Ahh, there was a perhaps a misunderstanding on my part or on yours. When I was referring to 0.3.0 that meant the authenticator app… Just checked and the browser app is 0.5.0.
Uninstalled Authenticator in the process. Will download now and try again. Before that though, can we confirm the current version of Authenticator is 0.3.0? I am using this link from github.
@southside it is a rather long story about my upgrading rights, long story short… Motorola f’d me.
Yes… urls in github of the form https://github.com/maidsafe/safe-authenticator-mobile/releases show all releases and that is the latest release.
I did wonder it was a bit odd given StephenC has replicated in emulator for Android v6.0. There might not be a solution just yet.
No. It just means we probably do not need parsec for this. There are many things that need some form of consensus. Some things (as at2 demonstrates, transactions) do not need a strict order of things when done in certain ways and under certain conditions. Which is interesting for safecoin. Some data types (with CRDT) can reach consensus in different ways too, so they probably won’t require parsec there either.
But there are other things on the network that do require ordered consensus. Section membership changes eg (as I understand it, routing is not my forte so forgive me if im wrong here) do still need this.
Adding to @joshuef’s above, Parsec enables something like at2. If you read the linked at2 paper, you’ll see that it depends on a few assumptions (see 5.1 Preliminaries). Many of these assumptions are nicely satisfied by the safe networks design, e.g., Links is satisfied by secure/reliable message delivery. Returning to Parsec, the anonymity assumption (the most difficult to achieve) is made possible in part by Parsec. So you can think of it as Parsec makes things like at2/crdt truly useful for non-permissioned, p2p applications.
thanks! I’m reading AT2 and trying to understand as much as possible! AT2 paper says it does not need consensus. but it seems like it means it does not need strict synchronous blockchain based consensus?!
One part that took me a bit to grok in that paper is that in at2, the entire network can query the balance and history of any process. So it doesn’t require (edit: blockchain style) consensus in that you say “I want to do this, but it depends on XYZ having been done”. But each node you tell this to can then verify it themselves (or wait to verify if Y and Z havent happened yet).
On Safe this doesn’t necessarily mean all nodes can see all things, as @Bogard nicely points out, we have sections and we can do AT2 within those (as right now all elders manage and reach consensus on all transactions, the internal-section result will be the same but without that ordered-consensus/PARSEC step). And we can likely leave inter section comms to SMD (as it has been now).
Still got my fingers crossed that 2020 EOY brings us to some sort of viable product for the masses. Keep on grinding MaidSafe! Best of luck.
hey @Haigha, @davidpbrown, @Southside
Sorry for the late sorry. The issue where you are not able to connect to any of the network (MaidSafe or locally hosted) when using Android 7.0 or earlier versions is a known issue and can easily be noticed on any device using older Android versions.
We previously spent some time understanding the reason and noticed the issue is coming from Rust connection libs which may not be compatible with older OS versions . We didn’t spend more time to find a fix and moved on to other tasks. Since now we have some users with the older Android versions, I think it’s time to revisit the issue and try some fixes 
.
Thanks
Here is a vid on Asynchronous Trustworthy Transfers. This is part of a playlist by this channel that is pretty interesting to listen to. Proving the Safety of AT2 (ft. Matteo Monti) - YouTube
Just have to say that it’s really cool to see @maidsafe move forward with AT2. Seems like such a natural fit.
I know I’m being negative, especially among what appears to be great progress, but I’m not a fan of the changes in the deliverables in terms if we had the alphas, then that got changed to names of completions, now we have taken the names and added “baby” in front of it, then they took components within this completions and have subscript a’s and b’s ect. It feels very very strung out almost in an obnoxious sense. I realize I may take heat for this comment but something that is as easy as an iPhone to use needs to be delivered, even if it’s not perfect. All this craziness in the world, BTC halving, wild price moves in the last 12 hours. Can’t miss the opportunity to essentially show what you do have.
and rightly so for being so badly off target. You show all the sense of a pump and dumper looking for instagratification without putting any effort in. If you spent the slightest time looking at the progress being made and the problem being solved, you would understand the quality of the change over time and the difference now with what is available to where it was in the past.
