Is it going to be possible to transfer the ownership of files and of a whole domain to a different account or would one have to hand over the account?
2 Likes
The way it looks you have to hand over your account, but that segways into something else that’s interesting. All the time that we’ve been using the “Launcher” I didn’t notice a “Change you current password”, which means that you could hand over your account, but still be in possession of it. 
@Ross I hope that I’m wrong, but will you be able to change your password on the “Launcher”, because in the current version it’s not clear?
1 Like
- No Transfer = No Squatting. The lack of domain transfer feature may be welcomed by some. Personally I wouldn’t mind its absence.
- Files: there’s no “ownership” of files to begin with. There’s an ability to access them. If I can access it, I can own it. That’s how it works on the SAFE network. I make a verbatim copy. Now there may be solutions that will introduce 3rd party (as in “various software devs’”) digital watermarking and whatnot. For those transfers it’s up to them to organize the transfer of “original watermark” to the new “official” owner. But people won’t need to care unless they want to, so this isn’t a core feature of the network.
1 Like
Am I to understand that one can’t change their password on SAFE and that is deliberate? What if one wants to simply create a stronger password or what if one’s password gets compromised somehow? Isn’t this a security risk? Oops someone found out my password somehow and now several years of data are lost… seems rather hash.
While domain squatting is annoying it ultimately isn’t of concern to me. What’s of greater concern to me is the security of my data. And that means the ability to change my password. My account, my password, my choice. I shouldn’t have to make a new account just to change my password.
Incorrect. There is most certainly ownership of private data. Moreover there’s farming reputation and accumulated wealth to be considered. If someone gains access to your account do you want them to inherit your safecoin reputation with the network?
Here’s how I see it:
- No password change ability: A user’s account gets compromised and they must quickly download, and then delete all data, transfer all safecoin out of the account and into a new account and then reupload everything. Nevermind they’ve lost access to that identity so there’s identity theft issues there.
- Password change ability allowed: User changes their password and is safe. Granted this means domain squatting and trade issues. It also means someone could jack your account but it also means you can make such an attempt more difficult by regularly changing your password.
3 Likes
File “ownership” is more complicated than presented so far on this topic - and to some extent not yet defined.
I’m not going to try and elaborate it all, as I don’t have all the answers, but don’t want people to think it’s as simple as presented.
Firstly, it depends on whether you are talking about a file (as in SAFE NFS), or key/value data. Secondly, if the latter, it depends on whether you’re talking about immutable data or mutable (structured) data.
Also, does “ownership” mean sole ownership, read only permission, majority write permission, sole write permission, etc.
If someone wants to write a primer on this it would be great to have in the wiki! 
This would also mean that the “Public ID”, could become a public service. If you post the login creds everybody could have access to the “Public ID” and change it at their hearts content, which sounds like fun. Google.safenet could be Google’s domain for 1 minute, a minute later it could be Microsoft’s domain to trash Google.
[quote=“Blindsite2k, post:4, topic:7963”]
Password change ability allowed
[/quote] Selling domains is a natural process so why discourage it? I mean if a SAFE Network user can sell Google to Google for 10K, it only means that whoever invested in the SAFE Network first got an advantage. I thought the first come first served was the original idea:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r66ckuTYgy4&list=PLvHzGPR8ljQQDg5x_cxH-U9NkF6AMaT4W
Man I can’t wait to sell Google to Google on SAFEX, 1 million SAFEcoins minimum with that money I’ll let devs make a SAFE Network search engine
I think Ownership means that you got the “Pin, keyword and password” and registered a “Public ID” first, because at the moment we don’t got multisig for accounts as I understand it for the “launcher”.
1 Like
@19eddyjohn75 sorry if I confused things, but I was referring to statements made about file ownership rather than account ownership. Maybe I got the wrong end of the stick there!?
I am highly against the current DNS system that maidsafe has implemented. We should really re-examine it again. Once it goes live, it will be really hard to move over to a different dns system once the snowball is already rolling.
I, 110 percent support the pet-naming system. It’s exactly like phone contact system. Everybody gets a mini-dns on their own book, or they can take somebody’s else mini-dns system. The mini-dns can be posted, shared, and reviewed. It acts like a whitelist.
No it is not. It is absurd to squat names as well as it is absurd to squat “branding” names. It’s nonsense. These type of system encourages squatting. Words are free to use, and free to express. To limit the words, and expressing words is to limit freedom of choice, and freedom of press. It’s exactly what @Blindsite2k said in another thread, you build a camp fire but you don’t own the fire. If somebody else builds a fire, you didn’t do it, nor own it! It is a fire itself that nobody owns but everybody can create. It is a language barrier and to create authoritative system to limit people from creating things.
I think passwords can be changed once SD is implemented. We store passwords inside of SD, which is mutable less than 100kb.
