A Second network attack - discussion

Hello friends,

in the recent weeks, discussions have taken place on various topics, which have shown the possible presence of an attack from a second network.

In this topic, I present to you what this attack is (in my opinion), against whom it is directed and how we can deal with it.

A Second network attack

This is an attack in which a third party launches a second Safe Network with the same code as ours but without the initially generated 15% safecoins for current investors.

This is an attack only against safecoin holders. It is not an attack on the core devs because they can get paid in any Safe network for improvements. It is not an attack on the apps devs because they can get paid in any Safe network for apps.

When can such an attack take place?

Such an attack is possible only in the initial startup of the network when the safecoin has not yet been added to the exchanges (centralized and decentralized) and has no access to market liquidity.

How exactly can it be done?

A third party will need sufficient resources to launch vaults at his own expense and users to upload content to it.

Resources - from this information we know that you need a relatively small resource to support millions of users.

Users - this third party can use 1-10% of the initially generated tokens and distribute them free of charge (with airdrop) to people who have money (etherium wallets with money in them) and so attract people to upload information for free.

Farmers - once they have information on the network, they can attract farmers to provide a resource on the network

What can we do?

The advantage that such third party has in front of us is that it can include its safecoin as an ERC20 token in the huge liquidity on the ethereum network before we can include Safecoin in exchanges and so increase its price to such an extent as to take our farmers.

We can combat this by being the first to include our Safecoin in this liquidity.

Friends, please comment only on the attack. Obviously, saying what is possible does not mean that you want it. If you do not focus on personal attacks, I will be infinitely grateful to you!



Not happening since the later betas of the code will just continue into live network.

The third party network will start when SAFE goes live. Thus the 3rd party network would be months to a year behind in data on the network and thus usefulness to the general public.

Pushing safecoin into the market early will fail in some way. History tells us this is ALWAYS so


I hope you’re right, Rob!

I wonder how fast a network that distributes free coins for uploading can overtake us? Crypto. com generated 100% of their currency and distributed part of it for free. It took them 1 year to enter the top 10…


Doesn’t matter, no data no farming rewards

months to a year of data uploads will defeat that

Also free uploads means farmed coins are worthless since no one will buy them

1 Like

A fork of the SAFE network is not really a problem, just hope whoever does that, know what they got on their hands. Whoever follow that network, will learn a valuable lesson…

The only thing that’s important for every type of money is maintain your purchasing power. This could be a great opportunity for Maidsafe to allow the SAFE Network to outpace other platforms. 1 Blockchaincoin/token = 1 nanosafecoin, so you would allow people who hold the blockchain asset to exchange it to create an SAFE version with the purchasing power of 1 nanosafecoin, free tx and destruction when you purchase network resources. This would be another layer of defense for the SAFE Network, against other attack vectors, like the price manupulation we’ve been enjoying all these years. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:This will probably not be easy to code up, but I’m just the clueless consumer here, so I don’t know. I suggested this years ago, but I’m too lazy to look it up. :stuck_out_tongue:

Numeraire (NMR) also distributed their coin for free now their coin is worth €38, because it’s being used in a hedgefund/data scientist tournament and burned.

Why do you call it “attack”? This is how open source works.


Bitcoin is open source. The birth of Bitcoin cash and the free distribution of Bitcoin cash to all Bitcoin holders was an attack on the Bitcoin network aimed at stealing the value of the Bitcoin network.

It is the same here…


because he’s pitching an idea… ad nauseam.

Greed is not good.

Friendly reminder. I play the devil’s advocate, I’m not the Devil. :wink:

Promote the positives, dismiss the negatives - don’t indulge them.

Is reality positive or negative? There are many bitcoin networks, many etherium networks, 2-3 sia networks … This is the reality. Someone will make other safe networks, I don’t like to talk about it, but it’s the reality…


Dwelling on the potential of negatives adds no value and overstating them doesn’t make them more of a problem.

