Update 07 September, 2023

Call it synchronicity, a confluence of decentralised thinking, or longstanding issues coming to a head, but just as @dirvine was chatting to the team this week about protection against Sybil attacks, a post by @sundata87 popped up alerting us to Vitalik Buterin’s thoughts on the topic. David’s initial response, for those that haven’t read it, is here. Tldr; outside of blockchain-land Sybil may not be so scary after all.

While we’re on helpful community contributions, special thanks to @loziniak for some sharp-eyed bug fixing and useful proposals to simplify the API.

And of course, kudos to everyone who’s taken part in the two testnets over the last week. Yes, we’ve spoiled you – don’t get used to it – but it’s been worth it to find that (a) the no-chunk-nodes situation has improved, if not fully cracked; (b) nodes are earning tokens for primary storage as planned; and (c) useful data on the issues to be ironed out, particularly uploading large files, where it may be that quoted prices can become invalid in the time it takes to chunk and upload the data.

Fixes are on the way, or already in, for those things, as well as the out-of-memory glitch which can occur when encrypting large files.

Oh, and @jimcollinson gave a preview of his product positioning presentation to the team. We’ve really got something special here guys. More soon!

General progress

@qi_ma has implemented streaming for self encryption, a helpful step on the path to ensure clients don’t run out of memory.

@joshuef has been tweaking retries for failed uploads, looking at generalising payment implementation across different types of record, and investigating the logistics of tracking node income.

In adjacent territory, @bochaco raised a PR to add a test verifying total rewards balances after chunk uploads. He also worked on having nodes deposit rewards in their own wallet and a CLI command to query balances.

@bzee refactored the code to optimise getting the furthest record, and investigated store cost calculations and potential supply-demand curves. Ideally we want prices to rise slowly at first then more rapidly as total storage reaches a critical point – all needs testing of course.

Meanwhile, @dirvine has been deep in security territory looking at spam prevention and Sybil and DOS prevention. He’s also been thinking about service providers, such as archive and audit nodes, which are all part of libp2p.

@chriso has made good progress with logging, implementing a combination of Logstash and Filebeat which is much more resource efficient. Chris also raised a PR to rotate logs at 20mb, rather than the number of lines.

@anselme has refactored payments to use UTXO, which is much more efficient than our current DBC implementation as well as being fully encrypted, adapting both sending and receiving ends and identifying security flaws to fix.

As well as lots of internal testing and CI improvements, @roland has been looking at record stores, including validation and error handling. He’s also been testing the new Filebeat and Logstash logging setup with a view to integrating libp2p metrics.

Useful Links

Feel free to reply below with links to translations of this dev update and moderators will add them here:

:russia: Russian ; :germany: German ; :spain: Spanish ; :france: French; :bulgaria: Bulgarian

As an open source project, we’re always looking for feedback, comments and community contributions - so don’t be shy, join in and let’s create the Safe Network together!


First now to read :slight_smile:


My usual podium :slight_smile:

Thanks to all for their hard work
I will now read just where this hard work has got us :slight_smile:

Is there any chance of a deeper dive on this, please. I thought I had got my head around DBCs, now it looks like I need an ELIF on just where UTXOs fit in and what it means practically for Joe User.


Had a nagging niggle in my head for a couple of weeks now in anticipation of an update from Jim.

Good to hear it’s coming :smiley:!


Thanks for recognition, @maidsafe ! Btw, it’s @loziniak :slight_smile:


Erma gerd, I can’t wait to see this!!! Things are happening. Loving it.


Thanks so much to the entire Maidsafe team for all of your hard work! Having two testnets in one week is really spectacular. :tada:


What can I say? Phenomenal update once more! Can’t wait for Jim to give us more insight into the product launch & strategy.


Thank you for the heavy work team MaidSafe! I add the translations in the first post :dragon:

Privacy. Security. Freedom


So DBC is dead?


No. I think it means that the transfers are done by querying UTXO, no need to send messages. I’m not sure though.


The name is confusing now as it’s departed from the DBC papers etc. We have come up with a much simpler and faster approach now and also a way to transfer the tokens easier. I think we may end up just calling these tokens SNT for now and transfers just transfers or similar. All to be finalised in next few days as @Anselme hacks the last bits


Amazing progress, guys. i remember when it used to be months or years between testnets, not hours. :grinning: :grinning:


Any notable differences in capability? I’d also be interested in the differences under the hood. Maybe one for an explanation in a Dev Update.

So I should no longer say SN uses DBCs. It would still be good to have a descriptive term, and then be able to say “it’s like DBCs except…”


Seems wise to avoid terms like UTXO because people will then assume SNT is like ‘traditional’ cryptocurrencies and blockchain.


It’s really that it’d be misleading to describe them as Digital Bearer Certificates now.

DBCs being a digital voucher which represents ownership of an underlying asset, where holding the DBCs means you hold the asset. This was achived via trusted section keys, with sections signing data, and thus then DBCs could stand by themselves.

It’s not really like that anymore, in that we have slightly more of a traditional approach now, with the Network keeping track of the value held by each public key.

So it didn’t seem right tom keep on persisting with the DBC terminology.

Still plenty of nifty qualities are retained, but not correct to dub them DBCs anymore.


Has it been decided yet how the full token supply will be dealt with?


You mean the emissions of the remaining 70%?


Yes the emission, few ideas floated, not sure it was ever decided exactly how.


It’s not something we are focused on right at the mo, but it is still on the agenda and being mulled in the background.

Not an impediment to launch though.