Just wanted to point out that there is a different use case for the paper wallet between safe net and blockchains.
With Bitcoin et al you have to store the private key outside of the network. With safe net you can store it inside of the network. The challenge of key safety is essentially resolved by safe net’s approach. The security inherent in the network is extended to protecting your wallet.
My guess is that wallets can be independent of accounts, but I’m not sure what MaidSafe plan to implement:
one wallet pet account
create multiple wallets per account
be able to move or import wallets between accounts
I’m guessing all are possible, interested to hear which you think are most useful to Joe Public (as more complex options could be specialist wallet apps)?
My first thought is one wallet per account because:
every account has a wallet by default, and to start, most users will have one account: this is simple to understand, no need to work out how to create a wallet, very simple default UI etc. Expert users can still dig into the UI for features to create and manage multiple accounts (assuming we support that).
it’s really clear that your account credentials are your wallet credentials, so extra clear that these need to be secure. This is important IMO, because users are fed up with creating accounts on every service/website and will likely not realise that is different on SAFEnetwork, and that they need to take more care with their one set of credentials for all SAFE services.
for users who find they have a large stash from their farming the solution becomes obvious and easy: create a separate SAFE savings account (with default wallet) purely for that purpose, with extra strong credentials they really look after.
I dont think dilution of coins will be an issue, because as i understand , “the generation and distribution of safecoin will be entirely network-led, meaning that if the SAFE Network is in great demand a large volume of safecoins will be created, while low demand will lead to minimal coins being generated. These factors will also have an impact on price”.
I dont think dilution of coins will be an issue. Correct me if im wrong…
I don’t see how anyone could see dilution as a bad thing on SAFE. Lots of farmers earning lots of coins = larger and more valuable network. Coin generation doesn’t leech value, it adds value with the new resources that have been added.
Don’t forget how different the paradigm is with SAFE. It’s not competing for a pool of investment money, it is monetising and releasing spare resources to create its own resource-based economy. There is untapped value out there that we want to tap into to create the value in SAFEcoin. We all want more coins and more resources in circulation. I will be very happy to see the coin supply increasing/network growing… and investors will certainly be better off for it.
Hmm, interesting point. So maybe even if current generation of hardware wallets wouldn’t be immediately useful for storing SAFE coins, they could still be useful as FIDO 2FA to login to your account if that is implemented. Doesn’t help you if you’re logging in on a compromised machine though.
Thanks for clarifying that. So the real challenge is safeguarding the password to your account. Is that 2FA, one user-generated password, or a long network-created password that you need to write down somewhere and not lose? And if it’s just one-factor authentication, how much SAFE coin would you really be comfortable holding given that a keylogger could wipe out your whole stash?
At the moment it is along the lines of long passphrase. If you use a passphrase then this is more memorable and should be sufficiently long that cracking it extremely hard. Especially since there is a time delay between entering it the password and knowing if it worked. The delay is in terms of hundreds of milliseconds. So a cracker can only test a few passphrases per second.
If you have a keylogger then you can kiss goodbye to all the coins in your wallet. This also applies if somehow you had kept your keys off-line and kept a record of coin addresses belonging to that key pair. Because as soon as you load up your key-pair & coin addresses to do a transaction then those coins could be gone before you get a chance to send them yourself.
Its not the “paper-wallet” if you could do it that would protect you, but doing sensible things to protect your machine. Because if you have a keylogger then your PC/logger can also have stealing algo too that just waits for for this event.
The reason paper-wallets protect you in the blockchain world is that the wallets are not as secure as they should be. If on-line then obviously a web hack could steal them. The wallets on your machine have many attack vectors. Whereas a SAFE wallet has just the malware on your machine and a badly written wallet APP as the attack vectors.
So if we look at badly written APP then somehow storing keys/addresses off-line is no protection because when you go to use the coins the bad APP allows them to be stolen at that point.
So if we look at the malware on your machine, then there is no protection from keeping keys/addresses off-line because when you go to use the coins the malware can steal them
SAFE will keep your wallet “as safe as” a so called paper wallet (if paper wallet is possible). It is your machine that is the vulnerable point of attack and either safe wallet on-line or “off-line” will see the potential for the coins to be stolen due to malware. The reason is that you have to load your off-line keys sometime if you wish to use the coins.
In fact keeping the keys on-line could prove safer because wallets will typically receive coins over time and you would notice the loss before it became too large. Whereas if you accumulate (somehow have a record of addresses) in a “off-line” wallet then you potentially will have a very large amount of coins suddenly stolen. Better to find out when its one or two coins then when its your hoard after a period of time. Obviously if you receive a lot of coins initially this doesn’t quite apply.
