New Video & Blog Post: Dynamic Membership


" The rabbit - hole went straight on like a tunnel for some way, and then … for, you see, as she couldn’t answer either question ," :wink:


So… the SAFE network is the true server? (not a server, but the server)


And all this time I thought the SAFEnetwork was storage, messaging, and so on. But a “better” blockchain? Well each to their own.


Concerning the origin of the word blockchain.
I’ve read somewhere that it wasn’t Satoshi that came up with that term but someone else who saw in the workings of Bitcoin a chain of blocks. First it was block chain, a bit later it was concatenated to blockchain.
Later on blockchain became an often used term like ‘the cloud’, probably with a different definition, depending to who you talk to.
I think that the definition on Wikipedia is a good reference. I’m pretty sure that a lot of discussion/time went in the creation of that page.
The (more popular) meaning of words can change over time and nobody really controls that. But I hope that in the case of Blockchain it keeps on describing something that’s involving a solution that uses a chain of blocks. If someone comes up with something else that has “strength through distribution” that doesn’t involve a chain of blocks it would be logical to call it something else than Blockchain.


A chain of gossip and super consensus forming a history of decisions, is absolutely different to how bitcoin works. I think it looks like a condensed blockchain, simpler, leaner more efficient. Achieves distributed knowledge transfer without the overhead. It no longer requires batches of decisions (transactions), the implementation is pure, mathematical not probable. I get the “transactions” aren’t part of the chain at all.


Or instead of implementation specific, you use graphvis to draw out blocks and connect them together for easy representation, maybe, just maybe blockchain. PoW forms the blocks for bitcoin, PARSEC form the blocks for Safe Network.

I see in the working of PARSEC a chain of blocks. They simply solve the same goal in different ways.

I don’t think the definition of wikipedia is wrong, because as things currently stand that is general norm of blockchain as a technology. I’m 100% certain as it evolves, sharding?, that definition will evolve along side. In 1995, did the term smartphone mean what it means now? did they consider it would include serval different sensors, not just the computing aspect?


I’ll give you full marks for being creative and able to repurpose words.

I doubt though you convinced anyone that datachains and PARSEC are things they are not.

EDIT: As an aside do you think that by calling SAFE a blockchain it will attract more people from the blockchain community and the flow on effect in the markets it will create for traders.


I have wondered the same and if it’s to increase exposure by using existing terminology/understanding and hype while coming from a genuine place then I could understand the effort but I don’t think it really makes sense given they are quite different in comparison, the terminology has already been chosen, and to change course now would look schiesty and do more harm than good. Not interested in that kind of dishonesty or conformity.


Very much so because if you do call SAFE a blockchain then you start falling foul of other things out there that have characteristics of a block-chain. For example one could start stretching a RAID storage as a blockchain. It is after all a chain of blocks with fault tolerance and rudimentary BFT and consensus. And expectantly when zeroflaw tries to poohar it, I could write him/her a tech paper showing the various components of a RAID storage system used in distributed storage systems from well over a decade ago how each component fulfils the definition he/she and wiki used.

And yet any RAID (distrubited or not) as well as SAFE are not block chains unless you redefine what a blockchain is from the current usage. And to attempt this really sounds like an attempt to place it into the blockchain community for the consequential outcomes. There is a reason why we give different names to different species of life and yet they are closer in similarities than what SAFE is to a blockchain.


You just read my mind. :sunglasses:


I’m not really able to see the connection between RAID and blockchain.

A blockchain isn’t just a ledger or some data, so maybe safe network is part of the new breed of ledgerless blockchains? :open_mouth:

So I googled ledgerless blockchain



I like IOTA projects approach to terms, such as it’s “tangle” - could help inspire some more Safe network only terms rather than re-purposing consensus related terms like “block” and “geneis blocks” for Safe usage (and confusing many in the process).

Tangle : A directed acyclic graph (DAG) as a distributed ledger which stores all transaction data of the IOTA network. It is a Blockchain without the blocks and the chain (so is it really a Blockchain?).


@krnelson good find, and it very much fulfils the essence of what Blockchain is.


The question mark at the end suggest a question :wink: So not a claim, but a question which questions your assertion.


I said essence not criteria.


Obsession often causes blindness to truth

And yes we all can suffer from it.


And perhaps that is the reason you do not understand what many are saying thus think they are wrong and never question that you may be a little obsessed over the definition that SAFE must be a blockchain.

But of course if you can do that then you’ll get more people seeing the project and the flow on effect from that.

Not having much success are you. Mainly because this is a project about SAFE as a whole and not like block projects which are about crypto …


So you think when people say blockchain they mean bitcoin? or a bitcoin clone?
Or can you see that blockchain is bigger than bitcoin and it’s really just the soul of what bitcoin stands for?

Blockchain is like transportation, it starts out with a horse and cart and evolves into a spaceX falcon heavy rocket


Again dishonest discussion. You know I don’t and my comment does not imply it. Really not becoming of someone who is try to convince others.

But it is a sign of obsession with a thing that has little basis.

Captain Obvious is here. Of course thats true. But we know you said this to make me look stupid, yet you show how shallow your argument is when you stoop to these belittling remarks. And I hope my very pointed remarks of what you are doing makes you rethink what you do.

What? Blockchain is a software element and does not match that or even the imagery of that. Maybe if you add to a blockchain it could help achieve real life things like that. But not the blockchain but the addons. I can also argue rightly that the accountant’s bookkeeping and ledgers also enable the Falcon X falcon. Without accountants it would never have happened. See how silly one can get with the claims.

OH and SAFE is not a blockchain like a RAID is not one


Wasn’t trying to belittle you.

Simply making the opposite declaration because you are obsessed that SAFE is not allowed to be a blockchain.


And that is not what I said or implied either. If the devs wanted to make SAFE into a blockchain then they could. I would leave and so would others because that is a useless project seeing as there are so many out there. You do have trouble with either comprehending what is said or you without realising perhaps stoop to such silly things.

SAFE is simply factually not a blockchain. You focus on a block of events as data and call that a block chain. And if that was true then so is a RAID, and so many other things.