Run arbitrary code in a verfied way

Features
1

Before I forget… half an idea

If there is some layer on top the base, I wonder it would be useful that the network itself could validate that a certain code was run… perhaps even any code that a node or service was willing to action, that then allows a certain level of trust that it did occur. Perhaps the network is a different class of trusted authority, than any other. It’s all very well individuals or groups resolving a consensus but the network by default I wonder bests all for being trusted.

I was half asleep and can’t recall the reason for wanting that!.. but expect there are a lot of use cases where trust and authority will matter - referencing real world authority even, may not match the network for credibility.

There’s a class of action I’ve been wondering about that anyone can assert anything and another could witness that statement, to allow it to become anonymous against another SafeId. So, one authority for example confirms a person’s age relative to SafeId1 and another distinct authority notes the statement but associates to a second SafeId2 avoiding the original authority ability to associate SafeId1. If an authority the confirmed alsorts of statements, a user could ask the network to note those individually against an new SafeId, in a way that others should be able to trust. Rare case in which SafeId gets transferred but certain use cases could monitor for those - for example, voting could purge any duplicates.

1 Like
2

See this thread: Safe Computation, Apps & Plugins

I reckon there is a way to do this and more by creating plugin’s for elders (maybe or even preferably adults) - they can manage/advertise and consensus can be checked by user querying multiple nodes running plugin “x” that performs what the user wants - could even be arbitrary code.

The only thing the regular internet lacks that Safe allows is an in-built means to reward nodes for carrying out some task.

Not super simple, but once these things are created they can be forked and adapted for any sort of smart-contract as well perhaps.

3

cough… and then some.

Plugins sound more centred on users and as arbitrary as trusting a random other. I was appealing to the quality of authority that the network has in itself. Perhaps these are the same but “Apps and Plugins” are a different class normally.

1 Like
4

Nothing is 100% … knowledge is a personal responsibility. The best we can do is to check against multiple oracles/authorities and see if they agree. I think the plugin method allows that and is flexible. The more functions maidsafe has to build into the code the more chance for problems. KISS principle is key for the base code IMO. They don’t have to build in the rest if the foundation allows for people to build on top of it effectively.

5

Relative to spare capacity… authority of last resort might be useful of rare cases.