We all live in “autonomi is a threat to our monopoly” arrest someone and make an example of them legislation 
3 Likes
Last time I checked there were amazon gift cards in the supermarket - I’m pretty sure it’s not forbidden over here to buy some native ant to execute uploads to the network…
… Same goes for Netflix, Spotify,… Whatever vouchers… All of them ‘create token with value’ that aren’t erc20 that enable you to use their service …even the ice cream shop around the corner probably does it…
4 Likes
Are you volunteering to build the exchange then 
3 Likes
Haha - ill say I’m too busy with other stuff 
I’d want good legal advisors before I’d do something suicidal like that xD
… But I may create a simple autonomi shop app demo after the IF phase…
2 Likes
The trick here is that they have a value under a certain amount and not considered enough to worry about concerning money laundering. And the same could be said for uploading, people will/should not need large amounts to upload their regular amounts.
So having such cards for ANT in say a supermarket should be possible in reality. Could even have the card loaded up with a dollar value of ANT using the current value of ANT as the rate by the register. Our local hardware now has gift cards that are loaded up with the value the customer wants on it.
1 Like
It’s worth noting that there are scammers who try to get amazon gift vouchers instead of cash!
I think a native token that doesn’t have exchange support (at least until they can bother their arses to integrate) could be a good thing. It means tokens must be spent on data primarily, or to others who value their data purchasing power. That keeps the regulators happier too.
I’ve often thought there would be plenty of node runners in the early days anyway. The figures bear this put too, considering the poor payments received.
Maybe exchanges would never support the native token for privacy reasons. Maybe that would do the internal economy no harm either. Data is valuable. The tokens that can buy will be too.
3 Likes
If we could get nodes to accept native-DBC this would be fine. At some point there could be integration or a switch over to native but I don’t see noderunners ever accepting a new token that they can’t sell on exchanges.
We’ve been painted into a corner now. If we’d started with native (whatever) this wouldn’t be an issue but how we get to native (anything) from here I really don’t see, and if Autonomi can’t accept this into the codebase the only option will be a fork. Which I would support tbh, because ANT value is to me secondary to achieving the fundamentals.
Maybe you could start a forked network just with native, and offer a route for ANT/MAID/eMaid holders to get tokens for the new network once it is running and working based on the original principals.
But it would be one way and no early prospect of an exit route to fiat or anything else perhaps.
7 Likes
I think DBCs may have been abandoned for regulatory risk to MaidSafe officers and devs, and the switch to blockchain made to give investors a route to exit (currently converging on ICO price after over a decade - so a loss for all 
).
We have a network that delivers on a fraction of the ambitions for it and most investors out of pocket. Seems like a good point to just go for the fundamentals.
Those who jump in and support this, earn native-DBC tokens (assuming that’s technically feasible) by running nodes will win. Good incentive for all those who want the go for the fundamentals which brought us here.
The problem is then just - can we deliver and can it compete with the marketing of Autonomi of an inferior solution, with appeal to blockchainers and folk who are here for profit rather than the vision David presented.
7 Likes
I would run nodes for native ant. I suspect many others here for the fundamentals would too, tbh. The earnings are so low, it barely covers costs anyway. Node runners looking for fat profits must surely have switched off long ago.
I say the bluff should be called, once we have a native solution. We’d probably lose a lot of nodes, but we could lose 99% of them right now and still have enough capacity.
If the outcome is a faster, more private and more useful network, that seems like a risk worth taking. If blockchain ANT can be 1 way converted to native ANT, I think many would buy into that.
Fwiw, maidsafe have said native token is important too, just not as important as reliable uploads and downloads, which seems fair.
A fork is definitely an option, but I’d like to think it is a last resort. A split would harm both networks at this stage, imo. Without the maidsafe devs, it would be a tough community lift.
9 Likes
Also there will be solutions for on/off ramping created once this happens. Even if a trusted p2p solution, maybe with escrow, is initial solutions. The amounts will be small to start with and as time goes on necessity will continue to be the mother of inventions.
6 Likes
FATF is a multinational regulatory body (read globalist one world government!!!) and their travel rule is one of the main regs that governments are following to push standardizing “money laundering” regulation.
I’m working on it … but I’m not a great or fast coder, so will take me a couple of years at current rates. … so don’t anyone else be discouraged from trying (don’t wait for me!!) lol.
