New Video & Blog Post: Dynamic Membership


Thanks for the clarifications. Will the same consensus mechanism used for section membership eventually be used to record metadata about the chunks stored in vaults? For example, Alice says to Bob, “I just received a chunk with hash X and sent it to Tom for permanent storage…Tom acknowledges that the chunk had been received and stored… Harry also checked and we agree he isn’t lying… etc.”


Possibly, it may not be required, but we are still to consider the vault in detail. We already have a few mechanisms to cover much of that. So recorded in a data chain via pure group consensus may be enough. As long as we have the checking chain (the datachain of membership, emanating from PARSEC) then all data may be handled much faster.


It would sure help my SAFE project if SAFE vault’s recorded their uptime and issued tokens based on that. For example issue: 3600 tokens=1hour per 24hours with a minimum of 10hours uptime per vault.

I’m almost 51% sure that project Decorum would also use this instead of mining coins, because at the end of the day promoting farming helps the SAFE Network.

Would be fun to see some vault tests, with vaults getting cut off the internet and connecting in their own meshnet (maybe fun todo with Freifunk community).



Unfortunately Edward @19eddyjohn75 that would be so open to abuse. Too many people would be providing say 5 vaults of minimal performance (overloading their computer) thinking they will earn more from uptime tokens than from farming, especially when space is plentiful and reward rate lower.

The farming rewards effectively already have time based rewarding in place. The longer your vault is online then the more it will earn in farming rewards with little at first while getting chunks to store. If you take down your vault every 8 hours then when it returns then its going to take time for it to receive chunks to store before it can retrieve them and earn. So farming rewards definitely encourage people to keep their computers (vaults) on longer and rewards them for that. If you have vaults on for 8 hours a day then you may earn x amount but if leave it up for 16 hours then its going to be a few times x and it leave online all the time then even more than that per day. The rate of earning will keep increasing till your vault reaches a certain level of storage and then earning rate begins to level out. And that effective brings in the time factor for earning.


Your absolutely right @neo, hmmmmm maybe it’s better to let people issue (super :ant:decentralized) their own tokens based on farming reward (actual work done for the network) instead of uptime.

Btw I always knew that you would have a secret base in China.



Hi all, I think it’s worth saying that I’d bet a lot of this debate focuses around some of the historical context and beliefs embodied in the MaidSafe idea. Will recap as briefly as possible:

Decentralised cryptocurrency was impossible until Bitcoin. It blew people’s minds and continues to. The necessary ledger around which it is constructed is a pain as it harms privacy, fungibility and scalability. PoW based sybil resistance is another draw back, though so far has outcompeted others. The stakes are high for any scheme which can significantly improve on this trade off (slight improvements aren’t a big deal, it’s the major ones which can raise blood pressure).

MaidSafe is the only other legitimate project I’m aware of that claims to be able to support a decentralised cryptocurrency without a ledger - at least that’s the impression I and many others had from way back in the day.

MaidSafe’s claim therefore splits a room into those who think it could work (and realise the significance of that success), and those who think it is unviable (and see the scam value of such a claim). These are both fair positions to take without extensive research and analysis to further inform the opinion.

So far those two sides of the room haven’t fought much because they just left via different doors (unlike, say, IOTA who court similar controversy and then throw a lot of money at marketing that comparison).

When datachains were announced however, the concept of a ledger seemed to make itself at home, a potential flash point between those two groups was set up. The ‘pro’ camp were uneasy, and the skeptics felt slightly validated. PARSEC then emerged which reinforces the role of a ledger at the core level of the network and has mechanisms in common with some other systems which can be partly traced back to Bitcoin. It’s a lot of info to dig into and until it’s widely understood that flash point gets hotter and hotter.

I don’t think either camp really particularly care whether SAFENetwork include a ledger, or blockchain of some kind, what they care about is whether that original dream is still possible. The debate will go away if/when they understand how there are no scaling, energy and security compromises introduced by these new ‘ledger like’ features.


…Just wanted to add, I don’t think these two ‘camps’ actually are real demographics - that kind of thinking leads to real battles - which I’m not for! They represent the balance of positions of euphoric faith and protective skepticism that exist in any single healthy mind which doesn’t yet have all the info or answers.


IMO, you are right about the camps, but I also agree that it doesn’t matter. FWIW, I would Not care one jot if each close group had a blockchain, as long as it was required and did a good job.

What I dislike is someone erecting a straw man and then attempting to beat the project down with it. E.g. saying it is just a blockchain, suspecting that it isn’t that innovative, suggesting that it must really hurt the a ego of the creators, etc.

If SAFENetwork can substantially move the game on, it really shouldn’t be a major concern to anyone over how that is achieved. If it works and works well, it is a winning combination regardless.