Reinventing the Wheel

Apps
1

I hate to say this, but I see people sometimes looking through the wrong end of the telescope in relation to ideas for SAFE apps: They know of something cool that is being done on clearnet, and say “wow, that could be adapted to SAFE!”

If there’s no compelling advantage to putting it on SAFE then it won’t be successful.

One has to take a wide-angle view and ask what apps that aren’t POSSIBLE on clearnet, or even on a p2p network such as IPFS, might be do-able on SAFE. Then work down to the implementation. That’s my 2 safecents.

4 Likes
2

What if you think " wow, that could be adapted to SAFE, and there it would be PRIVATE, SECURE, PERMANENT, UNCENSORABLE " ?

Then , in my point of view, there are 99.99999 % of what exists on the clearnet that would be worth being ported :slight_smile:

12 Likes
3

Same for blockchains. People talking about Uber, Airbnb on the blockchain. I always ask myself what’s wrong with these companies, what would it add? But for SAFE there are some good reasons. Datastorage will probably be cheaper than on Google or Amazon. It’s even more secure at the same time. Same for BitTorrent. Another settlement last week here in Holland with some uploaders. In Germany people are asked to pay a 800 euro settlement to avoid being brought for court due to Popcorn time use. I think programs like these will make use of SAFE quite fast.

6 Likes
4

absolutely valid point =)

and a good point to keep in mind whenever thinking about projects possible on safe.

in many cases the privacy / cost aspect will make a difference i think but of course not always … e.g. if you want something to be trackable and then try to figure out how to manage to do that via safenet Oo … that might not make sense so much … might be easier to do it with a blockchain/with a central server …

2 Likes
5

Yes, and what sort of apps might answer that question? This isn’t a rhetorical question, I really think this is the way to look at this whole field, after one gets past testing with games and chat apps.

One answer is darknet markets similar to Silk Road. They cannot exist on clearnet and, while they can exist on Tor, it is hard work to keep them up even there, with much developer time and risk from admin malfeasance, and uncloaking vis sybil relays. Mass take-downs by the authorities have occurred, and sybil attacks are one likely way they did that.

Like it or not. SAFE’s natural audience is people who want and need to tell the government to get f*ed and conduct their interactions safely, and that such interactions are not possible right now or only with great risk, expense and inconvenience.

1 Like
6

hmmmm i disagree on that @bluebird

i’d say SAFE’s natural audience is all the people that think it it wasted money and time to do mass surveillance because you are focusing on the wrong people there … (+ the price is way too high for the benefits that can come from it … even if “the right people” have all the info now … imagine this huge database being hacked by “the wrong people” some day …)

would be way better to invest the money+time in peace-keeping and good old police work+witness-protection programs …

EDIT:
plus add to the natural audience all people that are annoyed by having to pay huge amounts to keep up security levels on servers …
+sellers that have to pay 10% to ebay on each sell vs. safeX
+people that are annoyed by the processing time of bitcoin

ps: okay i may have interpreted the “natural audience” as only dubious people - as @nice said there are pretty honest reasonst to have exactly this attitute

3 Likes
7

I do agree, and I like it ! You describe very well people living under oppressive political regimes, and their fundamental need for ways to communicate and express safely.
On a larger scope, we all as world citizen, have been deprived from our fundamental privacy rights, not that much by governments, but rather by corporations and advertisement industry acting through the arms of corrupted governments. It is indeed our fundamental right to create ways to conduct our interactions between free and responsible humans ,safely, with little risk, expense and inconvenience.

2 Likes
8

I definitely agree on this, and think the most successful apps will be built on these brand new features only made possible by SAFE.

But don’t forget that adding cryptocurrency, absolute privacy, and decentralisation to regular clearnet apps (social networking, games, videos, etc) will be completely amazing and popular also!

I think that’s all that was missing here.

9

That bit about popcorn time… This is where I would love to see referenda to revoke charters and outlaw business models and then when the people don’t get it petitions and head hunter movements to remove judges that try to block the action and then go again in the cycle to get it done. Also movements that produce the names or sell out politicians and tie their acts to their names on something like wanted posters that follow them around everywhere on the internet where their name appears like “wanted for” posters, almost like a bounty. We can do the same with things like the length of copyright and even trade laws we don’t like, just straight up unilaterally revoke this crap and set precedent.

What will Germany do next (?)t 800 Euros for using SAFE because its evidence of Popcorn time. The same referenda should be used to go after politicians who took bribes (any kind of sponsorship) for the stupid popcorn time law. You do something that harms the public (not always clear) especially for private gain or profit then you should be toast and it should follow like a transcript or a conviction. We have to lose our tolerance for white collar crime and acts of suppression because its killing us. We need something like the generally accepted as safe test, its not profit as the priority and then public interest last, its profit as guilty until proven innocent everything there is the slightest hint of real conflict with the public interest. No more privileging for profit commercial stuff, it has to end, it does’t matter if society is hostile toward business that’s actually good real products will still make it through and get the love they deserve and spam and scam artists with will get the filter they deserve.

