Could PARSEC enable blockchain-based projects such as Bitcoin to more quickly reach consensus, increasing the transactions per second throughput, without necessarily obviating the blockchain and its beneficial transaction audit trail?
I agree with your comment in general but this specific point is IMHO worth reiterating.
Edit: MAIDSafe is actually mentioned by this guy! in the 12th minute…
I feel a TED talk should be done at some point.
This guy talks about how the dark net is going main stream…
Thats legal use for privacy.
If people spend the time to download TOR browsers,
people will absolutely be willing to down a SAFENet browser to
benefit from all the features.
TOR fills in some gaps, but SAFENetwork will bring home a connected world.
Well, even with open source licensing, there has to be credit given in the final product licensing to the third parties’ products they utilized when creating their product. Such that, if IOTA used PARSEC, they would have to denote that in their licensing.
However, there is really no “linking” between projects. Being open source under the licensing model Maidsafe has chosen to utilize means they will receive no direct funding from usage of PARSEC, or any other open source piece utilized in other development projects.
You are correct, though, in being concerned over another project taking their work and making a project with it that overshadows MAID, even though MAID would have done a bulk of the heavy lifting for the back-end consensus model, and any additional pieces they may have taken from MAID’s open sourcing efforts. The first past the post does not always a winner make in development projects.
Many companies have had an idea and implementation first, just to be beaten out by the second or third competitor to come along. Think of Microsoft. They were late to the OS game, and in many people’s opinions had stolen work, and had an inferior product to a lot of other OS’s in their early days (hell, even today). Yet, they dominated the market and eventually became the defacto OS.
The one upside to the Maidsafe project is, as far as I am aware, they are really the only ones attempting to develop such an all-encompassing product. Many competitors like IOTA, Sia, Storj, etc, are implementing pieces of what Maidsafe intends to be at the end. I don’t foresee anyone beating Maidsafe to their goal at this point, unless some big player like Google or Microsoft have been developing something similar under wraps for several years.
The only real question, in my mind, is will people use it? I feel confident at this point that they will complete their project, or at least their initial intended goals, and release the SAFE network. I feel confident that users of Tor, the black markets, and perhaps even P2P like Bittorrent will abandon their networks for SAFE. That would be enough to push SAFECoin to make a pretty hefty profit for those that believe in the product. It’s the day to day users I worry about. Baby boomers and GenX. Will they buy in? I think Facebook’s recent troubles have been a Godsend for Maidsafe. Personal privacy has finally come to the front pages of the news all across the world. I’m just hoping we can sustain this wakeup call long enough for the SAFE network to get its legs under it.
Safe to assume as the network grows the lower the probability of this becoming an issue
Like the 51%+ attack that happened with the small Bitcoin Gold last week, but very expensive and difficult to do ‘out of the blue’ with Bitcoin, I think.
Changelly works well
Not quite answering your question, but nothing to stop you putting a blockchain on the SAFE Network should your app require one. That way the users get the multitude of other benefits of the network, alongside a single global ledger.
Congratulations on this publication, now on to see if the theory is correct in practice
Why are people saying PARSEC derisks the project. It partially derisks it, but there is some way to go before we know if we have a working model. If the project was completely derisked, I imagine the price would be many many many times higher than it is. Comments are welcome
I think many people just wrote maidsafe off and ignored it as it was old, undelivered, not in top 20 or other simple minded nonsense. This is a wake up call for them. I suggest they seize the moment.
I don’t claim to be an expert or anything, but I have a decent handle on the development process and maths involved. My understanding is this consensus model they have developed is/was the last big unknown piece of the puzzle for their development process. Meaning, they solved the research issues, and are now strictly in the development stages.
