Are Safe Vaults servers or not: a discussion


#96

I would focus on the relevant parts of the definition of the word server like I understand it in this case. Like the p2p stuff: the fact that in my (and probably a lot of others) understanding of the definition of server: the aspect of the many clients to 1 or a couple of (load balancing etc) servers.
If that is the complete/correct definition of server to most of the people or not: I wouldn’t waste too much time to try to convince others of that.


#97

I guess that depends on whose in the majority, If the consensus see it as wrong, it will be corrected :joy:


#98

#99

Attacking a minority as a group to win votes (likes) between yourselves (Davids fanboys) is also known as bullying. I’m not going to stop having a different view point because you try to alienate me as an outsider.


#100

You’re right and we are wrong, I get that is how you view things. Doesn’t help constructive discussions though. And you do not help by belitting everyone as not having a mind of their own and only repeat what David said.

Why not stop playing the victim and discuss and consider that maybe you can also learn things rather than trying to prove others wrong. We all must be willing to learn things and find out misconceptions we’ve had for maybe years. Its not a us-them community but one of varying views and often disagreements we discuss.


#101

It was a reply in context to @Traktion.

I never said you were wrong, but imo David did become pedantic in order to be definitive in his response, it wasn’t helpful.

EDIT

@Traktion posted something completely off-topic, so now i’m playing the victim. I don’t feel like a victim, I just don’t want this to continue down the road it’s heading.


#103

#104

Says the man arguing about fairies on a pin head. Seriously, catch yourself on. You’ve said your piece, most disagree, now time to let it lie.


#105

Hey, I didn’t read the whole topic. Here are my two cents:

  • A client connects to a group of nodes so no matter if one in that group goes down, you are always connected to a bunch of others from that same group. This makes it quite different from say a server by Facebook in a data center. In the case of SAFE these nodes are all over the world.
  • When you download a website on SAFE the data is chunked in at least 3 parts. And these are stored all over the network. So when you visit safe://polpolrene these chunks come to you from different groups in the network over different HOPS. This also makes it completely different from server-system.

#106

I see the client here the same, in both cases

  • Client asks facebook for some data, facebook returns the data.
  • Client ask safenetwork for some data, safenetwork returns the data.

How facebook and the safenetwork achieve the task of returning the data is an implementation detail. In the way I view the world they both fit in the Client ----> Server model.


#107

Like I was trying to say: I wouldn’t waste time to get a majority/consensus of the meaning of the word ‘server’. The important part is to get a good, correct message across and the usage of the word server can help with that.
Ps: if you want to be more convincing, it would help to be more consequent and change your username. Or do you want to say you really have zero flaws :wink:


#108

Has anyone disagreed that the safe network itself acts like a (huge) server? It sounded like you thought people were.

I know you disagree that vaults are P2P nodes rather than servers in their own right.


#109

You disagree its not a Client —> Server model.

I was replying to @polpolrene using his example as I thought it was a good illustration of what I see.

Vaults use a P2P network between themselves (other vaults) to distribute data. I’m in agreement with that. Once the network has distributed data, the vault acts like a server to clients, by either forwarding to another vault or returning data.

EDIT

You can see it as something completely different if you like, but I feel it shares many similarities with the way we currently interact with the web. The safenetwork is an incremental improvement over what we have today. The safenetwork has taken technologies that exist, some new, and combined them in a slightly different way, thats what makes it so powerful.

Words like farmer, vault, archive node, to me are just synonyms for server. Some will be more dedicated, or bigger than others. Some will be temporary while you’re using your desktop. In my opinion the safenetwork is a network of servers.


#110

If you want to see the SAFE-network as servers, go ahead, it is a free world. I think it is very important for a new technology like the SAFE-network to distinguish it self from current technology. When I think of servers I see hundreds of racks in a bottom floor of a industrial building and that is not the way to think about this project.

I dont believe you will have any success in convincing Maidsafe, the community or any others. Let’s be productive and not waste more energy or time on this discussion.


#111

I can see it’s trying to distinguish itself, but calling something by a different name isn’t going to change its function. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck. It’s duck. I don’t need to convince anyone, either people will see what Maidsafe expects them to see, or they won’t. If the project becomes mainstream, it will answer itself.

EDIT

When I think of the safenetwork I vision a world where people plug a Safe-Pod (a storage server) into their router to provide resources to the network and local caching, it could even act as a local proxy to clear net devices like iPads.


#112

Thats routing in the networking world. But of course you can call routers servers by your definitions. They are computers in their own right serving up data to other routers or to the final PC.

Its a very circular definitions you use. And you are welcome to use them. But do not expect the networking world to adopt those definitions or anyone else for that matter. A server in the world of networking is much more than a device that can spit out data upon request, and you’d be laughed at by network people for suggesting such.


#117

Hi there @zeroflaw, I have given 9 desktop PCs to friends to use for games, movies and browsing. The only condition is not to stop them from the power supply. Computers have windows 7 and work for 20 months successfully as storj and SIA farms. One day I will put on them vaults. Will this turn them into servers? :wink:


#119

I believe the real problem here is that you have an attention problem. Go and get a girlfriend and let David and team work.


#122

Not agreeing with me is okay. The rest of your comment is pure trash talk, turning this into a popularity contest is the exact reason why this is a one sided debate. If you would like other people to share their views, you should be more inclusive. There is no malice in anything I said, I would like to see the network be a success.


#123

:joy: I don’t usually go by this username, if you check my first post its when I was considering going to the SAFE Dev Con. I don’t want people to know who I am.

I think if the safe network does not think a little more broad (geo-partitions), it will be incentivising centralisation. It already uses IP to distinguish a unique machine, but doesn’t weight that device on anything of value. IPv6 makes this possible to spin up huge amount of VMs, this doesn’t make the network more distributed.

EDIT

Fixed it for you :+1: