if that was true then the vaults would have been servers. Just that little difference makes them something bigger (less) than servers. They can not make decisions on their own, they can only watch and share with their group and then if the group agrees, they act. There can be no action without the group.
So now I’m curious. If I have a client connect to me (I have the chuck they are asking for), and I can’t find my peers. I simply reject the clients request?
You will not have a client connected to you as there are no peers, so no section, so no network, therefor no clients.
there can be no such condition. It’s like asking if Earth can be swallowed up by a black hole. It can not, because long before the Earth will collapse. Likewise, the network will fall apart long before your example
A little bit of off topic trivia I came across today is this quote from Francis Bacon in 1620 and thought this is a good bit of advise for me to heed when discussing issues. Too easy to form an opinion and stick to it no matter what, and instead make sure (in terms of this topic) I am grounded in industry standards and usage. No good applying it to others since we must consider ourselves first.
Francis Bacon, ‘Novum Organum’, 1620: “The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else by some distinction sets aside and rejects; in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusions may remain inviolate… . . And such is the way of all superstitions, whether in astrology, dreams, omens, divine judgments, or the like; wherein men, having a delight in such vanities, mark the events where they are fulfilled, but where they fail, although this happened much oftener, neglect and pass them by.”
Yes, this is a well-known problem of our thinking. We are all subject to it:
The vault to vault p2p-network is definitely a p2p-network ;D
But a client isn’t connecting to the p2p-network directly, it’s using a proxy. I would consider that single connection as a client/server connection. The proxy is the server and it is relaying the data coming/going from/to the client to the p2p on behalf of the client.
I’m just surprised a single person goes like “no but I know it better” and then things blow up like it matters
This thread had no reason to go on after the first "no dude, you’re wrong."
EDIT: It’s not that somebody can’t be right against the majority, it’s that he would need to back such a claim with evidence, which did not happen. How to refute a non-argument?
Just like a router. The relay node is more like a router routing packets from/to the user PC to/from various parts of the safe network.
This is not necessarily going to stay. A client can connect to its close group for push notifications and more.
If we desperately want to find server like functionality then we can look at crust, it has stun/turn type sever like functionality as well as echo server type functions (called a listener socket though). They are “like” servers though, perhaps more than anything in the network, but not really servers as we all associate in a client-server model. i.e. each node, even clients can have that functionality, they both use crust so are equal peers in the respect of using crust and so on. Its a conversation on categorisation that can go on for infinity. Its best not to let it really, or else we can get back to 1=1 not existing or defining in absolute terms each word we use form industry and that is a real waste of time in my opinion anyway. It’s best to say as commonly accepted in the current state of the art or similar.
A server is generally something you log into and get services as in
a computer or computer program which manages access to a centralized resource or service in a network. The server like components of the network can be argued, what we cannot so easily say is that a vault is a server as it cannot perform that function or any function for clients on its own.
You are using specific internal design details to hold up an argument (not saying you are wrong), from people just want to look at it from 50,000 feet. @uurtag is simply looking at the network from the outside, and to me his descriptions stands true, even if its not entirely accurate. I feel you will be holding back the waves as you attempt to educate everybody coming wrong different technology backgrounds, in what I feel are “details” that aren’t particularly important.
I disagree that they are equals, they are performing different tasks entirely, they are not peers or equals. They are however communicating using the same technology. As, one is only consuming and the other producing. Thats a client —> server pattern.
Let’s not forget the meaning of words can change, in 10 years the usual definition of ‘server’ could be synonymous to vault. I feel its only fair to accept that when server is used in the correct context, its no different than saying vault. Server == Vault isn’t an insult to the safenetwork, it actually a fair indicator of adoption. You can continue to use (vault & farmer) if you like, but i’ll just stick to the ones that have been around awhile, even if the creator feels its incorrect, in the future I think that opinion will change.
At the level of crust I said. You cannot conflate that to all of the layers. Clients are like web browsers on the internet. The network is like a server on the internet, each vault is not a network or a server. That is from any height
This is also wrong a client performs the tasks of both a producer and a consumer in SAFE. The vaults do the task of serving those clients.
I was saying currently the client uses a proxy and this is not likely to stay, if you feel that is an internal design detail then I don’t know what level to answer the point @urrtag made. It is a valid point right now, but is likely to change, how is that a design detail?
What detail do you mean here?
Clients are consuming the resources the servers are providing and being rewarded for.
I would love to run and experiment where we used one of the maidsafe promo videos, then ask that person to describe the network back to use. In my opinion, I think you’ll find most people would drop the jargon (data chains, groups, sections, vaults) and it would fallback to clients and servers, the more technical savvy will see the servers are in a p2p network. I guess this is more marketing, buts its not “untrue” to simplify the explanation of something to fit with their expectations, it helps you highlight the keep differences such as decentralized.
I get that you are aware of every tiny detail of this network, but I don’t need to know that to use the safenetwork APIs to develop apps on top of it. From my height your vault is my server.
That the clients have produced.
I don’t then understand why you are on a forum that talks more in depth that a promo video does? That all makes zero sense to me chap. And you still claim a vault is a server, if you look at it far enough away Mr fantastic from the fantastic 4 could not stretch it that much Did make me laugh though
Give it up dude, it’s not that important. Are you writing a dictionary?
Clients didn’t produce the resources, they produce data, which consumes resources.
I like to follow technologies that interest me. Even if I don’t fully understand half the stuff that happens in the weekly updates, it’s no less interesting. I’m not a mechanical engineer so I don’t know how to build a suspension bridge, but I know how to walk over it.
Okay, I’ve had a chance to catch up on this thread and can, perhaps, help cut the Gordian Knot.
Words are not things. They are imperfect symbolizations intended to help convey intended meaning between people.
@zeroflaw, are you able to at least see what is being attempted to get across when MaidSafe and others in the community say “The SAFE Network has no servers in the traditional sense”?
There is no effort to deceive in that communication. It is an effort to communicate something. If you think there is deception, then you’ve made your point and don’t belong in the community, because the general agreement is that it is a sincere effort to produce a new technological paradigm. If you can at least see what we hope to convey, perhaps we can all find a better way of saying it together, rather than insisting that somebody is wrong.
It seems to me that “in the traditional sense” goes a long way, but perhaps we can do better.
There is no question that the SAFE Network is an attempt to do something different than we’re used to thinking about. How would you say it, so that people get a clearer picture?
I thought this thread was over already?
Of course I do.
What the …