Dwell on enhancing the core strengths and visibility… there’s much more to be gained from getting behind the principal network than there is from pitching this short term grab for profit that a second network would be.

Who gives a sh*t if someone copies the code… that is as above noted open source principal… but the prospect of that becoming dominant, seems remote and not worth a discussion!

Crypto profiteers are always creating copy coin… and BTC and ETH have those … with their pitch of being better but they fail to be the replacement… they are just an opportunity for pump and dumping noobs in the market.

Also, the point above is obvious still that SAFE is not a cryptocoin. Copying the entire networks data, makes no sense. A second network would be niche at best.


I see two reasons for there being so many alt-bitcoin network’s. I’m sure others here steeped in cryptonaught lore could cite many others.

  1. The early adopter benefits in blockchain were so big that it was more lucrative to start a new network than join the existing one, and

  2. People like inventing new tech that BTC didn’t want to consider as a possible upgrade.

The SAFE reward structure could be tailored to address item 1. A good method for network updates/evolution might address item 2.

The simpler reason was that all those are in essence coins… they don’t for the most part have utility.

Some, made a good go of it like Doge, which while I never indulged, have to admire for pushing a meme and nonsense to a point of almost being something.

but SAFE is not just a currency.

Spawning many instances adds no value… unless they are a corruption of privacy; security; and freedom… and the prospect of exploit… which is the motivation for many copy coins.

The crypto that was interesting was proof of stake as an attempt to fix the energy problem that BTC and other proof of work face.

Anyhow I don’t think there’s much to consider here for a discussion… yes, open source is open source but repeating that doesn’t suggest it makes sense in the context of SAFE. I would take some fundamental and special - and especially brilliant dev to code in a way that required a split from core network… something added “better” to the base core code that could not have been done as an upgrade… far fetched and not an option that will satisfy those looking for a quick route to profit from Ctrl-C paste action!!


What is your opinion on the possibility for someone to provide, for example, 1 petabyte of nodes space and distribute coins for free?

Wouldn’t that make people use their free coins to upload information to the network and attract farmers?

1 Like

Cryptonaughts might want just use the network for coin transfer offering near instant payments and microtransactions but nothing else. The data would just be transaction data and nothing else. That seems like a reasonable fork.

I wouldn’t touch it… it would be a place to dump stuff for free but it’s a non-starter without dev support.

SAFE is about longevity not just short term thinking.

and they will prefer necessarily the network that is the principal with prospect of existing over a long period that the transaction record is not at risk.

The problem with short term pitches, is the cowboyz behind those never stick around… they take their profit and they’re off.

I’m not denying there might become copy networks for certain purposes… and dedicated even to certain interests like finance perhaps but until there is a reason, there is nothing to debate… and that’s not an attack, it’s just alt use case - though I can’t see necessarily why atm they would need a separate network - they would be stronger with the same network; I wonder atm only greed needs a second instance…

…the meme thread is time better spent.

1 Like

Can you explain what the problem is. The core is the same. What will stop the updates from spreading across all SAFE networks?

You also distribute only 1 million coins per 1 million wallets in the ethereum network for 1 safecoin per person enough to upload 1 GB of information, for example. Just to seed the network with data.

A lot of past talk on the forum included the ability to create alt coins within the network tied to SAFE at some ratio. It might be an outlet that solves some concerns of @Dimitar.


There is no point.

but why create it in the first place… there is no added value.

You’re noting that it’s possible (with risk to lag of updates and hacks and errors by those “maintaining” it) but you’ve not to my mind suggested a reason… which is why the devil advocate counters with the challenge it’s just a greed motive.

As jlpell and others will keep noting you can do it on the original network… and the network with more activity is stronger for everyone.

If you want an opportunity relative to crypto currency, then take the easy option of doing on the core network.

A lot of coins, especially perhaps the PoW will be looking for a better option.

Creating a second network, just to do what you can do on the first… but less securely, creates risk for no reason.