Are Safe Vaults servers or not: a discussion


Vaults are not both client and server. They are a SERVER
The safe browser is not both a client and server. They are CLIENTS

That makes this a CLIENT ----- > SERVER model

It just so happens that the server is made up of many server distributing it across the world. It is NO LESS a client server model.

Thanks for the links, you should read up too.


We may bundle vaults with some apps like the browser :exploding_head: then we will have a network of serverclients or clientserver devices talking to their peers (more serverclient or clientserver devices). :exploding_head:

Can you recodnise any p2p network at all? Or by your definitions are all networks just server networks, some server to server and some client/server but if the client is running something like BitTorrent then it’s a server->server model ? :exploding_head: :exploding_head:

I suspect you are thinking only of the software (I hope) and stating some programs are server like programs and some are client like programs? If you are thinking like that then the whole network will function as you would expect a huge distributed server.

Perhaps try this as an example. your brain is made up of neurons and synapses etc. together they are a brain, but each neuoron is not a brain as we know it, however when many come together they are a brain. So if you think each vault/node or whatever you wish to call it, is synonymous with a neuron in a brain and the whole network of them is, in fact, a brain, then I think you are in better shape with your argument. However, you cannot claim every neuron is a brain itself? In fact, you cannot claim a subset of neurons in a brain is also a brain.

So change the brain for server and neuron for vault and I suspect you will be closer to the bigger picture here if that makes sense.


Bundle them if you like, there function still remains the same. Vaults are the server, apps the client.

BitTorrent is better used as an analogy for the way the server distributes it self. I recognise there is a p2p aspect to there safenetwork. There is also a Client ----> Server aspect to the safenetwork.

Yes, I see the network as a huge distributed server, therefore, it has servers.

A neuron is worthless on its own. A vault is still a server, it’s just no longer distributed, it’s centralised.


And so is my PC a server by your definition. The website uses javascript to query what my computer’s environment is. So in fact the internet server is now making my PC a server (your definition) because it is now replying to a request from the other computer for information (my environment)

Its the circular argument. Everything is a server so a vault must be a server because it supplies some data. But it is also a client since it sends a request to other vaults which supply info to it. By your definitions then a vault is both a client and a server.

But you know we engineers decided that P2P devices which send requests and respond to requests when part of a P2P system is best not to confuse the issue and realise that a server is NOT a device which responds to a request but much more than that. Thus servers have to do more than just supply a piece of data when requested. And your definition is both wrong and if ever correct is very outdated.

The SAFE network is basically one server made up of a distributed set of components working in a P2P fashion.


I think this is the critical miss @zeroflaw a vault on its own is not able to let you log in, cannot give you your data (it may have some small parts of some stuff) or do much really, like a single ant it is near useless, but in a huge colony then it all changes, just as vaults do in a network of them.

You are saying a server contains servers here btw. So a server is something made up of servers. That is conflating to an extreme degree. You will get caught in a recursive path to insanity if you follow that much further chap :wink:

If this were the case then removing 100% of them would have no impact on your brain (absolutes again :wink: ).

At this stage, I am happy you call anything a server if you so desire, I doubt anything will change your mind and that is your prerogative. I do not think this is how people, in general, see p2p networks but if you do and by your definition, a p2p network cannot exist then great for you, if you contest it can but it is made up of servers and clients, then again that is your prerogative. Any further discussion seems fruitless really, so best leave it there. You can be the 1+1 cannot exist guy at presentations and be happy with your lot there, if you so desire. I have tried to help, but it seems this is a “faith” type debate now and you have made your decision.

I would say though, it won’t help you or the project to bring this up on every thread as it is noise really. As Feynmann said, it matters not a jot what you call something, it matters more you understand it at a deeper level than that.


It certainly doesn’t hurt do have a more specific definition what is meant you mean with server and what not, in the case there are more people like zeroflaw.
I would at least be nuanced in the explanation of the ‘always on or not’-part.
What I for instance find a very confusing usage of the word server is the X server: for the UI one is the server, for the other parts one is the client. How many times I had to explain that to customers and colleagues…


If the network slowly shutdown and only one vault was left standing, it was an enormous archive node, the network would still operate. With this single vault, it would just now be centralised. Or are you saying you would need a minimum of 8 nodes to create one group that contains all the sections?

