MaidSafe Dev Update - May 24, 2018 - Introducing PARSEC


Hmm but isn’t PARSEC only applicable to SAFE? Not nano or IOTA or anything else, because they don’t have node ageing etc to secure it enough so it can work?

Or do those projects have other things Instead, to fill in that gap? Else it seems that other projects with less of these security measures couldn’t be safe enough to use something like PARSEC

Security of PARSEC outside of SAFE integration

IOTA has some PoW… Something like you need to confirm some transactions to make a transaction


Right I heard every participant in IOTA confirms their own transactions like their own mini-node, which is how there’s no transaction fees

But that still doesn’t solve what needs to be solved to allow PARSEC to work in its network


No forum participation would open the road to full beta type apps for the public!

App store users don’t need to know an app is running of “alpha 3/4” do they?


In my understanding both resource proof and ageing will be used. They are complementary:

  • resource proof to filter out useless inefficient vaults as soon as possible

  • ageing to avoid section targeting.


I just had someone from a Fintech Malaysia FB group try to have a go at me for posting about PARSEC there. HE said whoever wrote the article did not understand Blockchain. So i directed him to the forum to get more clarification. And i still get people who keep telling me to ditch Maidsafe etc…

But i do have a close circle who believe in the project. Now it is a matter of who laughs at the end. I get the feeling i am going to have the last laugh :slight_smile:


Before you read this, i just want to be clear i am venting…

So i share PARSEC with the head of innovation in the Company. He gets all defensive and replies…

“that’s definitely an interesting project. It is important that we consider innovation projects based on timelines and impact, and that we create a balanced portfolio between (i) core, (ii) adjacent and (iii) transformational innovations. But most importantly we really need to set some strategic goals and craft an innovation thesis that will help to assess projects.”

They do not have to find a project or work with it today. But definitely understand what is available in the world and what changes are coming or may come. Driving innovation is being open to ideas. I guess this is why Nokia did not survive. They could not appreciate the technology even when it stared them in the face. Cant wait for Safenetwork to launch :angry:


When you don’t understand something and are too intellectually lazy to learn, or are too invested in something else it is frustrating that people become dismissive. Sounds like you did the right thing. We should continue to challenge assumptions, keep calm and continue to point sceptics toward the correct information and we’ll create advocates.


People sometimes forget that learning doesn’t stop at school. Especially tech folks should/must constantly keep themselves updated either by doing research or literature review. That’s how society progress. I feel sorry for people who not wanting to learn more. The world will move past them.


That would be great, we’ve never seen Node_age tested so far in a public test-network.


Also the world is flat. The Sun revolves around the Earth. The moon landing never happened. Maidsafe is dead, long live blockchain! And a reality star became president. Alternative facts! No, wait, that last one is true. :cry:



So much to learn for a newbie, this is incredible. I truly believe the blockchain is going to change the world. We the people must make sure it stays open source.


Sorry buddy but Safenetwork is probably the only blockchain-less project on and it actualy predates blockchain.


Yes, I understand that. They do have a token so yes they are related.


I would say, blockchain vs datachain is very similar to telegram vs email. You can apply blockchain on datachain, but not another way. You can do what telegram does and add a lot more by using email.
The launch of SafeNetwork will help the community of blockchainers in a similar way in which email helped the community of telegramers. :smiley:


The point though was that the token is only there till the network goes live and then it will reside on the blockchain-less network.

Although that is really only a minor bit of what you were driving at and I am sure most here agree with you.


A question about when majority is broken:

Close Group Consensus requires no more than half the elders to be dishonest.

PARSEC requires no more than a third the elders to be dishonest.

Do I understand correctly that only dishonest elders matter? Dishonest adults or infants do not matter for the functioning of PARSEC or CGC, right?

What happens when 3 of 8 elders are dishonest? This means PARSEC is dishonest but CGC is not.

A question about the supermajority definition:

Why does the supermajority require “No member that was consensused to have left our section in our gossip_graph will ever be considered again as a voting member in this definition”? It’s not really clear from the rfc why they cannot be allowed to return.

This blacklist brings some implementation questions:
Can the blacklist be derived automatically from the datachain of network events or is it stored separately?
Is the blacklist shared to all nodes in the section or just elders?
Can it be trimmed or does it continue to grow forever?
Is the blacklist split / merged when forming new sections?
Is it stored locally or does it get stored as mutable data on the network itself?
What is the consequence of failing to blacklist / having a very old blacklisted node return to the section?

A question about who is involved in gossip:

Do all nodes retain the datachain and gossip it to each other or just the elders? Only elders may vote, but I couldn’t work out whether all nodes (elders and adults and infants) must be involved in gossip.

This is not clear from the definition of “node: member of the network that takes part in the consensus algorithm” - do infants and adults ‘take part’ even if they don’t vote?

I am curious because it seems there are two things to control: voting for truths, and announcing new truths. The announcing part seems open to abuse if all nodes are able to gossip because infants could announce a lot of trash and it must be dealt with by recipients (even if they never propagate trash further).


This is due to that fact that leaving a section, means being relocated. So a node that is Lost can never again vote. Its key becomes useless if that makes sense. We would only accept a node from another section and they will know it is valid, so there is no need for a blacklist as we trust other sections and they will not give us back a node we should not have had (i.e. they force relocate a node who will create a key). So even in the unlikely scenario where a node comes back to our section and was asked to join at a particular range and was able to use its old key, then that would be fine. So more a matter of the network handles the “blacklist” type logic.

Atm only the elders, but we are tying in node age with PARSEC after sharding is complete (split/merge etc.). This will become more clear then. I suspect only elders need vote as the others are just state that elders can agree on. So if we need to promote an adult we already all know the adult to choose. Alos Elders are introduced for a few reasons, one being younger nodes are just too noisy and not yet trusted, so no point listening to them or allowing them to cause voter churn (always a pain).


Byteball is designed to be loosely coupled, I believe it would be easy for byteball to implement. I think IOTAs architecture is a lot more ridged and would require a significant amount of rework. Not sure about nano. MaidSafe is the big winner here, well done!