Biggest threats to SAFE?

I am not sure how you read my post on public data.

People upload favorite media to SAFE. Other link to it in facebook, or whatever and others see media when visit those social networks, or follow links in the social network sites, private web pages, or whatever.

Then from there the interest hopefully grows because smart uploaders store their media safely on SAFE and the masses get used to their media coming from there. ALL without the uploaders/masses needing one extra line of code (PHP, RAILS, ORACLE SQL, mySQL, or whatever)

No barrier for the masses to start consuming SAFE data, no need for APPs to be “good” enough for SAFE to be used. Obviously if it remains that way forever then that is a problem, but as we saw with the current internet, it took a decade before things really took off. It will take a little while for APPs to take off. But if no one uses SAFE then the fuel/desire for SAFE APPs will perhaps be too low for them to reach critical mass.

Yeah…probably by this guy… :smiley:

1 Like

Time in light of Digital Physics. SAFE is built like vault but may still be fragile against widespread deep human negativity, the kind that dirty hand terror generates. I guess we knew mechanically that SAFE wouldn’t be enough against widespread ill intent which is what the terror industry generates. So time is the biggest threat. We need this sooner rather than later so we can expose and destroy the BS terror industry before it can create the kind of warping that Digital Physics postulates is possible. We need the positive intent to hold states and corporates responsible for their intents and actions. We have to want to shine a light into them and that will take courage and skill even with new tools like SAFE, so we can add a lack of human resolve and wavering to time as threats to SAFE and its ultimate aims and objectives.

And yet they are a long way off. Banks will reject them doing it.

***“IE SWAT team invades troon’s office before the network is live.”***, that is the issue I referred to. Try court action first up.

Also its not banning encryption that is being legislated, but that companies are to let the spooks have access to unencrypted data. (actually assist the spooks in reading the data stored/transmitted by the companies.) That is why the banks are not up in arms over this, because it means no change for them. The banks unbreakable encryption remains because the spooks can access unencrypted data at the servers.

The problem for the legislation for open source projects such as this is that they can only require that the company writes in a back door. Then its a simple matter for the open source company to either move or stop. There is no SWAT or other physical threat.

1 Like

One big threat to the SAFE network is that few end users will pay to store data and few companies, who usually are used to pay for information technology, would pay for, or even use, new open source storage solutions. Sure, if the SAFE network becomes really big then companies may start to use it, but the question is if there will be enough network effect to make the network really big to begin with.

As a comparison: Try to launch a secure email service and see how many people would use it if they have to pay to use it. Even if you make the service free you will find it very hard to compete with Gmail etc. Changing people’s habits is tough especially if the existing services are superior in many ways which is often the case in comparison to new promising yet immature technologies.

1 Like

Exactly. Status Quo and the Village People is too big a force to be reckoned with.

1 Like

What about the network filling up with stale data? I’m a bit troubled that there is no incentive for a user to delete data they no longer need.


The ability to delete data is difficult to support because of the way chunks are stored (for security and de-duplication) - there have been discussions of why this is the case, and whether or not this is a problem.

An alternative to deleting data is to expire it unless paid for. This suffers the same technical problems I think, but there is a theoretical post about it which you might be interested in just started here:

1 Like

Interesting, so it is not currently possible for the owner to delete their data?

Technically the “owner” does not own the chunks. Rather they had been given a datamap which is stored by their client.

This removes the connection between client and chunks so no amount of tracking can identify the owner.

1 Like

So no data is deleted or overwritten in SAFE ever?

At this time.

SD data can be rewritten

chunks/files are written once and updates write new chunks and update datamap. This means you can keep each version of your file. Public/private data cannot be changed, so if you have a datamap for a public file/program stored then you can be assured that it cannot be tampered with.

1 Like

Very interesting. Safecoin rationing PUTs is even more important than I thought. What is “SD data”?

1 Like

Its another type of storage that is rewrite, about 100KB in size and allows for more dynamic data storage rather than file type storage.

Chunks are immutable (cannot change) are upto 1MB in size
SD are read/write 100KB blocks of data which have an address

They have types+address actually. SAFEcoin is a special case of SD data, 2^32 of them will exist in the network eventually

1 Like

Can users write/rewrite SD data? Is doing so a security/privacy risk?

1 Like

You PUT data to the SD, it costs the same as a PUT of a chunk.

I have yet to read up on the precise details on the security. I do not see any reason that the controls will not be reasonable considering the effort that has gone into the rest of the network design.


There is no security risk because the rewritten SD must be signed by the previous owner or the absolute majority of previous owners when there are several of them (>50% of previous owners).

A bit less private then?

Privacy and ownership are two independent functionalities of SDs:

  • As SD owner, you and only you can modify the SD
  • You generate a private SD by providing an encryption key to the SD. In this case only you and the people with which you shared the private part of the key will be able to decrypt the SD.

Previously, neo said:

“Technically the “owner” does not own the chunks. Rather they had been given a datamap which is stored by their client. This removes the connection between client and chunks so no amount of tracking can identify the owner.”

Does the same apply to SDs?

1 Like