2 Likes
So The UK Online Safety Act (or whatever regulation) designed to protect children is preventing the emergence of physically secured data which would protect children? The law (Unintended consequences) is preventing children from being protected? I guess what i’m trying to ask and understand is do we have physically secured data v’s logically secured (Mag7) or not, because is that not the cornerstone of the USP?
1 Like
off-topic, but I wouldn’t at all say unintended.
The State doesn’t exist to serve people, people serve the oligarchy at the command (via the threat of pain) of the State. To keep the people compliant the oligarchy gives offerings (in addition to threats of pain), but these are fragile and are only available when the oligarchy is not otherwise inconvenienced.
1 Like
actually from first glance it’s possible the network design changed enough to not support DBC anymore. We don’t have elders and we don’t have sections anymore … but maybe I’m wrong and the current close group might be able to do the same (but then we should make sure that it’s impossible to capture a whole close group by will … which might be possible atm because each node does choose its own network keys by will …)
one corrupted close-group could inflate the total supply all by itself with the current DBC concept if I’m not mistaken
… I don’t think we need all those privacy features to get to an MVP network and to proof the concept works … but since we abandoned the native currency for launch anyway and are using an ERC20 I think revisiting the plan about native currency and considering using token with different denominations (as suggested by @neo) or using DBCs should be revisited … it’s not like the DAG would be a really solved issue …
6 Likes
Good find and yes, I’d agree here.
Afaik, nodes have no ability to create new data with the current design. The role of nodes is to agree on what is valid and can be persisted (correct signatures, valid state change from previous value, etc) and then allow it to be retrieved on demand. They are relatively passive.
This is a good thing for security, as it keeps node roles simple. They are more like data validators and providers.
So, I’d suggest any solution we want in the short/medium term should revolve around the data owner being able to change the state of some data. With small changes to clients/nodes, we can mutate ownership to another too (as seen in the POC this week).
I suspect that is why we needed to plug in blockchain smart contracts to mint and distribute tokens.
Fwiw, I don’t think it is necessarily an awful thing to use a smart contract for minting. Where I think a trick was missed, is minting native tokens, instead of blockchain tokens.
I’m sure there could have been a step to create those tokens on the network. The same step could have been used to let people swap existing ANT for native too.
The trade off would be selling earnings on an exchange until they integrated the native token. I think that compromise could have worked.
3 Likes
Wonder if any grandiose approaches have been considered?
The Regulatory Stranglehold
UK Online Safety Act creates liability for “novel” decentralized systems.
Crypto exchanges won’t list non-blockchain tokens (regulatory uncertainty)
ERC-20 workaround creates Ethereum dependencies
Off-Earth Solutions
Satellite Constellation Jurisdiction
Jim Cantrell?
i’ve listened to some of his interesting talks and he sounds aligned, philosophically, with autonomi.
Regulatory Arbitrage Strategies
“Scientific Research” Classification
Telecommunications Infrastructure" Framework
Digital Identity" Positioning (ANT tokens as identity verification system)
Legal Precedents:
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) - international coordination outside national control
International Telecommunication Union (ITU) - global spectrum management
SWIFT - international financial messaging (pre-blockchain)
2 Likes
I don’t think this is an issue.
Like bitcoin waiting for enough confirmations to give confidence, you can keep asking random nodes to validate until you are willing to accept the transaction as ‘confirmed’.
No need for elders, sections or any of that. For a dollar ask three nodes, for £1m ask 500. Etc.
6 Likes
That’d make nodes accepting payment slow if they have to query a number of other nodes till there are enough agreeing
But then the question is how would nodes validate when the records are not in their close group. That’d require nodes to be searching out new dbc transactions.
Sounds awfully messy in work flow for nodes and require them to take on more authority and of course a form of trustworthiness.
5 Likes
Good point. None of this sounds insoluble to me. Just as now, the number of records/group size used to validate is theoretical and may be adjusted in practice. Maybe for these records the ‘group’ is larger.
5 Likes
hmm - yeah and even with smaller amounts it would be an issue if exploitable … automating creation and collection of thousands or millions of little TXs wouldn’t be an issue if that would be possible … I think we’d need something pretty bulletproof (but selecting a large enough group - not being possible to know in advance of the reissue being triggered does sound/feel feasible to me … the trick most certainly needs to be the not being known in advance part) …