This means you could go to the network with 100K videos to watch or the one with 2K videos.
Choose the network with 100M users or 2M users.
Trade in 100B liquidity or 2B liquidity.
Which one would you choose?
Now, why is it 2%?
bch is 2% the market cap of btc (5.8 / 219.5)
bsv is 2% the market cap of btc (4.1 / 219.5)
etc is 2% the market cap of eth (0.865 / 48.1)
CRO is 4 months old so I’d say too early to judge but has only 265K transactions which doesn’t sound like much usage to me. 24h trade volume is also very low compared to other coins in the top 20, maybe just a slow day?
Is the 2% attack something we can use to our advantage?
I don’t know where you get these numbers from. I have indicated that the attack is possible at an early stage of the network, but I have not really explained how early, sorry.
Let the early stage be beta. Do you think that then the attack is more probable?
CRO is 1 year old. 4 months ago it existed only as an ERC20 token. It is traded as such in most places.
I understand where you get the numbers from. You take 2% of the people with OMNI tokens who are in our Safe network. I think it is correct to take for the calculations 2% of the people to whom the third party can send Airdrop to seed its network.
If the third party recognizes the OMNI tokens in its network, this will be another type of attack, which is also interesting. It is interesting because in the example you give it is really 2% but it is 2% now 3 years after the attack. You need to look at what the % was during the attack.
And I don’t think we should compare the market cap but the hash rate of the networks, which is analogous to farming. And not now, but at the moment of the attacks.
I think that these attacks are possible only if the third party can include its coin in a larger market than ours (the ETH DeFi market), to which we do not have access, and there inflate the price of its coin above ours and thus attract our farmers to its network. If it attracts enough farmers from ours it will kill our network. But it can only attract them at a higher price of its token. I no longer think that there is an option in which we are not part of the larger market, so for now I leave the topic. If such a danger arises, we will think in the future.
I think you’re slightly missing the core of the issue here, and therefore might miss the solution; the way to stave off this competition (or attack as you put it).
The value in the Safe Network, is the data, the usefulness of that data, the accessibility of it, the permanence. So the way to protect the network from a copycat, is to make more data more accessible, and more useful, amd provide more effective tools to allow people to use this data to get things done.
If a network did try and setup using the marketing methods you describe—artificially inflating trading and creating a bubble on a secondary market—is doomed to fail as it is all supply with no demand. Farmers won’t have anything to farm, as there will be nothing useful for consumers. It’d be like giving away $1000 gift cards for a Netflix rival, only for people to open the app and find no shows to stream.
But, if you think of it demand first: create useful apps, making previously inaccessible content now becoming accessible, ways for people to archive their data, bullet proof file sharing, private communication, linked data etc… then the farmer have demand for what they are supplying, and the price goes up etc.
So, if I were to think of a way to fork and create a competitor (‘attack’ in your language), I’d be thinking about how I could create some irresistible demand via really useful apps, and data people want. Anyone attempting this would probably realise it’s better for everyone for it to be via a single network anyway—one that is already established—but even if they didn’t, making data securely accessible for everyone, is well, a win, is it not?
You are right, of course. That is why I wrote that such an attack is possible only in the beginning when the network has a small amount of information, respectively few people know about it, there are few farmers and few people use it…
Ps. And forgive me if a basic question, but despite being an open project I assume that there is or will be a delay on the latest code so that someone cannot just fork the project, pump some marketing, and replace?
They can fork all they like, they can examine this forum for hints and tips but any fork is doomed to failure because those who would fork will lack the vision and drive to complete the work.
Thank you but as this project gets closer to finale, the investment to ‘complete’ becomes less. Just saying, I see a fork as a key risk despite sock-munching.
True but it is still a big investment. I doubt if any other team could bring together the skills and most importantly the attitude and temperament as well as the background knowledge to pull it off.
Certainly “spin-off” products could be launched, the concept of a “mini-SAFE” network to run a data-centre is one of the low-hanging fruits perhaps. And that may indeed be happening right now.
but any fork will not be the full bhoona - IMHO anyway
Skimmed through and didn’t see the marketing argument, so will add.
currently Safe network has over 100MM US valuation. Many of us hodlers (just as with bitcoin) will be promoting the main network (some of us have been doing so for years now!!)
Even WHEN new networks are created, they aren’t going to have anywhere near the marketcap and hence level of financial (and marketing) support that SAFE has at launch. They will always be small very low-ranking networks by comparison … unless, they are really offering something revolutionary and obviously massively better.
Additionally …
People don’t just switch for a few new bells and whistles - storing data on safe-network IS an investment of time energy and money in the network. If you have a lot of data stored there, you aren’t going to want to simply walk away from that and pay a second time, use more time and energy to duplicate your data on a new network - even if it’s cheaper … and one would also need to question how the new network could be cheaper and still be a sustainable platform.
I’m sure there will be forks - that’s good and fine, but I strongly suspect that they will be smaller local networks for specific groups, not for the world as a whole …
I could be wrong. Maybe Amazon in connection with the NSA and US gov, will launch a version that they modify in order to spy on people and in turn offer storage for free. But I’m not going to use it and I think many others won’t either.
My plan is to pay vloggers who are being shut down by youtube to use and support the network. There are quite a few of them and many already advertise VPN’s and such, so not a big leap I think to get them to advertise for Safe.
I will. To be clear though, I won’t begin until beta and we are clear of any serious bugs. Discouraged newbies would be a drag on growth IMO. Also, my promotions to this point haven’t been paid, I just spread the word in my social media circles.
I personally consider myself an ordinary person. Not very stupid, not very smart. Ordinary.
Almost 7 years ago I read a news on a site that someone works to remove servers. And since then I share a dream called Safe.
I want to believe that there are millions of people in the world who would share this dream if they found out about it. It didn’t scare me that the network wasn’t ready and I was a real crypto newbie then. And I’m still here.
