This much is true…
And the minute the MVE is out, I’ll be the loudest voice shouting for DBCs if they are half as promising as I think they are.
But I still think we should not make any further feature requests for MVE as it now seems within touching distance.
In the update they say
AFAIK DBC’s have insanely fast transaction rate because it’s a relatively light weight/simple design. Having it as a mixing service for SAFE is something that any current project out there should be able to take advantage of but to have it be a replacement of Safecoin could have further privacy and speed advantages. This is where I’m somewhat uncertain but one perk apparently is even the issuer (in our case elders?) doesn’t know who the cert went to when by the time it is redeemed as there are many out there and they can be exchanged and or mixed offline easily. It’s very much more like cash in a way than even safecoin given the offline status. It’s like the SAFEnetwork is a decentralized bank and we can still hold something in our hands to exchange with others. That means we don’t necessarily have to live in a cashless society but a hybrid using the same unit.
I missed this bit,
My vote is for this bit,
At least until I am further educated on the matter.
Yeah I’m a little on the fence because I don’t want delay to MVE. But I think there is still time otherwise they wouldn’t have slipped in replacing the current authentication with tokens to be able to apply labels, plus a lot of the UI needs to be implemented, the routing is undergoing optimizations, data types are being refined and will need further work afterwards I think. At this point I think DBC could possibly fall within the time frame of the completion of the rest of these are all likely intended to converge into MVE at a similar time. I’d support it being a replacement. It has advantages but I’ll respect any move Maidsafe makes as they would know what’s best at balancing time/funds etc to get to MVE and having something we’d be happy with long term.
We need a working data network first! 
It is great to think what the future may hold, but let’s get the foundations down first.
What @Traktion said
Another great update Maidsafe devs,
Hmmmmm, if users could add a pricetag (in SAFE (fixed, dynamic or auction based)) to access their data, it would be like selling digital goods (pics, audio and vids), real-time data etc… maybe an extension to this would be if you could comment/give feedback after you bought the data.
This comment is from an parallel universe
Maidsafe should 
stop with the SAFE browser and use the Brave browser to access the SAFE Network. Who struggles with user adoption when Brave already has over 10M users?
Brave 1.0 Performance: Methodology and Results | Brave
Sidenote really love the look and feel of snapp
Thanks for keeping up the good work 
Mentioning because of its relevance to your reply and not because I think SAFE Browser should be abandoned.
Great to see all the progress on the development front!! As always impressed with the focus on good UXD in order to build something people can actually use. More grease to your elbow, MaidSafe crew 
@anon57419684 this has been discussed before and the general thinking at this time and with the current state of the internet this is going to open security issues.
One of the goals of the SAFE network is provide a high level of anonymity if desired and to provide a high level of security. IP addresses for instance are scrubbed at the first hop.
Now to use a plugin to a browser opens it up to have all that security/anonymity lost at the PC. For instance the AV plugin will send the safe:// address off to be inspected if its a scam site and thus the user is giving away where they are browsing. That is just a simple example.
If the majority of users were using SAFE then the major browsers would be SAFE orientated and have plugins or compatibility for the old web. And the security/anonymity honoured or else safe users would not use that browser.
It can be transferred offline, but if the sender gets online before the receiver, the sender can double spend and the receiver won’t get anything.
There’s a way around though. The sender would have to make certificates redeemable only by the private key corresponding to a certain public key. To make it 100% secure for offline receiving and checking the sender would need to put the safecoins to the multisig group and to get the safecoins back would require the signature of both the sender and receiver. Now the sender and receiver could meet on top of a mountain and the receiver could use the elder group multisig public key to verify that the certificate was signed by the elder multisig that it now has the safecoins. The receiver can then redeem the certificate when coming back from the mountain and the receiver won’t be able to double spend. I guess many variations of this could be made that would fit different circumstances. Maybe best would be if the APIs for multisig etc were flexible enough that these kind of things could be built on the application layer.
Hello, I moved to Rome a few month ago, so Glasgow is no longer down the road for me 
All roads lead to Rome 
Oh, that’s a shame, for us. Probably not for you though!
You are joking surely.
Instead of being able to watch the Celtic, now he is stuck with Roma or Lazio???
Nah…
At least he can watch football.
Away and scrape your bottom.
Thank you for the heavy work team MaidSafe! Love, create and inspire us week after week! Thank you 
I add the translation into Bulgarian in the first post 
When a user on Windows installs the Browser from: Safe Network, without already having Safenetwork App installed, it offers them an auto-update notification. Accepting the notification presents the user with an error: “SHA512 Checksum mismatch”, and no other options. The failure recurs on Windows every time the autoupdate is tried. There’s some work we could do there to make it clear to the user if they install the browser without the app that they need the app. You could probably make an IPC call or check a registry entry to see if the app is installed.
Given that the browser is now a dependency of the safenetwork app (and is installed directly through the safenetwork app) might it make sense for us to update the get-involved page to instead link to the safenetwork app?
In addition, the app icon is somewhat difficult to see on Windows in Dark Mode:
When trying to create an account, I get the following error: (this could just be me doing something wrong, but for the life of me I can’t figure out what)
There is is also a type: “because”.
That being said these are minor issues with what is otherwise some amazing progress!
The S3 download links for the authd program have expired: https://github.com/maidsafe/safe-api/releases/tag/0.8.1
