Access: Can I easily show photos / videos / documents to my colleagues / friends / family on the network? ie free GETs, no account needed, no special hardware requirements, no more than a simple software download like a browser is needed, and viewing stuff is as simple as pasting a link into the browser.
Ownership: Do I need to maintain anything for that shared content to remain accessible? ie no expiry, no repayments, no consensus failures or data corruption, no account closures, no company clearing data while trying to maximize their backend efficiency, no way apps can lock me or them out, no third party data ownership, no ddos or hacking.
As far as I’m concerned, all other benefits can be derived from these two. Give us access. Give us ownership.
He’s the one who holds the clear and distinct vision in his minds eye and will not settle for anything less. That has pushed some away but just imagine if he wasn’t around to make the hard and unpopular decisions to move past things that don’t align with the original promise, like parsec. It seemed like it was looking good at first but everything hinged on it and far too much, a memory leaking bottle neck that didn’t fit the original design philosophy.
Long winded way of saying I agree. Not to idolize or what not but a damn good human with a bright mind. The current team though, they are some rock stars.
But, intentions DO matter - as it drives how people seek to use them (as you point out).
Investors aren’t all fools, they are going to gravitate toward the project that is best managed, longest track record (for what it intends to do), it’s features/abilities, and it’s leadership and promoters.
Gold is now losing ground because of bitcoin - if bitcoin weren’t around gold would be doing much better - but BTC is winning out the battle in popularity with investors - in a few more years this will become crystal clear. If it weren’t for golds other use cases, it’d be a lot lower now.
!00%, give value and what follows will. Napster, skype, bittorrent, the web itself all grew and created markets, disrupted markets and made an impact. I would say bitcoin has definitely fallen into that camp, the fact it’s not music sharing, phone calls, information/e-commerce or files can persuade folk it’s all about the money.
I think all the above provided value and the value in them all is measuring provision of different things. I can see Safe, being a strange mix of all of these in one decentralised non-controlled network.
I think people want value above all else, of course money for nothing is appealing, but it’s a false God on which to build an alter. Even bitcoin now is on it’s way back to the usual suspects (institutions).
The questions is then, what is the value proposition of Safe, is it
File sharing
File storage
New Web
Music sharing
Payments & wealth transfers
Phone / video calling
messaging
???
Or does it need framed in a completely different way, perhaps more generic, like digital freedom, I don’t know, who does?
I see Safe network as (long needed) change of architecture how we use computers. What cloud computing was trying to do, but mostly failed. From end users point of view, there is plenty of sevices, that call themselves cloud, but it only means server with redundancy. These services are not connected. The esence of users digital identity (data, environment preferences, history, anything non-defalt) is existing locally on the device and then maybe gets baked or synced to other devices.
Save network reverses roles, it allows existence of always available digital identity on the network which can be forced to a specific device when needed, or instantly customize services without building history with them first.
If I had to make simple claim from it, I would say independent digital identity.
It’s interesting! To me this can be a bad effect of focus on coin price and not data value, perhaps. At least I feel that it could be. Let’s see if/when filecoin network starts to be used by the masses would the price get reasonable.
The masses of people are not interested in this at present. That is why it is wise to plan for a process, not a revolution.
What does process mean? This means that we are likely to have multiple cycles of token speculation. If the network survives through them, eventually we will accumulate enough people to have a revolution.
That’s why we really need to plan and focus on the token, because on its price depends whether people will keep their farms up to maintain the network live.
I understand very well what the advantages are and I invite you to take to the streets and make an inquiry of 1000 people.
You will quickly realize that the masses of these people will also agree that anonymity and freedom and privacy are very important. Everyone understands this.
What people won’t understand right away is what you think I don’t understand. And that is that you have accepted and believe that the Safe Network is what embodies what people want, but this has not been proven and if you try to make these 1000 people believe that the Safe is this thing you will very quickly realize that they are skeptical and do not believe you.
So in order for these 1000 people to enter the Safe network, it will take time for the network to prove itself. To prove itself we have to pay attention to the token, because if people don’t make money, they will shut down their farms or move them to another network.
I get your point and you make it well, however a counter point. How does the following
stack up, when since 2008/9 I did a ton of investment meetings (nearly full time and almost burnt me out by 2015) where very close to 100% of private individuals invested as they seen it as a no brainer, of course people want this (the investors certainly wanted it).
Then our crowd sale, a load of people invested then and told me that they did to support something we all need, many (don’t know split) bought tokens to trade and that was made worse by the disaster that was us including mastercoin.
So the history so far when tested has in fact showed a desire by people for the story, the tech and the vision.
I am not saying 100% or perhaps even 70%, but I am saying a lot and probably the majority.
David, please look at the MAID price topic. People buy bags with MAID not to use them. They buy to sell to other people. They buy because they believe that there will be other people who will want to buy the token. This is speculation.
The next people who will buy the tokens will do so for the same purpose. It will really be a process. We will not magically move from people buying for speculation to people buying for use.
Please try the Sia network. It is really a decentralized internet. Yes, there are many disadvantages compared to Safe, but if there was a huge group of people waiting for the creation of a decentralized Internet, they would already be using the Sia network. There is currently no such group of people. There is a group of people ready to speculate, and that is enough to ignite the spark of revolution. That is why we must make sure that this group of people stays with us with all the methods that the crypto world has invented in recent years.
You still dont understand what business is possible on SAFE network.
And these businesses will take people to SAFE world, not your marketing.
These days this forum full with marketing! Marketing! So what is possible marketing plan ? And where do you want to lead people? Forum ? Exchange? Buy maidsafe ?
No serious business will use crypto until the regulators have ruled and things are legally settled. Amazon will sell you crypto nodes, but they themselves do not use them and will not use them soon, because it is very risky legally.
This is part of human nature and we are going to have to use it to the advantage of the Network. To grow the network. In time we will arrive at massive adoption and use. I think you’re correct for now speculation will be a vital part of the early days.
Well said. I think supporting the speculative side of things will be important to protecting and growing the network. Not at the expense of the technical development, but properly timed and in parallel. Dimitar has been working hard to make this point, and reading your other thread where this was discussed I get it more fully now. It is about growth of the network and risk reduction.
