SAFE Network Dev Update - May 7, 2020

[dirvine]

Safe Client Libs

[Nigel]

So much to be thankful for in this update. Many long awaited things converging into a tangible product that once was a mere promise. Still much to do but it pails in comparison with what has been and is being done here.

Thank you to everyone @maidsafe again for another fruitful week and getting us that much closer to the internet the world deserves to be better.

[Future]

@maidsafe

I’m sure you’ve already guessed what’s cooking. It’s Vaults from home. We’ve been integrating these new features of quic-p2p with the SAFE Vault and with some small fixes and refactors we ran our first internal testnet today with Vaults running from home. We are seeing some good results there and we’ve observed that some improvements can be made

This sounds awesome! Thanks for your dedication! Keep up doing your great job!

[anon40006692]

@maidsafe

Some dead ends

All expected and no problem I guess?

[Traktion]

What an update! So really big drops there and testing vaults from home will be awesome! There seems to be a really sharp focus in the team atm and it is great to see the results spilling out!

[Sascha]

@anon40006692

@maidsafe

Some dead ends

All expected and no problem I guess?

Maybe you should try reading all the way to the end of the sentence. Yes, dead ends were expected. See:

@maidsafe

Some dead ends as well, for example, routers not supporting IGD, but hey, that’s expected.

I don’t like what you are doing.

[anon40006692]

Because dead ends is plural I thought the “expected” was only related to IGD and there are maybe some dead ends causing problems. With problems I mean it could take maidsafe maybe some more time to get vaults from home up and running.

[Sonder]

Amazing work maidsafe. I’ll be looking forward to testing vaults from home again.

Have a great weekend break

[JPL]

@maidsafe

Our AT2 implementation

What does AT2 stand for? I’m guessing it’s not a scatterable anti-tank mine.

[drehb]

@maidsafe

As hinted at last week, we’ve been looking at how safecoin could benefit from similar measures, and we’ve come across quite the interesting paper on something known as Asynchronous Trustworthy Transfers

Asynchronous trustworthy transfers

[Southside]

Added to Safe Network Glossary and Acronyms

[Josh]

@maidsafe

Our AT2 implementation

I have not totally been understanding what this meant so if anyone else needs some clarity the link below helped me.

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/862082

Was not intending to reply to you there JPL

[JayBird]

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL95IbaKDuVrIBfROpLCTLrB6yE09w7O5s this is a playlist with a few short videos explaining AT2 made by people involved in the research paper @drehb links to above - it’s very good

[Birdinc1]

How are we looking with exchanges and crypto industry connections?

As former Steemit, Inc. Exchange Manager/Business Development, I recently helped Hive (Community Steem fork) connect up with many top exchanges.

David

[Southside]

David, Please DM @Sotros25 as she can probably make best use of your experience.

[bridge]

As I understand, the core of AT2 is that when the sender and receiver and another random observer(these 3 party) have an consensus, the transaction is valid (can’t duble-spending). So, there is no need to have an whole consensus system (like blockchain) to transfer coins. The team prove this mathematically.

*If AT2 is adapted, the load on the decentralized system is greatly reduced because all participants do not have to consensus for coin transfer (only 3 Participants agreements are needed).

[Nigel]

@bridge

As I understand, the core of AT2 is that when the sender and receiver and another random observer(these 3 party) have an consensus

They are talking about a BLS sign-share from the section Elders and we know they are using gossip, so my guess is the sender, receiver, and section Elders have a quick round of gossip and one perk of the BLS shares allows for additional trust. AFAIK anyways.

Given that, there should be a high level of trust, prevent double spending and also gossiping is quick and at2 has no need for such strict consensus where we have to know when and in which order each event happened (blockchain or PARSEC in our case). Again, as far as I understand as well. So surface level understanding it seems quite light compared to a full on strict order consensus algo which should def allow for a substantial performance boost.

@bridge

*If AT2 is adapted, the load on the decentralized system is greatly reduced because all participants do not have to consensus for coin transfer (only 3 Participants agreements are needed).

Is that straight from the paper? I’ll have to give it another skim.

[JPL]

Interesting. It appears (5.28) AT2 doesn’t really support smart contracts, but SAFE should through PARSEC, correct?

[Nigel]

@JPL

but SAFE should through PARSEC, correct?

That would be more BLS I think. Multi-sig is the key component to smart contracts. @oetyng would be the man to ask though.

Given that BLS is being used for the sign share then perhaps that changes things. AT2 is really being adapted to SAFE so I’m assuming that the paper won’t be 100% verbatim applicable to SAFE’s use.

[bridge]

I think this is the most clear answer for you.

Blockchain Vs Safe Network.(Smart Contracts)

Think of multisig, which we have the machinery for but not enabled yet. So you have several data points (Mutable Data) which represent agreements of sorts. So App A agrees and sign’s an MD to do something (swap owners or whatever it is supposed to do, add comments, or change data etc.). It sends the signature (this is the part we have not agree on, this send signature part) but the MD will not change until App B agrees conditions are met. Then it to can sign the MD And it will change. You can …

The blockchain based smart contract it too over loaded function. An app do one click, the whole miners should consensus about this act.

As I understand, there is immutable data type in maidsafe. We can use it for building a DEX etc on…