A Second (vampire) network attack - discussion

Well, I dont think this attack vector is reasonable logic. Because you dont explain.

But you think that is important do what you can do.

1 Like

Everything in life is just probabilities. No one knows the future, neither me nor you. It would be great if I am wrong in my risk assessment. :love:

Privacy. Security. Freedom

1 Like

Farmers are not bitcoin miners.
They are not people who have bought specialised machines to perform a task.
Nor are they an established group. A farmer can be easily replaced.

And furthermore…
Why would a farmer, usually a SNT holder, help to lower its value?

Why would a farmer go to a network with no guarantee of a future when, in the worst case scenario, he could be on both networks?

Why would a customer switch networks and pay twice as much to keep his data?

Your whole argument is based on a premise that makes no sense at all.

1 Like

Let’s hope you’re 100% right and I’m just 100% wrong. So in case I’m wrong, what do you mind my practical suggestions? What would it hurt to have an ERC20 token? Or to systematically upload useful data on the network from day one?

Privacy. Security. Freedom


This is being discussed now on how to archive internet sites and also copy thinks like wikipedia over and gov public data sets over. Hopefully this is will happen without need to specially do it

The ERC20 token idea is also being discussed to have Safe Network Token to an ERC20 equivalent bridge now. May not get traction but it may too get traction. Of course centralised exchanges can run a Safe client and use Safe wallets of their own to receive/send Safe Network Tokens and thus allow trading of it. Decentralised ones are perhaps where an ERC20 equivalent may speed up trading before a native solution is found. Maybe the solution will be to have teh decenteralised one on Safe itself

1 Like

I’m all for uploading data. The value of the network is its data. Good data will draw folks to use the network instead of an empty clone.

I was and remain against subsidising farmers though. They are replaceable and expendable.


Interestingly, Chia are on opposite view. Would you comment on their decision to potentially subsidize their farmers? My understanding is that they want to do this in order not to lose farmers to a competitive product. What do you think?

Privacy. Security. Freedom

1 Like

What are your thoughts on central banks printing money?

That they will continue to do so while I am alive. So the only way to keep value to myself is to own real estate / business / cryptocurrencies.

Privacy. Security. Freedom

It’s a pretty similar dynamic. Subsidising farmers is the equivalent printing money, it will create a bubble. It might work for a time, but eventually that bubble will pop… especially with a much more simple economy like the Safe Network. (let’s not discuss central banking etc here though, that’s for another thread, and I’m not voicing an opinion on govermnment economic policy here, it was just an analogy :grinning:)

Again, and I’m sorry to keep on repeating myself everyone, but this argument keeps on coming up: the value is in the data, and the success of the Network depends on it being as useful for people to read data, and store their data.

The heavy subsidies of things like Filecoin and Chia etc I predict will come back to bite them, and they will see a rapid collapse… because it’s just not sustainable.

We need to focus on demand, not supply. Because if we get demand right; there will be zero problems with supply.


Everything is a bubble. Everything without exception. Filecoin is a bubble. Bitcoin is a bubble. Ethereum is a bubble. As long as only 1% of humanity uses the crypto, it will continue to be so.

There is a high probability that there will be speculation and no demand with Safe, because the mass of people still do not believe in decentralization.

If they believed, there would be millions and millions of people here. They are not here. It can take decades to educate enough people to make the network self-sufficient.

So it is good to keep discussing how we can attract more people, not to reassure ourselves that it is enough to build the network and people will come.

Chia are not stupid, what they do is very reasonable and they have the option of using the pre-mined tokens or not using them. They are preparing for an uncertain future. It is also good for us to prepare for such a future and not rely only on what we want to happen.

Privacy. Security. Freedom

1 Like

If there is good data on the network, the farmers will get rewards for serving it. I see it as good data leads to good farmer rewards.

I don’t think the reverse holds true either. Having lots of farmers doesn’t imply good data will get stored on them. Like a fart in the wind, farmers will dissappear when the subsidies dry up, unless there is sustainable data demand feeding their rewards.

Therefore, if I was to subsidise anything, it would be good data in all guises. This will both build value in the network and reward farmers. Good apps build on good data, as do communities, which will amplify the effect.


Why do you immediately assume that I am proposing to subsidize bad data? Should I explicitly write every time that we are talking only about a data useful for all mankind?

Privacy. Security. Freedom

1 Like

Even Chia has explicitly written that they will give tokens to Global 5000 companies and not just to any spammer.

