SAFE Forks and Forum Censorship

Mods!

Question: Given a SAFE fork scenario, do you have mod rules in place as to what discussion would be allowed?

I’m thinking re: No PtP fork (or visa versa). Would one network be considered SAFE and the other not? And therefore no discussion allowed here?

(See r/bitcoin and the block size debate/debacle)…

I know it’s not something to really think about now. But maybe that’s the reason to think about it, so there’s something in place to refer to and hopefully keep discussions open.

Thoughts?

My thoughts would be that if the fork resulted in a different network, then it would follow that it would want its own forum to discuss their network.

But this would not stop them coming here and discussing issue , since the forum is open to SAFE users and non users alike.

But obviously since the forum exists to discuss SAFE and also about its technical aspects, all discussions that are purely about a fork would be off-topic. It would have to be examined at the time it happens as to how it is handled.

And the forum rules would still apply so any trolling of topics to promote the fork or demeaning the SAFE network would be dealt with according to the forum guidelines.

But basically they would not be “shown the door” or any thing like that.


But of course there can be forks that do not result in a different network and I would say that discussion would have its category and any specific topics on the fork would be done there.

Someone may do a fork to incorporate a different sign in procedure, could even allow automated sign in for IoT devices. Who knows there maybe a number of these (minor) forks

1 Like

Forks are ok and will probably appear. So when some people create another network and call it ASN (Alternative SAFE Network :grin:) they could have a topic under “Other Projects” just like others are discussed now. But they probably want their own forum to discuss whatever they want, same as Litecoin, Dogecoin etc. Communities arrange themselves quite quickly.

2 Likes

@polpolrene yeh that seems fair.

Hmmm. I think this is why it’s useful to discuss this now.

Any fork would be a technical deviation in some sense, and so on topic. Perhaps the network requires a fork, or some see it as necessary… (again, /r/bitcoin as the worrying precedent).

I don’t have any real concerns as yet, just thought it might be useful to discuss this, re: forks or indeed suggestions for feature implementations (which could lead to a fork if there’s disagreement).

I’m aware there’s an idea of the network gauging improvements success and rollout automagically like that. Perhaps that would negate the need for any forks in the future, and all discussions would just resolve around feature implementation. That’d be nice.

Thanks for your encouraging responses @neo, @polpolrene!

I think we would have to treat forks like “Other Projects” because otherwise - mixing discussion of a fork within SAFEnetwork topics - would create s lot of confusion. So :thumbsup: @polpolrene

1 Like