Being negative is lazy… stop being a baby and expecting the world to feed you. Put some effort in and then you will get more reward!
That’s a pretty unfair assessment of what I said. I have no desire for a pump and dump, if I did I wouldn’t still be around after many years. Contribute? I’m not an tech guy, I am an investor, speculator, hopeful of privacy or whatever you would like to call it. There is obvious progress, which I stated, and for what my skill level is in understanding things I have done my homework. I’m here for both tech privacy and potential financial gains. Being negative is not lazy, it’s a very real assessment of how something may not take off or be adopted even if it’s the best product out there, which is a real fear. I’ve been apart of many startups and projects that have all the potential in the world and get strung out for the sake of “perfection”. That was my critique and has been my experience. I have no doubt this team is capable, focused and can deliver. My question is always will it be too late.
I’m quite sure the community marketing team will have use for your talents and/or money. Why not contact @Sotros25?
Or are you simply a taker, riding on the back of the efforts of those more talented than yourself?
Prove me wrong and invest some funds to assist the marketing, Mr Investor.
So why do you still hold?
Just to be clear, this is a good way to bring new people in right? Someone gives an assessment you don’t agree with, you attack them?
I’m not attacking anyone’s work ethic or anything, it’s fair to say that things have been drawn out and the whole alpha-beta proposition to Fleming-Maxwell wasn’t changed all that long ago to be amended again. You want me to essentially commit VC money to an endeavor that is not in favor of outside funds?
As stated above, the hope for a product that is truly permissionless without govt control and monetary source that is actually backed by something. The exact reason why I wrote the post, is why I still hold because of it gets completed, it’s world changing.
@Sotros25 I’ve been called out, probably by someone who wouldn’t say anything to my face, but that’s just my own feeling. How can I be of help?
Who said we are not in favour of outside funds?
If you think the SAFE project is a good bet, then it is in your enlightened self- interest to help it achieve good awareness and market penetration. One way of doing that is to assist with the community marketing effort.
As you may or may not be aware, all staff excpt devs and one admin person have had to be laid -off. The project does not have a marketing division as such at the moment. The goal is 100% development. There has been no back-sliding, taking things easy, feature creep or whatever.
The goal is, as always to provide a WORKING network, fit for purpose, in an area where no-one has trod before. If along the way, different ways of achieving that come to light, which could not have been predicted before the work was done, then it would be criminally negligent to ignore these avenues. If you want to call that “shift of focus” or whatever, its up to you. But those of us who have stuck with this project through thick and thin have faith in the direction our devs are taking us.
And I’m VERY happy to say that to your face, should the opportunity ever arise.
But please note we are sick of those who shout and bawl for the devs to get a move on simply so they can make a quick buck.
Your initial approach was aggressive, be prepared for some comeback.
Didn’t shout, didn’t do anything but critique not a shift in vision but a shift in quantity of deliverable material in a certain subset. My initial approach wasn’t even aggressive. Sometimes digesting facts of what has happened that you don’t like can feel aggressive. If that’s the case, I’m sorry you feel that way.
Now saying you wouldn’t talk shit to my face was more aggressive, that was just to keep you on your toes. I’m glad there are people who still have most.
Everything you outlined in the first part I was aware of, including funding, firing, re tooling ect. My reference to outside money has come from previous posts that I believe I have read about the company itself not looking to raise VC or PE money. In addition I thought there was a push to raise money to try to get MAID listed on a large exchange which was also shot down. Obviously those are two very different investment vehicles but that’s where I drew those conclusions from. I’m not a fan of trolls, pump and dumpers or anything like that but i also think that writing about things that you don’t agree with from a structure standpoint makes sense. If Zuckerberg never found Peter Thiel maybe there would be no Facebook. My point is, sometimes finance and tech development need to intermingle more than either party would like for success. I’m neither as smart or rich as those two guys, but you get the point.
What you have to accept is that what Maidsafe is developing has never been done before. There is no script or project plan for it. And nevertheless the raw product is in sight. Once multiple vaults is proven its all speed ahead.