Think of it like writing a dissertation or research paper. You have a thesis that you want to set out to prove/disprove. You take a long time researching the subject, other studies that apply to your subject matter, etc. Now that you feel you have a good understanding of all parts of the subject matter involved in defending your thesis, and have documented all the sources/studies you intend to cite, you start blasting through the actual writing process, pumping out page after page. Sure, you may need to tweak some grammar and spelling mistakes here and there, but you have the understanding, and you have the outline, you just need to finish the writing process.
That is where they are right now. They have come through the dark tunnels of unknowns into the light. They just need to put their nose to the grindstone and get the actual coding work done.
Now, it is quite possible that over the next few months, testing and challenges to their proofs may come out and find that PARSEC is not all they hoped it would be. That is certainly a risk. But, they were confident enough to put out a big announcement (especially for this project) and essentially stake their reputation on this finding. I think it is likely they thoroughly vetted this such that they truly believe this is the solution they have been looking for for so long.
I see separate points in here:
- Maidsafe isn’t good at marketing
- There is no better marketing then bare results
2… You have a vision in your mind. If it’s something to the earth (it’s something that “everybody” experienced before) like programming a (somehow better) TODO list, you’ll have no problems to communicate your idea. But if it’s something completely new on a conceptual level you’ll have a hard time to communicate this idea to people. Simply because language can not transport this. You can try with images/videos. If you add music maybe this can transport your vision a little bit better. But still I would argue that you can be misunderstood. Not because you’re a genius or something and other people can not “see it”. Just because there is nothing like that around. Nobody experienced it so far. If you have something which you can show and people can experience it, they can actually feel it, implement, use it and see that it’s good. You only need to convince them to use it right now because it’s here now and not some distant time away.
1… This is the challenge which MaidSafe is facing. SAFENetwork is so much different on so many levels (technical and social) that there’ll be always people which will misunderstand it (and therefore not “believe” in it). SAFENetwork is an incubator of good but complex ideas. Transporting the full picture is best with a beta. Giving some parts beforehand, like PARSEC, is the way to go. People will experience some parts of the picture before seeing the whole.
For the above I assume that there are no bad people in the sense that they do not want to understand (because of personal/egoistic needs) instead of simply misunderstand. So it’s idealistic. The truth is probably somehow different.
Not to forget that making something that valuable like PARSEC available to the public will trigger further ideas which can bring us all further.
When posited that PARSEC fully derisks the project, which it doesn’t, the answer IMHO is exuberance.
Pardon me, my comment wasn’t clear. I understood what you meant by results being the best marketing. I wholeheartedly agree and I quoted your statement because I think it’s such an important point.
Exactly the same way I “taught” a friend today regarding this project.
Well, I am not suggesting that we dont keep it open sourced. We want to keep it opensource - but BITCOIN is open source, several other good projects are opensource but Bitcoin gets value with usage. Why not have other projects use open source PARSEC but integrate safecoin to it so that as more projects like IOTA etc and others use PARSEC for consensus, more safecoins are mined/farmed and usage/value increases - irrespective of the value of the SAFE network. Not even sure if its possible but I really want the MAIDSAFE team and MAIDSAFE project that developed PARSEC to benefit from it while keeping it open source so that all the patient maidsafe holders who have been holding it for years and supporting the project are rewarded just as BITCOIN holders were.
and have interoperability, linking between safecoin and all other projects using PARSEC so that all projects using PARSEC for consensus can exchange between safecoin and their network coin seemlessly.
They have broken the back of the problem. Biggest problem in development, is getting the maths sorted. Once that’s done it’s just implementation.
Absolutely de risked.
As a holder of MAID/Safecoin, you wouldn’t want other projects generating coin. In fact, you want as little coins generated as possible to maintain growth. If you aren’t a fan of Keynesian economics, you may even prefer a deflationary system to increase wealth. That’s a whole other discussion, though.
PARSEC is just maths. They can’t really garner wealth from it, specifically. I guess they theoretically could have patented/copyrighted it (I’m not quite sure which would apply), and licensed it out to other projects, but that doesn’t seem to be the way they want to do things, for good or bad.