If password is lost, there is a solution to that but I won’t post it. It is my friend’s idea, and he does not want to post it to the world. Confidentiality.
4 Likes
Is this official? 20 char limit
No. It is not official but it can be done.
SD that is less than 100kb is mutable. This statement is official.
1 Like
Isn’t the password used to decrypt the private data? If so, would a password change not necessitate a decryption of all private data and a subsequent re-encryption so that the new password would apply?
I can’t say for sure how it’s handled in SAFE, but in most modern encryption-systems the passphrase is just used to encrypt the actual key. So it would be absolutely possible to change the passphrase.
It’s all OK you can change password/pi/keyword at will, Just not shown in app yet.
[EDIT - Add, this does not affect your public ID in any way]
6 Likes
Haha, prove me you own a file.
Oh wait, you can’t.
You can produce a hash which doesn’t prove anything.
The moment I access it and make my own original, they’re indistinguishable.
Sorry.
Could you elaborate on that for the uninitiated?
1 Like
You have a file that’s yours and private.
No one has a copy, so there is nothing to compare it against.
So, you can’t really “prove” anything here.
If you show me the file, I download it and publish the same file.
Which one is “the original”, as far as the SAFE network is concerned?
I agree. Domain squatting is annoying and no one can own a word anymore than you can own an idea or an element. Ideas are spreadable by their very nature. However I also agree people should be able to trade and voluntarily exchange currency for information. Say for instance I wanted to sell a gaming account I owned, or a safenet account I owned, should I be prevented from doing so? In that case I’m trying to do the exact opposite of domain squatting, I’m trying to get rid of a domain/account not keep it. To force one to keep something one does not want to keep is just as much an infringement upon one’s freedom as censorship. Freedom is freedom whether it be freedom of speech, freedom of trade, freedom of spirituality, freedom of sexuality or any other kind of free expression. In an attempt to prevent corporations from domain squatting one must not infringe upon one wanting to sell a domain they genuinely own and want to get rid of. Perhaps a resistence factor could be put in place. You make a fresh account. If you try and resell it right away you have to pay a fine to the network for x amount of safecoin. Over y amount of time this fine reduces to 0 until you could sell your account for nill profit loss. So let’s say x = say 3 months worth of safecoin income based on the average of your current farming rate so far. The network keeps a record of your farming statistics and reputation right? So plug that in, see what the average is over 3 months and that’s the fine for reselling an account right away. Say that wait time is 3 months. Now let’s assume you have a rich guy willing to spend that money. Let’s modify the fine so it’s fine = xn where n = number of domain sales within a prohibited time period. So if you sell 1 acount withing that 3 month window it’s just x. If you sell 2 accounts the second account will cost you x2. The third will cost you x*3 and so on until you start waiting things out. Of course x and y are just arbitrary numbers in this example. Maybe having it be something like 6 months or a year would be more reasonable to prevent domain squatting but hopefully you get what I’m saying.
Well that’s good. It kind of had me worried. Hope to see it in the app soon. 
What need do I have to prove what private data I have access to? It’s my private data and none of your business.
Why is this relevant? My only concern is that I can access my data and keep private data private and public data public. I own a file because I posses it. I exclusively own a file because it is kept private in my private data storage. There is no need for external verification, approval or proof. What you state is irrelivent.
Exactly. You can’t prove jack.
Or maybe you didn’t read the original question? Or not much at all?
Why is this relevant? My only concern is that I can access my data and keep private data private and public data public. I own a file because I posses it. I exclusively own a file because it is kept private in my private data storage. There is no need for external verification, approval or proof. What you state is irrelivent.
Uhm, what exactly are you ranting about?
How about you read the file ownership question from the original post and try again without funny logical and spelling mistakes?
FYI:
This was the original question. Which has nothing to do with this:
A domain is PUBLIC data and beyond it being attatched to an account and requiring a private password to modify it’s contents has nothing to do with the contents of one’s private data upon that account. When uploading a website you upload it as public data not private data.
Since we know we can transfer files from one account to another via messaging that’s not the issue. The issue is with changing passwords and OWNERSHIP OF THE ACCOUNT. And this has already been answered by David Irvine in the above post.
But what does proving or disproving whether one has an “original” piece of private data have to do with transfering a domain name or an account given that both domain names and accounts are unique and cannot be duplicated and therefore your postulate about copied files is invalid? The transfer of a domain and/or an account is totally unrelated to the transfer and/or ownership of private data beyond maintaining the security of one’s data.
Surely, if the authorities can show that you access the SAFE network, and they have some suspicion of a crime, then they can use “rubber hose cryptography” (i.e., beat your passwords out of you) to establish their case for prosecution. That’s what the UK’s RIPA law is about. The take away lesson is: be careful about leaving incriminating meta-data around, and make the crowd you’re hiding in impractical to search.