Its a distributed server, behaving as a single server, made up of many.

If you removed 100% of many, then they weren’t on their own to start with, or am I missing something.

Still think this should be removed. But i’ll stop here.


Nope, no network exists then. For a myriad of reasons, this is wrong.


I know you do.

Thanks :+1:


Sigh, is this because its a single computer and not a network?. To the outside world they would still see it as a working network. Would you care to explain the myriad of reason? maybe a couple of bullet points. Why one single massive computer, if there were no other nodes, wouldn’t serve data and be able to operate the network. (if its because 8 is required, just tell me a minimum of 8 nodes makes a network)

You’re probably running the alpha network off a single massive server. Seems to be working just fine if they don’t have a power outage.


Lookup consensus and you have your answer why not.


Yes, that is why I tried to engage and spend a lot of time there. It is extremely subjective and allows people to focus on a word and miss the story. It very much is a tough definition,
ie. Wikipedia

In computing, a server is a computer program or a device that provides functionality for other programs or devices, called "clients". This architecture is called the client–server model, and a single overall computation is distributed across multiple processes or devices. Servers can provide various functionalities, often called "services", such as sharing data or resources among multiple clients, or performing computation for a client. A single server can serve multiple clients, and a single client can use multiple servers. A client process may run on the same device or may connect over a network to a server on a different device.[1] Typical servers are database servers, file servers, mail servers, print servers, web servers, game servers, and application servers.[2]

Google search top answer

    North American
    a waiter or waitress.
    Christian Church
    a person assisting the celebrant at the celebration of the Eucharist.

a computer or computer program which manages access to a centralized resource or service in a network.

The first is too large a definition and the second is shorter but captures the general meaning of server. The main issue is that there is so much we can do this with and spend inordinate amounts of time explaining and being expected to do better than wikipedia and others in a short space of time that it becomes futile.

English is a terrible language for interpretations, computing makes this 10 times worse as it is imprecise, I imagine due to it being a rapidly evolving area of unknowns. I doubt we or the community can satisfy everyone but have to appeal to well-known definitions where possible and not lose sight of the story at all.

It is the curse of openness that people demand we achieve too much perfection. If we try and then define this language and science for everyone then we would simply just fail to launch anything as we are trying to do something even many thousands of books cannot, never mind the internet and wikipedia.

There will always be people focused on trying to call us liers which is a shame, but its really just the territory. If we remain polite but firm and say this is our definition or we are using the commonly accepted definition of X then I feel we are good.

Love to be better, but I have more to fix than pleasing every interpretation of every word, even though server is probably a great one for folk to pick on and pontificate over. I am not sure we can do better when trying to be concise and accurate, these 2 are at odds if we need to define exactly all statements and words. I doubt there is a great answer to be honest, I do wish there were.


No need to sigh when you need an answer as it is insulting and churlish.

Yes, this is a single vault and not a network. We have no servers and a single vault cannot perform that task of a server that would allow login, store your data etc…


The method of how the network becomes distributed isn’t something you should define as a fundamental. It’s simply that it will be a distributed. Not have servers is a how, not a fundamental. You don’t even need to use confusing terms, but at least you accept that their definitions are rapidly changing.


Look how clever I am, I can outsmart you by being pedantic*

You can run 200 VMs on a single server, an archive node is just a server, so I could run a network from a single computer.


Fundamentally incorrect.

Otherwise, we could do all this functionality with a big server, fundamentally at odds with the projects fundamental goals.


If you keep changing your statements then you can prove anyone wrong.

You said ONE vault and now you say David is wrong because you could have 200 vaults.

Not the same thing.

Are you being sincere or argumentative now? Think about it.


If you released the vaults software so people could join in, it would become distributed. Isn’t that exactly how you will bootstrap the network into existence!


That is very sad indeed. Sorry, you feel that is a goal worth trying to achieve.


I asked what the minimum was, the only fact I have is it can be as small as 200. But more than 1. So 2?


Thats not what you were saying, anyhow anyone can read your post, so I need not say more.

To answer you, you need enough nodes to form a section. And no way are you going to run a global network on a single server computer. Nor even if you make every computer in any one commercial data centre into (multiple) vaults.

Your argument equates to the old argument of how many angels can you fit on the head of a pin, pure word play.