A Second (vampire) network attack - discussion

David the only thing I am talking about is that the Foundation uses tokens to upload data for free for projects valuable to humanity as Wikipedia and the Internet Arhiv.

Doesn’t data protect the network by making it stronger? The trading thing is out of context. If I said buy somewhere, I said it in the context of buying a storage on the network with the token. No exchanges.

The Foundation uses the tokens MaidSafe receives directly. Do you think this is feasible?

And is this actually prohibited by law at the moment? If I donate a pen and a piece of paper to the foundation and the foundation uses them to record information on them, is that allowed by law? Because using the tokens is just that, recording information.

And what about if MaidSafe foundation will make a deal with company to keep their backup forever. Foundation will pay one time using SNT and company will pay monthly to support foundation for future.
This might be win-win as company will support rather than other company Scottish foundation and Maidsafe Foundation will help to protect Safe network while changing SNT to fiat to help other people.

1 Like

That is a problem, i.e. if you donate 1BTC to the foundation right now, it get’s the 1 BTC and you then pay the TAX on that one BTC. You get yourself into trouble.

As paper and pen is a property then yes HMRC will want you to value them and pay tax on them.

HMRC are beasts with all this stuff, then OSCR bring you reams more paperwork and laws.

So if you say here is a token I want you to do X and X is not part of the recodnised charitable models the foundation is regulated on then the foundation cannot accept the token.

That’s just the law man, and I agree it horrible and with charities, it’s at times senseless, but it is what it is right now. I tell you it’s a minefield and only us mortals need to walk it, HMRC and OSCR plant the mines and don’t tell us where they are.


David, please then consider the option of a separate Safe Foundation to receive additional inflation to help the network.

Sia made a hardfork to introduce such a fee in support of their network for their foundation recently.

The hardfork introduces a subsidy that will fund the Sia Foundation, a new non-profit entity charged with supporting, developing, and promoting the Sia network.


Sia is based in the US and the tax laws are different in the UK. As far as I know we don’t have the equivalent of US non-profits here (someone please put me right if I’m wrong about this).

16 posts were split to a new topic: Is Safe Inflation real?

Unlikely it could be Scottish, it took us 18 months and $50,000 to set that one up. Perhaps some overseas thing, but then …

I am not sure what you mean accept inflation? If you mean accept funds to then transfer back to folk/network would it not be better to get a group voted in each with a key share in a way that group of people can be voted out any time and replaced etc. ?

1 Like

I offer Foundation because it is accepted in the crypto community. If you offer another form of help for the network, it suits me personally :dragon:

To bring the topic back to the important discussion.

My suggestion is to add a fourth point here:

  • Farmers qualify for farming attempts at 100% of the Farming Rate (FR) (as modified by Vault performance ranking).
  • App Builders qualify for farming attempts at 10% of the FR
  • The pool from which Core Developers are rewarded for their contributions qualifies for farming attempts at 5% of the FR.
  • 5% of the FR go to fund the Safe Foundation, a new non-profit entity charged with supporting, developing, and promoting the Safe network.


This idea causes too much centralization. We’re far better off supporting the network via a 5% PTP reward.

1 Like

Why do you think so? Ethereum has a foundation and no one has censored them - they have been working for 5-6 years now?

Didn’t you see the news today? Just wait.

Not only that but there are just too many humans involved with a foundation. The rewards are better used to promote the network in an autonomous way, like PtP or something similar.

1 Like

I do not agree with this statement. We have no data on this and it is very risky, I remember the eth DAO fiasco… We have data that the foundations work well in favor of the projects for which they were created.

Let me be more articulate. I think a foundation for the network is fine. However, funding the foundation through an automatic farming reward is a problem.

Thank you. I hope more people realize that this has been my goal all along.

In this topic and in other topics, there are speculation expressed against me that are trying to distort what I am trying to achieve with this topic.

People who have expressed these speculations owe me an apology. You can apologize to me now or in 10 years, but all of you who hinted that I have behind-the-scenes goals are wrong and time will prove it 100% :dragon:

1 Like

I think you constantly bringing up this topic drives people away. You may mean well but I think it comes across to new folk as a reason not look deeper at the project. This topic is resurrected on a regular basis.

1 Like

Ignore the haters. I know you have been pushing this topic with good intent and are trying to get people to brainstorm a solution to it.

The challenge I see for you is coming up with a plausible set of conditions where an outside group could compete with this project. Imo, the more likely scenario would be if this project split along differences of opinion or different implementations, bad feelings result due to an argument and two community networks begin to compete. Isn’t this similar to what happened with BTC vs LTC?


By far the most fundamental technical difference between Bitcoin and Litecoin are the different cryptographic algorithms that they employ. Bitcoin makes use of the longstanding SHA-256 algorithm, whereas Litecoin makes use of a comparatively new algorithm known as Scrypt.

Each copy of Safe will be using the same farmers, so vampire attacks are more likely to occur than splitting the community.

And with the examples from Bitcoin Cash, SushiSwap and Filestar, we see that such attacks are started by rich companies, not individuals.

I respectfully disagree. @Dimitar has thoughtfully presented his case and responded to questions from multiple people wanting clarification. Nothing wrong with that. I think his contributions and suggestions have been of immense importance to the understanding and planning of the project. I do think there are other, more egregious, posts driving people away though.


If we’re beating dead horses. PtP.