New Video & Blog Post: Dynamic Membership


I could make a silly remark but I won’t.

PARSEC was simply the replacement for the method they were using. What do you think alpha 2 is using in order to work

Buzzzz nope, good try but no again. Do you even know how a section works? When you do it becomes obvious how far off the mark you are


Invitation tokens and trust? yeah thats not blockchain, agreed.


Just shows how little you understand how it works.

Invitation tokens was only to allow someone to create an account. An interim measure till safecoin is built… Not the blinking consensus. How would that even work, its just silly.

A little hint - consensus is what the elder nodes do to decide if someone is telling the truth or not. Datachains record what has happened in the section (events). It does not store the data people send it, nor record transactions. It does not operate like a blockchain does even and it doesn’t do what blockchains do. Its a data storage network without storing anything to do with the data in the datachains. Not the index nor the data nor who owns the data nor permissions to the data. Nothing about the data store is stored in the datachain.

EDIT: (EDIT2: yes a simplification but should show you the difference to a blockchain safe is)

  • SAFE is all about storing User Data and messaging and the coin. Sites etc are an outcome of this. It is not about giving users a blockchain functionality. It is about storing the world’s information in Vaults not in a blockchain.
  • Datachains were named that way because they were not blockchains, and a consensus mechanism existed at the time, PARSEC is just a replacement for it. But like files in disk storage and USB sticks, they use blocks to make the information in them more manageable. The information is events. Its an event store.
  • PARSEC is the mechanism used by the network to make decisions about the requests sent to the network from clients and other sections. It is not used to make decisions about what is stored in the datachain NOR if whats stored is valid or not. It is not a part of the datachains nor is datachains required for PARSEC (or alpha 2 consensus mechanism). The section though does record the order of events into the datachain just like you record things in a diary. Separate parts of the section.
  • Nodes joining/leaving cause routing to ask the PARSEC consensus if its in agreement. The decision is recorded in the datachain. Nothing like what a blockchain is doing

Data stored on the network is not in any way shape or form stored in a datachain.

  • Data indexes is not stored in the datachain
  • the data itself is not stored in the datachain
  • ownership info is not stored in the datachain
  • account info is not stored in the datachain
  • MDs are not stored in the datachain
  • vault IDs are not stored in the datachain
  • Your IDs are not stored in the datachain
  • The datachain does not record transactions of coins, or your use of IDs nor anything like that

If you read nothing else then make sure you read this PARSEC is not used to make decisions about what is stored in the datachain NOR if whats stored is valid or not.


PARSEC was a replacement for a component of the SAFE network that was considered vulnerable. You don’t burn precious resources replacing software components that work well, its just silly.

You can’t make the argument that the thing (not blockchain) that was replaced by another thing (blockchain), makes the new thing also not blockchain.

I never said anything about storing data or it being valid as a reason why its blockchain. Its blockchain because of consensus between untrusted parties.


But the previous was not the invites. Thus my pointing it out.

One consensus mechanism was replaced by another, How does that make the second a blockchain if the first was not? That is a nonsensical statement. The previous mechanism did not fail so to summarise

  • The previous consensus which is being used in alpha 2 is
    • NOT the invites
    • is working fine
    • is NOT mathematically provable and potential for some issues to arise where consensus may not come to a conclusion quick enough could arise.
    • We were running vaults at home with that consensus and it did not fail.
    • the failure was not consensus but the network filling up with data due to spamming
    • Due to the potential in a very large network for this previous consensus mechanism to fail meant that the dev team were always on the look out for provable one. And they used some technologies out there and brought them together and created
    • it is mathematical provable to come to consensus in reasonable time
    • it is a consensus mechanism, NOT a blockchain
    • consensus mechanisms are not blockchains - come on.

You do seem to have some fundamental misunderstandings and thus are coming to the wrong conclusions.

PARSEC is a consensus mechanism. THAT IS ALL. it is only you who believes it is a blockchain.

That is what SAFE is all about! And to put in the nicest terms possible - This is the reason SAFE is not a blockchain.

Consensus between untrusted parties is NOT a blockchain. Pure and simple.

While a blockchain may involve consensus its not what makes a blockchain.

Honestly this twisting of words has been going on for too long. I’m sure you’ll find something to fault and claim SAFE is a blockchain again.

Well I’ll leave you to your misapplications of fact and say goodnight.


A consensus mechanism on its own isn’t a blockchain. One that works over a distributed network with untrusted parties and has a history of decisions, is a blockchain.

Did the old consensus mechanism use gossip? did it include a history? could it traverse the history to make accusations about who is a liar?
So the old consensus mechanism wasn’t blockchain. That shouldn’t be the deciding factor of why the new one isn’t blockchain either.


No no and NO again. That does not make it a blockchain. It makes it a consensus mechanism.

Using your logic then the previous consensus also had to be a blockchain and yet you admit it was not. This is going in circles.


Yes yes and YES again. Totally is a blockchain.


It’s a good time to just agree that you are out of agreement with EVERYBODY here. I think I can see where you’re coming from, but that doesn’t matter. What matters is that you refuse to see what everyone else here is talking about, and thus insist that everyone else is wrong.

This is not a profitable course.


And therein lies you problem. You do not understand the terms you are throwing around.

You are not even consistent with this misapplication of definitions.

  • old and new consensus mechanisms were both distributed. So why isn’t the old one a blockchain by your definitions.

In any case there is a reason its called a consensus mechanism and that is because it is not a blockchain. A blockchain uses consensus thats all.

Just like steel is used in buildings does not make steel a building



If blockchain isn’t about the ledger (lots of them a private and I even found a ledger less one)
If its also not about the consensus mechanism (lots of different ones)
if its not because its a distributed peer to peer network (lots of different topologies too)

What is blockchain? is the word meaningless?

We only know what blockchain isn’t, it’s not the SAFE Network. You know why? because they said so.


Welcome to the beginning of learning. Now you can start.

Then you take 2 steps back

Its not because they said so its because it is not one. And people have tried to explain to you the reasons but you don’t listen of maybe don’t understand.

A block chain is not defined by one property alone. It requires the bringing together of many properties in a certain fashion and then you have a blockchain. Just like making a cake. And SAFE is not built like that.


I’m still here because every argument so far has been weak. The only problem I have, is for 4 years it’s been ‘not a blockchain’ change is hard to accept. In time that will change. Welcome to the ever changing world.


No, it is not. A blockchain is just one way of forming consensus (and recording it) in a distributed network.


Ignoring it and pushing those thoughts deep down inside, isn’t healthy for you.


blockchain isn’t an implementation, bitcoin however is

Bitcoin is just one way of forming consensus (and recording it) in a distributed network.

Fixed it for you.


I wonder just how many angels could fit on the head of a pin?


Do you think PARSEC could be used to mathematically prove the answer :joy:


Possibly, but it might be put to better use elsewhere


I didn’t say it was an implementation. It is a design pattern.