Hot nodes and the role of the user

By the way it might be a cool idea to have hot nodes (memory allocated by safe browser) that basically shares the buffered chunks to other peers. Imagine someone sharing a live stream, he will be uploading many small fragments to the live safe network and peers that join the live stream will download it from other peers + the nodes that are slowly starting to sync up and propagate the data as immutable in the network. The native nodes act as the HDD (raid configuration) and the safe browsers as hot storage (cache memory or RAM) to quickly share what is popular right now and in high demand, figuratively speaking.

@dirvine Do you think this is something possible to achieve? All chunks are already encrypted right so it’s just a matter of anonymously sharing this from the browser’s caches (so not people running a full node).


It’s a neat approach. An example of this is the bbc iPlayer AFAIK.


This is a very dangerous path if people are not compensated. A few years ago, there were scandals with mining sites that allowed you to read the content of the site and at the same time they were mining monero.

If this is introduced without monetary compensation, people will want to avoid it and third-party browsers will appear with such functionality turned off. Competition is not a bad thing, but it is not known how these third-party browsers will monetize over time, it is better not to feed them with users.


11 nodes per second.


I am not sure, remember skype? compensation is like value, it’s not always money. The compensation for using iPlayer for instance is a better overall experience.

So the thing to consider is value, if using something gives you money/better experience then folk can decide is it enough money/better experience.

Value != money in all cases and I fear for the crypto community at times, value is important. It’s not seen atm as there is little value beyond money in the space (there is some). We want to change that.


This is clear to me and you. The average person on the street will see it differently. We know this because, as I pointed out, someone has already tried it and people have accepted it as a theft from them:

I understand that the specific example I give is done by hackers, and the @DeusNexus suggestion is that we do it openly and officially. But in both cases, if the user is not paid, he will most likely consider it unfair and theft.

1 Like

I think more folk in the street will know of iPlayer and Skype (as it was) and not crypto. Crypto can be a bubble and a dangerous one to get all info from.

possibly s/most/some would be more accurate, we don’t yet know. Good thing here is that it’s an app, so we can have several to check who likes what best.


I think you’re wrong. There is hardly a person who has not heard of Bitcoin already and we have cryptocurrency. Everyone will look at the Safe Network as a project with cryptocurrency, there is no way to avoid this.

The average person on the street hates Bitcoin. The average person on the street considers all cryptocurrencies to be scams and wants the people involved to be imprisoned for many years. I believe we will be hated too and creating a browser that farm free cryptocurrency for its creators and steals free resources from people’s computers will be hated.

And I know we won’t do that, but I also know how it can be interpreted that way by ignorant people. Maybe there is a middle ground where people are invited to donate their free resource while using the browser and there is a button to press to become a hot node.

1 Like

Skype was a good example, it was hard to not become a hot node, iplayer makes that almost impossible. The issue is greed humans will always choose to do less and give as little as possible if it’s easy. To me if an app does this it will die.

A way forward is high quality apps that have great experience because they share. Apps that don’t share should have lower experience for the user. So users can choose one or the other. If it’s give me all the benefits at no cost then the answer is sadly too clear :wink:


This is true, but only if you are talking about people in a large group. People behave differently in their family and in their local community. I am sure that if the official Safe Browser has an option to donate a resource while browsing, our community will use it. :dragon:

paraphrasing that old chestnut: if no one can see that it’s trademarked content, is it really trademarked?


I don’t understand, this is completely different from cryptojacking.
This is literally what happens when you are torrenting files, you become a peer while you are downloading a file. As long as you are downloading the same file than anyone else, you are just sharing the chunks you already have.
How is that an abuse?

1 Like

The average person understand what’s value, it is actually one of the most basic economic understanding that goes beyond human species. Even experiments with monkeys has shown that they have a clear grasp of what is valuable and what is fair.
If you provide convenience and comfort in exchange for some resources, it will be considered a fair trade.

Nope, in fact monetary compensation is tricky that can backfire.
In psychology it is known as extrinsic motivation. If you start offering money for doing something you already enjoy doing for free, you can destroy their intrinsic motivation (the pleasure of doing for the sake of doing).


I said that in jest, but if we get technical: the thing is that torrent files are not encrypted nor anonymous. So in case of torrenting of course you can’t use the defense that you didn’t know what you were downloading and relaying because: you were literally watching it, and there will be evidence everywhere that you purposefully had the intention to search and download a copyrighted movie, and you were also distributing the content you were already watching.
And if you are not using VPNs, you are broadcasting to the whole world that you are torrenting the copyrighted material, that’s how they catch them.

On the Safenetwork that wouldn’t be the case, you have plausible deniability as all chunks are encrypted, no one can know which chunks are being cached, it can be either a chunk from a cat video or the latest movie release, you simply can’t tell.
So how will law enforcement even be able to find a probable cause or even detect that something illegal is happening?

1 Like

I’m talking about the average person who is not in crypto and has no cryptocurrencies. He does not understand how crypto works and therefore has not bought cryptocurrencies.

But he has literally heard that there are sites that steal the resource on his computer to mine cryptocurrency. If this unfamiliar average person decides to try the Safe browser and later finds out that his resource is used for free, he will not be happy.

People are used to browsing for free. Other browsers do not take their resources. Yes, it is similar to torrents only if we talk about downloading illegal content. Does Firefox and YouTube take your computer resource to share?

What on earth are you talking about, why would it be “similar to torrent only if we talk about downloading illegal content”
The torrent protocol works the way it works regardless of the content.
That sentence makes no sense at all.

Regardless, lets say you want to avoid spurious litigation, okay, then you can simply offer the option to contribute with caching or not the first time they set it up.
Everytime you install a new software you are signing a new contract every time you click on “I agree”, you can simply detail the mechanism benefits and disadvantages of activating it leaving the last choice to the user. This is really a non-issue.
In fact, I don’t know why we are talking about the browser itself, it should be the embedded player app/plug in that asks for permissions.

I’m talking about the way people see torrents. They share in them for free because they receive something valuable and feel indebted to others.

In Safe we have a class of people who get paid for their resource and here there is a proposal to create a second class of people to be exploited without their permission. I do not see it that way, but there will be people who will see it this way if it is not approached carefully and the users of the app/browser are not given a choice.

I don’t understand why this problem would be unique to caching.
If we open the discussion about illegal content on the Safe Network then it applies to normal nodes as well, hell, the whole safe network.
Until end-to-end encryption is effectively banned, there can’t be any presumption of any illegal activity just for using encryption. And that is not a problem for caching on the Safenetwork, it is a larger discussion, it’s a problem that affects the whole freaking internet.

And how do you get that statistic?

I would suspect that if caching were going to happen it would still be done by farmers, not end users - paid or not for the caching, they are still choosing to do this (and would almost certainly be able to opt out). Caching generally would be a no-go as many end-users would be on plans that would get eaten up by pass-through bandwidth usage - so that’s just not going to happen.

Secondly, mods, maybe this thread is going off topic? new thread?

Farmers with node age 0 are best base for caching. Than the ones with highest UL/DL ratio will get chunk first to distribute it to others up to only end users. So the system would have to know how many nodes must find before every end user will receive every chunk. Probably not cheapest and fastest way, but quite important with feature as anonymouse and privacy.