Rivetz and security

No idea, but the narrator of the video sounds very similar to the guy in the Maidsafe videos :smile:

I’m not looking to protect myself from being targeted by NSA. Targeted surveillance is good IMO, provided it is legitimate and accountable. If a backdoor met this I’d support it, but once there is a backdoor you no longer have targeted surveillance except in a technical sense - i.e they don’t need to “collect it all,” they (government it criminals) have “access to it all” without the need to collect and store it first.

The point is that if a government has a backdoor this is no longer necessary to target surveillance, and no longer restricted to government only. And a closed propriety solution is a perfect opportunity for the insertion of a backdoor.

If that were the case the would be no objection to an encryption backdoor.

I’m surprised to find informed folks making the case for this when virtually the whole security community, except FBI, NSA, GCHQ, Obama, Cameron, have been pointing this out!

What if you’re the target? You’re still okay with targeted surveillance?

Pretty much yes. The amount of damage legitimately targeted surveillance does to a society is minimal. The big problem with mass surveillance is that it does great harm to society.

1 Like

Correct, that’s why I’m not buying in the coming days. They’re crowdfunding just coins to do transactions. And a hash in Factom will be much cheaper than a BTC-transaction i my guess (well, if they have any users in that 10 min). Because only their final hash will go into the blockchain every 10 min.

There are some technologies that need a blockchain. Let’s say you wrote some ideas for some new software. You finished your whitepaper and want to make sure everyone will always know you did it first. Now you take the hash, put it in Factom, the root-hash of Factom goes into the BTC-blockchain within 10 min. So, after 6 months you release your whitepaper and show anayone that you already put the hash into Factom 6 months earlier. you could have uploaded the hash to SAFEnet, but people don’t really get Maidsafe and the fact that there’s no blockchain with time stamps. So even if you’re technically right, people just want to see your hash in the BTC-blockchain. That’s what they understand.

Response from David on an earlier thread about the potential to publically record info within SAFE:


@nicklambert @dirvine That’s a great post. But the thing I don’t get is the timestamp. It will work if both me and my bank agree on the document, both sign it etc. There will be a date and time we put in together. But what about me, wanting to proof that I created a document at a certain time. let’s say I have the hash of the document and want to store that in SAFE. How can I ever proof that I created it before January 2016? In Factom I can, it will get it’s timestamp from the Bitcoin blockchain. But how to do that in SAFE?

Yes, that’s what I was saying, but my other point was that although you don’t need MaidSafe in this picture, with Factom you still need to take care of storage (for that file) whereas MaidSafe takes care of that for you.
You could store a single document on your own Dropbox share or wherever, but with Factom, because by definition you’re saving a bunch of docs that originate from multiple people, you need to think where you want to keep them and how they can be shared.
At least MAID should be able to buy us data storage/capacity/transfer. That’s very different, IMO.

I’m also staying away.
To be fair, though, they are OSS so their choice of models is limited - they can do a transaction coin or support & services.
I don’t see them as a competitor to MaidSafe and it’d be good if things worked out for them, but I’m not very optimistic.

Ahhh yes you are correct @polpolrene and looking back you have highlighted this before. I believe the network design is based on entropy rather than time based. I found this response from @dirvine from a couple of months back addressing this very issue:


1.-You don’t need the hash. One of the amazing inherent properties of the SAFEnet is that all data is notarized. The chunk is the hash of the encrypted data, if you change the data, change the chunk (both, name and XOR position). To the extent that you keep the original datamap, you guarantee its contents.
This data saving property allows many possibilities to check the data (public datamap, shared datamap, public chunk list, zero knowledge proof, escrow,…).

2.-For the timestamp, maybe we can use the function Time of the Utils libraries or can be an application of the SAFEnet. In any case it would be the easiest part to implement


If the hash/checksum info hasn’t been published externally and the account that stores the files belongs to the bank, that doesn’t seem too useful.

If you have the datamap is, normally, because data are yours or shared, so you don’t need to publish externally.
Otherwise you have several possibility to publish the data.

I never let the wolf guarding the sheep.

If data are yours then the bank needs to be able to access shares of millions of users and at the same time doesn’t have anything for their own record-keeping.
If your data belong to the bank, then you don’t have the original and if they block you from accessing it, all you have is a copy that you may have photoshopped yourself.

I’m not convinced that your approach would work.

Such as the publishing of the document hash on the blockchain.
Your lawyer could run a full node on the same private blockchain as the bank and thereby store a copy of all documents (e.g. a mortage blockchain belonging to bank ABC). That way you could always access the original and decrypt it with your private key and the bank could do the same (I don’t know how they design those private blockchains but if they were stored ot 1-of-2 multisig addresses, either you or the bank could access your mortgage contract, etc.).

I suspect containers would be better suited. Hypervisor VMs are pretty heavy for this sort of thing.

Docker on Linux is already making big in roads here. I doubt it will be long before visual applications are distributed in this way.

Sorry if you are not able to understand the concept of shared…

This is a joke, not? Lawyers running dozens of huge private blockchains full of useless encrypted information to access a simple document from a client?
For this nonsense we stay as now.

Great then, can’t wait to see this approach in action!

Factom’s crowdsale started yesterday - looks like they’ve raised around $170,000 up to now, don’t know what they’re aiming for though