Fueling the Decentralization Movement - panel with Paige Peterson from MaidSafe

Community Events
21

@happybeing Thanks Mark for the feedback! I think we were all a bit surprised by Christian’s presentation and I can’t tell if people were complimenting me so much because they were comparing me to him. I definitely received a lot of great feedback from attendees for both MaidSafe tech and my delivery on it. Definitely makes me feel confident about my progress over the past few months and moving forward towards launch. Talking about the significance of SAFE to a crowd can be difficult because of all the moving parts but highlighting different aspects and seeing how people respond to various points has helped a ton.

@dirvine Before every presentation I weave some wire into my dreads, stand on one leg, point in the direction of Troon and attempt to channel you and your energy. :stuck_out_tongue:
Your support and encouragement means a whole lot to me. Thank you.

6 Likes
22

I could wire up my beard. Cool :slight_smile:

3 Likes
23

The presentation came over well Paige, I guess you’ll be doing more of these panels…so that would have been a good one to get under the belt.

When I watch your presentations, I always hope to hear you explain first up, the network at it’s most basic level.

By that, I mean ‘a small program that you install on your computer’ very much like a dropbox app. But instead of connecting to the machines in a data center somewhere in the ‘cloud’ your computer instead ‘talks’ to other people computers that have also installed the safe app.

I know that your usual audience is more technical, but I feel if it’s explained in this manner straight up…it just disconnects the mind from the ‘cloud’ analogy which is so prevalent now.

In fact, I think that you have explained it in this manner on occasions, but not every time. I’d like to see you have this basic pre-amble as a set piece in all your presentations.

Not being harsh, just a friendly suggestion base off observation…in fact I recall reading a Reddit Mastercoin thread, where they were lamenting the fact they didn’t have a Paige promoting their network…something along the lines of intelligent, hip, good looking all rolled into one :wink:

2 Likes
24

@ioptio I’m planning to do a talk or two and made some notes which you’re welcome to draw on, along the lines of @chrisfostertv comments. I’m already stealing from you - I wrote these while watching your talk - so some are probably things you said! I am trying to home in on some easily conveyed points to give people an immediate feel for SAFE - what it is and how different people participate.

This is a work in progress, just rough notes but may be of some use!

How people participate:

  1. Farming: anyone can contribute computing resources by sharing some spare disk space, which provides the network with storage space, processing and bandwidth. These are network nodes or vaults, ownded by “farmers” who earn Safecoin for providing the network infrastructure.

  2. Private Storage: registered users pay a one off fee when they upload private data to SAFE Storage.

  3. Creative Work & Publishing: public data is free to store, and the publishers are automatically rewarded according to the popularity of their material.

  4. Application Developers: applications on SAFE will replace all current internet services (communications, VOIP, YouTube, wallets, exchanges etc.). Applications can charge for use and services using Safecoin without any service charges (only data storage is charged for), but even developers of non-charging applications and services will be rewarded automatically be the network, similarl to content producers, according to the popularity of the application.

  5. Information Consumers: all users are able to access public information on SAFE free of charge, as with the current internet, but entirely anonymously, without surveillance or tracking without explicit consent.

BTW Paige, I loved this thing you said and plan to quote you in my talks:

“Safecoin on SAFE Network as if the internet was launched with a built in currency” ~ Paige Peterson, MaidSafe

I think phrases like that are gold dust as people can grok them directly.

[Its not an exact quote as I wrote it down afterwards]

2 Likes
25

Trust
I think the trust thing is another biggie and Paige did a great job there to. To me its not trust or lack of but knowledge that there are repeatability and protections in place that (as Paige said) have no human intervention, whether individual, corporate or government. So if the rules of a platform fit and they are securely embedded and calculated fairly then the trust is in the platform. Crucially the platform must be autonomous and not controllable by humans (as servers, renting space direct to people etc. is). So anything less then total transparency in the platform is critical (means open and readable as open on its own means nothing (look at trucrypt))

Large company seen as required
The other thing is the ‘ideas have sex’ issue of larger companies being able to research and develop as well as use market might to promote newer innovative products. A larger issue, but the counter-side is that in open free and available platforms have shown to be very innovative, this is why large corps innovate little and buy innovative companies a lot (adsense, google docs, osx (well not bought but cloned), imac (from next) and so on the list is huge). So many companies can create an innovative product (search) and then buy smaller companies like mad to overcome the innovators dilemma, in a decentralised world like I hope project SAFE will become the innovators can immediately benefit.

Of course some want to sell to google, seems VC’s etc. direct you that way and in the UK if you say you have Microsoft as a competitor the public sector grant machine passes out (when this is exactly what we need to create). The create to sell need not be the default for 95% companies, but instead create to directly benefit.

Competition
There is no such thing really as this is a human construct in ways to gain ultimate control of a market etc. In the decentralised world I think competition is more like lean manufacturing, try many things and settle on the best. Belittling other projects or sheer copying are not great, but these are weak teams and will fail anyway, striving for better and learning all the time is the key.

So create competition, strive for the project that does better, we all have a vision so follow that. In our position we want others to do better than us as it makes 100% sense there must be teams better at networking or security or gui etc. we need to find them and surrender those parts to them, of course debate ways and means for doing things to, but this is our competition and we are delighted they help produce the best products.

Some general ideas, hope it helps a little. You guys are saving me tones of time, but its your project anyway and seeing the constant ownership dissolving into the population is great, huge thanks :wink:

7 Likes
26

If I understand it correctly, all Blockchain systems are trust-less by design. The receipt is the transaction, the system cannot be cheated and so no trust is required.

