Project Decorum: DECentralised fORUM (and protocol)

project-decorum

#21

It might be easier from here; because a social network is pretty much an address book contained collection of forum comments; Safe Network is opt in; so all information can be contained within only those who you know

Unless public share intended;


#22
  1. Make people pay for the content they are generating/uploading
  2. Give people the option to allow free access to users by adding a regular payment to a solidarity fund.
  3. Connect the payout of the solidarity fund to the receiving of badges (you receive about as many SFC as is needed to the next step).

This way the forum will be self-sufficient and won´t need any organized input.


#23

Then the question is how to revoke access when relationship fall apart. I saw somewhere about generating single relationship accounts ID (or something like that…) And just dropping it to revoke access. Is there anything like that in the protocol @Seneca?


#24

It’s a decentralised protocol, I can’t really do that. If I do, someone will simply copy/paste my website files, delete the payment parts and re-upload it. The data (conversations) are independent from the website (the user interface), so my website isn’t a gatekeeper that can force rules on the users that they don’t really want.

Selling more badges after launch is possible, I’ll consider that. If I do, I’ll make sure that any donations given pre-launch will count towards those badges as well.


#25

True, I mean you can also have it hosted, but in the end it will use space on SAFE and someone has to pay for it, right? Maybe you can leave it to people to host the software and take care of the payments individually or allow people to switch on self-sufficient mode?


#26

The fees of hosting the website is very low since it doesn’t contains any user data, it’s just a bunch of HTML/JavaScript/CSS files. What will happen is anyone interested in creating a community will just upload a website on Safe and pay the PUT fees. Once the website is on Safe there’s no longer any fees to keep it there, it’s quite a bargain actually. Then the community can share stuff through it. Each individual is responsible to pay for their PUT request, this means that everytime you comment something you pay a little bit of Safecoin. The upside is that since you pay to upload your data you own it and your comment isn’t tied to the website but to your Safe account instead. You could create a mirror website that contains the exact same content if you wanted.


#27

Indeed, you nailed it right there!


#28

Yes, but that´s the cost I was referring to. Also, text obviously isn´t expensive, but if the forum intends to allow full flexibility then you have to consider image and video data.
My proposal was that users would simply pay for themselves, but you could also allow people to share costs (probably important if users don´t have SFC).


#29

Ah I see, I misunderstood you. What’s great with a basic protocal like that is that communities can add as many layers on it to fits their goals and values. I can see a community ask its users to pay an extra 1% to a pool that would be, somehow, redistributed to other members. More power to the people!


#30

Careful with scat - the urban dictionary will explain. :slight_smile:


#31

You can just authorize to remove the data and just change the keys, or place a password.
You should have the rights over your address book, and files shared there. If things were copied after shared, that’s a different story. Maybe something to block the ability to record from the screen. Then one can use a camera. Etc imagine authorizing only a device with the part number that blocks the ability to photograph what is seen on the screen, and a data can be created to execute only on the device, and it could state in advance exactly what it is asking for from the device via part number and some key generation that the camera blocking screen that is generated without a screenshot ability neither where only the human eye could view what is on the screen. Then we can just transfer the data, and just change the keys.

This means people would have to resort to somehow recreating what they see in the screen when they read the data on such a structure that only accpets the above type hardware to interact with it.

People themselves will definitely need to spend safecoin regularly when storing information, but imagine that a single safecoin would get you the equivalent of a few dropbox account or better, if only to run a node for at least a month.

Unlike dropbox etc, there is no subscription model therefore, your data is yours forever, and all new data costs safecoin as usual. pay as you go so to speak.

lol

perhaps, a name registration with the type_tag, by providing a client interface you’ll get safecoin through the application.


#32

Why javascript? >.>

I use noblock script religiously, and trying get away from JS ecosystem. Please in love of god, don’t
bring the broken system into safe,


#33

Definitely we’ll also have an implementation in rust, it gets the job done, JS is fun!! what do you think @seneca?


#34

I use NoScript religiously as well (along with Ghostery and uBlock Origin), and am no fan of JavaScript at all. There’s just no real alternative for browsers as far as I know:

We can of course create desktop executables and apps for Android and Apple smart-phones, but we definitely need a browser implementation as well.

I think we might be able to do two things to increase browser security:

  • Make the website’s JavaScript files immutable as soon as possible. Then we only need to verify once that the code is clean and correct, and have no fear for future changes that may insert malware or bugs.
  • Create an additional browser plugin or add an option to the official SAFE plugin that blocks any JavaScript file containing any function that may be used to either start a websocket connection or load any resource through anything other than the safe: protocol. These things should simply never be done in SAFE websites.

#35

There’s no need to ask for divine intervention since apps on safe are just dumb windows to look at data. I can have my window written in buggy JavaScript and you can have a native app or a monkey typing down api calls on the command line. I think the fact that we can skip most programming language war is a killer feature of the network :slight_smile:.

Back to topic.


#36

Excuse me, but I think I was the first one to introduce Decorum to the forum . :smiley:


#37

Just so you know, I expect donations of substantial amounts from you and @Warren. I’m freeing you from moderator tyranny after all! :innocent: :wink:


#38

Lol…“Off with their heads!” …Madame Guillotine awaits the Modocracy! :smiley:


#39

I am very impressed. My respect and grattitude. Its something very much worth supporting financially. It could spread or become a standard.


#40

I think there are pros and cons, and some of the pros for Javascript on SAFE (as opposed to the Wild Wild Web :smile: ) make it worth considering.

One of the pros I see for building SAFE Apps as web apps (Javascript/HTML/CSS in browser) rather than as native apps (something running directly on your device: PC/phone etc) as with Rust, C++ etc, is that since the browser provides a sandboxed environment, plus easy access to the source code (Ctrl-U), it will be far easier to spot malicious code, and to verify that an App does what it says.

Also, since you can verify you are loading the code you think you are - loading a web app from SAFE from immutable storage - it’s not like on the old web where you can’t tell in advance what a given URL is going to serve up. This benefit applies to all Apps, not just in browser Javascript, but removes one of the major security issues with web apps on the old www.

These are I think really valuable security benefits - I didn’t realise this when I decided to go this way with SAFEpress, so a bit of a bonus :smile:

@Seneca I’m really pleased to see this project, and particularly from you. I will definitely support you, and claim my badge! :smile: Best of luck!