We lack the data types, permissions, tokens etc. Most of the API in fact is not available in safe-nodejs. We had a lot more in the past.
12 Likes
Specifically functions revolving around Maps and Sequences (or MutableData and AppendOnlyData).
11 Likes
Let a judge decide if it’s ridiculous. Does anyone have the website address from the PDC ICO?
This is basic trolling. If it was serious you’d be taking to a lawyer not trying to stir discontent without a leg to stand on.
8 Likes
@happybeing That’s a fair point, but most apps can be built with a compatibility library and then have key functions swapped out later. This is what I’ve done with Phantom, built a compat library against the functionality which should be there in the future. Because the compat library is the only interface with the SAFE node-js library, when things change it only needs to be updated in one place.
Specifically functions revolving around Maps and Sequences (or MutableData and AppendOnlyData).
That’s fair enough, but I still feel like the current libraries are there enough to be able to mock it against the SAFE libraries and swap the implementations out later. I agree that it’s annoying to have to perform ongoing work every few months to stay inline with the API, but it would quell public dissent. The reality is that a lot of apps could release for the current shared network in a state of “It’s not as private as it will be once the APIs are done, but it works”, as long as people are made aware of the state of the project and that the data will be wiped whenever the shared network is refreshed. 
8 Likes
There’s a limit to the value of that, and for it to work you need the details of both the API and the underlying functionality. That’s doable with public names and for storage, but not data types and permissions IMO.
In fact the API is already there for several things you’re doing in Phantom - I put a Solid file manager on top of the current safe-nodejs already. So for basic apps I agree it’s feasible, but for something complex you are quite likely to waste time rather than save it IMO.
6 Likes
Demanding a refund may be uncalled for, but I see genuine concern, not trolling.
I agree in principle. The only place it’s terribly relevant is permissions, with that in place essentially everything else can be built (as far as my understanding goes) with the limited data types we currently have access to.
I watched (@JimCollinson)s video about permissions on Feburary 27th. Jim, when can we expect that work to make it in to the SAFE browser?
3 Likes
I believe he was referring to maidsaferocks.
Who has not listed any genuine concerns.
2 Likes
Anything can be built, certainly. The question is one of goals, value produced and best use of resources.
I still don’t understand how the appendable data API will look, any file system style API etc. I already have a compatibility interface for all this in the form of Safenetworkjs but I judge it would be of little value - for my projects - to implement a temporary backend for that because I’ve already learned and demonstrated what I can with alpha2.
The same goes for RDF support and API.
So there are quite a few things that are unknown in areas that will affect my design and implementation, and don’t make sense for me to put more effort into.
With Phantom you have shown that the are apps where it is well with doing this.
5 Likes
Sure, but the project said during fundraising: (from Seneca’s own mouth)
The functionality of the proof of concept will be improved and implemented first, after that the focus will be on social circles, the web of trust, and Clike endorsements.
In my opinion, functionality should have continued being developed until every single part of the UI had been battle tested against real users (even if the libraries were mocked) and the only thing left to do was swap out the libraries at the end before launch. The project should be in a state now where it’s completely built and all they need to do is (and I know it’s not this simple, but at the same time, it kind of is) replace the underlying function calls.
PDC raised something like $500,000 (from what I’ve been able to glean), that pays for a lot of development time, an awful, awful lot of development time. I don’t have the same expectations for Project Decorum as I do for you, because you haven’t been funded by the community to do it. If the libraries weren’t there, or there was something missing, or they needed a mock library, then the development funds should have been put towards that. There is work which could be getting done right now, regardless of the state of the SAFE node-js libraries.
I don’t want this to seem like I’m ragging on the PDC team, because I’m not, I just think that the issues raised in this topic (and others) are justified and worth considering. I don’t believe in the idea that people should be refunded, but I also think that the large gulf in development is a cause for concern.
Edit: I want to clarify, since there’s been various types of complaints in here, I’m specifically sympathising with @Sascha’s worries, re:
I don’t think starting development and showing the community some code or some kind of alpha should require SAFE to develop more.
9 Likes
I understand your point and I think you understand mine, although I’m not sure because you say you take a different view because I’ve made no promises.
Either way, my explanations were not to justify my decisions but to explain why I think Decorum’s position is sound and justified. I don’t believe that because you have funds you should spend them - only if you think the value that brings is worthwhile and in the long term interests of the venture.
I make these arguments not because I believe they’re right, but to point out that there’s a good basis for their chosen approach. I think that’s all that we need to know, because when you invest in a team, you are backing them to make the decisions and frankly they should not be trying to please anyone along the way, but doing their best to deliver a functioning product.
If they’d kept up spending on the basis that the API and the network were nearly ready, they might well have run out and not had the funds to deliver. We still don’t know how long this will take, so prudence looks to me like a wise decision on Seneca’s part.
As things stand, it seems Decorum has a war chest and will be able to make good use of that when things are clearer.
8 Likes
Yeah, I don’t take issue with anything you’ve said, it’s all sound and justified. I think the only place we disagree is on the approach the PDC team have taken, which is completely subjective.
4 Likes
I agree and acknowledged that it’s subjective, my point is that is their job to make that decision and that people kicking up a fuss and making threats is unjustified, out of order, and looks to me like deliberate mischief on some people’s part.
4 Likes
I agree, when I see folk calling for the SEC (as if we’re all USA citizens) and the like to me it’s form of attempted bullying at best. Folk invest in projects and should not have an expectation of refunds or guaranteed success. The decorum guys raised a long while ago. All the bullying does not help for sure and certainly would not encourage folk to raise the head above the parapet again. I understand frustration, I hear it several times a day and it’s both understandable but coupled with threats it’s completely destructive, kind like waterboarding confessions from folk, it does not work.
Sure it was a biggish raise, but things change and it’s not easy to engage with folk at times. We do, but do so against much of the advice and to the disdain of some investors. I think of Harmen a lot, a really nice guy and with so much in front of him. He is capable if we give him the APIs and space.
19 Likes
This is not 2016. Today regulators are taking action in situations like this whether you think they’re bullies are not. “USA citizens”? Kik, for example, is a Canadian company.
Yankee exceptionalism personified.
3 Likes
No shit sherlock 
9 Likes
No one is asking for this. All we can reasonably expect is that the Decorum team holds their end of the bargain, which is to work on this project. Which also involves communication with the people who put their money into it. By now, I can’t even explain what decorum is or what it’s going to be.
What I can’t live with is that the people who funded this project are getting the middlefinger: no communication, no involvement, no progress, no community outreach, no explanation, no roadmap, no discussion… just a big black emptyness. The Decorum team can’t even be bothered to write a 20 minute update once in a while it seems.
I didn’t donate a BTC into a charity. I funded an idea. I am not cryptorich, nor am I real-life rich. I actually had to work to buy btc to fund this project. Apparently now the funds were loaned to Maidsafe. I don’t necessarily disapprove of this, but this should not have been decided by the Decorum team alone. There were many willing applicants to fund the next round of safe development, and I think this should have been a last resort.
I put money into N99, Decorum and safex. In the end, safex screwed me the least (the irony).
I think it’s unfair to judge the call for an SEC investigation. I’m not signing up for this either but this is the only tool the bagholders have as the project team can’t be bothered to communicate -anything-. What bothers me is that we have to vent our concerns on the maidsafe forum and that other people have to defend Decorum with maybe’s and probably’s because the team doesn’t seem to want to adres the concerns that have been voiced the last years.
This has N99 written all over it again.
6 Likes
The thing is, not you, but others are asking for refunds, not many, but some.
3 Likes