I’ve read the whole topic.
I really like critique, I like when people are able to identify and point out discrepancies, contradictions or just black spots on the map.
I think your critique is rubbish @zeroflaw. Some said thank you, but from the very start the quality of your objections has been very poor. The main reason for this is that you have done very little reading up on the fundamentals of the technology, and head right in with the assumption that you don’t need to; that you will be able to formulate relevant critique without it. And this exposes a proclivity of yours, to assume an effortless understanding possible, and all following correspondence confirms and shows that you are quite convinced that you have all information you need to correctly assess these topics. This is very much different to how curious, inquisitive, exploratory minds work; whom I find to be the best at formulating quality critique.
I have a couple things I could critique about MaidSafe or various parts of what they are doing. I don’t find it very important (that’s why I don’t rant about it at length), but they are things I feel could be criticized.
-
I find it a very very ambitious statement that the software would know bugs. It might hinge heavily on the definition of bugs, and sure software can very well detect undesired results and repair itself. But a bug might be that it is not able to correctly identify such. A bug is something that makes that what you think work, not working. I just find it a bit too much to state that the upgrading software will know anything that is wrong, and know what to do about it. That’s perfection, an absolute.
-
When presenting what the SAFENetwork will do, I would see it more fit to say something like “
We believe it might be possible, and will try to find a way ...” => “.. to pay the providers and maintainers.”. That is very different from saying “The network _will_ ..” because it is under research, and there is no clear idea yet of how, and no one is certain that it is possible to pay maintainers in such a decentralized, secured and autonomous manner that is the ethos of the project. That to me is much more honest about what this whole project is doing, where we are, what we have been doing up till now, and where we are heading. -
Having a reward fixed at 5% or 10% seems very arbitrary to me. Sure it can be a “good enough” estimation, and any pragmatist knows those are always necessary and required. But is it really not an area too important and vital for such a coarse approach?
Finally, I would like to direct myself at MaidSafe technical people (as a group), and say I am a little dissapointed you spend 20-30 (I’m guessing, didn’t count) posts on debating with the likes of @zeroflaw, and giving absolutely zero response to my polite request for your intentions, ideas, visions and knowledge on the topic of SQL databases and SAFENetwork. (Yes there is a short “what he said” kind of response to my question about Azure like functionality on SAFENetwork). I have been waiting. Was thinking first that it was the decentralized web summit taking up time. But now I just think, it wasn’t important enough. This debate on what a server really is, is a lot more important.
It makes me kind of sad really.
EDIT: I forgot to say one thing. I think it is a very sympathic thing that so busy people partake in the cleaning up and sorting out of also trivial misconceptions, or repeated misrepresentations of the tech or related. And I see how it is hard to just draw the line, so it very easily goes on longer than you wished. But would have loved to see that attention directed towards for example the topic I mentioned (and as a matter of fact consider it better spent time).