I agree that it adds value for the person who’s storing data on the network. It’s not obvious to me that the same is true for the coin investor.
Is this really true? My evolving understanding is different … please correct me if I’m off: The intrinsic value of the network can be approximated by the future discounted annual cash profits of all farmers from providing spare storage to the network. The SAFE coin does not entitle you to a share of that intrinsic value. It’s not a common stock and therefore SAFE coin has no intrinsic value even if the network does. The SAFE coin’s value will primarily move up and down on the basis of speculative investment inflows and outflows since speculative flows will dwarf the petty cash (petty coin) needs of network users. If coins outstanding grows 10x, investment interest would have to also grow 10x just to keep the price of SAFE coin steady before you can even get any appreciation on a per coin basis.
However, it doesn’t explain how the process differs for farmers versus resource users. For example, on some other threads on this site, I read that uploading data to the network is a one-time cost, not a recurring cost for the resource user. They pay the same price whether they have that data uploaded for one minute or 100 years. Is that right? How do you ensure that unnecessary data that no one wants anymore is not taking up space on the network, and unnecessarily causing an increase in coins outstanding? The uploader has no incentive to bring down that data and some farmers would be paid to store data no one wants anymore.
On the other hand, farmers are paid on a recurring basis per hour or something like that, right?
So does that mean that if it costs $1/year to incent a farmer to store 10 GB of data then it’ll cost the resource user something like a $10 one-time upfront fee to upload that 10 GB of data indefinitely or something like that depending on the expected life of the data on the network?
I think understanding these dynamics would help crystallize how fast or slow the coin supply would change in different scenarios.
Has there been a discussion about including 2FA for account log in and for moving SAFE coins? Seems like if there were 2FA and a backup code in the event your phone (or 2nd device) is lost, it would allow for both security and convenience. 1FA seems like it would hinder adoption since someone’s going to have a keylogger on their computer, they’ll get their stash stolen, and their story will scare others (rightly so).
2FA is still no good if your PC has malware because as soon as you enter the 2FA it can hijack the transaction. For example change the send to address but show you the one you thought it should be. And the same for the number of coins.
It boils down to ensuring your PC does not have malware.
While the network is very resistant to hacking and at this point in time would be considered about as secure as it can be, the same is not for each user. The user can still have their PC hacked and lose everything they have.
So the SAFE network will prevent the data loss we see on a grand scale when a large database (website) is hacked. But the problem still is there for the single user being hacked. SAFE is not intended to protect your PC so this problem will still be something to be overcome.
As to discussions on 2FA, I would suggest doing to search on 2FA, passphrases or authentication as there has been many discussions in various topics.
This is one of the reasons that paper wallets are basically obsolete these days. Hardware wallets provide protection against this. With HW wallets, your keys are safe, even if you use a compromised machine to make your transaction. And it is still fairly convenient to send transactions from them.
Safecoin does indeed have intrinsic value, and moreso than bitcoin.
It is the only way to purchase the services of the network (storage initially, later computation) and likely will be the preferred means of charging for add-on services, and for transacting business on the network - because there are no transaction fees planned.
The latter creates a value premium due to the usefulness of holding Safecoin in order to access products and services, as well as creating a non-traded buffer that will dampen down movement due to speculation to some extent. Safecoin value being tiedd to storage will I think also have a damping effect on speculation.
I think 2FA is both possible and desirable. Otherwise, you would have to be convinced the machine you are accessing your account on is fully sanitised.
Ofc, spreading coins between accounts with different passwords and so forth will limit such attach vectors. Using a clean build machine (read only boot media, with ram drive for safe net client, etc) which only accesses the net via safe net (firewall other traffic) for big wallet transactions may also help too.
There is one simple thing here that can help us in our quest for better end point security.
Part of the original design of SAFE was that no data ever touches the machine i.e. from the applications perspective it’s all in RAM, the virtual drive / fuse is a good example of thie.
We have a couple of local files right now (configs) which I hope we can get rid of, but I will ignore these for a second.
The suggestion is read only computers (live CD’s etc.) could prove to be a decent step in the right direction. Ofc vaults do require to store data, but it is prescribed or predefined data that is not executable. Your session could keep the hashes of all the apps you want and you could add to that etc.
I just wished to throw this into the conversation, as end point security will be a huge issue when we have all the other bits in place. We need a better story there and a simple story for folk to understand and follow.
I don’t think that’s right. Let me tell you how I see it and then someone more technical can tell us if one of us has missed something vital.
