I’ve often wondered if there’s any way of MaidSafe doing something cool with a subset of the final feature set ahead of full launch.
Of course it’s early days, but it sounds like this could be a way of creating real value ahead of full network readiness, while testing and refining various mechanisms that will be used in the full network, and getting some more interest in the network.
Would be awesome if this payments network ended up being a highly scalable and flexible non-blockchain ‘L1’ in its own right.
If any payments only network could eventually be upgraded to be the full Safe Network that’d be fantastic. If it ends up as a Parallel payments only network from MaidSafe, I don’t see it as a problem.
Presumably the full Safe Network would technologically supercede the payments network as it would offer significantly more utility & anything lessons learned from the payments network. Participants will know this is a stepping stone to something superior, so shouldn’t be disappointed when the full network appears & steals the limelight
Yeah, again, several options to explore here, with some useful areas to test to as you point out.
The vision is 100% still the same ofc, so I wouldn’t be concerned. It’s more about harnessing parallelism for the most resilient path to getting to the vision.
As I’ve been saying for a while, the launch of the Network won’t really be a flip of the switch big bang affair.
More like a series of exciting bangs, and before you know it… we’re on Mars.
I’m interested in whether or not this approach could lead to multiple co-existing networks which may or may not be a problem. I suspect it would, but obviously not if that can’t happen (eg by using the update mechanism to avoid that).
Have MaidSafe considered this and is I something that needs more thought?
I thought it was a test too.
However if a seperate payment network using DBC’s can exist using Maidsafe’s tech it will.
So Maidsafe’s should be the first to do so.
I think it would be better to have SN fill both roles in one.
My first concern is having two networks, the first payment only which cannot be killed, will confuse things when we want to keep the introduction of SN as simple to understand as possible.
If later someone sets up a rival, good luck to them, but I think we should try to avoid that happening rather than create the situation.
I see your concerns, if they did go the path of a fully functional payment network it could be marketed in a way to avoid confusion.
I see a fast and mostly ready way to fund development.
Well, my point is that we decide what’s desirable and try to make that happen. My contention is that is best to have just one SN but we can debate that as well.
However, if I’m right, then does this plan jeopardise that? Hopefully not, but it’s not clear.
I feel similar for many of the same reasons and more (difficulty of this complex beast). However I See this as a dry run of the most complex political and regulatory issues. i.e. can we get investors/token holders paid out in some realistically testable way. Also the DBC API should be stabilised for those wishing to integrate them in systems.
However I believe with the stable set implications, the complexity issue I have will largely go away and with DBC payments being what makes data valid, then I believe we can and should provide a fully and tightly integrated solution to data security, privacy and give everyone as much freedom as possible.
I am intersted to see this one pan out though, who knows?
maybe the team should act in a way of labeling whatever is payment-network only names and variables as “test” or “alpha”? would that help people testing the payment testnet be informed that this is a testnet?
Any payment only network wouldn’t be the Safe Network, as the Safe Network is a data network that does far more than storage.
I don’t see a problem having more than one Network by MaidSafe if they have different capabilities and branding to make this clear.
What kind of problems do you foresee if there were a payments only network alongside a full Safe Network? Confusion among users, or issues for the team?
I’ve often wondered if 2 products could be launched ahead of the full network;
A ‘payments only’ type network that could happen sooner than the full network due to far lower node stresses and reduced complexity. This could help develop the payments UX and hopefully gain attention and create value to further resource full network development.
Private data networks utilising much of the Safe Network tech, but with ‘permissioned’ nodes so no worries about bad actors or payments / incentives etc. Develop file-based UX, test out many full-network underpinnings in more controlled environments. This could hopefully generate some funds to resource Safe Network development as well as learn lessons in data handling & node issues. Also, this would likely be a good revenue generating product post-launch for enterprises etc.
If both of these were developed and progressing, I’d imagine the goal would be to increase the capabilities of the distributed ‘payments only’ network until it’s able to handle full data loads, and then the Safe Network would be born.
Of course, having the full network ASAP must be the aim & the core of the team should be focused on this, but having one or more value-creating pre-launch-spinoffs could have its advantages, as long as it enhances rather than de-rails the full network development.
If a payments network storing redundant transaction data can communicate with the data network (nodes that can store data and transactions), wouldn’t the payments network slowly root itself into the data network and eventually the old payment network nodes slowly go extinct as there is surely more economic incentive to port over to transaction and data nodes?
Breaking down the path to “launch” by starting with a payments-only network might allow MaidSafe to more quickly demonstrate / provide tangible market value. Over the years, I believe there have been many requests to get to an MVP and breakdown the work into manageable chunks / releases.
While the concerns around duplication and redundancy sound valid to me, I do think the value of more immediately providing tangible value that lays the foundation for a more successful full “launch” likely outweighs the risks. Plus, starting with a payments-only network may be an efficient way to begin creating fiat on/off ramps as well as exchange bridges to other cryptocurrencies for SNT.
Early on it would be a good idea to have some ‘centralized’ starting point like nodes run my MaidSafe until we meet a threshold for decentralized maturity. It would be a good fail-safe guard in the early network in case it has to default back on some more consistent heavily agreed upon state.
By no means this means that the final network is centralized, as it grows bigger the impact of those specific nodes would become less and less.
