The requirements right now are much easier than when I joined. I’m in favour of keeping the current membership process.
Anyone can spend $1.00 …
I think at this stage, paying with your time is a more acceptable payment to join the early stages, which isn’t much of a bother when you want to register 1 account.
Keep the requirements as is. It’s an excellent filter to keep spammers out.
I see this as “proof of staked resource” so it doesn’t bother me. Why should a node that has just joined not be suspect, whereas one that has been around for a while and performed well should not be trusted more?
The speed bump to joining is a testing parameter that will likely remain in place through early launch, as I figure it. It’s a scale matter. Once scaled to a certain (UNcertain, actually) size, especially with safecoin implemented, swarm attacks will be mitigated. Till then we have to deal with what we’ve got. I’d love it if everybody could easily check it out, but till it’s ripe that would do no good in any case.
We’re still REALLY early adopters who, somehow or other, got intrigued enough to study enough to get the picture. Broad adoption of Bitcoin is still just beginning to become possible after years of a fairly stable no-internal-compromise network. SAFE adoption should be much faster, but we’re still pre-launch.
Yes I agree and 1 to two hours is hardly an impose for those with the right intentions. A lot of the game alphas/betas are a lot worse to join, you have to ask, then be vetted then wait and contribute and so forth. Having alphas/betas open to all with no restrictions is actually rare in the development world, for obvious reasons. So until SAFE has the anti-Spam mechanism in place we have to have something.
Fergish you miss my point.
You should run a parallel test net, call it X.
In X, people are welcome to try make troubles. (Even the team)
This way everyone can diagnose security issues.
If there are problems with the system, it should be tested ASAP, not should be waited until a stable release is coming.
I believe that allowing everyone to kill you shows how strong you are. If you’ll die, don’t worry, try again.
ב-17 באוק׳ 2017, ב-John Ferguson <safenetwork@discoursemail.commailto:safenetwork@discoursemail.com>, 23:28 כתב:
[https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/business5/user_avatar/safenetforum.org/fergish/45/3030_1.png] fergishhttps://forum.autonomi.community/u/fergish SAFE Crossroads
October 17
[https://avatars.discourse.org/v2/letter/t/e495f1/40.png] Tal500:
I(and I think the team too) HATE trust level concept.
It started after some DOS attack on test 8 or such.
I see this as “proof of staked resource” so it doesn’t bother me. Why should a node that has just joined not be suspect, whereas one that has been around for a while and performed well should not be trusted more?
I’m not a tech but I’m pretty sure the “try as you will” will happen at Alpha 3 stage.
The problem with that was that a storage spammer would fill all your vaults and the system becomes unresponsive and basically unusable for anything other than JUST downloading the files that were stored before the spammer filled it up.
It isn’t much of a test bed if the lowest common denominator can essentially cripple the network in no time at all.
Before something should be presented for hackers to break, it must first have the obvious holes plugged. It is rather pointless otherwise.
The thing is we are not near that stage, for instance I would be shocked if members of the team could not take that down in several ways very easily. Now the time for us to look at these and discard them as already known is substantial. So right now we know too many things that need done, or we would be launched 
There will be a time for that and we will not slouch as we move as fast as we can, but right now it would just waste everyone time. especially the app devs we want building apps.
tl;dr This would just be a time sink right now.
