield to practical considerations.
If the crowd is too big to round them all up, and you can’t isolate the guilty parties amongst them. (e.g., TOR)
It is to (some part of) the state’s benefit not to take the network down. (e.g., also TOR, since it was devised by the US Office of Naval Intelligence for US spies to communicate, and the spies need a large crowd of non-spies to fill it up).
A little off topic but
Can I get a virus using Maidsafe or can Maidsafe as a whole get a virus from “the man”?
I know @Janitor answered here: How does the network or client side user account handle a downloaded virus?
Just wanted some clarification and confirmation. Thanks
You just agreed to my point with the above two statements. “Intent” is not to enter a legal obligation. “Intent” is to abide by the terms of the contract. If one is already abiding to the terms of a contract, they cannot get out of them by saying, “Well, I never intended to enter a legal obligation so therefore, I never agreed to the contract although my actions say they do.” Your actions already demonstrated intent. Those actions being buying safecoin, purchasing storage so it can be used, and allowing farmers and app devs to be paid even if the apps support illegal activity. With PtD embedded in the SAFE protocol, you have agreed to the terms of PtD by using the facilities of the SAFE network.
I never stated that there are legal grounds for arrest for doing something legal. I’ve clarified this in previous posts. Please take the time to read them. All it takes is one app to support illegal activities which makes payment for that app also supporting the illegal activity. It automatically implicates everyone on the network if PtD is embedded in the SAFE protocol which is what is planned.
PtD should be made voluntary and a choice. Not a forced requirement in order to use the network. That’s the real debate and reason to separate PtD and PtP from the core protocol.
I’ve addressed this argument as well in previous posts. We are not debating about downloading and storing illegal content such as child porn. The issue is paying for the child porn. Paying for it is supporting the illegal content. That’s what PtP would guarantee because payment would be blind and indiscriminate support for all content whether legal or illegal. PtP needs to be separated from the SAFE protocol and implemented at the app/tool level. That gives free choice and separates the liability.
Payment for child porn is what will get the prosecutors riled up and motivated to shut down the network.
As far as I know it is possible to get a virus but not easy. If you’re talking about a state sponsored thing then certainly it’s possible. On the other hand if you want to make it less likely you would want the language not to be Turing complete. Rust is better than C++ by far for security but it’s not perfect and might not be fully secure.
There are also hardware trojans which SAFE Network can do absolutely nothing about. So not only do you have to trust smart apps or smart contracts written for SAFE in Turing complete languages but you also have to trust the hardware too? There might very well be a virus or trojans at some point if there isn’t enough filtering and curation of the apps.