Why would you assume the primary use of SAFEcoin would be speculation? Do you make this assumption because this is the case with BTC? Why would ‘petty’ users of SAFEcoin be dwarfed by investors? I see it ending up the other around.
BTC is like gold. SAFEcoin is more like salt (if salt had a limited supply ;)). You consume SAFEcoins when you ‘use’ them and you HAVE to use them if you want to use the network to store or serve any data.
I agree that there will be substantial speculation demand in SAFEcoin, especially in the early days, I would certainly dispute this being the main use for the coins when we’re talking about dilution and network growth. I would think all signs pointed towards a ever-decreasing % of speculation compared to utility.
New farmers are highly unlikely to ‘sell’ their coins imo. The new coin supply will not translate as downward ‘sell’ pressure within the market. It seems quite likely to me that very very few farmers will bother with crypto exchanges and transferring money in and out of their bank accounts with SEPA transfers etc. Farming is designed to be decentralised, so the assumption is that the majority are just earning enough small amounts of coin to cover their network needs.
As I said above, I don’t see it like BTC. SAFEcoins are burned when they are used, they have a huge utility value and you HAVE to use them up if you want to use the network. They are not being bought by the new holders with the intention to sell later on, as with most speculative assets. Rather, they are being farmed for free and used.
So, all these small users come online to USE the network. They farm and provide resources, always providing slightly more than they use (assuming they are not buying coins), and each new user thereby increases the value of the network by making it slightly cheaper and more desirable to use (more valuable).
The reason BTC has never gone viral is, imo, in no small part due to the barriers to entry (having to buy/sell/store crypto). These barriers evaporate with SAFE. The name of the game is not speculative investment, it’s general utility. Anyone can get access it to use it. Anyone can get some coin without buying them. I am not assuming that most of these people will ‘sell’ their coins?!
This is an argument of degree of course. There is speculator demand and this will certainly be the majority at the start - since there is no utility yet. However, we’re talking about dilution here. If the network is growing and people find it useful then it seems highly likely to me that this % will constantly decrease as more and more of the general population come on board to ‘use’ the network, rather than to profit from the coin value increasing.
I could be wrong of course, but this all seems quite logical and clear to me when I play out the network growth in my head. Speculation demand will be there and it will be big. SAFEcoin is a whole new class of investment that makes even BTC look feeble (SAFEcoin is backed by real world resource value). But SAFEnet is also crazy useful. Like the most useful thing I’ve ever heard of. I would be truly stunned if people found the biggest use for SAFEcoin was investment. It is certainly a powerful driver and use-case, but I can’t see all those small-time users caring as much about their $2 turning into $5 as I can see them caring about using the network each day - at whatever value their coins have on that day. Freedom is a pretty powerful thing and crazy useful in the context of a censorship and regulation heavy world.
As it stands at the moment I don’t think you can even ‘delete’ data can you?
The network will be storing lots of useless data, but it will also be quite clever in not duplicating data apart from for redundancy purposes.
I think ‘pay once and store forever’ is still a little contentious. The economic possibilities depend in part upon how technology evolves. There have been many discussions about how that could play out and what SAFE might have to do, so there are too many unknowns to factor this in to any kind of mental model atm imo.
No, not like storj etc. More like btc mining with random ‘lottery’ style result and a distribution S curve. You’ll get fewer coins as the network grows and there is more competition for them. The coins should be worth more though and the cost of storage should decrease in SC and fiat terms as the network grows.
The incentive for the farmer is an unknown safecoin reward that has an unknown future value. The safecoins are not desirable to most because they give them a fiat reward for sharing that they will cash in (imo anyway). SAFEcoins are valuable because without them we can’t store or serve data on the network, we are limited to being observers. I think a lot of people will want to ‘act’ on the network (ul/dl), not simply observe. That utility ought to soak up all the small, casual farmers, and they should be providing slightly more resources than they are using, thereby increasing the network value, making resources cheaper and more competitive and growing the value of the network.
Coin supply is limited by an S curve for farming rewards, so once we’re over 3bn coins or so it will start to slow down quite dramatically.
Ok, I’ll let someone smarter than me come in and correct anything I’ve got wrong. That’s how I understand it though and why I am keen to see the coin supply jumping up.
Jabba, lucidly put. This is more or less my understanding as well.
With a asymptotically fixed supply, the fiat cost of a SC must be able to move if the network value changes. The supply of SC increases with increased network use (and thus value), blunting some of the normal price effects of adoption.
The question that I still have, is by what mechanism does the storage cost in SC decrease?
By the sacrificial data. If exist storage surplus in the network, and store without problems the sacrificial data, the price decreases. If the network must use this sacrificial space the price increases.