10

Not really; at least I don’t see it. I’d say that the vast majority of the people using current social media think they’re just fine, and will not move for the reasons that you state. And those large, existing companies often have the backing of the ruling elite; Google and Facebook both have CIA roots, and Microsoft’s origins are somewhat inexplicable (having a red carpet treatment from IBM). Even if they started out clean, they probably co-operate with intelligence agencies now. That all means tremendous inertia in the system that would require a major push to topple them.

I don’t see the masses taking the red pill - they are relatively content in their programmed obliviousness.

2 Likes
11

I agree. The most successful apps are going to be the ones that SAFE makes “Killer”…

If people want to develop other more everyday apps, more power to them but they will have a pretty steep battle getting a sustainable adoption rate… Many of the things people are wanting to build are simply oxymoronic. A privacy supporting Facebook, for example is totally silly. The reason Facebook is successful is because it connects people to the people of their past, and there is no way to do this without “knowing your customers” and acting upon that knowledge.

The killer apps are going to be the ones that draw people into SAFE. That is probably the boring stuff like password keepers and Bitcoin wallets – Stuff that needs to be absolutely secure.

3 Likes
12

The killer apps could be mutations of existing, clearnet apps if the developers consider what the users of the app might really want and then take that to the limit, if one no longer has to consider legal boundaries of any sort.

For example, existing apps help people do such things as find a place to live, save money, make money, “get in touch” with old acquaintances, chat with like-minded people.

It might take a while, because there’s tremendous inertia in the existing systems that keeps people doing the same old things and thinking the same old ways even though the accustomed boundaries have weakened to the breaking point: I’m reminded of Wile E. Coyote running off a cliff and taking a few seconds to understand that he is standing in mid-air.

[EDIT] Some examples of my use of the paradigm that I touched upon above, of considering what people want:

People like to watch sport.

As it happens, exclusive rights to televise sporting events are expensive to obtain for conglomerates such as Sky. they pay top dollar for such rights. One SAFE app might be a restreaming service, that takes some sporting event and retransmits it.

Ditto for movies, restreamed one day after their official release.

People are interested in “celebrities.”

A SAFE “media” business might make the average paparazzi seem like prudes, literally hounding celebs to death. The existing mass media like to dabble in that: appealing to the sadism and envy of the crowd. Such a business could make the most lurid tabloid look staid by comparison.

Same for court cases which have gag orders on them.

In fact, you organize a war: Not just the twitter events of the faux, color revolutions. I mean a real insurgency war.

1 Like
13

As soon as we start decentralizing things we wants to start creating his own little kingdom. How cute. All hail Emporor Warren!

No state = no centralized authority = no rule by force = no law backed by force. The only thing that will work is collaboration by consent and contract. My question for you @Warren is if you believe people “should” do something are you willing to get your batsuit on and go make sure it does happen or are you just going to go turn on the batsignal and WAIT for someone else to do it for you? If you believe in using violence against others to enforce your morals upon them do you have the integrity to take responsibility for initiating that violence and force and the consequences thereof? That is to say would you be willing to take personal responsibility for your actions and beliefs?

They may not care about security and privacy but I think they may adopt SAFE because of the economic incentive and because of the private communication it offers. Also over time the massive file transfer protocols would come in handy. So they might care from a security perspective but rather a pragmatic and practical one instead.

14
15

I would start with a decentralized FanDuel / Draftkings. Obviously there is a healthy market for such thing. Government cannot seem to keep from interfering. With SAFE or Ethereum you could make such a thing where There was no central authority in any jurisdiction and where the customers are anonymous.

Those are the kind of apps that are going to thrive on SAFE - because they are not allowed to thrive elsewhere.

4 Likes
16

But along the way to decentralization there is the desire to reverse the centralization on the centralizers when its so flagrant. I’ve never used Popcorn time but fines for Popcorn time! It will be fines for SAFE next. Its like they get to charge you if they don’t get to abuse you.

I don’t see current business culture or the unfettered free market as acceptable solutions or even the core of acceptable solutions rather I seem them as the majority of the problem. I want people first even if it means individualism is softened a bit. But I see that decentralization will change the culture and demote the market. When people are more independent they are less dependent on the market, and not everyone wants to hock trinkets. Someone who can meet most of their basic needs on their own will be less enthused about the market. If you can generate your own electricity and your phone in itself (node) can cut the cord (G5 soft radio) on the telcos then you aren’t necessarily as interested in the market for gas or phone service. The market for batteries and solar panels might still matter but that’s a far more intermittent proposition- the cord is cut.

SAFE and popcorn time cut the cords but just like Germany is trying to punish people for doing so Nevada is trying to punish people retroactively for cutting the cord on the bs natural gas industry and what allows that is the unfettered free market for politicians for sale. I don’t see an issue choosing winners and losers in some cases. Natural gas is better than oil but relative to current and future solar it needs to be a back up solution. and there are a million and one good reasons for this.

