About the possible existence of multiple SAFE Networks

Well, we’ll see what happens. I personally will not burn my MAID and I will keep it SAFE :wink:

Alt networks as I say will be in my opinion for specialised purposes. Like governments wanting their data ONLY on their machines. Maybe there will be a special archive system that wants to be separate for some reason.

But like the WWW Internet the first one adopted will be the one used because using multiple clients to connect to multiple networks just to browse from shopping site 1 to shopping site 2 to searching network 1 to searching network 2 to N will be so resource hungry that it will be abandoned simple because of the complexity of using multiple networks because sites are spread across them. The very reason there is only one Internet except for specialised intranets used by businesses and governments

Its the early period where we will see if others try to compete.

And @Dimitar adoption of networks and systems always follow a “S” curve because of human nature, resource supply, etc etc. And there is nothing in SAFE to suggest that it will break the mold in that respect.

Note that the virus growth follows a “S” curve. A very small section of exponential growth while its small then continues along the “S” curve and then tappers off when adoption is getting close to everyone


What you say I think would be true of a reasonable world. People are not reasonable. There will be groups of people who will not want to use the first Safe Network because it is bad (choose a reason) and theirs will be good. All other problems you describe are solved through an intermediary like Google through which your queries go …

And the same was said for the internet too. The “S” curve has proven a good model even for humans being bad and acting bad.

Nooooo because that is the very problem we are trying to get away from. So you described the demise of the networks in your solution


You miss that Safe is a virtual network. It may not be cost-effective to have 100 cables to and from each home, but there is no reason why this home should not be connected to 100 virtual networks on 1 cable…

I hope you are right, in the same way that I hoped everyone would wear a mask during a pandemic … I am afraid that there are no easy solutions and that we will have a slightly better world, ie. people will be able to own part of a virtual network

I am talking of the Internet, not internet.

It too is software systems and servers running over tcp/ip


The difference is that at the first virtual level, only ISPs can participate in exchange for large investments in equipment, staff and licenses. At the second virtual level (SAFE) anyone can participate for free.

I hope you understand me, Rob. I’m not saying we should help create new Safe networks. But I think it’s inevitable, so I ask the question publicly so that people smarter than me can say if that’s likely and if we can somehow direct these networks to the ultimate goal: freedom, privacy, security.

:freedom: :security: :privacy:

Just a note. ISPs are not supplying the WWW Internet, they are routing the tcp/ip. Same for the SAFE network

They do run their own servers participating in the WWW Internet just like other companies do too. But as an ISP they route packets. Not supply the WWW Internet. Its the various servers out there that are supplying the WWW Internet and all choose that


Yes, I know. I used it as an abbreviated image of the Internet, because for the most people the Internet comes from them… Thanks for the clarification!


1 Like

Yet, when people with deep technical expertise keep telling you that what you propose is technically infeasible, you persist anyway. That screams of ulterior motives. One also wonders if a desire to form rival networks is the reason why you’re trying to set up and own so many SAFE forum sites in so many different languages and reject @piluso’s governance suggestion.

Of course, you’ll declare some platitude like “not at all; all I care about is SAFE”, but you must see how it all sounds suspect.


Blocking issue IMO.

I see 2 solutions that allow continued maids trading during the conversion process:

  • The network implements the omni protocol. The cons are:

    • bitcoin protocol must be added to safe code
    • every vault must also be a bitcoin node (or must trust another bitcoin node)
    • a global trigger must be implemented in the network to allow the conversion (when a test network is deemed good enough to become the final safenetwork).
  • Maidsafe foundation does the conversion manually (receives maids, burns them and transfers corresponding safecoins). The cons are:

    • it is a centralized solution
    • heavy work for someone at Maidsafe

The latter has my preference because safenetwork wouldn’t include any code related to this one-time conversion.

I don’t see how this would solve the issue because you still have the problematic snapshot.

1 Like

Many of us feel it inevitable, time will tell.

Iirc even David thought this likely / encouraged it.
But that was a long time ago that I made that summation.

1 Like

Maybe the Moderator could break off this discussion and create a new thread with a new title, since it has veered off from the Open Ledger theme. No problem. Good, important discussion. It should have it’s own title so other interested folks can find it. :face_with_monocle: :+1:


I am searching for Patreons. Please feel free to PM me to transfer them to you!



I think a preferable solution is one where no singular individual owns any of the sites, but rather there’s a clear mechanism for collective governance and oversight.


Ie my foundation proposal? Which I will do at the first financial opportunity …

A friendly remind that all the information in the international forums and sites is made easy to transfer through GitHub public repositories and full backups of the forums and is passed on to people who @moderators know. These people own the sites and forums as much as I own them.



5 posts were merged into an existing topic: Open Ledger DEX has closed all activities

yeah omnicore is best option.

1 Like

You could compare it to LAN intranet access versus the global web. The intranet access is just for a few people and basically due to limited amount of people is not focusing on economics at all since it’s not created for commercial applications.

So even though these virtual intranets with their own Safecoins could exist, these coins wouldn’t be worth much since people don’t compete for namespaces, are not attracted to build their website on something with few users and due to the low amount of peers data would most likely go slow and distant peers could cause higher latency.

My guess is that there will be one dominant globally accepted network, where businesses want to build their services on and are easily accessible from other safe-sites through links etc. This deeply connected network is where the value is at, creating a new network must have a really good reason for people to also join this one, and the next, and the next and the next… You will be paying for hosting on every separate network, why not keep it simple and already be at the one that is leading in data versatility and connectedness?

Sure mining could earn you more safecoins on a different safenetwork but they are only really worth related how much the network is used and it’s hierarchical/constructiveness value.

1 Like