Why not the SAFE Network itself, if it wants to grown it will try to spread across the globe. It could pay out 1 SAFEcoin for 1 week.
Simply because people will receive a SAFEcoin they will eventually get the idea how this new money works. SAFEcoin in the hands of a million people is always better than only in the hands of the small SAFE community.
If Brave the bitcoin powered browser can get people talking about both projects, surely a SAFE Network paying out people for Tor relays can get people talking about both projects.
Around here we like talking about a SAFE Network browser, but why not tap into a browser being used by millions already? Imagine what would happened if 10% of SAFEcoin on the SAFE Network was used purely to make the network grow. To be honest this idea sounds close to something like a faucet, but instead of having a ridiculous website, that spits out SAFEcoins to visitors, the SAFE Network makes direct contact to potential users who are already privacy minded. I would say that’s a win win, one could even speak of digital currency faucet 2.0
It doesn’t matter if we pay attention to this idea or not the SAFE Network will grow aggressively through botnets. I would bet all my SAFEcoins on that, I’m only suggesting this idea, because i believe more in a human powered SAFE Network instead of botnets. Not that I mind growth is growth.
I’m not sure how this would benefit anyone. Tor is an anonymity layer. SAFE IS anonymous by its native function. I’m pretty sure SAFE will obsolete Tor pretty quickly.
Is there something Tor will offer that SAFE won’t?
I’m not really focused on the tech comparison, because the SAFE Network is cutting edge technology. I see the Tor browser integrating the SAFE protocol and the close to 2 million Tor users as the most important in all this.
Let’s review shall we: Tor might connect to the clearnet but Tor has been proven to be compromised. Security is like pregnancy, you can’t be just a little bit pregnant or a little bit insecure, it’s binary, yes or no. Why are we promoting Tor when we have SAFE that does everything Tor does but better save connect to a network that’s inheriently insecure? Wouldn’t it be simpler and easier to write an app to clone clearnet sites and data onto the SAFE network instead of trying to promote Tor or some kind of crossover protocol? If one finds a site of use or value then rip it and keep it on SAFE. If not then who needs it?
Fiat has been in production for centuries. Just because it’s been in production for centuries doesn’t mean it’s the best option. And the above proposal was that we use Tor to promote SAFE. This presupposes that SAFE would be released by that point. Janitor, as an economist, do you struggle to consider future possibilities and scenarios based on the implications of a statement? If someone is talking about what we will do AFTER SAFE is released and positing a plan and merits thereof and I counter it then it isn’t really logical to complain and tell me to wait and then compare notes on which system is better after the release because by the time it’s released I, or someone else, obviously will have done that. Especially if one wished to promote the SAFE network using the Tor network.
I didn’t comment on the proposal or merits of either Tor or Safe, I only said you’re comparing a mature product vs. an alpha product - what one can do vs. what the other is hoping to do (and they’re not even competing).
Tor can be used to serve SAFE binaries and data (seeds). That’s something that should be more interesting to everyone who reads this topic, than to argue which is “better”.
Actually, here is the source work (the actual paper):
I read it last year and came to the same conclusions as the Tor devs do here:
The salient conclusion of that article at the Tor blog is this:
They consider a world of 1000 front pages, but ahmia.fi and other onion-space crawlers have found millions of pages by looking beyond front pages. Their 2.9% false positive rate becomes enormous in the face of this many pages—and the result is that the vast majority of the classification guesses will be mistakes.
I.e., The researchers methods are only effective in an artificial setting.
But you’d never know that if you only paid attention to the sensationalistic pop news reports. That is why it is important to avoid jumping to conclusions.
A couple of comments on popular news outlets, and not just on the Internet:
Is there any doubt that many of them seek to create excitement without regard to the truth, as their default business model?
Operation Mockingbird. tldr: the CIA admitted to heavily influencing the news media, in 1953. Hmm… do you suppose they might have stopped? Do you also suppose that that only happens in the USA? Who did the Americans learn their spycraft from, originally?