SAFE does not operate on ‘Triple entry accounting’ but still requires no trust for a transaction to occur.

So in the scheme of things, SAFE could be included as a trust-less system.

The trust you are referring to seems like another layer of trust, that those in the Bitcoin world are not fully aware exists. They don’t think of the server-centric Blockchain as being an issue…or the millions of dollars a day it takes to keep the system secure.

7 Likes
27

This was a really interesting video.

2 Likes
28

This was SUCH a dumb comment, and makes NO sense out of context.

Sorry, I just really feel the need to correct this confusion.

The iPhone really is 3x more complex a piece of hardware than all the tech involved in the Apollo launch… BUT IT IS NOT THAT WAY BECAUSE APPLE IS A GREAT COMPANY or anything like that.

The ONLY reason it is 3x more complex than all the Apollo tech is because TECHNOLOGY EVOLVED SINCE THEN!! We simply have THOUSANDS of times more complex technology these days than in the days of Apollo.

Technology (especially hardware) evolves exponentially over time, REGARDLESS of how huge or powerful companies are.

BY NO MEANS do we need HUGE, incumbent, monopolies of companies that buy out all the little guys, for humanity to make big strides.

If we allow the free flow of information and money in frictionless, free marketplaces like SAFE will provide, then the people themselves will be empowered enough to form small groups and make all the future strides we will ever need.

2 Likes
29

@whiteoutmashups,

Do you mean it was a “dumb comment” by the panellist? If you mean it was a “dumb comment” by me - I was simply referring to the comment by the panellist in the video - if people wanted to know the “context” then they could watch the video - presumably most already had - and therefore understood the “context”.

What confusion?

I think people understood that . . why did you feel the need to clarify confusion that didn’t exist?

I HOPE you are correct about that but where is your evidence for it? My point was that it seems that great concentrations of capital will be needed for “Apollo” type projects - are you disagreeing with that? If you are but you agree that “Apollo” type projects will be funded, you need to explain how . .

@whiteoutmashups I really hope you see someone about your condescension . .

Regards,

Phil.

1 Like
30

Sorry!! That’s not what I meant.

Didn’t mean to sound condescending at all!

I didn’t mean it was dumb by the pannelist OR by you. Neither. I meant it was really wrong out of context. I really have to be much more careful with my phrasing. :stuck_out_tongue:

And it sounds like we are on the same page, about the technology then. That’s good!

The whole reason I wrote the reply was because I was worried that you were having doubts about the SAFE network going live at all because of the far reaching effects it will have on how large companies affect business. Which I believe it will, but I also believe it is for the greater, long-term good.

If I misunderstood your position, then I apologize for wasting time. And possibly offending you!

Once again, my sincerest apologies.

We are all SAFE fans here :slight_smile:

31

Interesting to read this, but I think there is hope, really. i.e.

DOS - 1 guy who reworked cpm (change pip to copy etc.) and then MS bought for $50k
Google - 2 guys wrote that
Linux (kernel)- 1 guy
c++ - 1 guy
STL - 1 guy
Bicoin - 1 guy
Boost libs - 1-3 person teams
Python - 1 guy
Apply 1-2 guys

etc. this is a long list

OK OSS means many of these are a person or very small team who got a ton of help on the Net (well the recent ones), that is great

So much of tech can be done very cheap, then we look at moonshots, Elon Musk is doing probably more than that and funded with something like 4-5 times the cash Ethereum got in a crowd sale recently. A moon shot is probably recognised by more people than crypto contracts, so perhaps that could have been crowd funded (or at least much closer than now). Interesting he is doing this with a tiny budget compared to NASA and a tiny team.

These advances then seem to scale t be worth a lot (good for them) but then morph into something else altogether (a profit ‘at any cost’ seeking entity).

So there is hope that there is another way, it’s not 100% clear, but I feel if we get real traction and let real people get involved in such things then there is a chance we can create nearly anything and get a reward, but not a disgustingly huge reward, but enough to say thinks from society (so no money worries the rest of our life or something), Then I think innovation will really flourish as new stuff gets thrown in the pool and people use and improve it all the time. Then folk realise the thing they built was a step in the path of evolution and will be improved or replaced by a better system.

This feels more natural, fair and efficient than allowing Goliaths to happen who crush innovation through patents, laws, sheer might etc. Reward the innovators and builders and then improve or replace what was built and reward the next innovation and so on.

It just might work out for us :wink:

6 Likes
32

This is exactly what I meant,

Only better put by orders of magnitude.

I have much to learn

34

@philip_rhoades and @dirvine @ioptio Instead of pulling together a bunch of similar people from similar organizations, I built that panel with the specific intention of assembling the “full stack” for integrating complex systems outside of a corporation. I was ecstatic that the panel actually arrived at this place toward the end - it was so organic - as the moderator, I could barely contain myself with glee. We unleased a huge idea and Paige was brilliant. The nest step, I believe, is to specify an economy with factors of production that are intangible assets and then articulate these on the Maidsafe Platform. I specify this environment in the attached video - sorry for the 16 minute length - but it is quite rich. We need help in specifying the maidsafe interface, then we’ll release the new Whitepaper. The last three or four posts at ingenesist.com are part of this draft. Anyway - your comments would be deeply appreciated on this video: - YouTube

6 Likes
35

@ioptio I liked your cadence in the video - it cuts like a knife

2 Likes