Privacy. Security. Freedom

1 Like

I’m not assuming you are suggesting either. I’m just saying what I would and wouldn’t support.


Hands up all the people who think the plan should be to release the network and then sit back, smirk and do nothing?

I’m putting this in a jokey way there, but my point is just that - I think everyone agrees that even if the technology is amazing and world-redefining, which it certainly is, the most logical thing to do nonetheless is to make the network resilient and strong in every way we can think of.

Jim is on the ball here and I am happy seeing it repeated ad nauseum - it is about the data.

Don’t think you are saying the opposite, but just pointing out, I really do imagine that almost everyone would agree that more chance of success is better.

When someone lists a few things that will turn people’s heads at launch, or lists a few groups that might be very excited to join when they realise that it works and all the capabilities it has, it is not the same as saying “Ah, how lovely, let’s all sit back and do nothing”.

So yes - thinking about how to make safecoin accessible and useful (exchanges, wrapping, etc) is essential. Thinking about getting good data onto the network is also essential. Talking about these things, looking at what other projects are doing, all helps.

I’m still entirely unconvinced, however, that framing it in terms of ‘other projects will definitely attack us, it’ll be a bitter struggle to the death, and we’ll have no inherent advantage in that struggle’ makes any sense at all though, and I still don’t feel like I’ve seen any justification for framing it that way.

Strategically, I feel we could spend more time thinking about actual positive ways to increase the likelihood of Safe providing its fundamentals to humanity and less time talking as if there is some disagreement between people who want to sit back and let fate decide, and another side who have seen the dangers of the real world. It’s a false dichotomy, I don’t think those sides exist.


Very interesting view of the world. Do you think there are people who will literally sit down and think about how to create a copy of Safe to make money?

Privacy. Security. Freedom

They can think about that while we put in place improvements etc. The world works this way. Bitcoin as an example is actually quite simple single purpose device. Being that, it’s easy to copy/clone and more. The data element is just money transactions and these by definition are transferable tokens, exchanges make them transferable across chains and other mediums (fiat). However it’s a single purpose device.

Safe is not single purpose, it has not got a single algorithm or data type. It’s more complex and has many purposes.

Some of these purposes will appear via apps.

I won’t say more as it gets into my opinion, however I will say the more complex an evolving product/service is then the more difficult it is to attack as you describe. I don’t mean copy the code, anyone can do that, but what are you holding? how does it really work? what direction should it go in? what are the weaknesses that the originators are working on? so many questions now around the thing you copied. I hope this helps, but the difference from cloning an almost complete implementation of a single algorithm to cloning a more complex evolving product is not insignificant.

Then there is outcome! if the outcome is privacy security and freedom for all humanity, we still win. So given the massive hurdle as explained above and getting past that, maybe even understanding what you have and progressing it, then as long as it does what we always wanted, we are probably in a good place.


I can’t know what’s in the future and what kind of people will copy Safe. Personally, I prefer our network to be the largest and most used, and if various “hacks” such as the ERC20 token, collecting donations/or using a foundation and uploading useful data, keeping a fund to be used to further stimulate farmers - can help - I’m for these “hacks”. And when I see another product put them into practice, of course I will raise the issue once again.

Privacy. Security. Freedom


If you think my message could suggest that I am claiming people won’ t do that, there’s unfortunately been a complete misunderstanding. I don’t think I can state my point more clearly, and I suspect you can’t see outside your framing of the problem. I thought that would be the outcome, but wanted to make the point clearly in any case.

Last ditch attempt haha yes, I find it very probable that someone will sit down and think hmmm who are these Safe people, how do I get some of that money for myself. I am just saying that framing that problem the way you do - as a war-esque thing that we should be terrified of, that we need to ‘hack’ our way out of, shows weakness and fear.

We should plan, we should expect the worst, we should be realistic, we should be honest, we should be positive in our messaging and our language, and we should be confident that we can ‘stake all vampires in the heart’ (example of the language we don’t need) if we focus on making the network as useful and wonderful as it could be.

I’m saying there’s a very large gap between:

“How can we think of ways to get data onto Safe which is useful and interesting and that people will be interested in engaging with, learning from, building projects with? How do we organise it, what groups on the clearnet might be interested?”


“Vampires, death, greed, destruction, Safe has to win”

I am caricaturising to make my point there, I know you don’t say it that dramatically. But it does feel a bit like that, to be honest, and I think that strategically it is a less good way to think about something that yes, we should be thinking about.