I think the discussion should be, do we launch a ‘freedom foundation’ from Switzerland or any other place in the West, where life is becoming more regulated (less free) every day, or do we launch it from a freedom loving country that does value SN’s freedom principals.
Maybe the question should not only be if you’d start a foundation there, but if it wouldn’t be better to move Maidsafe to a jurisdiction like that as well.
The network enables or advantages certain kinds of activities, and disables or disadvantages certain other kinds of activities. Since different people want to engage in different activities, the network advantages certain people. Since there is strong political disagreement about which of those activities should be going on to begin with, the network is intrinsically political.
Something on my mind before I leave this conversation to play out before jumping to conclusions.
Many of us are here because of David’s vision but in the past the will of Maidsafe (employees) have caused some detours.
Agree or not as regards the personal behaviors of those who control the levers, the idea of a tool, once created, being repurposed or otherwise misused for ulterior motives is not a conspiracy theory. It happens all the time.
Governments, legislation, and jurisdictions channel cold, hard force.
Likelihood is something you take into account even when you have to deal with a crocodile.
Reason is what lets a human win, when fighting a crocodile.
What seems to be “on the table” is the possibility of forcing node operators to make data disappear. This should be mathematically impossible, and formally proven to be so.
If you want to talk about cold, hard force, node operators could easily be forced to make data disappear by killing everybody operating a node and physically destroying their computers. I don’t know what formal proof you would expect to prevent that. The only reason it wouldn’t happen would be that the people wielding force didn’t want to expend political capital, or didn’t want the collateral damage from taking the entire network down as opposed to taking their specific target content down, or perhaps even had moral qualms.
These are real things that actually affect the physical world, and if you try to ignore them you will make actually false predictions about physical events, including the use of force.
 I had to add this on edit because I can’t resist a good line… personal problem…
I don’t think so, but there are more issues now and I personally feel we need to stick to the vision. This is a huge topic that must not and will not affect the launch (I want the team working on the stability of any data right now) but again it’s one we must discuss/debate etc. Not on political or even ethical grounds but purely to know what the network (not maidsafe) will face and how best to handle it.
That’s NOT on the table.
Something that is, is the ability of node operators to opt into a mechanism of censorship of some data. Doing that in any way other than voluntary will fail, doing that unilaterally will kill the node.
What we really need to be here is smart. Not jump the gun or knee jerk into some diametrically opposing views. That is a debate with no end.
Let’s look deeply at the issues, think of the consequences and hold that up against the vision of Safe. It’s got to be smart though.
Many things up in the air. If you are a node operator do you know what you hold? Can you find out? is that easy? If it’s bad can you filter it? Should you?
So many questions and there will be very clever answers.
This is not big brother shouting and us quivering in fear.
It’s all a ride, just a ride
Nobody can take a vision out of our heads, people can make it hard, we can play cat and mouse, but we don’t need to. We just need to be focused determined and act in a way to honour that vision. Humanity needs Safe, I believe that. What it does not need is any of us biased one way or the other. If it’s raining, put on the wipers! We need to deal with all and any storms here and there is a storm right now and we need to deal with it.
Let’s not slow launch though. What we have is great and we need to move on and this convo must be in parallel and not on the critical path.
I hope David doesn’t see it that way or the community, is more like it for me personally. Not just because I don’t disagree with the discussion so far but because likely for this to exist in the real world and be built by a company, this will always crop up. Otherwise, SN is just another dark net and yes it could still rise above that much like Bitcoin did but this project doesn’t have pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto, it has Maidsafe employees who are real identities in a real world with responsibilities.
Not to say Bitcoin is irresponsible but that there was no one to answer to being pseudonymous and under the radar. If this project had cropped up in the same way at a time before the public awareness of Bitcoin or broader crypto then it would have likely been backed by libertarians in the same way Bitcoin did and stood a chance at being the ‘pure’ vision.
Let’s not go make a SN PV (pure vision) or SN DV (David’s vision) just because some here disagree.
I’m glad we are here to keep things in check but David is too and I don’t think Jim or Heather whom have to deal with reality here have any disagreements about the SN fundamentals. They actively defend them as much as I’ve seen.
To be honest, I believed in this project many years ago, as a project that can save user data, no matter what kind of data it is, and no matter what other circumstances. All this talk about “if one copy of a chunk is lost, another one will be created immediately” or that “slow computers will store backup copies of chunks in case of data loss” now seem to be nonsense, because it turns out , the network architecture suggests the possibility of deleting all copies of chunks at once if their hashes are in some kind of black list (in which, as noted earlier, any data can be). In this case, we can no longer say that the network is protected from censorship, and that the data is safe (security means not only protecting data from getting to unauthorized persons, but also protecting data from being deleted without the consent of the owner). Thus, the project is now rather disappointing than inspiring.
I would like to understand the value of this project in terms of the possibility of creating a fork, where the data will really be protected. How far will the project architecture need to be changed to protect data from forced deletion? Personally, it seems to me necessary to add a reputation parameter for the data keeper. If the data keeper deletes copies of chunks, his reputation is reduced. And when the user uploads data to the network, the user should be able to set the file protection parameter from the risk of deletion. I’m wondering if it’s possible to create a fork based on this idea as it’s not obvious to me. If not, what other options are there? Many people in the thread expressed the opinion that a fork will be created that will solve the problem of censorship. But can you imagine how exactly it should work? Please answer those who have thoughts on this matter.
I am not digging at anyone, every perspective is coming from what different people believe is best.
I am learning from this and the Musk thread that even in a community of like minded people there is much disagreement.
To me this seems really dangerous. If a node operator CAN find out what is held then political pressures can crush the network. I wouldn’t feel safe operating a node if I could know what’s being stored. The legal liability is unlimited regardless of any other mechanisms in place.
This is already a thing. If a node deletes or alters data it is demoted (or maybe even kicked out? I don’t know specifically). regardless, they can start at the bottom, but hard to get in as the network only adds nodes as needed, so if you mess up you lose out.
Is is much easier than you may think. Ban the app from GooglePlay/AppleStore/MicrosoftStore and that’s it for 99% of population. Mainstream society won’t do anything if you proclaim the rest terrorists and start making their lives miserable. (China has many horrible examples if you want.)
It is harder to do globally than in one country, but don’t underestimate power of governments and their agencies. They don’t need technical only solution, they have more options.
That is easy, as a node operator I am paid to store binary blobs and I want to be able to proof I have no way knowing what is inside.
Semantics perhaps, but I don’t consider that a ban as it’s just a company-level decision. I was thinking of a government ban that could affect the whole of the Internet. Any platform can do such, but the software is still available somewhere.
What I was thinking of here (specifically) was that governments could force github to remove the code - but even then the code could be shared via Tor hidden service and torrents in the worst case scenario.
Yes, China has done a lot in terms of censorship, but even then, software can still be obtained.
Once the Safe Network is launched, it itself becomes a repository for software as well. Getting it from there is the trick, but there are ways that could be achieved as well by including code to access the network in the code of other existing apps.
If so, then it turns out that there is an incentive in the network not to delete copies of chunks whose hashes are on the blacklists. However, the persistence of the data is still in question, since copies of the chunks are distributed randomly over the nodes. And it turns out that there is no guarantee of data safety, it remains a matter of luck: if the user is lucky, one of the copies of each chunk will be placed on a node that is not prone to data censorship, if the user is unlucky, and at least one chunk turned out to be placed exclusively on censoring nodes , then the file will never be built again. If the user could host data on the best nodes for an additional fee, this could be a solution. But I cannot yet imagine the details of this solution. Correct me if you think I’m wrong about something.