A Second (vampire) network attack - discussion

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.


That horse is only sleeping


Wasn’t the idea of alternative networks part of the design?

Iirc, possibly not, but I feel sure many years ago David stated that it would be encouraged.

I thought that was the whole reason for us being open source and not having licenses , enforceable or not.

I was never keen on this aspect but came to the conclusion that it is what it is.

Beating dead horses, yaay… Protective (restrictive, viral, freedom-enforcing etc) licensing directly protects against this.

At the moment the routing, node and client libraries are copyleft under one of the GPLs, meaning they will remain publicly viewable and auditable, but for example, transfers has a permissive license, MIT if I recall correctly from a week ago when I had a look.

To make my concern concrete, and to be corrected if I’m misunderstanding, this means a private company can take all the code, make minimal or substantial changes to transfers and anything else outside of the three libs mentioned above, and release a network with all the advertising and branding imaginable where transfers and other network functionality is completely closed source?

If that is really the case, I must admit to being concerned about competing networks. I am also baffled as to why the licensing would be like this?

1 Like