@mvanzyl If the front-end is outside of SAFE and has full read/write access to the data inside SAFE, I’m not sure it’s more secure than having everything outside of SAFE.
Do you have more info on how data in SAFE can be used like a conventional database?
Latency isn’t an issue with streaming videos, it is with real-time voice conversations. I expect a latency of more than 0.25 seconds for sure, probably closer to a full second, perhaps more.
If I am a hacker and want to get a list of customers from a company (take Ashley Madison, for example), I hack the server and have everyone’s data in one fell swoop.
Now say Ashley Madison had been using the SAFE Network. There is no server to hack, all the data is encrypted, separated into chunks and duplicated across the network, so the only possible way for me to access data is by individually hacking each users credentials.
This seems like a MUCH better system for preventing a data breach than the current server model.
I know there are other safeguards for the front end that restrict it from accessing/identifying users/data on the network as well, but perhaps others could go into more detail on how this is accomplished.
Only if Ashley Madison would use a truly decentralised approach and let their customers own their own data. That’s a very different way of thinking, there’ll be a lot of friction for sure before that becomes the standard modus operandi. We’ll probably see plenty of websites that’ll try to suck up their customer’s data through the messaging system to their own account.
Do you mean if the entire Ashley Madison website were on the SAFE network? I thought you were talking about having a “regular” web front-end and storing back-end data in SAFE. If that regular web front-end is hacked, it can access all of the SAFE data and provide it to the hackers.
The entire site can be hosted on the network using a combination of public (the website files such has HTML, CSS. etc) and private data (user info/data/etc).
My understanding is the front end “regular” site would have no access to private data on the network unless a user validates their credentials either via an app or a website.
The only way to hack a list of customers if that data is stored on the SAFE Network is to be aware that a user has an account with a specific company/service (which would be difficult to discover) and then hack that individual user’s credentials. This would have to be done for each user from their individual device(s) via keyloggers, etc.
There is no way to hack a list of all clients because that doesn’t exist on SAFE because that data is not stored in one central place.
OK so you’re talking about a safe:// website? I thought you were talking about an http:// site with backend data in SAFE. In that case, the safe:// site’s only intrusion vulnerability is the admin’s authentication info?
I basically mean pushing server/database computation onto the users through maidsafe. As long as your userbase doesn’t treat safecoin as a currency, it would effectively be free computation and storage that you can leverage over your app’s competition.
@Luke - what Seneca said.
I tend to agree that the first use case is an alternative to Tor hidden services with added bonus not having servers. We’ll see these people try it out first and as the usability improves with more apps, more mainstream users will begin to adopt it.
Before an alternative to Tor hidden services could be implemented, it seems to me like it would have to encompass many aspects of abilities on the SAFE Network to be an attractive alternative[1], such as:
So while I believe that bringing these all together would produce the first fully-featured use case, any one of these technologies alone has the potential to be the first real use case in and of itself.
[1] I say attractive alternative - as opposed to viable - for several reasons. First, the TOR network has been field-tested long enough to prove to the average bear that it’s relatively secure. Despite the near-perfect theoretical implementation of this network, only time will be able to convince those who are excited not for ideological reasons, but rather practical reasons of it’s security.
As well, the user-base for the existing hidden services is well established. There is certainly an advantage in being a first-mover into a new market, but that only kicks in once the market begins gaining in popularity. This is the classic chicken-and-the-egg problem.
Lastly, like the body of this post demonstrates, the applications to create a market have not yet been created, nor will be available directly after launch. Also, their methodology will be relatively foreign to even devout technophiles. Where the process to set up a TOR server is well-documented, these technologies will still be in their infancy, and under constant development and subject to change all the time.
You’re right that it could just be ideological driven at the start and the security folk will follow. In that case I see equally bitcoin/smart contract and bittorrent crowds experimenting with their respective interests. Bittorrent people are used to ratios… typically they don’t mean anything but I think it could translate fine to safecoin. And Bitcoin people/digital asset people will be interested in the structured data especially since that part doesn’t require safecoin.
But that makes me think how bitcoin attention will bring about security questions and quite soon thereafter security people looking at it. So Tor usecases might not be far after.
There is certainly much to be said about the security of the network, and undoubtedly this will catch the eye of many professionals. The same can be said about processes that utilize structured data - bitcoin and smart contract enthusiasts like you said.
I had to re-read what you said about bittorrent people a few times to get what you were saying. Were you suggesting that their familiarity with ratios and seeding would translate well to becoming successful farmers?
Also regarding safecoin - the scalability problem just isn’t there. There’s no need to have conferences about it because, as a whole, scalability is a key feature of the network. That would certainly attract businesses who are searching for an alternative for, say, Visa’s 48,000 tx/s.
On the tips model, its potentially
less of a raw deal if SAFE grows very large, and possibly much better at scale than what Google pays?
Yes, familiarity with ratios will aid in understanding the basic premise of using safecoin. I use this analogy quite a bit when explaining to non-bitcoin people.
Agreed that the scalability problem is pretty much removed but businesses searching for Visa alternative will also be looking for validation that the consensus is secure.