Atomic swaps on Maidsafe


#1

Not sure if it makes sense but will Maidsafe allow for atomic swaps on SAFE network - interactions with other blockchain networks?


#2

Its not planned nor on the fundamentals

The issue is that the reasoning would be similar to interactions with the internet. The security cannot be obtained and we then allow insecurities into the network. Thats my understanding.


#3

I’m not sure atomic swaps would introduce security issues.

They are just transactions that a) lock the funds immediately but aren’t executed until claimed by a secret key that, when used on the transaction body, resolves to the hash stored in the transaction, b) get refunded if unclaimed for a predefined time period.

As far as I understand, the Safe Network could easily support this.


#4

How does SAFE validate it? The SAFE network is not going to running nodes off blockchains so then the network would have to rely on an external 3rd party node and how does it guarantee that its is secure? Not lying to the network? Remember that even Maidsafe will be a 3rd party once the network is up and running.

Remember that the safe network is not trying to be a crypto project or run other blockchain nodes as part of its network. And those nodes would be 3rd party anyhow and at risk of abuse.
Are you talking at the network level?

If at the APP then it’ll be interesting to see if atomic transactions can happen with an outside interface. (ie a server bridging between the blockchain and SAFE)

There are no plans for it.


Remember that even SAFE nodes are not trusted by the network, they are always being checked for malice. SO imagine the problems of trying to check for malice in a 3rd part blockchain node and remind me how many blockchains are there and how many malice routines would need to be coded and would that even succeed in protecting the network.


#5

Transactions that can lock funds, then release/refund them the way atomic swaps work, would be useful even without interfacing another cryptocurrency.

At the same time, it would also open up the door to do just that. Not on the network level, but through gateways run by random people.

Such gateways, between the public internet and the Safe Network, will exist anyway because they are useful and, as such, there will be people willing to implement them.

Thanks for the heads up lmao.


#6

IMO, seems like someone could write a Safe app for that and the network backend wouldn’t need any modification.


#7

That depends entirely on how Safecoins will be implemented.

How would you reliably lock funds, then release or refund them, without support from the network? I’m not saying it’s definitely impossible, but I’m skeptical until I see it done.


#8

But the request was for interfacing with blockchains

And that is what I answered.

And a few have discussed this before. Basis for other coins operating on SAFE itself. So yes I agree with this

Yes I am sure people will run gateways to this and that, but they will be at the APP level and not a feature of the SAFE network code.


#9

A number of us have wonder this. It is certainly a worthy feature to request.

Although a MD can only be changed by one user at a time so an append only MD allows you to know order and thus a semaphore system could be devised. But this requires the APP to be honest, and if you run the APP from a certified data map then that could have potential


#10

I took the liberty to interpret the question in a way that makes more sense for the Safe Network.

If the Safe Network implements the half of the protocol I wrote about (locked/released/refunded transactions which, by the way, would be a useful feature on its own), that would open up the door for somebody to implement the stuff that interfaces blockchains.

What APPs can do is limited by the network code. If we have the feature I wrote about (lock/release/refund transactions) that is a) useful on its own, b) opens up more possibilities for APPs.

Again, it may be possible without support from the core, but I believe that may depend on the actual implementation of Safecoin.

That goes a bit against the philosophy of the network though; we can’t expect honesty.

What is a certified data map by the way? I may be behind on some things.


#11

Yes on its own. As I agreed above with that. And its been asked for before.

I disagree that interfacing with blockchains at the network level is safe to do since its 3rd party stuff and to validate it is not easy. But for APPs to interface then yes it would be interesting to see if it could be done, but still requires trust of the 3rd party blockchain NODE is not lying.

Well you are wanting to trust 3rd party nodes (of other blockchains) and even core level atomic functionality will not make them safe. Especially if they simply lie about amounts etc.

Once an APP is written to immutable file, then it cannot be changed. Once it has proved itself as reliable then people may start to trust it. Not really against SAFE network philosophy since people will be trusting wallet APPs with all their safecoins. Its just par of the course to have to trust some things after they have proven themselves.

Some trusted source says its OK. Just like people will have to with wallet APPs, APPs that work with their personal information, etc.


#12

Sorry, I may have not been clear. I never meant the network (vaults etc) should try to interface any blockchains. I only meant it would be useful to provide the feature that would allow such gateways to be implemented. I believe we’re on the same page.