No Ledger?

Thanks! Now if @ioptio uses it in her next presentation I will know that I have arrived!! :wink:

If the honeycomb metaphor is helpful then by all means lets use it, but as @dirvine’s response shows, my example didn’t have all the details right. I’m still not clear on the amount of resources it would take to corrupt or delete data, much less double spend.

2 Likes

Same for me. I got my head around XOR and the 4 closest nodes where the nodes requests chunks. But guess what? 4 is not enough and chunks should be broken into smaller pieces. Now my understanding is a bit broken again :wink: At which level will the chunks be chunks again? And what about intermediate nodes who want to cache… Are they caching the smaller sub-chunks parts? Safecoin is a thing on it’s own. Will take some time for me to work it out. But I will one day.

After thinking about this for a while longer, I’m pretty sure that they should not be allowed to merge. The vital point is that a vault joining the network with data that is not already on the network should be rejected. If not, the potential for abuse would be too great. By temporarily running your own, private, modified and isolated SAFE network where you mass farm SafeCoin, or store terabytes of data on your own vaults, after which you rejoin the global network so it gets spread through it.

If a real global split event would happen, I think it would become a matter of size to see who would “win” when they’d try to rejoin later. The bigger one would reject the joining of the members of the smaller one due to majority consensus groups. If they are comparable in size, there would be a temporary impasse and “joining” chaos I think, after which one of the two network communities should decide to use a different join protocol so they can live on as a seperate entity. The odds of such a global split happening seem extremely small to me though.

That seems logical, except that I don’t understand how the network can measure these kinds of consensus groups while maintaining the obscurity which is such a part of SAFE.

EDIT: That is to say that if the network doesn’t know how big it is, and how many people have joined it. If it can’t track how many Safecoins are in use except on a coin by coin basis, how does it know which consensus group is bigger?

Actually, I think you should see them as two networks with two different Kademlia distributes hash tables. I think that as long as they use the same login protocol (I think IRC channels are often used for this?), when people log off and try to log on again, there’ll be a random chance proportial to network size of your vault trying to connect with one or the other network.

If you happen to try to join the “wrong” network (which you weren’t previously part of), the consensus group of that network that handles your joining will reject you due to unknown data being in your vault (or your passport may not exist there, but let’s ignore that for now). If you happen to have no data that is unique to one of the two networks, you can probably join either, until one of them puts unique data in your vault. Then afterwards you can only join that network.

So actually I think the networks wouldn’t try to merge, there would just be chaos for (re)joining vaults that would randomly (proportional to size) try to join one of the two networks, until one of the networks decide to change their joining protocol somehow (or their members decide to abandon their network and join the other one).

Anyway, don’t take my word on this. I may very well be wrong, but I think this is how it would work.

@happybeing I would love to write a FAQ, but I think @dyamanaka + @kirkion example is super powerful.

Btw the honeycomb is the most efficient structure, soon our Ant tech will get it’s wings

Fun fact
Strangely when I Google “Ants with Wings” I get this image

It’s probably the old internet’s way to say “Laugh Out Loud”
:stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like

Comprehensive and still right to the point, love it! Now we see why merging meshnet with MaidSafe tech is so important. We should time our releases together somehow (MaidSafe and ePlugs). Blockchain tech is still needed for open ledger style banking and such, but a faster, instantaneous algorithm is the only way to go and MaidSafe accomplishes just that.

1 Like

Ok, so then I wonder, how long does it take for one network to generate “unique” data or perhaps mutually exclusive? Is unique data a safecoin? A safecoin creation? A safecoin transation? Is a PUT request unique data?

Any PUT request I think? Which includes SafeCoin. With “unique” I meant data that exists only on one network, not the other one.

It might also be that not the vault is rejected, but merely the unknown data. Remember that these are at best educated guesses, I’m not sure if it’s correct.

@kirkion and @Seneca these are very good questions. I hope MaidSafe will have easy to understand answers when the times comes. If they don’t, here are some ideas.

Joining the Network Honeycomb Style
A honeycomb grows from the inside outward. A new vault joining the Network must start at level 1. Any new vault coming in higher than level 1 is instantly untrusted/denied.

Online time, routing and possibly caching, gives the vault an opportunity to reinforce the honeycomb structure. As trust is earned, the vault’s managers promote it to a higher rank. At a specific rank the vault is given responsibility to be a manager for other new vaults.

If a vault fails to reinforce the structure, it gets isolated and falls off the Network. How do we know if a vault fails to reinforce the structure? Easy, it conflicts with the other managers in the consensus group.

If this is true, then another Network cannot attach itself to the SAFE Network.

How many Safecoin’s are in circulation?
This might be an area of debate. The average person doesn’t know how much currency is in circulation. But they do care about how much it buys. After all, isn’t that what really matters?

As early adopters, we still want to know. Here’s an idea.

When ever Safecoin is rewarded, the managers can also post on a public ledger, the amount of Safecoin that came into existence. This doesn’t say anything about who or what or why… just the amount and a date stamp. This could be used in TestNet3 to measure the issuance/recycling rate of Safecoin.

4 Likes

Now that is an interesting(brilliant, actually) solution to tracking market capitalization, if it can be done securely without gumming the network in some way.

One additional thing is that when the network accepts safecoin in exchange for whatever resource and recycles it for re-farming, this would also need to be recorded on the ledger.

If doable, that would give a very clear, current and running estimation of the amount of currency in circulation, which would allow for market cap calculation. All could then be better informed.

@dirvine – How doable is this idea and is there any downside? Could it be done in such a way that it couldn’t be faked or spoofed?

2 Likes

That’s one of the great things about Bitcoin compared to the Dollar and Euro. With Bitcoin, everybody knows how much coins are ever created, precise to a satoshi. For as far as I know, the ECB and the FED are vary vage about how much money there’s out there. So I like the idea of having anonymous money, but I also like to know how much of the stuff is out there in the network.

1 Like

I seem to remember @dirvine talking about a way to use SAFE’s method of data storage as a way to solve the blockchain bloat. Would such a hybrid solution work here?


How exactly can they live together?

Entry into the bitcoin network requires, proof of work (i…e. mining) or transfer of fiat currency into bitcoin via an on-line exchange or direct cash transfer, in person or through ATM’s etc.

MaidSafe uses a different model for successful participation. This is the provision of physical resources. These resources are disk space, cpu and bandwidth. This is done in a way that means MaidSafe uses what users are not using (free space etc.).

Not everyone will mine bitcoin, so they buy them. Not everyone will be have on-line available disk space so they may wish to buy some. This is a terrific starting point, if people sell their unused space via bitcoin, it means information leakage is minimised, this is a good thing in a secure and privacy enhancing network.

Staying with that thought for a moment, why should bitcoin only reduce the data leakage, why not completely eliminate data leakage?

As I said earlier, bitcoin has data, the blockchain and wallets. The bitcoin network is not a data network, it does not distribute and secure data! MaidSafe does though!

Securing wallets is “bread and butter” for MaidSafe and simple enough to understand. The blockchain on the other hand is another matter. Here are some initial brainstorming ideas:

  • Store the transaction log as a file on the network
  • Store each transaction separately
  • Store each bitcoin as a unique address
  • Store each mBTC as a unique address store wallet addresses and allocate BTC
    to these

There is a multitude of ways to distribute the blockchain and some would offer complete privacy of transaction, whilst maintaining the integrity of the bitcoin themselves. This is a discussion for the bitcoin core developers and there are some projects looking at even more ways to achieve this. I mention it for completeness, it’s not a requirement in any way for these technologies to work together.

1 Like