1 Like
17

But…but… they just bought 2,200 MAID and it’d be really cool if MaidSafe Inc. spent $200,000 on implementing some WordPress feature (completely unsuitable for SAFE) so that they can save $70 on hosting expenses in 2016!

18

Excuse me what? If people are free to make their own decisions then they are free to better their lives. I put people first too, that’s why I’m an advocate for freedom, individualism and decentralization. What do you think the unfettered free market means? It means a decentralized voluntary exchange of goods and services with no central authority dictating what people can or cannot exchange. SAFE is the epitimoy of a free market. Capitalism != Corporatism.

This is true but keep in mind this too is a market force and also keep in mind that self sufficiency has it’s costs as well. Food needs to be planted, grown, harvested and preserved. And for that you need to maintain the soil and have sun and sufficient water. Solar/wind generators need to be maintained and kept in working order. Your house needs to be kept in good repair. Water needs to be collected and filtered. As for internet you still need some way to connect to the internet, you need power for your computer and you need to pay for hardware and inferstructure for it to run on. And in the case of SAFE your use of the network isn’t free, it’s paid for with safecoin and that’s generated by devoting resources to the network. Tanstafl Warren, tanstafl.

But you’re right self sufficiency does give one true independence and end reliance upon some centralized authority be it power companies, Big Ag, Telcos, water companies or anyone else.

First off SAFE doesn’t cut the cords, not quite. Not until SAFE impliments mesh capabilities and the mesh network starts growing like crazy. At the present time SAFE is still reliant on the current internet and established telcos. Also read what you just said. What allows Navada and Germany to punish people for cutting the cords is for politicians to be bought and pass laws against it. It’s not market that’s punishing people it’s the state that is being bribed by those with lots of money, and therefore co-opted by the market rather than simply the market affecting people directly. Can you demonstrate how the market itself is punishing people for becoming self sufficient, not how the state is passing laws to punish people for becoming self sufficient, but how the market itself is doing it though it’s normal operation of voluntary exchange? If we did not have government, if we did not have a coercive authority, would we have the same problem interfering with one’s ability to be self sufficient?

This is kind of beside the point. Whether one chooses natural gas or solar or oil isn’t the point. The issue at hand is they should be free to choose what they will without some government interfering.

19

But we don’t want to use words that run counter to our intent. “Corporatism” doesn’t have much connection to freedom and its counter to any useful individual freedom. At this people, especially the economists who spout those terms (including “free market”) almost never in a historical context and never in a philosophical context and not even in a practical context actually mean freedom in any honest sense, quite the opposite- its lip service at best. I understand what you mean but different language would serve better. A very important nuance on this is the current economists who spout this stuff really are shills, they either don’t believe or at least they don’t believe it unconsciously and they’re in denial to keep their jobs- note they’re not free. There is enough data to foreclose on this stuff and they know this but its become a dogma a kind of religion and admitting extreme error here means they get marginalized while still alive so they go on lying with all their might desperately hoping for a reversal and supporting empire which tries to make them right by fiat. Some of these shills are prominent economists on the left.

And the other thing is trade is not really the key, although try having technology with out. Yes material goods are important and essential to quality of life, but the issue runs deeper. The term and even the concept ‘free trade’ is wound up in so much face level dishonest, stuff like “freedom of contract” which in use and intent is the ‘freedom’ of coercion the freedom to bully (room for crime) with arbitrary economic leverage. There is no room for privilege in your end points but the very soul of those terms your using is privilege. We always get stuff like: you can’t have fairness because that would imply planning and planning kills dynamism and good outcomes. But fairness is the point, there really isn’t any useful freedom without fairness. We don’t just stand by and let bullies act because its tradition or because they are free.

As far as the free lunch, we’ve paid for our lunch with the blood and sweat it took to bring the pending level of automation and the sun and universe have always provided motive force. The 5G tech is dangerous for the phone companies and the cable companies because it turns out that stuff like P Cell is real but it was just an isolated case, bandwidth, proximity/non interference, signal quality have been vastly improved and latency, power usage, cost have gone down really radically. It really does look like many of the problems of mesh are solved so that phones as mesh can replace the telco networks and even the back bones- transoceanic is more of a stretch. But cutting the cord on them and getting rid of their unnecessary enclosure/toll-road and meddling is making a market more friendly and less bully oriented. That is one market where the profit is used to lobby and constantly argue and spin against free speech, its survival to cut that cord. The remaining market would be handset makers and at maybe at some point that’s all FOSS printable.

I think Oil is special case. Even beyond climate considerations its the main cord we need to cut to cut the other cords. At this point continuing to choose it would be like continuing to choose diabetes. Its the heart of centralization and authority plays. We need a radically more efficient source of power. The so called fossil fuels are obsolete.

20

I can give you an example of user who will be happy with:

  1. Decentralized, secured “dropbox” feature
  2. Secure messaging
  3. Secure torrenting and filesharing

That’s not the 99% but it will be the a part of the starting crowd.

2 Likes